SpaceX Business Model - Disrupting the Space Industry

SpaceX is having a dramatic impact on the global space industry and forcing other space agencies to adapt. Competitors are lagging behind as prices to access space are getting lower and lower. In this video I'll give an overview of the current state of the space industry and how SpaceX became its leader. What is SpaceX business model and strategy.
🎞️ Learn how to create KZbin videos like this with Powerpoint only:
👉 disruptors.academy/video
🚀 Learn how to build disruptive businesses:
👉 disruptors.academy/business
Follow me on LinkedIn 👉 / paulnekh
#SpaceX #Business #Innovation

[@BusinessDisruptors]

More videos related to Elon Musk companies: - Elon Musk Buying Twitter 👉 kzbin.info/www/bejne/gJqoYnyteMpriMk - Impact of Starlink 👉 kzbin.info/www/bejne/gqfNqZhqfpplnsk - Tesla Business Model 👉 kzbin.info/www/bejne/oYCWf36bd8aWndk - Tesla Valuation explained 👉 kzbin.info/www/bejne/qae6ZmuYmMqjeNE

[@truthoftheuniverse4179]

they need to use the moon to go to mar

[@SecretRaginMan]

Even if no one needs 100 tons to LEO yet, that doesn't mean that a 100% reusable Starship/Super Heavy (Not BFR anymore) system isn't going to be cheaper than even Falcon 9 for the same payloads. They won't have to worry about throwing away a whole second stage or $6 million fairings with each launch. The only costs should be fuel and minor refurbishment. This reduction in cost per kilogram to space means that more private entities will have access to that territory as opposed to only telecom companies and world governments. Several individuals have expressed an interest in creating a private space station for various reasons, often space tourism. If you can afford to throw 100 tons into orbit without worrying about expensive engineering to reduce the weight of modules and components, then you can build a bigger, better ISS 2.0 for much, much, much cheaper.

[@kamronmartinez487]

Elon has said no refurbishment until a couple of flights which even that is VERY minor refurbishment so it really is only fuel costs

[@meamzcs]

jup...

[@spidermain]

@@kamronmartinez487 no refurbishment for 1000 flights

[@BaddAtom]

you said it right. thank you. It was bugging me that he missed that.

[@WerewolfSlayer91]

Indeed. I don't think people can comrehend what is happening. Idiots that say " there is no rellay need for payloads that big". It's like i rather have a helicopter than a car if i could afford it. People never needed starship, because thinking of building a space hotel with rockets scale today would be way to expensive. It would cost the same as building ISS again Now starship comes along, and it won't sound so absurd in terms of cost, now suddenly it becomes viable/ worth risk because it is now much more cheaper. If you have a starship you can deliver hundreds if not thousands of satelites in diffrent orbit altitudes and make it so cheap that hundreds of minor companies can afford space aswell, not just elite/richest. I really don't see the end of the applications we are speaking of. If people are willing to invest in space and spacex makes it and keeps pushing prizes it will change everything as we know it When starship comes into play. Building infratructure in space becomes viable, hotels/spacetels gasstations for deepspace bussniess that companies buy transport service to spacefor a craft (unfuled) and descides to fuel in orbit instead beacuse its cheaper. There is just 1 million diffrent applications.

[@Zachomara]

I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought about the Big F**#ing rocket.

[@JoieVientLeMatin]

I always liked to think of it as just the Big Fat Rocket.

[@jeremycastro8223]

BFR will actually be usable for earth orbits, because it is 100% reusable it the only cost will be fuel and minor refurbishment. While the cost to construct is more full reusability will make it cheaper than a falcon 9.

[@thomaswijgerse723]

and heres something, spacex just lowered the price of all launches, new and flight proven, to 50 million

[@unpaintedleadsyndrome]

Going to Mars doesn't need a business model, that is what Starlink is for... generate tons of money to fund Elon's pet project. Also, onse BFR is built, people will come up with big cargo to launch... private space stations/moon bases will be a reality within a decade.

