4 ms·

I suppose it's precisely the existence of Boeing that keeps SpaceX "cheap" (I guess they are also good at what they do). I would imagine the minute SpaceX has n

I suppose it's precisely the existence of Boeing that keeps SpaceX "cheap" (I guess they are also good at what they do). I would imagine the minute SpaceX has no competition, it will lose all incentive to be cheap or good. Equally, perhaps Boeing knows that oddly they have utility as a runner up, and are unmotivated to do better. Interesting game theoretic problem.

KoolKat23 2y ago
Its privately held, would depend what Musk wants out of it, would he want profit above all else, this is doubtful. There's a case to be made for economies of scale, the long term opportunities this presents for mars etc.
- bumby 2y ago
  Since you assume he doesn’t want to prioritize profit, what do you think he is prioritizing?
  - db48x 2y ago
    He’s said many times that his goal is an interplanetary civilization. Why not simply take him at his word?
    - bumby 2y ago
      Do you take politicians at their word? Car salesmen? If not, it’s because we recognize people have many different incentives than they publicly display.
      - KoolKat23 2y ago
        What a cynical view of the world. Whilst it can be true (that people have different incentives than they display), it's not always true, nor necessarily important.
        bumby 2y ago
        Understanding people's incentives is extremely important if you want to understand their behavior. As Charlie Munger once said, "Show me the incentives and I will show you the outcome." Based on your replies, you seem to think neither incentives or promises are important in business and, given the context, possibly not even profits. To give you the benefit of the doubt that those aren't just shallow dismissals, what do you think is important?
        KoolKat23 2y ago
        Improving the human condition. His intentions could be interplanetary expansion, profits, or more likely both. It doesn't matter. At the end of the day we now have reusable rockets and starlink thanks to this.
        bumby 2y ago
        Do you extend the same generous interpretations to the other space-faring company owners like Bezos, Branson, Bigelow etc. or is this unique to Musk?
        KoolKat23 2y ago
        Well SpaceX has delivered reusable orbital rockets, it is currently developing starship, those were stated pre-requisites for his mars plan. Blue origin has delivered New Glenn but it's only suborbital so far? Still possible, at the stroke of a pen, they'll get the needed funds to develop capabilities (so at Bezos mercy), they also are actively bidding for government contracts (where the money to make it sustainable is). Virgin Galactic went bankrupt and no one seems to be willing to fund it, so no to them. I don't follow Bigelow closely, I see they closed down.
        bumby 2y ago
        I meant moreso the “betterment of the human condition” than the Mars mission specifically. I believe Bezos has said he’s not in favor of an approach to colonize another planet. My issue is that each of those steps can also be cast as a pathway to more profit. Granted profit and Mars/betterment of the human condition aren’t mutually exclusive, but outside of mere talk I haven’t seen anything convincing that differentiates that one is the primary objective, e.g., a move that undermines profitability but helps the Mars mission
    - CoastalCoder 2y ago
      > Why not simply take him at his word? I don't know why he'd lie on this particular topic. But Musk absolutely has a history of lying on commercial matters. I don't believe his statements deserve the presumption of honesty. (Comment edited for tone.)
      - KoolKat23 2y ago
        Does it matter, no. Does his stated reason make sense, yes. These things are not mutually exclusive. It would need to be financially sustainable to actually deliver on whatever long term goal. Edited: for guidelines
        bumby 2y ago
        >Does it matter, no. I think the OP may be a bit strong in their language, but I think your quote borders on cult-of-personality. Can you name a business where delivering on promises does not matter? To take it back to the featured article, there's a lot to be said for Boeing not delivering on their contract (really just a legally binding promise) and how it caused all kinds of schedule and cost pressure. >"What did he do to hurt you?" Also, snarky replies go against HN guidelines. Please review them.
        KoolKat23 2y ago
        SpaceX have a contract with NASA where delivering on their promises matters. Despite what some in the general public would have you believe, the evidence to date is clearly they're currently the most capable at delivering, one only has to look to Falcon9 or Dragons record to date. What I don't get is when the public feels entitled to some forensically audited answer. Especially when the business in question is privately held. He's entitled to his view, I mean someone else asked for it, we're entitled to disagree, we know he is often over-optimistic on timelines but there's no need for people to get butthurt over it like many seem to do. Imagine every time some other influential person made a comment, people fervently came out specifically to comment "They're a liar because of x reason". He runs the company, we don't, he's our best insight into the business, we can adjust expectations accordingly. Sorry I removed the snarky comment.
