ULA is at least one of the industry innovation sources: industry structure change. It’s not a new problem, but ULA still fell for it, unable to launch its new rocket while its launch cadence declines.
I believe it's possible to accept the market is tight right now while also recognising that too many rockets are under development. The main issue right now is a surge of demand from Amazon while various rockets have faced delays, leaving SpaceX as the only serious player in town. But we also have dozens of new rockets in development, if they start to hit the market over the coming years we could certainly see a surplus of rockets (which may be no bad thing). Amazon, by the way, will have little choice but to wait as long as they refuse to use SpaceX.
The Amazon situation is another part worth a look at. I would caution on calling it a surge just yet--because we've yet to see anything about the company's satellites and the demonstrators, when they finally get to orbit, may yield some challenges that will impact manufacturing (which we've also yet to really get a good feel for).
I've contended for a while that if the company is serious about its space internet business, it will use SpaceX to get its satellites in orbit. The fact that the company isn't doing that yet may be because it now has ULA over the barrel for not being able to deliver. That could get some interesting concessions that make the delay worthwhile, I suppose.
As far as "dozens" of rockets under development--I don't see any, aside from the usual players (Arianespace, Blue Origin, ULA) that give the Falcon 9 a run for its money. It's doubtful they will be competitive with the Falcon 9 not just on price, but in launch cadence and flexibility.
But I will admit I also don't bother monitoring most of the hype for rockets under development because, generally, that's what it is--hype. They become interesting and possibly useful when they finally start orbital test launches. I can't even count how many have come and gone since the rise of Falcon 9...
I believe it's possible to accept the market is tight right now while also recognising that too many rockets are under development. The main issue right now is a surge of demand from Amazon while various rockets have faced delays, leaving SpaceX as the only serious player in town. But we also have dozens of new rockets in development, if they start to hit the market over the coming years we could certainly see a surplus of rockets (which may be no bad thing). Amazon, by the way, will have little choice but to wait as long as they refuse to use SpaceX.
The Amazon situation is another part worth a look at. I would caution on calling it a surge just yet--because we've yet to see anything about the company's satellites and the demonstrators, when they finally get to orbit, may yield some challenges that will impact manufacturing (which we've also yet to really get a good feel for).
I've contended for a while that if the company is serious about its space internet business, it will use SpaceX to get its satellites in orbit. The fact that the company isn't doing that yet may be because it now has ULA over the barrel for not being able to deliver. That could get some interesting concessions that make the delay worthwhile, I suppose.
As far as "dozens" of rockets under development--I don't see any, aside from the usual players (Arianespace, Blue Origin, ULA) that give the Falcon 9 a run for its money. It's doubtful they will be competitive with the Falcon 9 not just on price, but in launch cadence and flexibility.
But I will admit I also don't bother monitoring most of the hype for rockets under development because, generally, that's what it is--hype. They become interesting and possibly useful when they finally start orbital test launches. I can't even count how many have come and gone since the rise of Falcon 9...