3 ms·

That's a damn shame. We definitely need more rather than less competition in 'new space'.

stametseater 4y ago
There's already a ton: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_private_spaceflight_companies#Launch_vehicle_manufacturers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_private_spaceflight_co... Note that Virgin Orbit's niche (small plane-launched rockets into unusual orbits) is already served by the Pegasus rocket, previously by Orbital Sciences and now owned by Northrop. There's doesn't seem to be much demand for it though.
Eisenstein 4y ago
Why? Sending stuff into space isn't something I want an incompetent company doing. You can do a lot of damage in a lot of ways.
- thom 4y ago
  SpaceX’s first three launches were failures. I think the world is probably better for them not folding after the first.
  - pie420 4y ago
    and Virgin Galactic's first 50 launches were failures and VG's first 20 years of existence were a colossal failure. Maybe if a company can't make things work after two decades, it should be dissolved? Or should we let them exist in a malaise of failure for another decade?
    - thom 4y ago
      Virgin Orbit actually had four successful launches and two failures (their first and apparently last launches). What’s sad about them collapsing right now is they were the only launch partner for the UK’s only spaceport, and if we were generous enough to chalk up the last failure as bad luck, it’s a shame if the whole ecosystem suffers, perhaps irreparably, because of it.
  - Kranar 4y ago
    As a correction, it was only the first two of SpaceX's launches that were failures. The third launch succeeded.
    - thom 4y ago
      As a correction, the first three were failures and Musk himself acknowledges that had the fourth failed they would have folded: https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2017/09/29/elon-musk-9-years-ago-spacex-nearly-failed-itself-out-of-existence.html https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2017/09/29/elon-musk-9-years-ago-sp... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_1#Launches https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_1#Launches
- Teever 4y ago
  I think you know that OP didn't suggest that we have more incompetent companies.
  - Kranar 4y ago
    If OP isn't suggesting that, then what's the shame in having an incompetent company go out of business?
    - stonogo 4y ago
      It's a shame the company wasn't competent enough to succeed. Why must this be spelled out? I feel like half this thread is bad faith face-value pedanticism for no benefit.
      - Kranar 4y ago
        Because it's about as meaningless a comment as saying "thoughts and prayers". There's nothing shameful about an incompetent company going out of business, it's actually exactly what should happen.

There's already a ton: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_private_spaceflight_companies#Launch_vehicle_manufacturers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_private_spaceflight_co... Note that Virgin Orbit's niche (small plane-launched rockets into unusual orbits) is already served by the Pegasus rocket, previously by Orbital Sciences and now owned by Northrop. There's doesn't seem to be much demand for it though.

Eisenstein 4y ago

Why? Sending stuff into space isn't something I want an incompetent company doing. You can do a lot of damage in a lot of ways.

thom 4y ago
SpaceX’s first three launches were failures. I think the world is probably better for them not folding after the first.
- pie420 4y ago
  and Virgin Galactic's first 50 launches were failures and VG's first 20 years of existence were a colossal failure. Maybe if a company can't make things work after two decades, it should be dissolved? Or should we let them exist in a malaise of failure for another decade?
  - thom 4y ago
    Virgin Orbit actually had four successful launches and two failures (their first and apparently last launches). What’s sad about them collapsing right now is they were the only launch partner for the UK’s only spaceport, and if we were generous enough to chalk up the last failure as bad luck, it’s a shame if the whole ecosystem suffers, perhaps irreparably, because of it.
- Kranar 4y ago
  As a correction, it was only the first two of SpaceX's launches that were failures. The third launch succeeded.
  - thom 4y ago
    As a correction, the first three were failures and Musk himself acknowledges that had the fourth failed they would have folded: https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2017/09/29/elon-musk-9-years-ago-spacex-nearly-failed-itself-out-of-existence.html https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2017/09/29/elon-musk-9-years-ago-sp... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_1#Launches https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_1#Launches
Teever 4y ago
I think you know that OP didn't suggest that we have more incompetent companies.
- Kranar 4y ago
  If OP isn't suggesting that, then what's the shame in having an incompetent company go out of business?
  - stonogo 4y ago
    It's a shame the company wasn't competent enough to succeed. Why must this be spelled out? I feel like half this thread is bad faith face-value pedanticism for no benefit.
    - Kranar 4y ago
      Because it's about as meaningless a comment as saying "thoughts and prayers". There's nothing shameful about an incompetent company going out of business, it's actually exactly what should happen.