Do We Need All These Rockets? | Starship | New Glenn | Ariane 6

[@Cruiserfrank]

What a silly question. Of course. NOT having "all these rockets" was one of the things that caused the high price of space travel in the first place.

[@lagrangewei]

u are missing the point. when there is a distinct leader, the rest of the competition dies since no one will pay for a more expensive solution. just see what is happening with Ariane... even with European government support, it is not making money anymore. competition only work if they are actually competitive. the future will be divided by spaceX and China. with China having free market space because US ban certain countries from using their services.

[@jhank0cean]

Except rockets from China. They tend to explode in low earth orbit.

[@Travlinmo]

If everything succeeds, businesses will fail, and fall out. We need to expect that. At the same time, more lower cost launchers will induce more launches so more launcher can exist.

[@SebastianWellsTL]

Well said!

[@MyKharli]

What is the business case outside of gps , defense and data satellites ? Only willy waving subsidies will keep anything else going .

[@MrNote-lz7lh]

@@MyKharli Well asteroid mining, zero-g medical and material labs, rotating habitats for tourism and new living space along with various other things I can't think of at the moment.

[@chadwynia5021]

Yes, all rockets all the time.

[@jhank0cean]

Unless they're from China lol They keep carelessly sending debris into orbit

[@jhank0cean]

Except rockets from China. They tend to explode in low earth orbit.

[@davidelang]

Starliner is what happens when you don't have competition

[@SteenLarsen]

There was competition. In a competitive world there will be winners and loosers. Starliner is a looser.

[@dudermcdudeface3674]

@@SteenLarsen Boeing has been shielded from competition every step of the way.

[@up4open]

@@dudermcdudeface3674 There are good and bad reasons for that. The amount of weekly launches globally is mind-boggling for someone raised in the 1980's when once a season was a large schedule.

[@dudermcdudeface3674]

@@up4open What does that have to do with what I said?

[@RandomPerson-V]

​@@up4openWhat? How does the number of global launches matter? At all?

[@rchorseman]

Another great Video from NSF. Thanks so much for providing excellent information on various rocket manufacturers.

[@corrinastanley125]

Great explanation, thanks Adrian and NSF team. More rockets to watch will be fun.

[@JoelStanesa]

Don’t forget that as you lower the cost to orbit you expand demand. If it’s cheaper to get something into orbit or send people there more and more will want to be there. The current cost is restricting demand to go there. Once the cost comes down you’ll need all these rockets and diversity of options. That’s a prime reason why “central planning” never works because it makes assumptions about future demand based on current capabilities.

[@zgalexy83]

Any competition that prevents a monopoly is good. SpaceX may be ahead right now, but more rockets will always be a benefit, they just have to carve out a niche.

[@OBTX91]

More innovative space launch companies would create more jobs and incentivize SpaceX to treat their employees better in order to retain talent as well.

[@naieuc]

Too bad the competition si so slow that its gonna take long time for them to achieved what spacex has achieve now

[@Shrouded_reaper]

​@@naieucStoke space is not slow at all

[@naieuc]

@@Shrouded_reaper if say so.... i'm just eating popcorn watching so many startup trying to emulate spacex.... in the end only few will remain....

[@goldgamercommenting2990]

@@naieucbut no worries we also have government launches too so not all launches would be from companies. Like for example take railroads, the freight trains are owned by companies and there are a few passenger companies and we have only one big passenger company that’s run by the government aka Amtrak. No competition, just a way to allow others to thrive It’s the same story with SpaceX. We have NASA and… the faa… they also gave SpaceX room for other space companies to thrive. Plus we haven’t seen a merger with space companies yet which is a good thing because we need em satellites more than ever while SpaceX can handle both satellites and crew if one company isn’t able to do it. In other words it’s an act of kindness. You see, Spaceflight isn’t about barbarians. Be glad we still have a lot of companies and the government that can launch stuff. However this isn’t restrictive to the United States, other companies around the world like roscosmos could also do the job… however due to sanctions, they couldn’t do so until conflict is resolved. China sometimes do the same thing SpaceX could do…. If they have their relationships together. India also launches payloads for other companies. Same goes for Europe with ESA. New Zealand with rocket lab as well as many other companies also thrive thanks to the learning the technology and the knowledge to exploit space for the benefit of human needs. Sometimes we need the extra companies that would make Spaceflight worth wild

[@michaeljohn5175]

I think Stoke's concept for upper stage reuse will be an "iphone" moment. I wouldn't be surprised if SpaceX has Starship reworked under this concept by 2030 or so. Musk even admitted to Tim Dodd that Stoke's plan could work.

