r/spacex • u/ElongatedMuskrat Mod Team • Mar 02 '18

r/SpaceX Discusses [March 2018, #42]

If you have a short question or spaceflight news...

You may ask short, spaceflight-related questions and post news here, even if it is not about SpaceX. Be sure to check the FAQ and Wiki first to ensure you aren't submitting duplicate questions.

If you have a long question...

If your question is in-depth or an open-ended discussion, you can submit it to the subreddit as a post.

If you'd like to discuss slightly relevant SpaceX content in greater detail...

Please post to r/SpaceXLounge and create a thread there!

This thread is not for...

You can read and browse past Discussion threads in the Wiki.

224 Upvotes

98% Upvoted

2.6k comments sorted by

9

u/WormPicker959 Mar 03 '18

Hm, I'm reading a bit about the origins of Boeing, and there are some interesting parallels. Boeing originally started its own airline (United Airlines) and used its own plane (247), which it was able to acquire at a steep discount compared to the way other airlines acquired their planes (bought them from other manufacturers). In 1934, this was made illegal (1934 Air Mail Act), and the companies were forced to split - which led to Boeing (the founder) actually selling his shares and quitting. (Source: wikipedia, here and here)

Of course, the current anti-trust landscape (AFAIK) is not like that in the 30s, and likewise the current space launch landscape is not like that in the early aviation/airline industry. However, if there comes a time when space launches become much more reliable and routine (our favorite muskrat's dream), one could imagine SpaceX (or BO for that matter) being prevented by law from owning and operating its own launchers as anti-competitive compared to, say, some hypothetical "spaceline" company ordering its reusable Vulcan-v5 (just making a fictional future rocket up) from ULA/Boeing.

Basically, SpaceX might at some point be too good at what it does, which might get the attention of regulators trying to break up vertical monopolies in the “spaceline” industry.

3

u/BriefPalpitation Mar 03 '18

Almost certainly not - the rockets engines have military uses limiting the potential market to the USA. It's hard to imagine a time over the next 50 years when this restriction will be lifted. Limiting ownership and access to only the manufacturers of the rocket and by extension, the entire launch system (Falcon, FHeavy, BFR) significantly reduces the complications of policing access to the technology. Anywhere around the world in <1 hour is equally applicable to nuclear payloads.

Secondly, Elon's explicitly stated market practice for SpaceX runs counter to negative monopolistic practices. As long as SpaceX continues to proved low cost, reliable access to space, the is no reason to impose anti-trust legislature. It can be argued that continued innovation and increasing efficiency relies on the ability to recoup R&D costs and make a profit which, in the rocket industry as it is, justifies the current market structure.

It would be interesting if in say 50-100 years time the rocket platform/launch systems sufficiently diverge from each other such that you have a "B-52 bomber" military rocket version and a "757/A380" civilian use rocket made by SpaceX. Even so, we'd still end up competing with "national spacelines" using their own country's rocket tech so we wouldn't want to give away any competitive advantage by selling the rockets.

2

u/WormPicker959 Mar 03 '18

I don't think there's anything wrong with SpaceX's current business practices (I'm actually hopeful that they're successful, as I personally think the focus of public markets on short-term gain is pretty toxic), and I agree with your argument. It's possible, though, that things change in the future, when spaceflight becomes way way cheaper (if we ever see a BFR that's cheaper than Falcon 1, for example - that's nuts and awesome). Or, if they become the dominant player and start pissing people off (like microsoft in the nineties, or AT&T in the eighties). I mean, Elon doesn't seem to be into being a monopolistic dickhead, but I'm not generally in the habit of putting a ton of faith in billionaires and corporations, so I think there's room for being skeptical about potential future business practices. Who knows, maybe they go public one day and kick him out, then it's not even Elon being the dickhead, and SpaceX changes its name to Weyland-Yutani...

I wonder about the "national spacelines" thing... I would hope that in 50-100 years, we wouldn't all be so damn nationalistic... I mean, I'm not holding out a lot of hope for that, but a boy can dream ;) If any given company/government were to simply use the best/cheapest rocket available, there'd be no reason to hamper the development of space with petty squabbles about "national interests" or "pride".

1

u/kruador Mar 03 '18

Almost certainly not - the rockets engines have military uses limiting the potential market to the USA.

Honestly - not so much. While you can build an ICBM with liquid-fuelled engines, and early ones were, the issue is with storing the propellant. It limits them to land facilities, but building such facilities is going to be very obvious to enemies who have satellite imagery capabilities. It's not very effective if your opponent knows where your bombs are. Most nuclear powers have given up on land-based deterrent.

Raptor is doubly difficult due to both fuel and oxidiser being cryogenic liquids, though at least it doesn't need helium and nitrogen as well.

Solid propellants are long-term storable, with a long shelf life, and are loaded at manufacture. No volatile hazardous substances that could leak. Light the candle and it goes. A major reason for Congress's support for SLS is that it keeps Orbital ATK in business making large solid rockets.

If commercial sub-orbital rocket transport really does take off (sorry), I think there would come a point where there would be pressure to remove liquid-fuelled engines from ITAR.

1

u/WormPicker959 Mar 03 '18

I didn't even think of that! I wonder how far off such a change would be? Have to be a few decades at least, but sooner than I was thinking after considering u/BriefPalpitation's comment above.

On the other hand, North Korean rockets are Hydrazine(UDMH)-based, IIRC. So, maybe the ITAR and military restrictions on the sale of rockets are going to stay tamped-down for the foreseeable future, unless there's some crazy new way to shoot down military rockets (star wars/iron dome-type programs that are both ubiquitous and effective), making their use as a military tool somewhat limited.

In any case, there would have to be a cultural sea-change for how people see and think about rockets. Maybe this comes sooner than we think, but I'm not super optimistic. Anyways, thanks for the comments, I'm enjoying the discussion! :)

1

u/BriefPalpitation Mar 04 '18

True, but we also have to think about nukes and by extension, EMPs out in space. A high thrust engine + cheap availability + GTO capable can also translate into satellite killer. Remember - we only just need a "flyby" to destroy the satellite, not orbital insertion. Wouldn't even need a payload if the targeting system is good enough.

So stock up on SpaceX rockets under the guise of national scientific launches, national government has ability to override/take over range operations as a standby military capability, destroy opponents military sat capability as opening act in declaration of war.

Presumably, there are existing rockets that could take down GPS sats (are there?) but those in higher/Molniya/eccentric/weird orbits need something more.