I think you know that OP didn't suggest that we have more incompetent companies.
If OP isn't suggesting that, then what's the shame in having an incompetent company go out of business?
It's a shame the company wasn't competent enough to succeed. Why must this be spelled out? I feel like half this thread is bad faith face-value pedanticism for no benefit.
Because it's about as meaningless a comment as saying "thoughts and prayers". There's nothing shameful about an incompetent company going out of business, it's actually exactly what should happen.
SpaceX’s first three launches were failures. I think the world is probably better for them not folding after the first.
As a correction, it was only the first two of SpaceX's launches that were failures. The third launch succeeded.
As a correction, the first three were failures and Musk himself acknowledges that had the fourth failed they would have folded:
and Virgin Galactic's first 50 launches were failures and VG's first 20 years of existence were a colossal failure. Maybe if a company can't make things work after two decades, it should be dissolved? Or should we let them exist in a malaise of failure for another decade?
Virgin Orbit actually had four successful launches and two failures (their first and apparently last launches). What’s sad about them collapsing right now is they were the only launch partner for the UK’s only spaceport, and if we were generous enough to chalk up the last failure as bad luck, it’s a shame if the whole ecosystem suffers, perhaps irreparably, because of it.