[@cube2fox]

Recently someone said the physics of the Stoke Space rocket design only works for relatively small rocket sizes because they would lose the aero spike effect if they went larger.

[@Alucard-gt1zf]

You realise starship has a reusable upper stage right?

[@bryanillenberg]

@@Alucard-gt1zf Mode of reuse.

[@benoitferland]

@@Alucard-gt1zfyes but like the space shuttle, SpaceX has to prove that the heat shield can be quickly reuse. With Stoke design, if it works, the turn around and reliability will be much faster.

[@w0ttheh3ll]

Stoke's concept doesn't scale to larger vehicles. The mass-to-heatshield-surface ratio changes.

[@DebraJean196]

Awesome content as always. Not something to watch at bedtime as now my brain is churning away again! Thanks Adrian lol. Much appreciated NSF

[@Spherical_Cow]

Terran R is feeling oddly snubbed and left out, in this overview... poor Relativity Space 😢

[@EMichaelBall]

Indeed; it’s the biggest future competitor to Arianespace for commercial launches. With an Impulse Space kick stage, full GEO is possible for a similar price point to going halfsies on an Ariane 6. Uh-oh, Arianespace…

[@lucass.decordoba8195]

Yeah... I always think of terran R as a mini Starship: Just the 13 inner engines(3 in the center and 10 in the outer ring) and stainless steel.

[@Jake1702]

And it's one of the only ones that has had parts of it (engines) physically tested.

[@FastSloth87]

@@lucass.decordoba8195 Terran R won't have a reusable second stage (initially).

[@vonpredator]

All hail Adrian! NSF’s Engineering/Spreadsheet/Prophet! 🧡🧡

[@Felix-no7nx]

It’s not so intelligent to say hail Adrian if you know he’s from Germany 😂

[@Ron4885]

Agree 👍 😉

[@Mottbox]

Neutron is in the same class as Falcon 9, referred to as Medium launch. There are the small, medium, heavy and super heavy launch categories that are used to classify these rockets. Neutron is a Falcon 9 competitor, with a 15,000kg payload capacity.

[@JohanMsWorld]

Even if you have carriers and Battleships, you still need destroyers and frigates.

[@THX..1138]

...Yeah, but you don't need rowboats anymore 🙄

[@58FX]

Starship will be extremely useful, but much like the 747 didn’t eliminate the need for all other types and sizes of airplanes, it won’t even come close to eliminating the need for all other sizes and configurations of rockets. The big gap in your analysis is around the fact that there will be three or four major satellite constellations going up over the next five years, needing constant maintenance and replacement. Another business reality is launchers do not need to fly hundreds of times a year to remain profitable businesses, they can survive with 10 to 30 specialized missions per year, just fine. Last point, no one company will ever dominate permanently, because if they did, there would eventually be an antitrust break up. In the case of SpaceX, things like being forced to separate the satellite business from the rocket business are the types of changes anti-trust enforcement tends to push for, eventually. Just like AT&T, IBM and others have been forced to allow for competitors to enter their marketplace, the same will eventually be true for one company that completely dominates. That said, there is so much money at stake it’s very doubtful SpaceX will retain the share it currently has. It will lose some eventually, the same as Tesla did in EVs. Nothing is permanent in the competitive world of business.

[@canaancopeland5059]

Yay! New vid! And yes more rockets!!!