[@johntheux9238]

There is bigelow aerospace who will probably buy a lot of tickets.

[@unpaintedleadsyndrome]

@@johntheux9238 Bigelow apparently has already put down a deposit on Crew Dragons to fly tourists to the ISS, in late 2018.... They are not going to wait for Bezos' ne glenn to launch their own space station

[@rayhoodoo847]

Love your videos, man!

[@jasonsebring3983]

Informative, didn't know how to compare other rocket companies. Great research!

[@Wayoutthere]

That dual booster landing keeps giving me the goosebumps..

[@rogerwilco2]

I like the idea of SpaceX selling seats for people to plants flags on the Moon and Mars.

[@aribbonatatime]

Really nice video and graphics. Thanks

[@sweots78]

Nice use of powerpoint ;)

[@BusinessDisruptors]

Thanks ;)

[@pomegranatechannel]

Another factor that you forgot to mention is that SpaceX has had a very strong national general public support in recent years and it also affects all the SpaceX employees to work harder and be more passionate about it. There is a lot of young genius engineers work for SpaceX with innovative ideas and its community is getting bigger and stronger. Like if you go to Stanford department of aeronautics for example, every graduate student wants to work for SpaceX.

[@sa123607]

Very nice video . Thank you very much & keep up the great work

[@meamzcs]

Musk has said that kost per kg to orbit will be lower than even falcon 1. And since both stages are reusable and fuel is only a fraction of the cost i am pretty sure that starship will be cheaper than both Falcon 9 and Falcon heavy for similar sized payloads.

[@mrdune5479]

I believe your correct. I think I remember Elon saying bfr wood make falcon 9 obsolete.

[@ancaplanaoriginal5303]

Block 5 falcon 9 boosters are not refurbished until the 10th launch, so the cost of refurbishment wouldn't matter a lot.

[@brucecampbell6133]

Yes, sounds crazy. SpaceX builds launch systems. How to support human life in transit and at the destination once you have a launch system capable of making the trip is a much more complex problem than the transportation piece.

[@justme-ij2qy]

Agreed. I often point to the biosphere 2 failure. That was attempted here on a viable planet with every conceivable resource within reach. How do they expect to succeed when they have to transport everything with them over a vast expanse of space and an extremely limited payload capacity?

[@kurkwelch773]

11:55, the actual quoted value from Space X is "Anywhere on earth in under an hour, most trips in less than 30 minutes."

[@pops99]

Good video - Love watching the falcon heavy side boosters successfully land, awe inspiring! When they first started talking about landing and re using the boosters the skeptics laughed! I wonder who is doing the laughing now? Too bad you cannot buy shares, but looking at Tesla’s current experience in the stock market I understand why not! Elon’s is on another level and we need a lot more like him if we are to have a chance for a long term future!

[@rzmonk76]

really nice presentation, interesting narration, and special effects

[@szopen84]

Great video. Amazing graphics. What was the music tho ? Sounds like solar fields :)

[@PKR1503]

Nice video. Keep up the good work!

[@grandparocks3824]

Fantastic mini-Doc and thank you for your in-depth knowledge and research! You are right on target! I wish everyone had your correct insight and positive views on the direction on the path we need to take. We have to become one to achieve what we are capable of! Politics & greed are dragging humanity down! I guess the Roman Empire and thousands of year of history before it did not teach us a thing! We have a long way to go even understanding all the dimensions much less lighting candles!

[@wmellor87]

Excellent analysis

[@subscriberswithoutanyvid-pd3xb]

Great vid keep going

[@dctranberg1]

Saw this in Sept '23. Starship will go to orbit this month. 150-200 TONS. Good historical video, but we are SO far beyond.

[@livingmaga6299]

You really need to Watch Field Of Dreams again. Remember the line? BUILD IT THEY WILL COME! 🤔 Great episode though👍

[@lezerpen]

Very good video!

