Hacker News Reader

Comment by bell-cot | Hacker News Reader

If (1) SpaceX is the only organization actually able to launch at scale (vs. promising eventual launching at scale while burning through $billions), (2) the Big Money in space will be made with large constellations of internet/cellular communications satellites and orbital DC's, and (3) SpaceX is winding down the launch services that it provides to outside customers - then all of SpaceX's competition for the $$$ will be stuck on the ground, giving them a monopoly.

Eventually, anti-trust law and/or another competent launch provider might break that monopoly. But Elon's buddy Don will control the Justice Dept. for a couple more years. And even for the competent, ramping up launch is slow.

View on HN

There's nothing stopping other rocket companies from doing the same thing Musk is.

And yet, no matter how obvious the prestige (both national and personal), power (ditto), and wealth available to anyone who can build an org with capabilities similar to SpaceX, nobody else seems to be anywhere close. In spite of the massive subsidies and support which a number of governments (espec. China) are providing to credible would-be Musks.

What if at-scale rocket science is just extremely hard, and efforts to find "another Musk" continue to fail?

AGI will solve it. Make no mistake.

There's nothing stopping you from winning an NBA championship, just suit up and dunk the ball.

Anti trust is completely out of the question. There is plenty of competition that is already selling contracts even if the physical product doesn't exist yet.

So we must break up a monopoly because it delivers more value at a lower cost than its competitors?

No, bell-cot's point is that they are the same company that gets the profits from the payload. It's vertical integration (pun accidental, but not avoided). That gives them a massive financial advantage as a launch company. It makes it hard for anyone else to compete with them - if they have the capacity to handle all other customers' launches as well as their own.

Internet satellites... that does look like a monopoly, or at least effectively one.

Companies spin off parts of their process into separate companies all the time. Auto and airframe companies are notable examples. If it was more profitable to do these in house, they would.

And auto companies are realizing this constrains them and are reconsidering whether to bring more manufacturing in-house.

No, but the government could nationalize it and spin it out again.

We already have NASA.

Which until spacex relied on ULA?

NASA couldn't do what spacex did, so NASA contracted the work out to spacex.

NASA has relied on contractors for a long time. The big fat defence contractors have been getting contracts for decades before SpaceX existed.

None of the other contractors could do what Musk did.

Serious question - could they actually nationalize starlink? Suppose starlink takes their C&C keys and builds a control center in some other country. What does the US government do?

> Serious question - could they actually nationalize starlink?

Yeas, why not?

> Suppose starlink takes their C&C keys and builds a control center in some other country

That won't happen. It is obviously better to be fully legal billionaire (even if the government take away 99% of his assets) in the USA than to be in some other country (which can in any time change it's mind), wanted for treason by the USA. Not even close.

Nationalizing Starlink involves paying the current stockholders what it's worth.

After nationalizing, Musk will have a huge pile of cash. He can then self-fund a new SpaceX/Starlink.

Yes, many current SpaceX/Starlink employees will stay put, but I'll bet that a critical mass will say "We get a fresh start on everything? I'm in."

> Nationalizing Starlink involves paying the current stockholders what it's worth.

Oh hell no it doesn't.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com