[@Deltarious]

It's more simple than the video posits to be honest. If Starship is 100% completely successful and quickly *and* cheaply then yes you will see it put pressure on and obsolete quite a few launch platforms, but national or international platforms would remain and you would just see everyone else make use of the 'second mover advantage' to close the gap fairly quickly, like has now started to happen with Falcon 9. It's much, much cheaper and faster to follow a known working solution than it is to develop one from scratch. You would basically not see that much change in the space industry/market beyond Space X having more of an advantage than it already does now in the medium term, but then that advantage gap would narrow considerably fairly quickly following it. I would also argue that the success of F9 was a real shock to the entire industry which had been more or less resting on it's laurels and also did not realize there was so much extra interest/wanted capacity for space access. That shock was likely a one off and is the reason it's taken so long for others to come up with an 'answer' to F9 but things are now speeding up in the industry as a whole so we would expect more ambitious follow-ons from the established players, and in fact we are *already* seeing such ideas from competitors just as we would expect to see if they think Starship was a reasonable chance of success. The actual 'shape' of the market in reality really depends on the actual cost Starship has per mass unit in the end though to be honest. You will always have governmental programs as a baseline, they are unlikely to go anywhere, the rest is just pressure on the market, which will eventually adapt

[@Rod57]

No one seems to be using "2nd mover advantage" to close the gap with SpaceX. They all seem to be trying to get to where SpaceX was 8 to 9 years ago. A few are talking about full reuse but starting with partial reuse. SpaceX isn't standing still, the gap isn't closing.

[@benoitferland]

You should definitely revisit this video in 2 years. SpaceX, Rocketlab, RFA, BO, china and so on will have evolved. Exciting time! 🚀🚀🚀

[@ekaa.3189]

Yes, we need the variety for continued advancement of technology.

[@johnhanson6039]

New Glenn competes with Falcon Heavy, there is no competition for Starship, yet or forecast

[@flazerflint]

💯

[@S1nwar]

Long March 9

[@skidooboy8977]

“There is no greater danger than underestimating your opponent.” ― Lao Tzu

[@arksholanedeshi9751]

​@@skidooboy8977 funny because thats what Blue Origin did 😂😂

[@curvelesssphere8111]

SLS? SLS Block 2 will supposedly do 130t to LEO, that's definitely in Starship's realm. Yes SLS isn't reusable, but it'll at the very least be a player in redundancy for quite some time in the super heavy lift market. But to be realistic, with Starship aiming to be a "one size fits all" vehicle, it will still absolutely face competition from New Glenn. The vast majority of payloads on Starship will not test its maximum capabilities, and will be payloads that New Glenn could also launch. There isn't a big use case for super heavy lift capabilities that would exceed New Glenn outside of lunar and interplanetary missions.

[@gabrielgolding5380]

More rockets, more better!

[@Pintuuuxo]

Monopoly is never good. SpaceX had a very humble beginning. And the same happens with the newcomers. Creativity will always be welcome. Let's watch. 😊

[@THX..1138]

SpaceX isn't a Monopoly, they're just the only ones playing the game. SpaceX is building Starship to make humanity multiplanetary. Everyone else are building rockets to compete in a launch market that stopped existing the day the first batch of Starlink sats got launched.

[@Wrangler-fp4ei]

Very insightful look at the state of the Rocketry we have today! Thanks, Adrian and everyone else who worked on this video!

[@benjaminrickdonaldson]

It's very incorrect. It's pretty clear who these guys have a crush on.

[@rambozeta]

The more the better, space is calling

[@z30_HUNGARY]

And there are more partially/fully reusable rockets coming, that weren't even mentioned, and are interesting too: - MLV from Firefly: It uses the same techniques that Alpha does, and will (probably) offer a similar quick response while being partially reusable. - Themis from ArianeGroup: We don't know a lot about it, but it will be a European reusable launcher, providing the regional launches. -Terran R from Relativity Space: A heavy lift partially reusable rocket for commercial payloads. Honestly, if more companies there are, we get more competition, and that's always good.

[@death_parade]

Add NGLV from India. Methalox and an architecture that is very similar to Falcon 9. And it triples the capability of India's current heaviest rocket with a 30 ton to LEO and 10 ton to GTO. Without even going into the NGLV Heavy which is basically an Indian methalox Falcon Heavy with 70 tons to LEO capability.