[@mb-jg9hh]

There are discussions on starting what is known as satellite recovery operations with the BFR. In essence, they would get payed to capture a broken satellite or a satellite that has no more fuel and bring it back to earth. Where the satellite could be repaired or refueled and re launched. In addition to this, some discussion is also starting on using a BFR to clean up space junk.

[@tamhewitt-baker5602]

Boy did folks change their tune on this company.

[@mynameisnotyourbiz]

Great Video

[@rodneycarpluk8052]

It seems like satilites and booking space trips are all you can do...theres mining that could be added...

[@NickBrown-ny3tp]

How come such as a great video content has only 50k views ?!

[@iamcheese4519]

5:26 bro who made a rocket able to carry 0kg WTF

[@BusinessDisruptors]

🤣

[@Yattayatta]

This is likely the electron rocket, they can carry 150-225 KG into orbit depending on which orbit you want. They launch a lot of small cubesats actually. And a single launch is about 6 million, which is very cheap for a lunch but not very cheap per kg.

[@leofreihofer]

Very well done video. New subscriber. Had me laughing at the big falcon rocket's real name. Love the chart on cost to launch payload efficiency.

[@noname117spore]

Yeah, no, Ariane 5 is not the most reliable rocket in the industry. Some personal calculations I did, attributing partial failures to half a success and making a special case for CRS-1 and a Soyuz partial failure where only secondary payloads actually suffered from the partial failure (considering them 3/4s of a success), and the Falcon 9 actually currently has a slightly better reliability record than the Ariane 5 at the present moment (this is including all versions of both rockets). Atlas V and Delta IV have better reliability records than either rocket though. Ariane 5 is distinctively "average" in terms of it's reliability.

[@BusinessDisruptors]

There's no way I could have found such details ;) But can it be argued that the Ariane 5 is (or was) the most reliable in its maximum payload category? Some of the rockets with 100% success rate you mention have very small payloads. And for Falcon 9, I guess it's on its way to establish a better success rate indeed

[@noname117spore]

@@BusinessDisruptors I mean, the details I mentioned was basically just a success out of total launch ratio taken from data on Wikipedia (including failures like AMOS-6), with the beforementioned caveats regarding partial failures and the partial failures where the main payload still succeeds. Falcon 9 took the lead over Ariane 5 sometime between mid-2018 and early 2019.

[@nehamsoni6558]

certainly i cant see why they underestimated ISRO for not to be in a race to land on mars ,they might not be first but they are the one who be able to launch mars orbital satellite in first attempt . sad to see why there name was not mentioned there

[@marekspot9314]

10:20-10:27 Yeah, we know and it´s Big F.cking Rocket indeed! :D

[@orlof507]

a colony in mars would probably be somewhat independent if there was a viable business model over there to be explored. If it's completely dependent on governamental aid, it will be more complex, but eventually it would become independent probably countries probably will have military bases like the ones USA already have, but there is no such thing as a military base of the size of a planet, and I hope it never will

[@JosephJoboLicayan]

11:03 Saturn V not being used after Apollo is false. It was used one more time for Skylab.

[@tobbi11]

haha, Iceland represent!!!

[@BusinessDisruptors]

I put it there on purpuse. I did the whole tour of Iceland and loved it so much that it's the first country that came to my mind for an example

[@parthasarathyvenkatadri]

or satellites from various companies and organisations can be pooled together on the BFR and launched like 25 4 ton satellites to earth orbit ...

[@airconditionerconstructur7497]

👍

[@larrytroy3758]

BFR could be used to create the first real space station of a good size.

[@737smartin]

No mention of Starlink or point-to-point earth "ballistic transport hops" AND still called Starship BFR? As I watched, I figured I was watching a video made in 2017! IF BFR is what Musk says it will be, the cost for HIGH PAYLOAD LEO launches will fall to $10 Mil. At costs that low, space access will EXPLODE!

[@rogerwilco2]

He did mention the 30 minute transport hops.