    - peddling-brink 2y ago
      I’d imagine that building interplanetary civilizations cost lots of money, so I think we can take him at his word and also read the subtext in this case.
dotnet00 2y ago
There was a period of roughly a year where SpaceX was the only medium lift rocket in the Western world with available payload capacity. ULA was in between Atlas V and Vulcan, ArianeSpace was between Ariane 5 and 6, with both upcoming rockets fully booked for a while. It was to the point that Europe had to book launches with SpaceX, and SpaceX did not take advantage of their monopoly. They aren't just doing the bare minimum to be cheaper and better (as would be the way to go if they were trying to just be better than Boeing). Right now, SpaceX has launched the majority of the global mass to orbit this year and has done most rocket launches this year. SpaceX has flown 83 times, an unprecedented rate of a launch on average every ~3 days, ULA has flown 4 times, SLS (and for that matter Starliner also) will probably not fly again until 2026. It's laughable to suggest that Boeing is even competing, let alone applying price pressure.
- rich_sasha 2y ago
  I'm not saying it's competing. But if NASA want any semblance of an alternative to SpaceX, they have no alternative. Boeing can be as uncompetitive as they like, there's value in being second best, almost no matter how poor their delivery. In turn, SpaceX can't quite apply monopoly pricing, because there is a hypothetical alternative in Boeing. SpaceX can't hike their prices 10x from current. But if they are the only crewed space transport?
  - dotnet00 2y ago
    I mean, SpaceX has already been contracted for the flights for the remaining years that the ISS will be around. They already don't have the ability to raise prices that much. NASA keeps Starliner around because they've already committed to the bit about redundancy when it comes to "new space" style acquisition processes (after all, they're still fully intending on flying astronauts on Orion without flight testing a fully crew capable version, and talking about paying for a backup option to it and SLS is a fast way to get fired or forced to resign).
diggan 2y ago
From the press conference yesterday, it seems pretty clear that the only reason NASA keeps Boeing around is for this very reason, making sure there is competition.
jfengel 2y ago
SpaceX has a bunch of ulterior motives for its owner. Loss of a competitor might change its pricing structure, but they want success for reasons that go beyond extracting money.
- elevatedastalt 2y ago
  "Ulterior motives" is misleading terminology, trying to give a negative color to ambitions that Elon has always made very very explicit—making humans a space-faring civilization and colonizing Mars. You may disagree with how useful these ambitions are, but calling them ulterior is basically outright deception.
  - bumby 2y ago
    I would actually disagree with how genuine those ambitions are. I personally think they are more PR-gloss than actual business plan.
    - elevatedastalt 2y ago
      You are free to disagree with them. For what it's worth I think they are genuine. But either way they have been very clearly and explicitly communicated, and are anything but "ulterior".
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
janice1999 2y ago
I don't know if such analysis really applies here. It's hardly a normal marketplace. Boeing and SpaceX has received billions and billions from the US government and will continue to do so because it is in the US military's best interest for them to exist.
- gruez 2y ago
  Even a single payer like the US government would benefit from keeping the two companies on their toes, rather than letting them rest on their laurels.
didgeoridoo 2y ago
SpaceX technology and logistics have increased dollars-to-delta-V efficiency so much that they are benefiting from Jevons Paradox[0], with orbital launch demand skyrocketing (heh) due to a step change in cost. Even if competitors disappeared, the profit-maximizing price level is unlikely to rise much, as that would choke out a whole emerging sector of launch buyers whose businesses only make sense at a certain $/kg-to-LEO level. [0]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox
- sausagefeet 2y ago
  > SpaceX technology and logistics have increased dollars-to-delta-V efficiency so much that they are benefiting from Jevons Paradox[0], with orbital launch demand skyrocketing (heh) due to a step change in cost. Do you have support for this? As far as I know, SpaceX hasn't really reduced its customer-facing launch prices much since it's started regularly re-using rockets and last I saw, most demand increase in rocket launches are from SpaceX's own business of Starlink and there the industry at-large has not increased its demand. Amazon Kuiper has bought a as much launch capacity as they can from every supplier but it's unclear if that will pan out. Rocket Labs is the second busiest launcher in the US market with 10 launches in 2023[0]. A McKinsey report on this mentions that SpaceX is both a big driver of demand and supply because of Starlink[1]. And because of constellations, there might be a short-term limit in supply but long term over-abundance. So is there a Joven's Paradox going on in space launches? IMO, no. But, SpaceX is certainly benefiting from being owner of a satellite constellation, which requires tons of launches, and being a launcher so they can do them at-cost. [0] https://payloadspace.com/the-state-of-launch/ https://payloadspace.com/the-state-of-launch/ [1] https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/aerospace-and-defense/our-insights/space-launch-are-we-heading-for-oversupply-or-a-shortfall https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/aerospace-and-defense/ou...