[@richardloewen7177]

Re the large rockets: one barrier to overcome is the combo of reusability and getting well beyond LEO-- in one launch. The best so far is Falcon Heavy. Starship lifts heavier loads but stops at this barrier. The goals: (1) Reusability--at least partial; (2) payload bigger than Falcon Heavy (in wider fairings); (3) initial launch to get to deep space.

[@voidfuldepth1027]

Meanwhile some random guy in a garage breakthroughs teleporting and we just jump stuff to LEO in the future haha

[@raijingaming9608]

you read that in that one book didn't you?

[@BabyMakR]

And then it falls back down on your head. I know, Maths is hard. But stay with me. You are travelling around the axis of the Earth at ~1600km/h. The slowest stable orbit is 28,000km/h. Do you see the problem? You have just put a object going 1600km/s into space but for it to stay there it needs to be going 28,000km/h. Just in case you're unsure, 1600km/s is less then 28,000km/h. That means, the object that you have just 'teleported' 100km above your head, traveling at 1600km/h, will start falling towards you, accelerating at 9.8m/s/s +/- until it lands on your head. Have fun with that.

[@SebSN-y3f]

Thank you very much Adrian/NSF. Very interesting analysis and explanations! As always!

[@justinjantzen7671]

Very well done video. I wasn't sure if a video like this would be able to keep my attention, but it was just the right balance of fact and unbiased speculation.

[@MatthewLittle]

"Do we need all these rockets?" In a nutshell, yes. Why? Because not every payload needs to ride on a SpaceX Falcon 9; in addition, certain rockets excel at certain specific types of launches. There's also the fact that you have both civilian & military launches, each with specific needs that can be fulfilled w/different rockets. Finally, certain missions - like NASA's efforts to return to the Moon and go beyond - can likely only be accomplished by specific rocket systems such as SpaceX's Starship and NASA's SLS and on that point alone you'll have multiple rocket systems. So yes, we do need all these rockets. 🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄

[@patriklindholm7576]

Thank you for this innovatively speculative and hypothetical future scenario consideration fueling episode. Worth contemplating for the big corporations as well.

[@karlosullings4577]

Thanks Adrian, another great video

[@andromededp5316]

There will always be tradoffs and choices to be made with the different rockets for customers. There will always be one rocket either with better maximum payload, range, precision, overall price, price per kilogram, payload dimensions, reliability, flexibility, etc. There will always be a new niche to fill

[@bideford7099]

Excellent rocket history.

[@jamescobban857]

The designs of New Glenn, Vulcan-Centaur, Ariane6, and the ISRO GSLV are attempting to exploit what five years ago, when these vehicles were designed, seemed to be a weakness of Falcon 9, inefficiency for launching directly to GTO, TLI, and transfer to other destinations in the Solar System. Similarly Starship cannot deliver significant payloads beyond LEO without refilling in orbit. The problem is none of these companies looked *beyond* what SpaceX was already delivering, and SpaceX has not been sitting on its laurels. SpaceX has already flown Starship more often than any of its competitors have flown their Falcon Heavy competitors. And SpaceX is *obsessed* with cost reduction through increased productivity. For example there are more Starships nearing completion at Boca Chica than there are Ariane6, Vulcan, New Glenn, or GSLV, and each Starship stack is much cheaper to build than any competitor because, with the exception of Raptor engines, it uses lower-technology components, like stainless steel hulls!

[@JBark82]

Great outlook on what's to come and how things could change.

[@chiphappened]

Starship The “HumVee Limousine” of SpaceFlight! 🚀🇺🇸☮️

[@smavtmb2196]

👍 What ever happens in the future excitement is guaranteed.

[@Ron4885]

Well said. 👍 😉

[@joerich3675]

Great report! You guys are really good at covering what is happening today, hope you will do more like this one, an educated guess about the future.

