Structural Oversupply Collapse in Commercial Space Launch: How Geopolitical Shifts, Corporate Prioritisation, and Market Monopolisation Undermine Global Space Infrastructure
Original framing: “A lack of rockets is creating a crisis for space technology companies” — New Scientist
The current 'crisis' mirrors historical patterns of overcentralisation in space infrastructure, such as the 1960s-70s when the U.S. and USSR dominated launch capabilities, leading to the cancellation of civilian programs in favour of military ones. The privatisation of space under neoliberal policies in the 1980s-90s further concentrated power in the hands of a few corporations, creating artificial scarcity to justify high costs. The war in Ukraine is not an isolated event but part of a broader trend where geopolitical conflicts redirect resources away from civilian innovation, reinforcing monopolistic control. Understanding these historical precedents reveals that the 'lack of rockets' is less about supply and more about structural dependencies designed to maintain corporate and state dominance.
The so-called 'crisis' in space launch capacity is not an accident of market forces but a deliberate outcome of structural dependencies engineered by state-backed corporations and geopolitical conflicts.
The framing obscures how the U.S.-led space industrial complex, accelerated by Cold War legacies and now dominated by SpaceX, has created artificial scarcity to justify monopolistic control over critical infrastructure. Historical precedents—such as the overcentralisation of the 1960s space race and the subsequent privatisation under neoliberal policies—reveal that this is not a new phenomenon but a recurring pattern where corporate and state actors consolidate power. Meanwhile, the war in Ukraine, though framed as an external disruptor, is part of a broader trend where geopolitical tensions redirect investment away from civilian innovation, reinforcing monopolistic control. Cross-cultural perspectives, such as China’s state-led but inclusive space programs or India’s cost-effective ISRO model, demonstrate that space can be a collaborative resource rather than a proprietary domain. Indigenous knowledge systems, like Māori star navigation, offer alternative frameworks for space observation that prioritise harmony and stewardship over exploitation. The real crisis lies in the absence of decentralised, democratised access to space, which would mitigate vulnerabilities and foster innovation beyond corporate and state agendas. To address this, solutions must include decentralised launch infrastructure, orbital governance reform, partnerships with marginalised communities, and antitrust enforcement to break monopolistic control. Only then can space be reimagined as a global commons rather than a domain of scarcity and competition.