| |
| ▲ | ethbr1 12 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The issue is that space launch has some huge economies of scale. And {world space launch demand} is >> {one country's space launch demand} The argument for China overcoming SpaceX would be: - China needs to get within functional (not cost) technological parity with SpaceX ASAP (i.e. which means reusability, albeit for cadence/capacity reasons) - After that, they need to incentivize global demand to launch on Chinese rockets (likely heavily subsidizing prices to attract demand) - After that, they need to continue to out-innovate SpaceX on technological and economic fronts Of those, convincing a substantial portion of global launch demand to use Chinese rockets seems the trickiest bit, give the CCP's relationship with the rule of law. | | |
| ▲ | MaxPock 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | "convincing a substantial portion of global launch demand to use Chinese rockets seems the trickiest bit, give the CCP's relationship with the rule of law." Expound more on this please assuming I'm a potential Brazilian South African ,Saudi or Thai client . | | |
| ▲ | ethbr1 an hour ago | parent [-] | | For countries that aren't on the US' shit list (e.g. Brazil, South Africa, Saudi Arabia, or Thailand), why would I take a chance on Chinese legal agreements instead of American ones? The American private company might be prohibited from launching military assets for you, but once a launch contract is otherwise signed, you know it's going to happen. In contrast, a Chinese legal agreement is worth what, if the central government decides to get involved? | | |
| ▲ | maxglute 27 minutes ago | parent [-] | | American Gov is far, far more fickle and likely to "get involved" / abuse export controls / fuck over friendlies due to domestic politics. Space is ITAR heavy, there's less guarantee that private American company can honor agreement than CCP verbal contract. This is 2024, JP steel just happened, US "rule of law" means nothing when strategic interests involved, never have. Can't say the same about PRC, granted they're to high end capabilities export. Ultimately, going with PRC likely will get you ITAR tier tech access bundled with cheaper launch, see state of military drones sales. |
|
| |
| ▲ | wmf 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I don't think China needs any third-party payloads. Even if they only launch Qianfan it should be enough to bring costs down. | | |
| ▲ | ethbr1 an hour ago | parent [-] | | The issue is that SpaceX, unlike any space company since some never-realized 1960s hypotheticals, is a flywheel company built around scaling. They create demand so they can scale manufacturing that they can use to decrease prices that creates more demand... etc. etc. You can't beat a company doing that by just getting "big enough" unless the scaling company (a) runs out of increased demand or (b) cannot convert increased volume into cheaper economics per unit. Neither of those seem very plausible. |
|
| |
| ▲ | nordsieck 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > On the commercial side Blue Origin has been slow in starting but they are almost ready and will have relatively cheap launches. [citation needed] Sure, New Glenn is designed to be a partially reusable rocket. But it's far from clear that they'll even successfully launch on their debut, not to mention recover the booster. And even when they've sorted all that out, word on the street is that the rocket was not designed to be inexpensively manufactured. It's not clear to me just now low reuse can help drive down their launch price. | |
| ▲ | jimmydoe 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Nothing is impossible but it takes time. Based on current disclosed plan, they will have same number of LEOs as SpaceX have today by ~2030; and SpaceX is not slowing down either. | |
| ▲ | jaimex2 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | China is very good at copying things but this is one they'll have trouble with given the strict employment requirements. |
|
