I wonder what you think will happen if a new Harris administration goes after Elon Musk, potentially more vigorous than the Biden administration did?
Elon Musk has 79% voting control for SpaceX and could decide to stop all activities if incarcerated or prosecuted.
Will New Glenn - currently non-reusable and Arianne 6 - currently non-reusable and/or SLS - non-reusable keep the US space interest competitive?
Also, without launches Starlink would go down probably within about 3-4 years.
Ambitions to reach Mars will be delayed by at least 2 cycles, maybe more (assuming SpaceX would resume operations in 2029 and Elon Musk would not be jailed more than 4 years.
I am mainly interested in the space industry implications, not the politics
I think what you're pointing at is the single point of failure for U.S. space security and exploration. SpaceX should not be the only launch company they need for their efforts. You could look at Musk's shares as a big part of that challenge too. Musk could vote, certainly, to stop work, but that will also put pressure on him from investors. The whole tit-for-tat would be interesting. On the bright side, the company could run without him. It has Gwen Shotwell.
Stated goals for Mars are already unrealistic. 2029, I believe, is still unrealistic.
The single point of failure has more to do with the approach SpaceX takes versus the other companies than the government.
You are correct about that investor pressure issue but it would equally apply for these investors to put pressure on politicians to weigh their approach of prosecution. Nasa could potentially also chime in.
Interestingly enough nobody dictated that Blue Origin, Ariane Space/ESA, or Nasa for SLS would use the development approach they did. Nasa could be excused due to doing the same ol same ol for 6 decades, but the others could do it any way they want.
Looks to me what SpaceX and Rocketlab and a few other smaller ones are doing leads to faster results.
Making it political will just invite competition from China, India, Japan, etc. to walk in and catch up.
The approach those companies have taken is something I've written about so many, many times. Ultimately, their processes reflect their customer's, so their responses were hard-coded into many of the things they did, from market research to strategizing, to the actual rockets and services.
Rocket Lab and SpaceX are the new(-ish) comers to the industry, so they are still hungry and willing to perhaps look at the market in a more honest way, I think. Agree about how politics will weaken U.S. offerings in view of potential competitors.
On the other hand, if you and I could get a cost plus (25% margin) contract I know we would both take it and post about our passion all day long 😉.
Not requiring proper audits, comparative analysis, DOD pricing, etc. is all political to get parts of the work allocated through government funds to certain constituencies.
Only when Musk and Bezos came along to fund out of pocket did that change.
Interesting opinions.
I wonder what you think will happen if a new Harris administration goes after Elon Musk, potentially more vigorous than the Biden administration did?
Elon Musk has 79% voting control for SpaceX and could decide to stop all activities if incarcerated or prosecuted.
Will New Glenn - currently non-reusable and Arianne 6 - currently non-reusable and/or SLS - non-reusable keep the US space interest competitive?
Also, without launches Starlink would go down probably within about 3-4 years.
Ambitions to reach Mars will be delayed by at least 2 cycles, maybe more (assuming SpaceX would resume operations in 2029 and Elon Musk would not be jailed more than 4 years.
I am mainly interested in the space industry implications, not the politics
I think what you're pointing at is the single point of failure for U.S. space security and exploration. SpaceX should not be the only launch company they need for their efforts. You could look at Musk's shares as a big part of that challenge too. Musk could vote, certainly, to stop work, but that will also put pressure on him from investors. The whole tit-for-tat would be interesting. On the bright side, the company could run without him. It has Gwen Shotwell.
Stated goals for Mars are already unrealistic. 2029, I believe, is still unrealistic.
Good points
The single point of failure has more to do with the approach SpaceX takes versus the other companies than the government.
You are correct about that investor pressure issue but it would equally apply for these investors to put pressure on politicians to weigh their approach of prosecution. Nasa could potentially also chime in.
Interestingly enough nobody dictated that Blue Origin, Ariane Space/ESA, or Nasa for SLS would use the development approach they did. Nasa could be excused due to doing the same ol same ol for 6 decades, but the others could do it any way they want.
Looks to me what SpaceX and Rocketlab and a few other smaller ones are doing leads to faster results.
Making it political will just invite competition from China, India, Japan, etc. to walk in and catch up.
The approach those companies have taken is something I've written about so many, many times. Ultimately, their processes reflect their customer's, so their responses were hard-coded into many of the things they did, from market research to strategizing, to the actual rockets and services.
Rocket Lab and SpaceX are the new(-ish) comers to the industry, so they are still hungry and willing to perhaps look at the market in a more honest way, I think. Agree about how politics will weaken U.S. offerings in view of potential competitors.
Totally agree
On the other hand, if you and I could get a cost plus (25% margin) contract I know we would both take it and post about our passion all day long 😉.
Not requiring proper audits, comparative analysis, DOD pricing, etc. is all political to get parts of the work allocated through government funds to certain constituencies.
Only when Musk and Bezos came along to fund out of pocket did that change.