[@tmg7476]

Flexibility. Not just in rockets but in launch sites and launch dates. Redundancy. Backup if one rocket is grounded. Ability to bypass some US regulators. Competition is good. Lots of reasons. But to me the most interesting reason is that they are not clones -- the companies are moving along different development paths, trying different methods. We need that variety in innovation.

[@anthonypelchat]

True, but most won't survive. They have to carve out enough of a market to pay the bills. A number 2 launch vehicle will be needed for the US. And at least a single regional launcher needed for some areas. But more options just mean less of a market for each if they cannot take anything from SpaceX. Going to be extremely hard to do so if Starship comes anywhere close to its design goals.

[@TheDisgruntledImperial]

I hope every rocket program is successful, and the free market decides which ones go out of business. My money is on SpaceX and Rocket Lab, currently. (Two different market subsets).

[@YourArmsGone]

A lot of people over estimate the need for Fully reusable rockets. The fact is Upper stages need to be as light and efficient as possible. It only makes sense to recover them on larger rockets. On small and medium rockets it's cheaper to dispose of the upper stage.

[@paulf6480]

I don't think Starship was intended for the open market, as it was conceived for Space X's ambitions to launch the Starlink constellation and to start a permanent moon base and eventually have one on Mars. The collaboration with NASA was a temporary stop gap due to budgetary shortfalls.

[@EMichaelBall]

Starship already has one GTO customer (Sky Perfect JSAT’s Superbird 9), set for launch in 2027. Its size and mass correlate to the capacity of a Falcon 9 with a RTLS first stage.

[@bensavedbychrist]

Mass to orbit and beyond is the plan. How that works and for what systems is easily modifiable once in operation.

[@leoncass2258]

Awesome video as always from NSF, 10 years from now I suspect we will have many companies and space flight will start to become the norm. I believe we will see the beginning of a lunar base and be well under way to prepare for a human landing on Mars.

[@PedroHenriquePS00000]

this intro is so iconic i llove it

[@chilzone966]

This is the nature of competition and the benefits that will arrive.

[@jamesf333]

Nice work guys!

[@johnferris1913]

All depends on whether the increase in supply stimulates an increase in demand.

[@flazerflint]

Spacex will form a full blown monopoly in the coming 20years+

[@orlandoerickson2439]

Great video of rocker opportunities. Well done.

[@clarencehopkins7832]

Excellent stuff bro

[@danswan1047]

What an excellent video. Thank you.

[@death_parade]

You missed NGLV from India. Methalox rocket with optional cryogenic upper stage. Reusable core. Three variants:- Core Alone: LEO: 19 tons; GTO: 9 tons SRB: LEO: 32 tons; GTO: 12 tons Heavy: LEO: 70 tons; GTO: ?? A big step up compared to India's current heaviest rocket LVM-3: LEO: 10 tons; GTO: 4.3 tons. ^This one is being used to send the first Gaganauts to space, sometime in 2026. SRB variant will be used to loft up modules of India's first space station. The third variant, heavy, will be used to launch an Indian Manned Lunar Landing mission in around 2040. With subsequent plans for a permanent Lunar presence.

[@thegameroptimus140]

It might be big upgrade for india and india only 20ton is peanuts , landscape's zhuque 3 will have sane payload capacity with two stage only and show how ineffectient nglv is .

[@death_parade]

@@thegameroptimus140 Firstly, it is 70 tons, not 20. Read the entire thing. Secondly, you don't seem to get it, do you? It matters that it is a big upgrade for India. We've wanted to be totally self-reliant in launch vehicles and will finally achieve this goal. That is a Rubicon moment for us. We aren't like you guys, trying to "defeat the West" at any cost. We prefer coexistence. As such, we move at our own pace, setting our own goals instead of chasing after the latest Western innovation by hook or crook. We don't use industrial espionage as a state policy.

[@edcallahan9536]

Amazing video…keep this content coming-NSF is the best!!! 🚀🚀🚀

[@767er767er]

Rocketlab has some great things going for them. Launch and Space Systems growing and an extremely competent CEO. Big things coming for them.

[@Darky.]

