This article was originally published in The conversation.
Private companies are no longer peripheral participants in American space activities. They provide key services, including the launch and deployment of satellites, the transportation of cargo and astronauts. to the international space stationand even sending landers to the Moon.
Business integration is now built into American space policy and shapes national space strategy. As someone who studies space and international securityI have watched the extraordinary rise of commercial space with amazement and with growing concern about the structural vulnerabilities it creates.
Trade integration is now official policy
On February 4, the House Science Committee approved the NASA Reauthorization Act of 2026directing the agency to partner with U.S. commercial suppliers to low earth orbit operationsmoon landings and the transition Beyond the International Space Station. In critical areas such as lunar landing modules, the bill requires NASA to work with at least two commercial suppliers, a deliberate effort to avoid dependence on a single company.
President Donald Trump December 2025 Executive Order expressed a similar preference for prioritizing commercial solutions in federal space activities and set a goal of attracting at least $50 billion in additional private investment in space by 2028. The US Space Force’s 2024 plan. Commercial space strategy It also emphasizes speed and innovation through private partnerships.
Congress, the White House and the military are aligned: the government sets goals, then private industry builds – and increasingly operates – space systems. This change has been bipartisan and explicit, and it has produced results.
From cost savings to structural mastery
Its origins date back to a moment of vulnerability.
After the retirement of the space shuttle in 2011, the United States temporarily lost the ability to conduct independent human spaceflight. For nearly a decade, NASA relied on the Russian Soyuz spacecraft, paying up to 80 million dollars per astronaut seatbarely 4 billion dollars in total.
NASA responded by deliberately turning to commercial suppliers through the commercial crew and commercial replenishment programs. The goal was pragmatic: reduce costs, restore domestic launch capacity and accelerate innovation. Under these programs, NASA provided funding and oversight while companies built and operated their own systems.
It worked.
Launch costs fell by almost 70% in some cases. The pace of the launches increased.
SpaceX, founded by Elon Musk, became a central element of this new architecture. Its Falcon 9 rocket now carries the majority – five out of six – of American launches into orbit. Since 2020, its Crew Dragon spacecraft has also routinely performed transported NASA astronautsrestoring the United States’ ability to launch people into orbit after a 10-year hiatus.
In high-risk, capital-intensive space sectors such as launch and crewed transportation, development costs are enormous. Few companies can afford to compete. The company that first makes reliable, large-scale rockets, like SpaceX, wins contracts and consolidates its market share.
Efficiency and consolidation have given SpaceX dominance. This dominance, in turn, creates influence, not because the company acts in bad faith but because the alternatives are limited.
Market concentration is not inherently problematic. But strategic infrastructure – such as access to space that supports military operations, communications and critical national systems – is not a normal consumer market. When a single company controls the majority of launches or operates the only manned spacecraft, its financial problems, technical setbacks, or leadership disputes can disrupt the strategic capabilities of the entire country.
Musk’s episode as a warning
In 2025, during a public dispute over government contracts and regulatory issues, Elon Musk briefly threatened with dismantling the Dragon spacecraft, the vehicle NASA relies on to transport astronauts to orbit.
musk quickly he backed off his threatand the missions continued. No astronauts were stranded, but the moment was telling.
At the moment, Boeing’s Starliner capsule was still facing technical delays. There was no fully operational alternative ready to take on the mission immediately. Even a short-lived threat exposed how closely America’s access to space had been tied to the stability of a single company (and possibly a single individual).
So is there a Plan B?
A credible Plan B for space does not mean abandoning commercial partnerships. It means ensuring that alternatives exist.
Historically, assured access to space It has meant having more than one way to reach orbit. Today, that principle extends to crew transportation, lunar logistics, satellite services and data infrastructure.
Congress seems aware of this. NASA’s current reauthorization bill requires the agency to diversify suppliers in key programs, particularly lunar landing programs. The intention is to generate redundancy deliberately in the system, making it more resilient to possible shocks.
But redundancy is expensive. Maintaining parallel systems, supporting multiple providers, and preserving in-house government expertise requires long-term funding and political commitment. Markets alone may not ensure diversification in these expensive sectors.
In February 2026, Congress moved to legislate greater diversification in American space strategy. The intention is clear, but the schedule is not. It remains uncertain when, or if, the bill will become law.
For now, US access to space, particularly for crewed missions, remains largely dependent on SpaceX. Plan B exists on paper, but in reality it is still under construction.
Strategic permanence in space requires options
The stakes will only increase.
As the United States expands into cislunar space (the region between the Earth and the Moon) and seeks to establish a sustained presence on the MoonTheir dependence on commercial suppliers will deepen.
Commercial dynamism has revitalized American leadership in space, but it has also revealed structural vulnerabilities. Enduring systems rarely depend on a single center of power. In Federalist No. 51James Madison, the fourth president of the United States, argued that stable political orders require competing forces, so “ambition must be created to counteract ambition.” His vision was political, but logic can be applied. Economic resilience comes from balance, not concentration.
The United States has chosen a commercial path in space and that choice has generated extraordinary benefits. But permanence beyond Earth will require a deliberate balance: multiple providers of critical services, overlapping capabilities, and alternatives robust enough to absorb crises.
Commercial space can underpin American leadership in the new space age, but only if access to orbit, and beyond, never depends on a single, indispensable company.