  - didgeoridoo 2y ago
    > SpaceX hasn't really reduced its customer-facing launch prices much since it's started regularly re-using rockets Rocket reuse began in 2017, and their pricing per kg has fallen by about half since then. Attributing this directly to reusability isn’t straightforward, since they’ve also introduced new launch vehicles. However, it’s pretty clear that booster reuse is part of their economic model, without which they could never achieve profitability. SpaceX (not) coincidentally being the owner of one of the biggest beneficiaries of reduced launch prices is evidence for, not against, the paradox. Without the cost structure enabled by their launch tech, Starlink is a massive money loser, like every other satellite internet company before it.
bboygravity 2y ago
How is Boeing competition for SpaceX? Not sarcasm. I honestly don't get how? They're not even in the same order of magnitude in terms of price, reliability, safety features or capabilities.
- rwmj 2y ago
  It'd be more accurate to call it a "second source", like when you manufacture military devices you try to have second sources for all your chips. The US government needs Boeing to stay in the space business in case Musk throws his toys out of the pram. Given Musk's recent erratic behaviour this seems a sensible thing to do.
  - bboygravity 2y ago
    Makes sense. Care to elaborate on Musk's recent erratic behavior?
- eddieroger 2y ago
  They're meant to be competition for each other. If SpaceX should encourage Boeing to do better, and if they manage to, it will encourage SpaceX. That just isn't happening because Boeing is old and slow and not exactly keeping up in the product safety arena these days.
- numpad0 2y ago
  How it's not? Government agencies like NASA gets budget at percent GDP and given vague goals. They spread it out to aerospace job programs and do nice things along the way. It doesn't really matter how much of what is done, so long the US gets to keep enough aerospace workforce needed to design and mass produce enough Casablanca-class orbital dropships in WW3. Boeing Defense is doing exactly that. They're competent enough.
readthenotes1 2y ago
If that were true, SpaceX would only slightly undercut Boeing. It , however, is massively cheaper. If course, they may be playing a longer game, hoping they can kill all the competition by such low low prices
sashank_1509 2y ago
This is patently absurd and seems like a fallacy of analyzing everything through systems. Systems always matter and systems sometimes matter the most but I would reckon a majority of the time, systems don’t matter and focusing too much on systems leads to wrong conclusions like yours. Why does the average SpaceX employee try to do a good job? Think of the employee as an isolated piece. Some amount of it is intrinsic, humans like doing great work but not all humans are angels, and in a company as big as spaceX to perform well, intrinsic motivation is unlikely to be the root cause. No the average employee does a good job because his boss would fire him otherwise. In the case of SpaceX this is not hyperbole. SpaceX is known to have a typical brutal work culture synonymous with Elons “hard-core” philosophy, you’re expected to put 100 hour work weeks, get results very fast or you’re shown the door. It has been documented that even significant life events like birth of a new born are no excuse to stop working 120% in SpaceX. So the average employee, works because his boss would fire him, the boss works because he is under even higher pressure that his boss would fire him and so on you can climb up the ladder and you will realize that SpaceX is motivated because Elon is motivated and Elon would have them all fired the second he thinks they are not giving their 120% to work. Boeing does not matter to Elons motivation, it never did. Elon has his reasons for being motivated, he says it’s to reach Mars, but who knows what really drives a man, the fact is he has instituted a culture that expects excellence and dedication from its employees and employees are responding to that local feedback. My prediction would be if Boeing dies today, it will not slow down SpaceX one second, but if Boeing actually speeds up, then Elon would drive his employees to insanity till they catch up to Boeing or fail as a business. Boeing can only add value to the upside if they get their act together which seems unlikely.
asadotzler 2y ago
Boeing is not competition, it's a second source. The two companies are bidding independently for these contracts, not against each other.

