> SpaceX’s near-total control over the rocket launch business

Really? There are quite a few launch providers, ranging from Boeing to Airbus to Blue Origin, with plenty of others chasing the same goal.

"Monopoly" is rapidly coming to merely be defined as "market leader."

Yeah, agreed. SpaceX only "feels" like a monopoly because they get the most press, and because they seem to be so far ahead of their competitors, especially when considering the new hotness of low cost and high reusability.

They weren’t even first to have launch capabilities. Not even close.

SpaceX shouldn’t exist except that Boeing is sloppy.

I think SpaceX & others have a huge huge lead & democracy has let a failing policy of keeping jobs alive poison the job it needs to be doing. The governments can & should be competing, we shouldnt have to be letting private industry dominate, but politics prompts leaders to keep riding out inefficient & bad systems. Itcs not an inherent fault of democracy, but it is a present fault, & one we should try to safeguard against. The public should not give up advancement to the private sectors. A healthy cross competition is good.

Ridiculous nonsense. Starlink satellites move to a disposal orbit after five to seven years after which they burn up in the atmosphere. Providing broadband internet access to the entire world is revolutionary. As far as the environment goes, space junk is the least of our worries. There's significantly more harm in the emissions from the rockets launching the satellites.

A year of rocker launches is less than a day of transatlantic flights. Airplanes are far worse for the environment.

When a company makes the previously impossible, possible, carping about them having some kind of 'monopoly' on their newly created market is the worst kind of carping.

Management of Space debris & preventing Kessler syndrome seem like important things. Wish the article focused on that, rather than the political hot takes.