Reading this and also why ULA was found, it sounds like a giant fail by the Government. They allowed the only two launch providers to join, because of unprofitability, which seams odd to me. SpaceX on the other hand opposed to this merge of Atlas and Delta. Now the only reason why SpaceX can charge NASA more than Atlas or Delta did before there merge, is that the prices soared because of the created monopoly. From this article it seams that SpaceX makes 80-90 million dollars profit per NASA or DoD launch. That’s a crazy margin, now i know how they can finance their Starship development and the massive Starlink launches.
this post was submitted on 25 Apr 2025
19 points (91.3% liked)
Spaceflight
947 readers
4 users here now
Your one-stop shop for spaceflight news and discussion.
All serious posts related to spaceflight are welcome! JAXA, ISRO, CNSA, Roscosmos, ULA, RocketLab, Firefly, Relativity, Blue Origin, etc. (Arca and Pythom, if you must).
Other related space communities:
- !rocketlab@lemmy.nz
- !curiosityrover@lemmy.world
- !perseverancerover@lemmy.world
- !esa@feddit.nl
- !nasa@lemmy.world
- !spacex@sh.itjust.works
- !astronomy@mander.xyz
- !militaryspace@sh.itjust.works
- !space@mander.xyz
Related meme community:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
FWIW, part of what this article leaves off are additional capabilities getting covered in these costs, like new launch pads, vertical integration facilities, and disposable launches.
Somehow one of our best hopes for SpaceX's semi monopolistic practices to get upset is... a billionaire subsidized competitor in Blue Origin or Terran using anticompetitive pricing below cost to sneak in and steal market share. Cool. Hopefully Stoke and Rocket Lab win instead.
I am sure Elmo will figure out a way to destroy spacex. Just give it some time.