Nice backdrop mate

[@noliver7913]

Starship may be the bus, and from there sats can take the Impulse cab to their final destination. 🚀

[@GerardHammond]

Excellent fun - thanks

[@hermanoffenburger657]

Very well prepared!

[@thearpox7873]

A frequently flying Starship will expand the market for runner-ups by virtue of there being more reasons to need to schedule a rocket in the first place, even if nobody else proves directly competitive.

[@carcinogen60yearsago]

Your videos are always great!

[@Creadence]

Thanks Adrian

[@NOM-X]

Thanks for the great episode. just a few things, in the graphs, you kept on using FH instead of SS. Also, the wallet cruncher," SLS. Thanks again Adrian. Looking forward to the next episode.

[@relyk90]

Excellent video!!!!

[@kevikiru]

This comment section seems to assume that the title of the video is all that is to it! The video contains to much more that the title is almost irrelevant. NSF was teaching about all these rockets while answering the question of placement on the Rocket market. This last part is where the question of the title becomes relevant.

[@SimonBarlow-3Dkiwi]

Very informative video 👍

[@TheAnachronist]

Terran-R and Firefly MLV/Antares crying right now

[@realfoggy]

Great info. Thanks!

[@danygauthier605]

Nice video and overview. Rocket lab is already number 2. And with neutrons it will become very close to space x.

[@JaneGrimshaw-kp7vn]

Great video .Thank you ☺️🚀

[@tdc485]

When comparing these different rockets to Starship we still haven't seen how Starship will deploy a large satellite. It would need some sort of large payload doors like the shuttle had.

[@michaeldeierhoi4096]

There are the models that show a pez dispenser like device that sends the Starlink sats out one at a time. And there was such a dispenser door tested on ITF-3.

[@robinseibel7540]

@@michaeldeierhoi4096 , that's only for Starlink, and Starlink is a pretty small satellite. There's nothing yet from SpaceX showing how larger satellites would be launched.

[@michaeldeierhoi4096]

@@robinseibel7540 That will happen at some point. They still have a lot of work to do to get starship reliable. I find quite entertaining though I am quite unattached to the outcome. I would he surprised if in 5 years starship is anything close to what Elon has envisioned.

[@davidelang]

very good video. Expendable rockets are going to have a gigantic cost penalty, so much so that it's possible that it would be cheaper to fly a manned Starship and have someone kick your satellite out the airlock than it would b to book an Electron/firefly/isra/etc, and if the Starship is able to fly multiple times a day, the current long wait for a flight won't be there. There is also national pride/security concerns where countries don't want to be dependent on US companies. Even NASA doesn't want to be dependent on one rocket. The New Glen 2nd stage competition inside Blue Origin that Jeff Bezos talked about (the goal of the expendable team is to make the expendable 2nd stage so cheap that reusability doesn't make sense, the goal of the reusable 2nd stage team is to make the 2nd stage so reliable and capable that expendable versions don't make sense) is a really good thing. And in practice, it may be like the difference between F9 RTLS, drone ship recovery, vs expendable modes, where you go reusable when the payload is light enough, and expendable when the payload is heavier or you have a higher energy orbit to go to. Neutron with it's very cheap 2nd stage that can boost a payload into a higher energy orbit than Starship can do will have some niche payloads (yes, you could make such an upper stage be carried inside a Starship/New Glen, but adapting it to do so, or getting a starship with the right adapter on it starts getting enough more complicated that there will be some customers, enough to keep Rocket Labs alive, that's the billion dollar question) Stoke is working to full reusability, so they may last. RFA is focusing so much on low cost components (compared to normal aerospace practices) that they are the only expendable company that I see as having any chance at all to be competitive to any of the reusable rockets, but even they don't stand much chance against a fully operational Starship A fuel depot in orbit to refill upper stages before they continue on to higher energy destinations will complicate the analysis even further. The importance of a single stack to a high energy orbit will drop dramatically. Couple this with 'space tugs' like Centaur upper stages that stay in orbit and can be reused, and the orbital economy will look nothing like we can currently imagine.

