> We need multiple providers for rockets.

We have that? SpaceX, ULA, Blue Origin, Rocket Lab to name a few I can think of.

> Since a lot of the rest of the US space world is struggling to successfully launch

Can you walk me through how you are arriving at this conclusion?

SpaceX is retiring the Falcon 9 and not currently selling rides on Starship.

ULA and Blue Origin are recovering from anomalies, and ULA uses Blue Origin engines, so if there is a problem with BE-4 both companies are affected.

Rocket Lab's rocket is small and cannot launch either Leo satellites or the major national security payloads.

No other US launch vehicles are currently operational.

Rocket lab will have a new medium sized rocket by end of year / early 2027 fwiw

andrewl-hn 35 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Space X will probably have to keep Falcon 9 around for a while for human spaceflight to ISS, no?

	▲	GMoromisato 29 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		They are contractually obligated to fly up to ISS until 2030 or so. But they are not obligated to sign new contracts nor are they currently selling rides on Falcon 9 to commercial customers (all future flights are booked). Will they offer launch on Starship to NASA and commercial customers? TBD, but SpaceX is making so much money on Starlink that they have no financial incentive to do so. They make more money launching their own Starlink satellites than anyone else is willing to pay.

ericmay an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Thanks - that makes more sense, but the OP was being quite general which is why I asked the question.

Today's anomaly is just the latest in a series of anomalies for ULA's Vulcan. (previously the solid fueled boosters were losing their nozzles).

Blue Origin blew up a rocket on the pad in May and hasn't launched since.

Rocket Lab's medium lift rocket (Neutron) hasn't launched yet and its Electron is too small for most payloads.