[@oliverlane9716]

Surprised you didn't mention starlink

[@genxlife]

The Saturn V was not canceled because it was too expensive. If that were the case, then the U.S. would not have a military budget that's bigger than the next 10 military budgets combined.

[@Cydonius1]

Mars will belong to those who can defend it. So Elon Musk had better take a battalion of Space Marines with him and declare himself First Primarch of Mars

[@BusinessDisruptors]

😂

[@williamgreene4834]

He only has to defend it against anyone who can get there. Also Mars has the same land area as Earth ( which is mostly oceans ) so it will be a while before they run out of land. Maybe it will be long enough for us to evolve into proper Earthlings. Once a city is operational it will be much, much cheaper to have children than it will be to send astronauts.

[@GlanderBrondurg]

Werner Von Braun wrote a semi fictional story about how to get to Mars which included details of launch windows, rocket designs, details about what the base would look like, and a proposed government outline. His name for the leader and head of state for Mars: Elon. You just can't make this stuff up.

[@MrMSandin]

You mean STARSHIP Troopers?😃

[@nahiag]

What about Starlink? That's their cash-cow in the near term future. Their own prognosis shows that the income from launching satellites will be dwarfed by the income from Starlink. Their prognosis from 2015 says that 2025, they will make about $5 billion from satellite launches and $35 billion from "internet-satellites" (Starlink). Now they are known to have a sketchy timetable but even so, you're talking about space tourists and I doubt that would reach any numbers for billion dollars anytime soon.

[@BusinessDisruptors]

Yes many people pointed that, but I didn't want to mention it here. Starlink is still a side project, and even if it generates money, it will still be side money, no matter if it's more or less. I think this will increase SpaceX budget for their other R&D and ventures, but I don't think they will rely on this to subsidize their each and every launch. They still need competitive rocket economics

[@nahiag]

@@BusinessDisruptors Of course competitive rocket economics is their fundamental deal. That's their bread and butter, but they still need revenue and costumers. They need an income-stream and just sending up satellites for other countries/companies is not looking to cut it. Though, if the would be able to provide low latency, high capacity internet to the whole globe that would be a huge income-stream, as the company indicates. From that old prognosis of the 40 billion in revenue, 5, or 12.5% comes from rocket launches. and 35, 87,5% from internet satellites (Starlink). Those numbers might be way off, though that should give you an indication of how highly SpaceX value starlink. I don't claim any higher insight on the topic, just trying to find more knowledge on the topic.

[@TheJimmyMurdok]

Data in 2 graphs in the beginning of the video are not correct (Arian e success percentage and Falcon prices assuming full reusability when payloads are smaller. Looks biased to me, and I love SpaceX.

[@onewhostudies6856]

Imagine if SpaceX sold 30 countries tickets for 30 astronauts in a Starship to go on a trip around Mars and back, at the price of $10 million per person. Would that work?

[@user-lv7ph7hs7l]

Heavy can do 30 t to LEO fully reusable, that's been confirmed. With the center core expended and boosters landing on ships, people have gotten 50 t to LEO in "simulations".

[@rodneycarpluk8052]

So with plans to increase launchs, massively, many a week, tens of millions of dollars will be lost due to delays...at what point do the plane companies start suing the space companies?

[@rodneycarpluk8052]

Was there a space industry before current companies?

[@dr.zoidberg8666]

Yes, but it was almost exclusively the purview of governments & the occasional telecom customer.

[@dorianpeters499]

9:20 nobody said such things

[@rodneycarpluk8052]

They are also disrupting things like the plane industry...if current plans happen they will cost the plane industry tens of millions of dollars...a single launch delayed 563 flights...

[@user-hh6wq1br7m]

Нормальный английский!

[@lymancopps5957]

Other countries will contract SpaceX and other companies to service their Mars ambitions.

[@lymancopps5957]

@SANKU So you think traveling to Mars is is a trivial task anyone can do??? 50 years ago the US landed humans on the moon. 50 years later, how many humans have followed?

