3 ms·

I think this concept, and this entire article to a large degree, at missing the entire state of the space industry. The competition in space is mostly a facade.

I think this concept, and this entire article to a large degree, at missing the entire state of the space industry. The competition in space is mostly a facade. This page [1] provides regularly updated overviews on most metrics of space 'marketshare' and SpaceX dominates to an exceptional degree by every single metric. For instance as of last quarter they were responsible for 83% of all mass launched to space, carried out 40 launches while the rest of the world combined did 36, and so on. So for all intents and purposes SpaceX is not only the US space industry, but largely the world's space industry. And it was started on an ideological basis, not a financial one. Like the saying goes, 'How do you become a millionaire in aerospace? Start out as a billionaire in aerospace.' It's simply not an industry where you can throw money at it and succeed. Blue Origin, which only recently finally managed to send their first craft to orbit, was actually started before SpaceX and funded by Bezos bucks back when Musk was teetering on bankrupt. It's also not an industry where you can just smart your way through it. Many clever individuals with money, John Carmack being one with perhaps the most name recognition, have tried their hand at aerospace, and failed. For that matter - China has all the wealth, human talent, and such of the largest economy with nearly the largest population. And even they, in terms of launch capabilities trail well behind SpaceX. So basically the whole concept of the current state of things being a huge success for "commercial space" is, in large part, a facade. Had SpaceX not emerged then "commercial space" in the US would have been a complete failure, and people would be bemoaning such a waste of money to try to privatize things that history had shown were only able to be effectively executed by governments. [1] - https://brycetech.com/briefing https://brycetech.com/briefing

perihelions 2y ago
There's a large number of very well-capitalized startups in China trying to build reusable rockets, in competition to SpaceX. It's a significant national security priority for them. I'm pretty sure one of them will succeed soon. I don't understand your argument why they must all fail—I'm not clear if you've articulated such an argument, really, beyond "many people have failed, so it's probably impossible". But SpaceX itself is existence proof that it's possible to do the things SpaceX does. And: the market in China is still wide-open for the taking, since SpaceX itself can't sell there. Chinese newspace seems to be at an inflection point at this moment. I think there's five different private-sector teams that will attempt their first orbital booster recovery, either in this year or in 2026. That's: Deep Blue (Nebula-2); Landspace (Zhuque-3); Space Pioneer (Tianlong-3); iSpace (Hyperbola-3); Galactic (Pallas-1). Four of those five startups have already launched to orbit—Landscape even beat SpaceX (and Blue Origin) to the first orbital methane/oxygen rocket. (Not that you'd have heard about that on a Western-focused place like HN[0]. China's space startups are a blindspot for us, and, I think we're going to end up blindsided by them very soon, in the same way we were blindsided by Huawei, by DeepSeek, by BYD. We just ignore all the fast-moving developments there right up to the point they're impossible to ignore...) [0] https://hn.algolia.com/?q=zhuque-2 https://hn.algolia.com/?q=zhuque-2 (0 comments)
- maxglute 2y ago
  Basically. Last year spaceX had fleet of 18 F9s doing more than 50% of global launches, 80% including starlink. SpaceX stans wank over 50% and 80%, but ignore that 18 is rookie numbers. 7/145 US space launches in 2024 was Non SpaceX. That means US in aggregate build 25 rockets. Versus PRC 68 (wanted 100 which was kind of reach). Next 5-10 year projection need to account for # launch vehicles once PRC figures out reusable. Bearing in mind that PRC already producing ~2.5x launch vehicles, just not reusable. To add, PRC didn't take reusable seriously until UKR war, and now they likely have multiple viable candidates due end of year. "Seriously" as in they proposed years prior to squat megaconstellation orbital rights but development wasn't urgent. Frankly no reason PRC won't have 50-100 reusables fleet _IF_ demand justifies it. And then like with all PRC catchup, they'll put more than SpaceX lifetime aggregate payload in a few years, and then it won't even be close. The fundemental reality is, despite having ~10 year headstart, SpaceX is still an American company operating at American scale. US space launch lead is not particularly durable / sustainable. If future of space is anything like EV, there's potential for several PRC rivals with fleets larger than SpaceX if there's demand for it. TBH only short/medium term demand is militarization of space (including isr megaconstellations). I expected PRC to only modestly eclipse SpaceX by factor of 2 in medium term. But with US murmuring about Brilliant Swarm, probably more and quicker, because technically it going to be faster for PRC to build 1000s of rival space interceptors than proliferate 1000s of nukes for parity (enrichment limitations > launch tempo).
  - trothamel 2y ago
    Note that each of the 138 SpaceX launches required producing a second stage, something your numbers aren't really accounting for. And that it seems like SpaceX is close (within a year or so) to full reusability, while rivals are still trying to work out how to reuse the first stage.
    - maxglute 2y ago
      2nd stage 1/6 weight with simple merlin engine. Early F9 used 9 merlin = ~15 more rockets. ~60% of PRC though we don't know full industrial capacity of either, i.e. SpaceX could be boeing tier and do 600+ frames per year, or PRC can brrt their reusable like shipbuilding at 200x whatever US is per year. I think Starship is big caveate, it could work or it could not. It's much more complicated / not conservative project vs F9 and has borderline Vanguard / Atlas tier failure rate granted one could argue that's move fast break things by design. But push comes to shove, comes to hammering industry to fill strategic need, I wouldn't be confident SpaceX can maintain lead for long enough to matter. Especially if space weaponization on the horizon.
rich_sasha 2y ago
This is true for sure. But even if you look outside SpaceX, it's all American firms (sort of). Blue Origin, Rocket Lab (NZ origin but by now American). So maybe they aren't making money or getting much "market traction" but at least are in the race. Europe has some such startups, Isar is one that comes to mind, but only going by media buzz, seemingly much less. I have zero insight into this industry so I can't tell if it's just my biased reading of biased reporting, or reality.