KoolKat23 2y ago

Its privately held, would depend what Musk wants out of it, would he want profit above all else, this is doubtful. There's a case to be made for economies of scale, the long term opportunities this presents for mars etc.

bumby 2y ago
Since you assume he doesn’t want to prioritize profit, what do you think he is prioritizing?
- db48x 2y ago
  He’s said many times that his goal is an interplanetary civilization. Why not simply take him at his word?
  - bumby 2y ago
    Do you take politicians at their word? Car salesmen? If not, it’s because we recognize people have many different incentives than they publicly display.
    - KoolKat23 2y ago
      What a cynical view of the world. Whilst it can be true (that people have different incentives than they display), it's not always true, nor necessarily important.
      - bumby 2y ago
        Understanding people's incentives is extremely important if you want to understand their behavior. As Charlie Munger once said, "Show me the incentives and I will show you the outcome." Based on your replies, you seem to think neither incentives or promises are important in business and, given the context, possibly not even profits. To give you the benefit of the doubt that those aren't just shallow dismissals, what do you think is important?
        KoolKat23 2y ago
        Improving the human condition. His intentions could be interplanetary expansion, profits, or more likely both. It doesn't matter. At the end of the day we now have reusable rockets and starlink thanks to this.
        bumby 2y ago
        Do you extend the same generous interpretations to the other space-faring company owners like Bezos, Branson, Bigelow etc. or is this unique to Musk?
        KoolKat23 2y ago
        Well SpaceX has delivered reusable orbital rockets, it is currently developing starship, those were stated pre-requisites for his mars plan. Blue origin has delivered New Glenn but it's only suborbital so far? Still possible, at the stroke of a pen, they'll get the needed funds to develop capabilities (so at Bezos mercy), they also are actively bidding for government contracts (where the money to make it sustainable is). Virgin Galactic went bankrupt and no one seems to be willing to fund it, so no to them. I don't follow Bigelow closely, I see they closed down.
        bumby 2y ago
        I meant moreso the “betterment of the human condition” than the Mars mission specifically. I believe Bezos has said he’s not in favor of an approach to colonize another planet. My issue is that each of those steps can also be cast as a pathway to more profit. Granted profit and Mars/betterment of the human condition aren’t mutually exclusive, but outside of mere talk I haven’t seen anything convincing that differentiates that one is the primary objective, e.g., a move that undermines profitability but helps the Mars mission
  - CoastalCoder 2y ago
    > Why not simply take him at his word? I don't know why he'd lie on this particular topic. But Musk absolutely has a history of lying on commercial matters. I don't believe his statements deserve the presumption of honesty. (Comment edited for tone.)
    - KoolKat23 2y ago
      Does it matter, no. Does his stated reason make sense, yes. These things are not mutually exclusive. It would need to be financially sustainable to actually deliver on whatever long term goal. Edited: for guidelines
      - bumby 2y ago
        >Does it matter, no. I think the OP may be a bit strong in their language, but I think your quote borders on cult-of-personality. Can you name a business where delivering on promises does not matter? To take it back to the featured article, there's a lot to be said for Boeing not delivering on their contract (really just a legally binding promise) and how it caused all kinds of schedule and cost pressure. >"What did he do to hurt you?" Also, snarky replies go against HN guidelines. Please review them.
        KoolKat23 2y ago
        SpaceX have a contract with NASA where delivering on their promises matters. Despite what some in the general public would have you believe, the evidence to date is clearly they're currently the most capable at delivering, one only has to look to Falcon9 or Dragons record to date. What I don't get is when the public feels entitled to some forensically audited answer. Especially when the business in question is privately held. He's entitled to his view, I mean someone else asked for it, we're entitled to disagree, we know he is often over-optimistic on timelines but there's no need for people to get butthurt over it like many seem to do. Imagine every time some other influential person made a comment, people fervently came out specifically to comment "They're a liar because of x reason". He runs the company, we don't, he's our best insight into the business, we can adjust expectations accordingly. Sorry I removed the snarky comment.
  - peddling-brink 2y ago
    I’d imagine that building interplanetary civilizations cost lots of money, so I think we can take him at his word and also read the subtext in this case.