[@squidwardfromua]

Seems like they'll never launch Webb telescope.

[@enigma2536]

Idk if i should hate or like lmao

[@peterpalumbo1963]

The SPACE-X model is to disrupt space exploration business particularly in the US!

[@STho205]

"Could eventually cost less" 1) How many boosters have been reused vs new boosters since the first booster landing. 2) How many reused boosters have not spent many months being refurbished, which is PR talk for remanufactured. I'm not hating here, but I just want the ratio in question 1) and the count of quick reuse/refuel in 2). From what I've been able to find #2's answer is Zero.

[@STho205]

And the Indians are making it cheaper with one use launch boosters. Musk congratulates them. ESA/NASA is a big jobs program distributed over all member states (EU and USA) to let politicians say they brought the money home. RSA is just doing what they have to to make money. Like a cargo company flying DC3s and ancient tech jets, because they do the job with the least risk.

[@justme-ij2qy]

To be fair though. With up front costs, reliability, continued testing of new fuel delivery systems/parts, profitability, etc., even top automobile race teams replace much of an engine and even drive train in between races. Parts are then evaluated and upgrades are made. Often with so much on the line it would be foolish not to at least disassemble and verify the reliability for the next use.

[@hopp2184]

S Tho 1) As of August 2018 the number was 51.8%. Now it is probably like 60-70%. And this is including all those test flights in the beginning. Today at least 80% of all new launches are reused. 2) Currently the record is 71 days but this is primarily because they don’t have that many customers that require a launch every other day. Maybe they could do it within a week

[@STho205]

Hopp. Excellent. I'll take the 52% as a good number and not go with the probably. That is a good rate. By now with inventory on hand and especially with your answer to 2) should be nearly 90% 71 days is a long time for refueling and just cleaning/checking, especially if that's the shortest record. Not unlike the shuttle orbiter program. I would suspect major refurbishment since it is sitting there. If there are no customers between three months to use old refurbished boosters, then the business model of fly it, land it, clean it, check it, refuel it, fly it again-- does not yet exist commercially or governmental... Either by the physics of booster degradation and need for refurbishment or just no customers. However not having to buy new engines is a plus even if other components are replaced. SpaceX is a good thing for the US and the world in space travel, but in less than a decade the US went from putting Alan Shepard on a repurposed Redstone CBM to putting Apollo on the Moon several times with a totally new rocket stack that has never been matched. After much longer than that we're still delivering groceries to astronauts that ride another taxi. Well, things are moving slowly but they are moving.

[@hopp2184]

S Tho I couldn’t agree more!

[@ahmadrafieeishak8466]

Everyone can go to space

[@Frediiiie3]

BFR is not about delivering 150T to orbit. It's about building a fully reusable rocket. It's big because it needs to be big to be fully reusable. End of story.

[@arun3151997]

Elon has said that they'll be passing on the savings due to reusability onto customers

[@CIOZimbabwe]

Helloo buddy i want you to mae these types of videos for my youtube channel what is your email so we can talk great video Elon Musk is taking over

[@dark_ops1651]

It is no longer called BFR. I am very surprised you are still using this term that has been abandoned 6 months ago. And then making the joke that it is called "Big F#%#%$g Rocket". That is sooooo 2017!

[@enigma2536]

Ok its Starship

[@BaddAtom]

lolol but i liked BFR better ~whining~

[@HH-xf9il]

@ 8:49 Why ESA can't invest in reusability ? No European politician would sign that, because the short term jobs loss would cost him his position as a politician, + all a lot of local politicians, that promised more jobs jobs jobs to everyone. Especially sensitive topic in polarizing Brexit times, where some countries public opinion seems to shift away from a unified Europe. The long term more massive job loss is a lot less of a concern, as the blame will just be "ESA can't compete with SpaceX just as NASA also can't". Also by then some other politician will have to explain for it anyway !

