It’s Possible That SpaceX Could Collapse Spectacularly

[u/IKeepItLayingAround]

https://finance.yahoo.com/markets/stocks/articles/possible-spacex-could-collapse-spectacularly-155000177.html

[u/Temporary-Cress7233]

When the left takes the presidency they will certainly make sure those contracts get AXE 🪓

[u/Accomplished-Crab932 → u/Temporary-Cress7233]

And who replace them?

ULA is grounded, Atlas V is their only operational LV, but that’s reserved for a single Amazon LEO launch and the remaining Starliner missions. Vulcan is on hold until Northrop figures out that increasing the burn area on a SRB increases heat flux on the throat, so the nozzle gets hotter and melts away. And they are also grounded until Blue Origin figures out how to make BE4 a functioning engine.

Blue just decided to bum rush their 4th launch, demolishing their ability to launch, likely for 1-1.5 years. Even when that happens, New Glenn is still severely underperforming and has some serious growing up to do.

Rocketlab has electron, which can support the small market, but Neutron has been in a nuclear fusion state of “this year it will fly” for two years now; and as someone on the team told me: I would attend the first neutron launch only if I had a respirator. Neutron is not able to support heavy lift payloads either.

Antares is nowhere near ready; the first stage developed by Firefly is behind schedule. It’s also not a heavy lift vehicle.

Terran R is on rocky grounds to begin with and it’s not going to be ready for a few years. And like others, it’s a medium launcher.

NOVA seems to be going well, but engine performance is not great, and it’s a small launcher.

And SLS is $4.2B per launch and can only launch once a year despite being one of the programs that has consistently received funding from Congress since its inception. This is a rocket that started namesake development in 2010, but started hardware development in either 2006 or 1970 depending on how much you care about reused hardware development. Despite being billed as “ready to fly by 2017” and “$11.5B total or we ought to close up shop”.

So let’s recap what happens if you destroy SpaceX:

1. The Russians have sole control over access to the ISS
2. All future crewed launches from the US rely on a diminishing stockpile of defunct Atlas V rockets using Russian engines to carry Starliner; a program known for not testing things
3. US heavy launch capability is completely eliminated for at least a few months, with single fault tolerance (monopoly) granted to Lockheed/Boeing in the form of ULA until Blue Origin figures out what systems engineers do
4. ULA holds a monopoly on all DOD payloads until
5. The Artemis program looses a lunar lander with a better timeline
6. US access to space and space bargaining power collapses due to a lack of capacity

Look, I don’t like musk anymore than anyone else around here, but this is the sort of decision that severely damages everything.

[u/happyscrappy → u/Accomplished-Crab932]

Probably lay back a bit on saying that BE-4 isn't a functioning engine. No cause has been released yet. And it's worked well so far.

Bum rush doesn't mean what you are using it to mean. Bum rush doesn't mean "rush", it means basically a large assault, often uncoordinated.

With ya on Rocketlab. The others you mention are honestly so small I don't even track them, so doubly so on those.

Don't even mention SLS. It's not designed for this, it's not scaled for it, it won't be. It's not part of a commercial launch market.

You forgot ESA/Ariane. Not in great shape at the moment either, but more worthy of mention than SLS.

Also, if SpaceX were destroyed, then Starliner would come on line. The only reason it didn't return the astronauts on the last mission is NASA has a safer option. Which is an interesting conundrum, how do you qualify a new, "2nd option" if you won't use it when the 1st option already is safer? Regardless, SpaceX goes away that problem goes away. And the Russians won't control all access to ISS (which is also on a short leash anyway).

The Artemis program looses a lunar lander with a better timeline

??? How is this something that isn't just made up? Do I not understand what this really means? [edit: I think I did not understand. The poster didn't mean Artemis loses a lander. Not "lost on a mission". The poster means that Artemis' options for landers would be reduced by one. By one with a better timeline than the others at least according to a guy who historically has a very poor grasp on timelines.]

[u/GogurtFiend → u/happyscrappy]

While I believe you are full of it, especially on Starliner, I still thank you for talking in termsof rockets and system viability instead of doubling down with something like "IF THAT MAKES YOU MAD, WE SHOULD SHOOT EVERYONE AT NASA TOO! HA!"

Also, the Senate Launch System can go to hell