3 ms·

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

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.

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.