dotnet00 2y ago

There was a period of roughly a year where SpaceX was the only medium lift rocket in the Western world with available payload capacity. ULA was in between Atlas V and Vulcan, ArianeSpace was between Ariane 5 and 6, with both upcoming rockets fully booked for a while. It was to the point that Europe had to book launches with SpaceX, and SpaceX did not take advantage of their monopoly. They aren't just doing the bare minimum to be cheaper and better (as would be the way to go if they were trying to just be better than Boeing). Right now, SpaceX has launched the majority of the global mass to orbit this year and has done most rocket launches this year. SpaceX has flown 83 times, an unprecedented rate of a launch on average every ~3 days, ULA has flown 4 times, SLS (and for that matter Starliner also) will probably not fly again until 2026. It's laughable to suggest that Boeing is even competing, let alone applying price pressure.

rich_sasha 2y ago
I'm not saying it's competing. But if NASA want any semblance of an alternative to SpaceX, they have no alternative. Boeing can be as uncompetitive as they like, there's value in being second best, almost no matter how poor their delivery. In turn, SpaceX can't quite apply monopoly pricing, because there is a hypothetical alternative in Boeing. SpaceX can't hike their prices 10x from current. But if they are the only crewed space transport?
- dotnet00 2y ago
  I mean, SpaceX has already been contracted for the flights for the remaining years that the ISS will be around. They already don't have the ability to raise prices that much. NASA keeps Starliner around because they've already committed to the bit about redundancy when it comes to "new space" style acquisition processes (after all, they're still fully intending on flying astronauts on Orion without flight testing a fully crew capable version, and talking about paying for a backup option to it and SLS is a fast way to get fired or forced to resign).

diggan 2y ago

From the press conference yesterday, it seems pretty clear that the only reason NASA keeps Boeing around is for this very reason, making sure there is competition.

jfengel 2y ago

SpaceX has a bunch of ulterior motives for its owner. Loss of a competitor might change its pricing structure, but they want success for reasons that go beyond extracting money.

elevatedastalt 2y ago
"Ulterior motives" is misleading terminology, trying to give a negative color to ambitions that Elon has always made very very explicit—making humans a space-faring civilization and colonizing Mars. You may disagree with how useful these ambitions are, but calling them ulterior is basically outright deception.
- bumby 2y ago
  I would actually disagree with how genuine those ambitions are. I personally think they are more PR-gloss than actual business plan.
  - elevatedastalt 2y ago
    You are free to disagree with them. For what it's worth I think they are genuine. But either way they have been very clearly and explicitly communicated, and are anything but "ulterior".
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]

janice1999 2y ago

I don't know if such analysis really applies here. It's hardly a normal marketplace. Boeing and SpaceX has received billions and billions from the US government and will continue to do so because it is in the US military's best interest for them to exist.

gruez 2y ago
Even a single payer like the US government would benefit from keeping the two companies on their toes, rather than letting them rest on their laurels.

didgeoridoo 2y ago

SpaceX technology and logistics have increased dollars-to-delta-V efficiency so much that they are benefiting from Jevons Paradox[0], with orbital launch demand skyrocketing (heh) due to a step change in cost. Even if competitors disappeared, the profit-maximizing price level is unlikely to rise much, as that would choke out a whole emerging sector of launch buyers whose businesses only make sense at a certain $/kg-to-LEO level. [0]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox

sausagefeet 2y ago
> SpaceX technology and logistics have increased dollars-to-delta-V efficiency so much that they are benefiting from Jevons Paradox[0], with orbital launch demand skyrocketing (heh) due to a step change in cost. Do you have support for this? As far as I know, SpaceX hasn't really reduced its customer-facing launch prices much since it's started regularly re-using rockets and last I saw, most demand increase in rocket launches are from SpaceX's own business of Starlink and there the industry at-large has not increased its demand. Amazon Kuiper has bought a as much launch capacity as they can from every supplier but it's unclear if that will pan out. Rocket Labs is the second busiest launcher in the US market with 10 launches in 2023[0]. A McKinsey report on this mentions that SpaceX is both a big driver of demand and supply because of Starlink[1]. And because of constellations, there might be a short-term limit in supply but long term over-abundance. So is there a Joven's Paradox going on in space launches? IMO, no. But, SpaceX is certainly benefiting from being owner of a satellite constellation, which requires tons of launches, and being a launcher so they can do them at-cost. [0] https://payloadspace.com/the-state-of-launch/ https://payloadspace.com/the-state-of-launch/ [1] https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/aerospace-and-defense/our-insights/space-launch-are-we-heading-for-oversupply-or-a-shortfall https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/aerospace-and-defense/ou...
- didgeoridoo 2y ago
  > SpaceX hasn't really reduced its customer-facing launch prices much since it's started regularly re-using rockets Rocket reuse began in 2017, and their pricing per kg has fallen by about half since then. Attributing this directly to reusability isn’t straightforward, since they’ve also introduced new launch vehicles. However, it’s pretty clear that booster reuse is part of their economic model, without which they could never achieve profitability. SpaceX (not) coincidentally being the owner of one of the biggest beneficiaries of reduced launch prices is evidence for, not against, the paradox. Without the cost structure enabled by their launch tech, Starlink is a massive money loser, like every other satellite internet company before it.

bboygravity 2y ago

How is Boeing competition for SpaceX? Not sarcasm. I honestly don't get how? They're not even in the same order of magnitude in terms of price, reliability, safety features or capabilities.

rwmj 2y ago
It'd be more accurate to call it a "second source", like when you manufacture military devices you try to have second sources for all your chips. The US government needs Boeing to stay in the space business in case Musk throws his toys out of the pram. Given Musk's recent erratic behaviour this seems a sensible thing to do.
- bboygravity 2y ago
  Makes sense. Care to elaborate on Musk's recent erratic behavior?
eddieroger 2y ago
They're meant to be competition for each other. If SpaceX should encourage Boeing to do better, and if they manage to, it will encourage SpaceX. That just isn't happening because Boeing is old and slow and not exactly keeping up in the product safety arena these days.
numpad0 2y ago
How it's not? Government agencies like NASA gets budget at percent GDP and given vague goals. They spread it out to aerospace job programs and do nice things along the way. It doesn't really matter how much of what is done, so long the US gets to keep enough aerospace workforce needed to design and mass produce enough Casablanca-class orbital dropships in WW3. Boeing Defense is doing exactly that. They're competent enough.

readthenotes1 2y ago

If that were true, SpaceX would only slightly undercut Boeing. It , however, is massively cheaper. If course, they may be playing a longer game, hoping they can kill all the competition by such low low prices

sashank_1509 2y ago

This is patently absurd and seems like a fallacy of analyzing everything through systems. Systems always matter and systems sometimes matter the most but I would reckon a majority of the time, systems don’t matter and focusing too much on systems leads to wrong conclusions like yours. Why does the average SpaceX employee try to do a good job? Think of the employee as an isolated piece. Some amount of it is intrinsic, humans like doing great work but not all humans are angels, and in a company as big as spaceX to perform well, intrinsic motivation is unlikely to be the root cause. No the average employee does a good job because his boss would fire him otherwise. In the case of SpaceX this is not hyperbole. SpaceX is known to have a typical brutal work culture synonymous with Elons “hard-core” philosophy, you’re expected to put 100 hour work weeks, get results very fast or you’re shown the door. It has been documented that even significant life events like birth of a new born are no excuse to stop working 120% in SpaceX. So the average employee, works because his boss would fire him, the boss works because he is under even higher pressure that his boss would fire him and so on you can climb up the ladder and you will realize that SpaceX is motivated because Elon is motivated and Elon would have them all fired the second he thinks they are not giving their 120% to work. Boeing does not matter to Elons motivation, it never did. Elon has his reasons for being motivated, he says it’s to reach Mars, but who knows what really drives a man, the fact is he has instituted a culture that expects excellence and dedication from its employees and employees are responding to that local feedback. My prediction would be if Boeing dies today, it will not slow down SpaceX one second, but if Boeing actually speeds up, then Elon would drive his employees to insanity till they catch up to Boeing or fail as a business. Boeing can only add value to the upside if they get their act together which seems unlikely.

asadotzler 2y ago

Boeing is not competition, it's a second source. The two companies are bidding independently for these contracts, not against each other.