[@michaeldeierhoi4096]

Why would it be cheaper to fly a manned Spaceship to release a satellite? That shouldn't even be a question when starship is planned to launch many more satellites into orbit than anyone else could WITHOUT it being manned?? Falcon 9 launched 22 or so Starlink sats into orbit while Starship is expected to launch as many as 400 of the larger Starlink 2 sats. It will probably be less than 400, but still a lot!! The human role is not needed until travel to the moon or Mars or transporting humans to a space station anyway.

[@davidelang]

@@michaeldeierhoi4096 it would not be required to be manned, I was using it as an extreme example. The marginal cost to fly a Starship could be as low as $2m (around $1m in fuel, $1m is misc support costs). Electron (and other similarly sized rockets) cost around $5m per flight. As a result, it would be possible to fly the Starship (which could carry 200+ tons of payload) to launch a .25T payload cheaper than a dedicated tiny lift expendable rocket. Since the justification for the tiny lift expendable rockets is that they allow for dedicated missions, I'm pointing out that with full and rapid reusability, Starship is even a threat for these sorts of missions.

[@anthonyshiels9273]

Each Space Research Institution has and will continue to use their own rockets: ASA (CSIRO), CNSA, ESA, ISRO, JAXA, NASA, NSA ("NASA without the A" from New Zealand), ROSCOSMOS. Also USSF will need a Military Grade rocket for their own use.

[@StephenBenson-x2e]

Falcon 9 will continue to dominate the medium life payloads for many reasons, but mostly on cost. RocketLab started out in the small sat business, but that is getting very crowded as of late. I really believe that's why they decided to develop Neutron, before they get priced out of the market they basically invented. However when Starship becomes operational the heavy left market will be dominated by SpaceX and the rest are going to be struggling to survive. Other then government contracts that seem to be less price dependent, launch contracts will be hard to come by for some of these companies.

[@mrbloodmuffins]

To use an analogy: mint is delicious but the world would suck if everything tasted like mint.

[@Xavier1...]

Yes competition is the key to innovation

[@ayanjain125]

A constructive critisism: I am a fan of NSF and love their coverage. But they seem to be bit too towards Starship and not enough for others. Rocket labs is a geniune competition to falcon 9. I love spacex but, cannot ignore RL.

[@NASASpaceflight]

Love Rocket Lab, but Electron's payload to LEO is 300 kg. F9 is 27,800 kg expendable, and 17,500 kg reusable. Its not really reasonable to say Electron is direct competition with F9. - Das

[@philipwittamore]

Sovereign independance is important too. Nobody wants to rely on a single country for access to space

[@Rod57]

Video says there will be a place for #2 (after SpaceX). If/when New Glenn can reuse boosters then ULA will find it hard to compete for that 2nd place with Vulcan (with or without SMART).

[@dphuntsman]

Good report! - Dave Huntsman

[@Bodoo22]

Love the background music! Also these types of video's are great to get you thinking of the big picture and get some new insights. Keep them coming.

[@cameronzoucha4351]

Love it

[@bensavedbychrist]

I would love it if Starship gave a Stoke upper stage a ride into Mars orbit and headed back while the Stoke upper stage landed on Mars.

[@pattoft6356]

Yes it will be the only way to explore and exploit space cost effectively

[@anticarrrot]

NASASpaceflight: Do we really need all these rockets? ESA: One of these things is not like the others...

[@peaceofmind2769]

I don't know about 10 years, but in 100 hundred years the approach to space launches will change. Our successors will build the Great slope of 100 km height from which they will launch spaceships accelerating them with Maglev technology. These ships won't need any boosters. All spacecrafts orbiting the Earth will get a maintenance from space robots (refilling, replacing batteries, etc) and stay in orbit much longer than they are now if necessary. Nothing will be burning in the atmosphere but taken from the orbit and returned to land. Also the efforts that are now applied to space industry will be used even more for solving problems of humanity.

[@kevinmerrell9952]

Throw-away is DOOMED. There will be room for smaller totally-reusable rockets (unless SpaceX starts reusing stage 2). But Imagine a Transporter launch on Starship!!

