> The other side of what? That SpaceX isn't a newcomer competing with monopolists?
Okay they are a newcomer, but I don't know that ULA is the only other player out there. The article sure sounds like it, but it seems a bit odd that nobody else ever develops anything space-related for the US government.
And you forget the second part of my question where I ask for the other side of the story. According to the article, SpaceX had to sue to be accredited, which is weird if there is a normal accreditation process so I am assuming ULA (or someone else?) was causing trouble. Telling the story from only SpaceX's side is always incomplete, now matter how right they might be.
Boeing and Lockheed were the main companies providing launch services, but merged both of their space launch divisions into a joint venture, ULA. Effectively becoming the only player and not having to competitively bid against each other anymore.
And because of that, space launch contracts tended to not be competitively bid. For about a decade, where ULA was the only game in town and they could and did quote any price they could justify with a straight face. One such occasion is what brought SpaceX to sue under antitrust laws. They also had to be certified to take part in the bidding process, but the lawsuit was to force the contracts to get competitively bid in the first place instead of simply being rubber stamped to ULA.
Okay they are a newcomer, but I don't know that ULA is the only other player out there. The article sure sounds like it, but it seems a bit odd that nobody else ever develops anything space-related for the US government.
And you forget the second part of my question where I ask for the other side of the story. According to the article, SpaceX had to sue to be accredited, which is weird if there is a normal accreditation process so I am assuming ULA (or someone else?) was causing trouble. Telling the story from only SpaceX's side is always incomplete, now matter how right they might be.