SpaceX has launched approximately 80% or more of the world’s total payload mass to orbit in recent years, especially since 2023. In 2025 alone, the company delivered over 2,200 tons, accounting for more than 80% of global orbital mass, driven by high launch cadence and Starlink missions. SpaceX’s S-1 IPO prospectus explicitly states: “Since 2023, we have launched more than 80% of mass to orbit for the world each year” with a mission success rate above 99%. This dominance highlights SpaceX’s leading position in the global launch market.
As early as 2023, the distinguished space expert Jeff Foust highlighted this in an article in SpaceNews titled “The Accidental Monopoly: How SpaceX became (just about) the only Game in Town.”
Recommended Stories
ELON MUSK BECOMES FIRST TRILLIONAIRE AFTER SPACEX’S BLOCKBUSTER IPO
In some areas, SpaceX has established itself as a monopolist, which, in an economic sense, does not necessarily mean 100% market dominance, but rather a lack of competition, allowing the company to set prices at its own discretion. This is clearly the case as far as launch costs are concerned, where SpaceX, due to its market position, can and does charge a big markup on its own cost prices.
Another negative outcome of monopolies, namely that a monopoly company becomes sluggish and less innovative, does not apply to SpaceX in any way, shape, or form. Elon Musk operates with remarkable speed and determination — he doesn’t need competition to drive him — he’s racing against time because he wants to start colonizing Mars within his lifetime.
The SpaceX monopoly is both positive and negative. When it comes to developing entirely new products and markets, which Musk has done, this entails completely different risks and requirements than operating in established markets. Entrepreneurs are most likely to take this increased risk when the potential for at least temporary monopoly profits is significantly above normal profit margins. “Hence, in a more dynamic, real-world economy in which development or progress is to be anticipated in some systematic way, some supranormal profits must occur, and this level of profitability must be above the level achievable in a perfectly competitive environment.” This is what the American economists Richard B. McKenzie and Dwight R. Lee write in their work In Defense of Monopoly, in which they also reference Joseph Schumpeter: “Hidden in Schumpeter’s analysis is a theory of optimum monopoly required for maximum economic growth.”
These two U.S. economists are not entirely uncritical of monopolies and acknowledge that they can indeed be detrimental to economic growth. However, they distinguish between monopolies for existing products, which they view negatively, “because the monopoly had no role in creating the good and bringing the net value into existence,” and goods that have been created by the monopoly itself and could serve a useful function.
The potential for monopoly profits serves as a catalyst for innovation. Competition is an indispensable driver of economic progress, but it is not perfect competition or a perfect market, which exist only in economic models, not in reality, but rather competition that is constantly reduced by temporary monopolistic tendencies. In any case, history demonstrates that all monopolies are sooner or later eliminated through innovation and competition, and the same fate will also, eventually, befall SpaceX.
History is full of seemingly unassailable monopolies that were ultimately destroyed by innovation and competition. Myspace, for example, dominated social networking in the mid-2000s. In 2007, the Guardian even asked, “Will Myspace ever lose its monopoly?” Yet within a few years, Facebook had overtaken it, and today Myspace is largely irrelevant.
A similar story unfolded at Nokia. In 2008, Forbes called it the “Cell Phone King.” Although Nokia had pioneered the smartphone, it failed to recognize the importance of apps and was overtaken by Samsung and Apple. By 2013, Microsoft acquired Nokia’s handset business after its market share had collapsed.
Xerox once controlled almost the entire photocopier market and became so dominant that people spoke of “Xeroxing” documents. Yet competition from firms such as Canon, Ricoh, and Kodak steadily eroded its position. Today, Xerox accounts for less than 2% of the global market. Kodak, which once held over 90% of the U.S. film market, similarly underestimated the digital revolution and filed for bankruptcy in 2012.
AMERICA MUST FOLLOW SPACEX EXAMPLE TO WIN ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE RACE
Even Google’s dominance in internet search is now being challenged. When I recently asked an audience whether they primarily use Google or AI tools such as ChatGPT, only a minority said they still relied mainly on Google.
I fear that sooner or later, politicians, journalists, or lawyers will demand antitrust action against SpaceX. I do not support such measures at all. We do not need antitrust laws to deal with SpaceX or any other monopoly. The market will take care of it. Capitalism, competition, and innovation eventually bring an end to every monopoly.
Rainer Zitelmann is the author of the book New Space Capitalism.