[@ginstsom]

Plasma green your favourite colour❤❤❤

[@mp6756]

The SpaceX Super Heavy, a stainless steel Goliath presumably named for its heavy payload capability, is now just a super heavy rocket.

[@PetesGuide]

Blue goes boom. (I love alliteration so it’s that instead of Blue goes crush)

[@Fer-fn7vb]

Bro, you always forget PLD space from Spain, they're developing their Miura 5. They were the first private company from europe to launch and reach space.

[@o0shad0oo]

A modified Starship with even bigger tanks and a smaller payload section might be able to handle a Rideshare mission that could achieve multiple delivery orbits before returning, and do so competitively.

[@jackdbur]

No need Starship has enough fairing volume and lift capacity for satellites to have tugs attached to get them into other orbits.

[@o0shad0oo]

@@jackdbur Eh. Those tugs would have to be expendable, when moving a couple of bulkheads would let the whole ship be the bus.

[@fred36956]

Never depend on just one government nor one private company's spacecraft. After all we have lots of different manufacturers and "models" of aircraft.

[@roxik0]

Answer before looking into content yes we need. Why? Because wider market means better prices and highsecurity.. we had example when Falcon 9 was grounded for two weeks, lets imagine that it will be something more important and grounding will last longer? Again problem with supply of ISS? Thanks to variety of launch vehicles we can choose best supplier we want for needs we have.. Just we need to skip boeing xD :)

[@briangodfrey7424]

So Chinese rockets are not expected to impact the western launch market? I see the weekly space news videos you guys put out and it seems like the Chinese have quite a variety of rockets in use or in development. It's hard to keep track of them all and I don't know how many are government, military, or private. Maybe China and Asia are their chosen markets? But that would seem to overlap Rocket Lab's territory.

[@dunbarautomotive]

Bravo 👏 Bravo 👏 sir

[@quentincampbell5865]

Is the date correct? From the websites it says 27 August 3:38 a.m. EDT (0738 UTC)

[@austinswanlaw3158]

Regarding the smaller launchers, I believe it was Rocketlab (I could be wrong) that is aiming at super-fast planning-to-launch. They planned, integrated, and launched a satellite for the Space Force within 48 hours. That, along with dedicated insertions, that will differentiate the smaller launch companies from SpaceX.

[@just_archan]

I wouldn't scratch stoke and relativity. Afaik both companies are now during building their rockets. And they are quite fast. I doubt they will launch before ng, but let's not forget that first launch of ng will not recover it. So i wouldn't be surprised that they will launch their systems ob same time as new Glenn will become fully operational

[@WWeronko]

Predicting the future is a perilous task. Nonetheless it is fun to try. I suspect no one will be able to compete with Starship. With in space fueling depots and space tugs, SpaceX will be so inexpensive and so numerous all the others will be little more than footnotes. The best the rest of the world will be able to do is buy Starships like Boeing Aircraft in the 1960s. Eventually an Airbus will come along and spend the development capital to build their Starship. It will take a monumental space economy to offer the business to justify the effort. Many people living and working in space, a base on the moon and a colony on Mars will provide a need to offer Starship real competition.

[@geraint8989]

Starship is exciting. However good the others may be, they simply don’t move the industry forward nearly enough.

[@michaeldeierhoi4096]

We'll see soon enough.

[@robinseibel7540]

Having one company dominate as SpaceX does now is not good for customers or the industry. It's also yet to be seen whether there's actually a market for something as large as Starship.

[@Alucard-gt1zf]

​@robinseibel7540 of course there's a market, space x themselves want to use starship to launch more satellites

[@robinseibel7540]

@@Alucard-gt1zf, I'm not counting SpaceX being its own market. I'm talking about the market beyond SpaceX. And that market right now is very small at best.

[@michaeldeierhoi4096]

@@robinseibel7540 Space X will be busy deploying thousands of Starlink sats as one example. Then there is US military drooling about the possibilities of starship access. And of course the trip to the moon will require many starships for refueling alone.