This article was originally published on The conversation.
Private companies are no longer peripheral participants in US space activities. They provide key services, including launching and deploying satellites, transporting cargo and astronauts to the International Space Stationand even sending landers to the moon.
Commercial integration is now built in US space policy and forms national space strategy. As one who studies space and international securityI have watched the extraordinary rise of commercial space with awe—and with growing concern for the structural vulnerabilities it creates.
Commercial integration is now official policy
On February 4, the House Science Committee approved NASA Reauthorization Act of 2026which asks the agency to work with US commercial suppliers for low earth orbit operationsmoon landings and the transition outside the International Space Station. In critical areas such as lunar landers, 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’s December 2025 decision expressed similar preference for prioritizing commercial solutions in federal space activities and set a goal of attracting at least US$50 billion in additional private investment in space by 2028. US Space Force’s 2024 Commercial space strategy 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—the space systems. This shift has been twofold and explicit, and it has produced results.
From cost savings to structural dominance
Its origins go back to a moment of vulnerability.
After the retirement of the Space Shuttle in 2011, the United States temporarily lost independent human spaceflight capability. For nearly a decade, NASA relied on Russian Soyuz spacecraft to pay up to $80 million per astronaut seatapproximately 4 billion dollars in total.
NASA responded by deliberately approaching commercial suppliers through commercial crew and commercial resupply programs. The goal was pragmatic: to reduce costs, restore domestic launch capability 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 launches increased.
SpaceX, founded by Elon Musk, became central to this new architecture. The Falcon 9 rocket is now carrying the majority – five out of every six – of American launches into orbit. Since 2020, the Crew Dragon spacecraft has also routinely carried NASA astronautsrestore America’s ability to put people in orbit after a gap of 10 years.
In high-risk and capital-intensive space sectors such as launch and crew transport, development costs are enormous. Few companies can afford to compete. The company that first makes reliable rockets, and on a large scale, like SpaceX, wins contracts and consolidates its market share.
Efficiency and consolidation have given SpaceX dominance. This dominance in turn creates leverage – not because the company acts in bad faith, but because the alternatives are limited.
Market concentration is not in itself problematic. But strategic infrastructure – such as the access to space that underpins military operations, communications and critical national systems – is not a normal consumer market. When a single company controls most launches or operates the only manned spacecraft, its financial problems, technical setbacks, or leadership conflicts can disrupt the entire nation’s strategic capabilities.
The Musk episode as a warning
In 2025, during a public dispute over government contracts and regulatory affairs, Elon Musk sent cards threatened with liquidation The Dragon spacecraft – the vehicle NASA relies on to transport astronauts to orbit.
Musk quickly took back the threatand the missions continued. No astronauts were stranded, but the moment was revealing.
At that time, Boeing’s Starliner capsule still encountered technical delays. There was no fully operational alternative ready to undertake the mission immediately. Even a short-lived threat revealed how closely American access to space had become tied to the stability of a single firm—and arguably a single individual.
So, is there a plan B?
A credible Plan B for space does not mean abandoning commercial partnerships. That means ensuring that alternatives exist.
Historically, guaranteed access to space has meant having more than one way to reach orbit. Today, this principle encompasses crew transport, lunar logistics, satellite services and data infrastructure.
Congress seems to be aware of this. The current NASA reauthorization law requires the agency to diversify providers in key programs, especially lunar landers. The purpose is to build redundancy deliberately into the system, making it more resistant to potential shocks.
But redundancy is expensive. Maintaining parallel systems, supporting multiple providers and preserving internal authority expertise requires long-term funding and political commitment. Markets alone are unlikely to guarantee diversification in these expensive sectors.
In February 2026, the Congress moved to legislate greater diversification into the US space strategy. The purpose is clear, but the timeline is not. It is still uncertain when, or if, the bill will become law.
Currently, US access to space, especially for crewed missions, is heavily dependent on SpaceX. Plan B exists on paper, but in reality it is still under construction.
Strategic duration in space requires options
The stakes will only grow.
As the United States expands into cislunar space—the region between the Earth and the Moon—and looks to establish itself a persistent presence on the moondependence on commercial suppliers will deepen.
Commercial dynamism has revitalized American leadership in space, but it has also exposed structural vulnerabilities. Durable systems rarely depend on a single powerhouse. IN Federalist No. 51James Madison, the fourth American president, argued that stable political orders require competing forces, so that “ambitions must be made to counteract ambitions.” His insight was political, but logic may apply. Economic resilience comes from balance, not concentration.
The United States has chosen a commercial path in space, and that choice has produced extraordinary gains. But permanence beyond Earth will require a deliberate balance: multiple providers for critical services, overlapping capabilities, and options robust enough to absorb shocks.
Commercial space can underpin American leadership in the new space age, but only if access to orbit, and beyond, never rests with a single, indispensable company.
