I could see the incumbents being very reticent to do so.
It is possible that there is a cap in how much stuff people want to put into space.
(EDIT: I do think it’s possible for SpaceX to exist as an entity that is simply smaller and not wasting its time trying to make its CEO Baron Harkonnen , but hey corporate ownership law amirite?)
I very much get the picture that New Space has an if-you-build-it-they-will-come approach which is soon facing a reckoning. It is very important that the whole of society pivots their thinking to the only thing that will give Earth a long-term future.
I used the wrong word there. I was thinking more in terms of: SpaceX enables higher volumes, etc..
I know it's not a perfect analogy but cheap and predictable global shipping enabled business models which were not possible before.
Maybe cheap and predictable access to space will do the same.
I’m still trying to figure out if Earth is the slave planet or Mars is the slave planet, and how that’s gonna play out.
Either way, lots of stuff to move.
Have you heard about SpinLaunch? SpinLaunch really came out of left field for me as a serious contender.
Really curious how they plan to re-balance a multi-ton spinning mass when half the mass gets ejected at 10,000 RPM.
That sounds nuts but the scale test went OK, so I guess they have a handle on that?
https://www.planet.com/our-constellations/
They started with this strategy before Starlink was started.
As far as how long it will take, it didn't take long for a single company to revolutionize the industry, I expect that those that want to keep up will fill the gap. It's honestly probably going to be mostly new names, some of which we have not heard of yet.
Even a really big telescope doesn't seem to need more than 50 launches, $2.5B. A moonbase needs fuel depot runs in the tens per year, and the occasional crew exchange, all under $1B/y.
At issue is whether and when their planned launch capacity ever finds other customers. Once all 30k birds are up, will there be other uses for the launchers, besides going to Mars? Do they need more than a dozen or two, for the job?
So yeah, if they ever launch the whole 30k, they'll be flying quite often; the first replenishment will likely happen before the constellation is complete if the start slow.
If you lower the dollar cost of going to the dentist by 10x, you're not going to see people going to the dentist 10 times more often.
We can anticipate some businesses would benefit from having low-cost access to microgravity environments - right now you carefully select your experiments, because it's extremely costly, but, if it weren't, you wouldn't need to.
While satellite/probe/crewed-craft building has an extensive industrial chain with multiple bottlenecks that would hold it back if launch costs plumeted, there are others that have few and that would be enabled.
We'd probably need a lot of barriers so that people don't launch cubesats for $100 in volumes that make LEO dangerous.
Nobody cares about satellites themselves. What they care about is using them for something useful. Communication and imaging. At some point, both markets will become saturated.
I don't know what level of demand there is for them, but it's entirely conceivable that it will be long-term limited by something other than launch costs.
Needing, and bankrolling, several hundred launches over several years will gradually get people used to the idea of bulk freight to orbit, and some will find other plausible uses for the capability, and shepherd the idea through fundraising channels. It will take time.