[@aardvarkit6561]

This chap is not as informed as he could be. ESA already working on a reusable engine. www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Transportation/Prometheus_to_power_future_launchers

[@iscreamfitness]

Th deutrium of the Moon could call in a new nuclear age and clean energy

[@010falcon]

Well the russians arent completely gone, they have not developed anything in a long time and were able to stay competitive, i believe they can catch up, but they gotta do it now. What about esa, i can assure you esa will not build reusable rockets, believe me It makes sense in a perspective of a government owned company

[@yak55x]

Elon Musk is simply the best engineer / leader of engineers in the last 100 years.

[@Cilexius]

Martian America... so much for one humanity...😂

[@Wemdiculous]

You misunderstood Tyson, that quote is very out of context.

[@BusinessDisruptors]

Anyway he changed his mind later on and now he's praising Elon

[@Wemdiculous]

Yeah... he nvr didnt praise spacex, and he still holds the same position. That quote is massively out of context, spacex is the leader in $/kg to LEO, but not the leader in the exploration of the solar system, because spacex has no reason to explore the solar system, even if they go to mars they wont be leaders there, nasas done that, elon has goals, nasa has other goals. What Tyson was saying with that quote is that nasa cant sit and wait for elon to solve their problems because hes trying to solve different problems, unless I also misunderstood Tyson which is possible.

[@dr.zoidberg8666]

@@Wemdiculous Having seen most of Tyson's public talks & having seen him go on about this very subject on multiple occasions, no, it is not out of context. For years, Tyson believed that it was not possible for private companies to lead on a frontier because, in his mind, it was too risky & there was too little money to be made. He believed that the frontier was only ever pushed by governments, with companies coming along later, once the fundamentals were figured out. Tyson was, indeed, incorrect (& might have known that if he had studied history more deeply), & he will have to continue to adapt his message as the years go by.

[@salutic.7544]

13:05 so we gonna have a world war on mars, Better than endless wars in the Middle East!

[@debragallacher867]

...

[@AWESEM0]

He just wanted to send a greenhouse to Mars to ignite passion in space travel so that space agencies would push to make humans multiplanetary species .. then he done it him self

[@ChupaChupsChuck]

Create more jobs through reusability research and regardless these rockets will still need maintenance just not as much, European logic is similar to Liberal views lol You will still need engineer jobs, and someone who needs a supervisor or head engineer and those engineers need people who can do heavy lifting and operate the heavy machinery requires to operate and move these incredible machines. These people could also need first aid at some point or need emergency care which provides more jobs for doctors and hospital staff, regardless of what move you make, everyone gets a job I think.

[@impolitevegan3179]

Mars is for Martians

[@BusinessDisruptors]

MCRN?

[@genxlife]

People who lose their jobs in the rocket industry due to resusable launch vehicle technology could have their financial losses solved through BASIC INCOME. That way, everybody can have an income, and space technology can continue to advance.

[@joshua43214]

They can just learn to code :)

[@jojokoutoulakis982]

so wrong

[@AngelLestat2]

When you start to talk about claiming rights, your whole episode lose value. If you don't have much idea about certain topic, then try to not touch it much. No claim in Antarctica has any value.. Claims had value when other countries accept that plus other international laws are taken into account. No country can claim over a celestial body, this mean that no company can claim either, because they receive their property rights from the same sovereign countries of that region. Second.. there is no point to make a claim over a piece of land in space.. space is too big, if you read the space treaty carefully you would understand that it has a lot of logic. You can not make claims over surfaces or planets or asteroids, but the ships you sent, houses you built, the minerals you gather, can be yours and nobody else could damage your property. With only that law, everyone can exploit or live wherever they want and contribute to an economy of people that would do the same.

[@BusinessDisruptors]

If you say that other countries must agree to one's country territorial claim then you haven't been paying attention. Russia and Israel recently took territories that are not theirs, most countries don't accept it, but who cares? China has claims in South China Sea, nobody accepts it, but China will get its way anyway. For Antarctica there just hasn't been such a pressing need to support a territorial claim with the military (yet). But watch what is happening in the Arctic. These things take time, it doesn't happen in one night. But in the end such treaties get ignored and the stronger one gets its way when there is no consensus or the stakes are too high. There is no reason why humans would behave differently in space. Space is vast and big for now, and the treaty seems to make sense, but it can all change very quickly if space becomes "smaller" as it gets easier to access.

