3 ms·

I don't think there's a real danger of a true monopoly. There are a number of other options: 1. Orion -- heavier than Dragon so you need a bigger rocket, but

I don't think there's a real danger of a true monopoly. There are a number of other options: 1. Orion -- heavier than Dragon so you need a bigger rocket, but it should be able to dock with the space station, and it's already flown uncrewed 2. DreamChaser -- Currently being developed uncrewed, but it was originally supposed to fly with crew, and Sierra says they still want to do a crewed version. It's been moved to Cape Canaveral and is supposed to fly next year. 3. Blue Origin is rumored to be back working on some sort of orbital capsule. Capitalism doesn't work if you don't let companies that aren't delivering fail. IMO what's probably happened at Boeing's space division is that they're not able to recruit and retain top people anymore given the explosion of new space companies.

rqtwteye 2y ago
Blue Origin was started before SpaceX and they still haven't delivered much. What are they doing?
- cameldrv 2y ago
  Obviously they haven't been moving as fast as SpaceX, but they've delivered New Shepherd and the BE-4 engine, which has flown on the Vulcan and is supposed to fly on New Glenn. The BE-4 is comparable to the Raptor.
worstspotgain 2y ago
> Capitalism doesn't work if you don't let companies that aren't delivering fail. This argument only works in competitive markets. This market is more or less a natural monopoly due to the massive upfront R&D investment and learning-by-doing requirements. NASA has to constantly wrestle with this 'force' in order to keep it an oligopoly. If it fails to do so, it should stop the experiment and go back to in-housing everything. Only with an oligopoly (or better) does the American public benefit at all from privatization.
- cameldrv 2y ago
  This is the first time ever that we've had competition in the form of multiple companies that can deliver astronauts to orbit. As for NASA "in-housing" everything, that's always been a continuum. Mercury is probably the last spacecraft that you could really say NASA designed internally that flew. Even operationally, for the last part of the Shuttle program, most all of the operations were done by the United Space Alliance. That said, I agree that NASA has a role to play to encourage diversity and competition, and IMO they've done that with Orion, Dragon, and DreamChaser. Just because SpaceX could use some competition doesn't mean it has to be Boeing.
- krisoft 2y ago
  > NASA has to constantly wrestle with this 'force' in order to keep it an oligopoly. Maybe instead of pumping money into the husk of Boeing they could try to give some to DreamChaser?
- avmich 2y ago
  All current problems notwithstanding, SpaceX in 20 years of existence delivered a lot of progress to the aerospace abilities of the whole world. No matter what they'll do next, SpaceX already shown a number of important achievements. Hope they'll continue. Also I'm not sure if Boeing's goals are more aligned with NASA's than SpaceX's ones with those of general public - and that public would probably disapprove such things as SLS.

rqtwteye 2y ago

Blue Origin was started before SpaceX and they still haven't delivered much. What are they doing?

cameldrv 2y ago
Obviously they haven't been moving as fast as SpaceX, but they've delivered New Shepherd and the BE-4 engine, which has flown on the Vulcan and is supposed to fly on New Glenn. The BE-4 is comparable to the Raptor.

worstspotgain 2y ago

> Capitalism doesn't work if you don't let companies that aren't delivering fail. This argument only works in competitive markets. This market is more or less a natural monopoly due to the massive upfront R&D investment and learning-by-doing requirements. NASA has to constantly wrestle with this 'force' in order to keep it an oligopoly. If it fails to do so, it should stop the experiment and go back to in-housing everything. Only with an oligopoly (or better) does the American public benefit at all from privatization.

cameldrv 2y ago
This is the first time ever that we've had competition in the form of multiple companies that can deliver astronauts to orbit. As for NASA "in-housing" everything, that's always been a continuum. Mercury is probably the last spacecraft that you could really say NASA designed internally that flew. Even operationally, for the last part of the Shuttle program, most all of the operations were done by the United Space Alliance. That said, I agree that NASA has a role to play to encourage diversity and competition, and IMO they've done that with Orion, Dragon, and DreamChaser. Just because SpaceX could use some competition doesn't mean it has to be Boeing.
krisoft 2y ago
> NASA has to constantly wrestle with this 'force' in order to keep it an oligopoly. Maybe instead of pumping money into the husk of Boeing they could try to give some to DreamChaser?
avmich 2y ago
All current problems notwithstanding, SpaceX in 20 years of existence delivered a lot of progress to the aerospace abilities of the whole world. No matter what they'll do next, SpaceX already shown a number of important achievements. Hope they'll continue. Also I'm not sure if Boeing's goals are more aligned with NASA's than SpaceX's ones with those of general public - and that public would probably disapprove such things as SLS.