perihelions 2y ago

There's a large number of very well-capitalized startups in China trying to build reusable rockets, in competition to SpaceX. It's a significant national security priority for them. I'm pretty sure one of them will succeed soon. I don't understand your argument why they must all fail—I'm not clear if you've articulated such an argument, really, beyond "many people have failed, so it's probably impossible". But SpaceX itself is existence proof that it's possible to do the things SpaceX does. And: the market in China is still wide-open for the taking, since SpaceX itself can't sell there. Chinese newspace seems to be at an inflection point at this moment. I think there's five different private-sector teams that will attempt their first orbital booster recovery, either in this year or in 2026. That's: Deep Blue (Nebula-2); Landspace (Zhuque-3); Space Pioneer (Tianlong-3); iSpace (Hyperbola-3); Galactic (Pallas-1). Four of those five startups have already launched to orbit—Landscape even beat SpaceX (and Blue Origin) to the first orbital methane/oxygen rocket. (Not that you'd have heard about that on a Western-focused place like HN[0]. China's space startups are a blindspot for us, and, I think we're going to end up blindsided by them very soon, in the same way we were blindsided by Huawei, by DeepSeek, by BYD. We just ignore all the fast-moving developments there right up to the point they're impossible to ignore...) [0] https://hn.algolia.com/?q=zhuque-2 https://hn.algolia.com/?q=zhuque-2 (0 comments)

maxglute 2y ago
Basically. Last year spaceX had fleet of 18 F9s doing more than 50% of global launches, 80% including starlink. SpaceX stans wank over 50% and 80%, but ignore that 18 is rookie numbers. 7/145 US space launches in 2024 was Non SpaceX. That means US in aggregate build 25 rockets. Versus PRC 68 (wanted 100 which was kind of reach). Next 5-10 year projection need to account for # launch vehicles once PRC figures out reusable. Bearing in mind that PRC already producing ~2.5x launch vehicles, just not reusable. To add, PRC didn't take reusable seriously until UKR war, and now they likely have multiple viable candidates due end of year. "Seriously" as in they proposed years prior to squat megaconstellation orbital rights but development wasn't urgent. Frankly no reason PRC won't have 50-100 reusables fleet _IF_ demand justifies it. And then like with all PRC catchup, they'll put more than SpaceX lifetime aggregate payload in a few years, and then it won't even be close. The fundemental reality is, despite having ~10 year headstart, SpaceX is still an American company operating at American scale. US space launch lead is not particularly durable / sustainable. If future of space is anything like EV, there's potential for several PRC rivals with fleets larger than SpaceX if there's demand for it. TBH only short/medium term demand is militarization of space (including isr megaconstellations). I expected PRC to only modestly eclipse SpaceX by factor of 2 in medium term. But with US murmuring about Brilliant Swarm, probably more and quicker, because technically it going to be faster for PRC to build 1000s of rival space interceptors than proliferate 1000s of nukes for parity (enrichment limitations > launch tempo).
- trothamel 2y ago
  Note that each of the 138 SpaceX launches required producing a second stage, something your numbers aren't really accounting for. And that it seems like SpaceX is close (within a year or so) to full reusability, while rivals are still trying to work out how to reuse the first stage.
  - maxglute 2y ago
    2nd stage 1/6 weight with simple merlin engine. Early F9 used 9 merlin = ~15 more rockets. ~60% of PRC though we don't know full industrial capacity of either, i.e. SpaceX could be boeing tier and do 600+ frames per year, or PRC can brrt their reusable like shipbuilding at 200x whatever US is per year. I think Starship is big caveate, it could work or it could not. It's much more complicated / not conservative project vs F9 and has borderline Vanguard / Atlas tier failure rate granted one could argue that's move fast break things by design. But push comes to shove, comes to hammering industry to fill strategic need, I wouldn't be confident SpaceX can maintain lead for long enough to matter. Especially if space weaponization on the horizon.

rich_sasha 2y ago

This is true for sure. But even if you look outside SpaceX, it's all American firms (sort of). Blue Origin, Rocket Lab (NZ origin but by now American). So maybe they aren't making money or getting much "market traction" but at least are in the race. Europe has some such startups, Isar is one that comes to mind, but only going by media buzz, seemingly much less. I have zero insight into this industry so I can't tell if it's just my biased reading of biased reporting, or reality.