tech

Competitor fears Musk's SpaceX could 'monopolize' space

13 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2021 AFP

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.


13 Comments
Login to comment

 "We want space to remain accessible for human activities... but we refuse a Wild West space. It really is our responsibility to ensure that low orbit (less than 1,000 kilometers above the Earth is sustainable long-term," Israel told a U.N.-sponsored conference.

We were too slow and our competitor is getting all the business.

9 ( +10 / -1 )

People laughed at space X, now crying foul because they did what they said they would.

7 ( +7 / -0 )

We were too slow and our competitor is getting all the business.

This. If there are genuine increased risks of radio interference and collisions in this orbit, that should definitely be looked into and adjusted if necessary, but the only reason he's complaining about a potential monopoly is because he's not the one with the monopoly.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

Losers.

All this companies have been doing 0 for decades in space.

Now people are waking up.

Countries are waking up.

And it's not fair for them, it's not fair for being lazy, not believing, not innovating, and many times laughing at SpaceX. Calling them crazy, not realistic, using technology not proven.

Do you believe it now?

6 ( +6 / -0 )

Desert Tortoise

In economics that is an entirely legitimate complaint. Monopolies and oligopolies should never be permitted.

So, in your opinion, is SpaceX a monopoly?

6 ( +6 / -0 )

It’s called “competition”,

and, of course, to remain “healthy” there needs to be some public oversight and controls.

After all, “Space” belongs to no ‘One’.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

If you are worried that someone is doing a much better job than you complaining about it doesn't make you look any better, I understand some kind of control is better in the long term, but a lot of people are just too afraid to risk anything so they are coming well behind those that do.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Others are sitt’in on their fannies and the one with the vision to raise a quarter of billion dollars is considered anti-competitive.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Reusable rockets are key to keeping the launch costs down. SpaceX has gone through the backlog of launches and are now using excess capacity for internal Starlink launches. I believe they have a cadence of every 9 days at the moment.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

I love how explaining classical macroeconomics earns more negatives than positives. It's a burden us economist bear.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So, in your opinion, is SpaceX a monopoly?

They are a member of a small oligopoly. If you look at the number of commercial space launches per year you see they are dominated by three firms, the European Space Agency, Space X and Electron (US owned btw). Of 42 launches in 2020, European Space Agency conducted 8, Space X conducted 18 and Electron 6. Russia added another 4. The three top commercial space launch firms shot 32 out of 42 total launches. When over 75% of your market is held by only three firms you have an oligopoly. Space X alone holds 42% of the market. That is getting very close to a monopoly.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

To have a competitive market there needs to be a minimum of six firms with roughly equal market share. That doesn't mean two firms with 90% of the market share and four more fighting over the 10% left over, but six firms or more, preferably more where each firm has at least 15% of the market, less if there are more firms. When Adam Smith and David Ricardo described competitive markets they envisioned so many competitors in any given market that no one firm would be dominant enough to affect price in any way. Rather, the broad interactions of the market would set the price and everyone, buyers and sellers, would be "price takers". This is not the case with the commercial space launch market.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

but the only reason he's complaining about a potential monopoly is because he's not the one with the monopoly.

In economics that is an entirely legitimate complaint. Monopolies and oligopolies should never be permitted. Most nations have anti-trust laws for this reason though sadly most nations are reluctant to use these laws fully. Monopolies and oligopolies exert market power that allows them to raise prices, and thus collect profits, above what would be possible in a fully competitive market. Economists call these extra profits "Monopoly Rents". Monopoly rents represent a wealth transfer from consumers to producers and they are a deadweight loss to the economy. In a fully competitive market there would be more product available at lower prices, which benefits everyone. People complain about "socialism" hurting a nation while ignoring the sometimes greater economic losses imposed by the many monopolies and oligopolies in major consumer markets.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites