I'm Engine Rich, and I'm exhausted.
Joined August 2017
- Tweets3.3K
- Following727
- Followers548
- Likes11.8K
Pinned Tweet
Scream it from the roof tops: THERE IS A MASSIVE LAUNCH SHORTAGE AND IT'S GETTING WORSE, NOT BETTER.
In 2022, Amazon Leo (called Kuiper at the time) made the largest commercial bulk buy of launches ever, booking 80+ launches between ULA, Ariane, and Blue Origin. Effectively, they booked the entire non-SpaceX launch supply for medium-heavy lift. It was a HUGE, unprecedented launch order.
And yet, many of their satellites are still sitting on the ground? Why? Because they don't have enough launch supply.
The company that made the largest launch order ever, and did so 4 years ago, is still launch constrained today.
And that was just for broadband sats. That's before Mobile / Direct-To-Cell was even considered a realistic satellite application. That's before orbital data centers were considered a realistic satellite application.
I'll say it again, because the point cannot be emphasized enough. The company that bought massive launch supply 4 years ago is still launch constrained. Anyone who hasn't already booked huge amounts of launch supply today is hopelessly behind. And not just behind by a year or two. We're already talking about being 5-10 years behind.
If you want large amounts of launch supply before 2030, well... sorry, you're already too late. It simply doesn't exist. Maybe if you start booking huge amounts of launch supply today, you might have a chance of getting it in the early-to-mid 2030s. If you don't book today, getting the supply you need before the mid-2030s is not guaranteed.
Scream it from the roof tops: THERE IS A MASSIVE LAUNCH SHORTAGE AND IT'S GETTING WORSE, NOT BETTER.
SpaceX/Tesla just posted this very specific job opening
Bloomberg’s reporting Nvidia’s board is currently meeting and considering replacing CEO Jensen Huang following reports that he had several affairs, including one with a woman suspected of spying for China.
Citing sources, Bloomberg reporting The board has hired an outside firm to look for possible successors and is also discussing whether to appoint a temporary CEO while finding a permanent replacement.
Easy money 🍻
$RKLB - Sold some $50 strike December 2028 puts just now for $16.45 in premium.
Meaning I agree to buy Rocket Lab stock in 2 years for an effective price of $33.55 - and if it's above $50 I just keep the whole $16.45 per share.
Incredible.
4
3,466
The number of people that tell me launch supply is increasing without even considering whether demand is increasing more...
Why is this so hard for people to understand?
I've tried to say it as simply as I can. I've tried to make analogies.
People will point to a handful of new rockets that might launch 100 times total in the next 5 years, but somehow they don't see the applications for HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF SATELLITES.
2
12
432
The demand for launch has so, so, so, so enormously outpaced the supply.
The *rate of increase in demand* for launch has so, so, so, so enormously outpaced the *rate of increase in the supply.*
This is not a temporary problem. This is a new paradigm.
Had an eye-opening conversation with someone close to the matter about SpaceX's strategy.
Upshot: SpaceX is SpaceX's customer...
12
1,462
The military is worried about their launch availability. And they have top priority for national defense purposes.
But surely your company's commercial satellite constellation will be fully deployed within a few years...
And now the launch crunch has come for the US military.
arstechnica.com/space/2026/1…
They should make this into a sitcom scene where the AI mistakenly orders 4,000 lbs of hamburger meat.
2
170
So about that Launch Crunch...
AST SpaceMobile to Build Own 20-Ton Rocket to Deploy BlueBird Satellites in Low Earth Orbit Using Miranda Engines from Firefly Aerospace.
businesswire.com/news/home/2…
#ASTSpaceMobile #Broadband #ConnectingtheUnconnected #BlueBirds #Blacklift
3
7
463
The stock market in 2026
JUST IN: Leopold Aschenbrenners Fund (Situational Awareness) has reportedly officially blown up…
These are the current (now liquidated) holdings:
- $MU bought at $1,153, now $703, (-39%)
- $CORZ bought at $25.6, now $11.1, (-56%)
- $SNDK bought at $2,268, now $874, (-61%)
- $NBIS bought at $273, now $121, (-55%)
- $CRWV bought at $99, now $42, (-57%)
- $BE bought at $301, now $165, (-45%)
Use him as a lesson why you NEVER over-leverage into high risk positions.
That concludes an end of an era…
I hope my (former) financial advisor isn't petty enough to send me an email today...
Shout-out to my (former) financial advisor who tried to get me to sell near $100 lows while citing SpaceX's revenue and profitability.
I'm not petty enough to do this, but I really want to send him an email today.
4
173
I would be absolutely shocked if Elon disrupted another legacy industry.
xitter.twitterapi.xyz/engine_rich/status/210…
Which one is @ChenrySpace and which is my post from a few months ago? Hard to tell.
(To be clear, because this is the Internet, I'm not in the least bit accusing of plagerism or something like that. Just great minds think alike. I'm a huge fan of Caleb's and looking forward to his book.)
The launch crisis is real, analysts say. Also, some interesting comments from Telesat’s CEO on whether Starship will launch commercial satellites.
arstechnica.com/space/2026/1…
6
506
*ahem* 🚨
Scream it from the roof tops: THERE IS A MASSIVE LAUNCH SHORTAGE AND IT'S GETTING WORSE, NOT BETTER.
In 2022, Amazon Leo (called Kuiper at the time) made the largest commercial bulk buy of launches ever, booking 80+ launches between ULA, Ariane, and Blue Origin. Effectively, they booked the entire non-SpaceX launch supply for medium-heavy lift. It was a HUGE, unprecedented launch order.
And yet, many of their satellites are still sitting on the ground? Why? Because they don't have enough launch supply.
The company that made the largest launch order ever, and did so 4 years ago, is still launch constrained today.
And that was just for broadband sats. That's before Mobile / Direct-To-Cell was even considered a realistic satellite application. That's before orbital data centers were considered a realistic satellite application.
I'll say it again, because the point cannot be emphasized enough. The company that bought massive launch supply 4 years ago is still launch constrained. Anyone who hasn't already booked huge amounts of launch supply today is hopelessly behind. And not just behind by a year or two. We're already talking about being 5-10 years behind.
If you want large amounts of launch supply before 2030, well... sorry, you're already too late. It simply doesn't exist. Maybe if you start booking huge amounts of launch supply today, you might have a chance of getting it in the early-to-mid 2030s. If you don't book today, getting the supply you need before the mid-2030s is not guaranteed.
Scream it from the roof tops: THERE IS A MASSIVE LAUNCH SHORTAGE AND IT'S GETTING WORSE, NOT BETTER.
1
3
328
If SpaceX's launches have become more valuable to them internally than what NASA is paying because SpaceX is launching it's own profitable internal constellation...
Then we should assume that any other launch company who is trying to launch their own profitable internal constellation (which is all of them) will eventually face the same situation.
Somehow everyone seems to agree that SpaceX's launches are worth more than NASA is paying (i.e. "why would they choose HLS when they can make more profit on Starlink launches") but then cast it as a moral failure.
If SpaceX's launches have become more valuable to them internally than what NASA is paying because SpaceX is launching it's own internal constellation...
Then we should assume that any other launch company who is trying to launch their own profitable internal constellation (which is all of them) will eventually face the same situation.
It's puzzling to me that people are observing the SpaceX situation with NASA HLS, understanding it, and then failing to see how it applies to the whole industry eventually.
Hope NASA is not just the institutional boot loader for SpaceX galactic dominance. Unfortunately, that is increasingly probable.
I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about, and talking to people about a post-Falcon world. Why sunset the world’s best rocket? Can Starship replace it? What about Artemis? Why are SpaceXers flocking to Memphis? Grab a coffee, this is a long one.
arstechnica.com/space/2026/1…
(These numbers are deliberately fake and simple to show the general shape of the argument I'm making)
Imagine you have a capacity of 100 launches per year. In 2021, you promised NASA that in 2027 you would sell them 20 launches at a price of $50M each.
Then from 2022-2025, a bunch of new customers show up and start offering you far more per launch. They offer you $75M, then $100M, then $200M per launch! You're at your capacity limit for launches, and so bidding wars start and the prices keep going up.
Sure, you're still going to meet the obligations of the 20 NASA launches on your contract. But after that? Well you're probably done doing NASA launches for a while unless they can meet the price point of this new demand in the market. This is not a deliberate choice, it is just the result of market forces.
(Again, these are made up numbers, but I'm describing the overall dynamic to make it simple).
ok now that I've finally read this through.
Good article. I have minor complaints about some of the framing, but overall Eric is pointing in the right direction to guide the broader industry conversation.
But I don't think anyone is going all the way to the crux of this issue. Not that I've seen, anyway. We're all so emotionally fried that we're stuck on the Elon/Bezos storyline. The Blue Origin vs. SpaceX. One of them is fast, one is slow. One is a nice NASA space cadet, and the other is a mean bad guy that can't be trusted.
A very natural storyline for us all to fall into. It's familiar. We all know our places.
And it's not entirely wrong. In the short term, the dynamic that Eric described regarding Artemis is important. But then what?
My assertion is that this issue is bigger than Elon vs. Bezos. It's much bigger than Artemis and HLS. This situation is about the fundamentals of the entire industry.
NASA started soliciting bids for HLS in 2019 and 2020, and ultimately selected SpaceX Starship in 2021. For the space industry, that era was a completely different world, for three reasons. Since that time:
1. Starlink proved to be ridiculously valuable.
2. Artificial Intelligence demand grew drastically, so much so that orbital data centers now appear potentially financially viable, maybe even extremely lucrative.
3. The rest of the launch industry did shit about fuck. Between that ~2020 timeframe and today, the non-SpaceX launch industry failed to ramp anywhere close to how SpaceX did. Not saying they never will, but we could've theoretically seen it over the past 5 years, and we didn't.
So, how do those three things change the space industry? They make launches way, way, way more valuable and rare.
The VOLUME of demand increased drastically. So many megaconstellations announced (whole industry, not just SpaceX). (Broadband, Mobile, Data Centers, Moon Base, Pharma? Orbital Power/Sunlight? And more!).
The monetary VALUE of each launch increased. Starlink is printing the kinds of profits this industry has never seen, and Starmind is promising even more.
But the supply did not increase proportionally (especially the non-SpaceX launch supply). Did someone say "LAUNCH CRUNCH"?
SO HERE'S MY POINT (TLDR): Since the time of the HLS awards, the space industry has fundamentally changed. And the change is this: the value of a launch increased drastically. For anyone. Not just for SpaceX. This is a market dynamic. It will get worse.
I hope it is clear, my point is not about Artemis specifically, or HLS, or SpaceX, or Blue Origin. Of course SpaceX should (and I believe will) complete their current HLS contracts. My point is about the relationship between NASA and the entire commercial launch industry going forward.
The value of a launch went up. Therefore, the price has to go up. And it's not NASA's fault, or Elon's fault, or Blue Origin's fault. It's the fact that over the past 5 years, the market produced way, way, way more demand for launch than it produced supply for launch. Public companies do not do charity for the government, no matter how warm and fuzzy NASA missions make us feel.
Lastly, I just want to say that I love NASA and SpaceX. I want SpaceX to work with NASA to do all the moon base stuff. But WHETHER OR NOT THAT HAPPENS, the current situation is a symptom of a fundamental mismatch in the market today relative to what we had for decades prior. Unfortunately, when NASA goes out to the commercial market to buy launches and space services, the price has gone up due to the demand going up. And any public company (not just SpaceX) is completely rational to withhold bids if NASA cannot keep up with the market rate. It is only logical, and we should find ways to adapt to the new market conditions, rather than guilt companies into sacrificing their financials for our nostalgic feels. It might work this time, but it's not sustainable.
4
364
ok now that I've finally read this through.
Good article. I have minor complaints about some of the framing, but overall Eric is pointing in the right direction to guide the broader industry conversation.
But I don't think anyone is going all the way to the crux of this issue. Not that I've seen, anyway. We're all so emotionally fried that we're stuck on the Elon/Bezos storyline. The Blue Origin vs. SpaceX. One of them is fast, one is slow. One is a nice NASA space cadet, and the other is a mean bad guy that can't be trusted.
A very natural storyline for us all to fall into. It's familiar. We all know our places.
And it's not entirely wrong. In the short term, the dynamic that Eric described regarding Artemis is important. But then what?
My assertion is that this issue is bigger than Elon vs. Bezos. It's much bigger than Artemis and HLS. This situation is about the fundamentals of the entire industry.
NASA started soliciting bids for HLS in 2019 and 2020, and ultimately selected SpaceX Starship in 2021. For the space industry, that era was a completely different world, for three reasons. Since that time:
1. Starlink proved to be ridiculously valuable.
2. Artificial Intelligence demand grew drastically, so much so that orbital data centers now appear potentially financially viable, maybe even extremely lucrative.
3. The rest of the launch industry did shit about fuck. Between that ~2020 timeframe and today, the non-SpaceX launch industry failed to ramp anywhere close to how SpaceX did. Not saying they never will, but we could've theoretically seen it over the past 5 years, and we didn't.
So, how do those three things change the space industry? They make launches way, way, way more valuable and rare.
The VOLUME of demand increased drastically. So many megaconstellations announced (whole industry, not just SpaceX). (Broadband, Mobile, Data Centers, Moon Base, Pharma? Orbital Power/Sunlight? And more!).
The monetary VALUE of each launch increased. Starlink is printing the kinds of profits this industry has never seen, and Starmind is promising even more.
But the supply did not increase proportionally (especially the non-SpaceX launch supply). Did someone say "LAUNCH CRUNCH"?
SO HERE'S MY POINT (TLDR): Since the time of the HLS awards, the space industry has fundamentally changed. And the change is this: the value of a launch increased drastically. For anyone. Not just for SpaceX. This is a market dynamic. It will get worse.
I hope it is clear, my point is not about Artemis specifically, or HLS, or SpaceX, or Blue Origin. Of course SpaceX should (and I believe will) complete their current HLS contracts. My point is about the relationship between NASA and the entire commercial launch industry going forward.
The value of a launch went up. Therefore, the price has to go up. And it's not NASA's fault, or Elon's fault, or Blue Origin's fault. It's the fact that over the past 5 years, the market produced way, way, way more demand for launch than it produced supply for launch. Public companies do not do charity for the government, no matter how warm and fuzzy NASA missions make us feel.
Lastly, I just want to say that I love NASA and SpaceX. I want SpaceX to work with NASA to do all the moon base stuff. But WHETHER OR NOT THAT HAPPENS, the current situation is a symptom of a fundamental mismatch in the market today relative to what we had for decades prior. Unfortunately, when NASA goes out to the commercial market to buy launches and space services, the price has gone up due to the demand going up. And any public company (not just SpaceX) is completely rational to withhold bids if NASA cannot keep up with the market rate. It is only logical, and we should find ways to adapt to the new market conditions, rather than guilt companies into sacrificing their financials for our nostalgic feels. It might work this time, but it's not sustainable.
I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about, and talking to people about a post-Falcon world. Why sunset the world’s best rocket? Can Starship replace it? What about Artemis? Why are SpaceXers flocking to Memphis? Grab a coffee, this is a long one.
arstechnica.com/space/2026/1…
Shining, shimmering, splendid
Persistent Camouflage - Air Cover
🇺🇸 Austin based Vigil Autonomy (@VigilAutonomy) founded by Matt Goodman (@goodmattg) has developed autonomous camouflage system that provides persistent cover over the asset for thermal infrared and synthetic aperture radar signature management.
According to Vigil, the system maximum operating altitude is 10m and flight duration is 120min.
Learn more >> tinyurl.com/mr3xfvcm
104