[@AngelLestat2]

​@@BusinessDisruptors I don't have any objection if you want to talk about politics or wherever you want, but you need to know the limits of your knowledge, and if you are stepping into those limits, you should keep in sight the question mark before reach and spread false conclusions. *Russia and Israel recently took territories that are not theirs, most countries don't accept it, but who cares?* Well, the other countries care, that is why a country who expand by questionable terms would not have sovereignty rights over that region. So the United Nations over the International Court of Justice or a different group of sovereigns countries could (depending the case) respond with violence or with economical and political penalties (check UN responses and penalties when something like that happens). Because if you allow to a country to break the international law without any type of punishment, then it means certain country could be the next until general chaos emerge. We live in a globalized world, because that comes with economical benefits, even if Russia take by force some place, it can not do much with that, it can not extend its rights to companies or citizens, because those companies would be banned to sell their products to other countries, with the risk they can lose all their investment if Russia fall back due the economic penalties or aggression. In Antarctica all bases are scientific, so don't come to said that nobody cares about the treaties. I can claim that the moon is mine.. but if everybody else choose to ignore me, how valuable is my claim? *There is no reason why humans would behave differently in space.* There are many reasons, some are explained in this Kurzgesagt video: kzbin.info/www/bejne/hJPYhopvnpKgftU Beyond those reasons, we have several more. 1- It is more difficult to built on space and more easy to destroy, these mean that anybody trying something in space would be willing to behave according to established rules. 2- Since countries applied Capitalism, they found out that it does not matter much who owns certain resources, the only thing that matters is who can extract that at cheaper cost risking its own money as investment, this is even more important if there is no way to monopolize a resource; since space is so large and that no land or celestial body could be claimed from the beginning. 3- Entities who does not apply capitalism stay behind and lose power, even with no penalties. 4- Even if you want to think on a distant future with a huge settlement, city or society controlled by an authoritarian leader who convince the population against their own common interest to break the treaty using the political and economic power to reduce consequences. But that distant future seem unlikely by globalization reasons and the fact that we may never reach to that point, because way before that we would develop a Hard IA, that point in time when all our predictions about a future like star wars or star trek societies fall apart consumed by a technological singularity that would last few years and may give us some clues of today fermi paradox. My regards.

[@BaddAtom]

@@AngelLestat2 Great opinion piece, won't make it past the editors at SFIA. I do enjoy seeing smart people trying to apply Earth law to space. Oh it's going to be a fun next 50 years!

[@AngelLestat2]

​@@BaddAtom Thanks. The SFIA point is about my terrible english or something else? XD In that case should not be their work to make the corrections? Yeah, I agree, the next 50 years are not going to be boring, a bit chaotic maybe, but not boring.

[@Levitiy]

American property rights do not come the US government, fool. It is endowed upon us by our Creator.

[@KurtColville]

Musk *innovates*, he doesn’t “disrupt.” Only a nihilistic child would look at pioneering an entirely new industry as disruptive (and there are a lot of adult children out there).

[@Mr.Deleterious]

Ariane 5 sucks! NASA DID NOT CHOOSE ARIANE 5 FOR JAMES WEBB. EUROPEAN'S APPROACHED NASA AND BEGGED FOR TELESCOPE TIME BY OFFERING THE LAUNCH VEHICLE TO SAVE COST. American rockets need to launch AMERICAN hardware. And yes, James Webb is American. American engineers, American technology, American approval for international partners to gain money for it....ect...France hasn't built anything good since the croissant.

[@bk6486]

hum..... ; seis on insight , french expertise.. you know the main goal of the whole mission was built by the french ;)