> Are there any true competitors for SpaceX?

RocketLab (Neutron), Relativity (Terran R), and Blue Origin (New Glenn) are all trying. But none of them are there yet.

Out of the bunch, RocketLab has the most operational experience. They're also the only company (of the above three) that isn't currently aiming for 2nd stage reuse.

It'll be interesting to see how things shake out.

For people reading, just for clarification, but all three of these rockets have shown no hardware publicly of any of the vehicles besides some engine testing. They're all years away from launching, let alone reaching any kind of scale.

Could you clarify this? You can watch Rocketlab launches and they have scheduled and completed missions listed on their website.

https://www.rocketlabusa.com/missions/upcoming-missions/

The launch vehicles listed in the parent comment have never flown. Rocketlab do have a lot of experience launching its smaller vehicle, Electron.

The other poster responded, but RocketLab's Neutron rocket has not flown at all nor has any public plans yet to fly. Those are flights of the Electron rocket.

RocketLab (https://www.rocketlabusa.com/) services a slightly different segment (i.e. not as heavy) but does take things regularly to space (and in the case of Capstone, to the moon!)

RocketLab has not had much success in raising its launch rate. Meanwhile SpaceX undercut them on $/kg with their rideshare program which likely robbed them of a large number of potential customers, so RLs segment was not as separate as they would have liked. Indeed in their short history SXs rideshares have launched considerably more payloads and more weight than RL in their whole history. There are of course some payload's that want to go to a specific orbit not served by SXs rideshare.

Yes its David Vs Goliath, but that sums up all space companies not backed by billionaires or Government Pork. saying that I am rooting for both to succeed.

SpaceX in a single launched more then RocketLab in its whole history.

For launching payloads into LEO? Yes, see Rocket Lab. Small sat operators are using both.

Jeff Bezos' Blue Origin is a competitor in theory but in reality as far as I know they have not won a single contract from SpaceX. Not sure if they're even in the ring.

> Jeff Bezos' Blue Origin is a competitor in theory

Not really, even in theory. It's only even remote current participation in the orbital market is the very overdue BE-4 engines it is developing for ULA (which I assume is “the consortium” that the upthread poster excluded in asking about competition.) Currently, its a suborbital launch company with aspirations of sometime becoming something more.

> ULA (which I assume is “the consortium” that the upthread poster excluded in asking about competition.

Could also be referring to "the National Team".

How can the be in the ring if they can't even make it to orbit.

Odd that the other comments don't even mention ULA and Arianespace. SpaceX definitely dominates the competitive market but there is some more nuance than that.

In head to head competition ULA won a larger share of NSSL launches than SpaceX. Obviously a lot of people think this will result in taxpayers overspending and was not a really fair competition.

ULA and Arianespace have had more success against SpaceX for GEO than LEO missions, though I believe that has lessened over time. GEO is more competitive because SpaceX uses RP1 for its upper stage which is not as efficient as the others that use hydrogen.

IIRC ULA's accuracy is also a bit better, so for an expensive payload going high up it can be worth it to spend a bit more if it means your $1b payload is gonna last a few more years before running out of fuel. There's also the whole vertical vs horizontal integration thing

That's somewhat incorrect, and accuracy of the sort you're talking about only really matters for vehicles without any on-board propulsion, which is a rare thing on military satellites. The accuracy certainly doesn't save you "years" of propulsion.

> Obviously a lot of people think this will result in taxpayers overspending and was not a really fair competition.

Part of this is due to SpaceX bidding Starship for NSSL phase 1 (development) and getting rejected by the Airforce, while ULA, Blue Origin, and Orbital ATK (now Northrup Grumman) got development money for their respective rockets. This meant that SpaceX had to amortize the cost to develop vertical integration, a larger fairing, etc. over their NSSL phase 2 (operational) bid.

> ULA and Arianespace have had more success against SpaceX for GEO than LEO missions, though I believe that has lessened over time. GEO is more competitive because SpaceX uses RP1 for its upper stage which is not as efficient as the others that use hydrogen.

From what I understand, this is mostly ArianeGroup. ULA does some high energy missions, but they're mostly for NASA/DoD. I'm sure they're hoping to improve their commercial competitiveness with Vulcan, though.

Many GEO missions were bid so far in advance that they were booked on Ariane many years before.

There is also some reason to believe that some of the European GEO missions were given insentives in various ways to fly on Arianespace. And then finally Arianespace simply had to sell all the Ariane 5s that were left. The Ariane 5 had at base something close to competitive in a very niche market of dual GEO launches and had to go away.

ULA won a larger share of NSSL but have done almost no commercial contracts ever. The slightly larger share of NSSL probably has more to do with the existing relationship and the long history and understanding of airforce processes. However, ULA is already going to miss their target launch dates for NSSL.

So the reality is that Arianespace and ULA are closer to being state entities then anything else.

In terms of actually BUILDING rockets and engines they are not even playing in remotely the same league as SpaceX. Ariane 6 is a slightly upgraded Ariane 5 and cost a huge amount more then the whole Falcon program including reusability and the Heavy (including Marlin development).

And Ariane 6 given its further delays is probably adding another couple 100 million on top of what is already committed. A follow up to the Ariane 6 will likely not show up until more then a decade.

So while these are big players, I don't think they are actually endangers competitors, more like big niches.

> GEO is more competitive because SpaceX uses RP1 for its upper stage which is not as efficient as the others that use hydrogen.

This is actually not true. SpaceX second stage is perfectly capable of doing what it needs and cheaper to produce.