The developments of recent decades, during which private companies began launching rockets into space rather than governments, are often referred to as the “rocket revolution.” The appropriateness of this term — and the point at which these changes should be dated — remains highly debatable. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that significant changes have occurred in this field.
Public and private space
Traditionally, Space Week is celebrated worldwide in early October. This year, the celebrations will take place from October 4 to 10, with the rocket revolution as the central theme. Let us take a closer look at what this entails.
According to various estimates, 323–329 space launches took place worldwide in 2025. Approximately 87% were conducted by private companies, while 50% were attributable to Elon Musk’s SpaceX. The process that led to this outcome is commonly referred to as the “rocket revolution.”
Nevertheless, this term raises several questions. A revolution is typically a rapid process that brings about comprehensive change. However, Elon Musk, mentioned above, and others like him began their work more than 20 years ago. Furthermore, the extent to which their proposed approaches and design solutions are genuinely innovative remains to be seen.
We should begin by examining the earliest stages of space programs. From a certain perspective, all of them originated as private initiatives. Robert Goddard, Wernher von Braun, Serhii Korolov, and Satish Dhawan were, above all, enthusiasts captivated by an idea whose practical value their governments initially failed to recognize.
At that time, space became a matter of national prestige and, to a significant extent, national security. During the 1950s and 1960s, space programs became the purview of nations — specifically, a select few, primarily the USSR and the United States.
In the USSR, private companies could not exist at the time, although Yangel’s and Korolov’s design bureaus themselves resembled state-owned corporations in some respects. In the United States, the space program was managed by a government agency, NASA, while manufacturers of entire rocket stages, such as Northrop Grumman and Boeing, were commercial enterprises from the outset. Moreover, some of the universities involved in these programs were private institutions. However, all of these organizations worked under government contracts, and the U.S. government owned the rockets and spacecraft throughout their operational lives. The United Kingdom, France, Japan, and India followed a similar approach. China followed the Soviet model.
In other words, private machinery manufacturers are a relatively recent phenomenon only in countries where private enterprise was entirely absent. Moreover, the fact that, as communist ideology waned in both Russia and China, these entities began moving toward formal — and often actual — privatization demonstrates that this development was not entirely unexpected in those countries either.
On the other hand, even in the United States, the space industry has long been closely connected to the government and the military. This relationship has been so close that, upon retirement, NASA administrators and generals have often assumed director or consultant positions at companies with which they had worked for many years.
On the eve of the rocket revolution
What developments in the 1990s may have prompted the transition from government-led space programs to commercial ventures? Above all, it was the end of the competition between the United States and the USSR. From a certain perspective, this development even had a negative impact on the industry. Nations no longer needed to prove themselves to one another, launch military satellites into orbit, or explore ways to evacuate humanity to another planet in the event of a global war.
The flow of government funding appeared likely to decline. However, there was no compelling reason for the government alone to determine the direction of the space industry’s development. At the same time, space enthusiasts had developed numerous ideas considered too risky for state-owned corporations, including the colonization of Mars, asteroid mining, and reusable rockets.
At the same time, the IT industry was expanding rapidly. Silicon Valley was flourishing, with individuals developing groundbreaking software products and attaining millionaire status before the age of 30.
When these same young millionaires began attending lectures by space enthusiasts, it quickly became clear that they were uniquely positioned to bring these ideas to life—having seemingly already achieved the impossible.
Few people may recall that the first area private companies sought to pursue beyond conventional commercial satellites was not rocketry. Hotel magnate Robert Bigelow founded Bigelow Aerospace in 1998 with the goal of building an orbital space station hotel using inflatable modules.
The experiments spanned two decades. Bigelow Aerospace launched two autonomous experimental modules into space, while another has served as a storage module aboard the International Space Station for many years. However, the company ultimately went bankrupt, and there has been no news about it for several years.
However, this does not mean that private companies have lost confidence in inflatable modules. On the contrary, modern space station projects — such as the one Axiom Space is developing to replace the ISS — are based on them.
Is it easy to launch a rocket?
In general, space entrepreneurs did not intend to address launch-related challenges immediately. In the early 2000s, they pursued more ambitious ideas; however, it soon became clear that launch costs, along with the time required for preparation and approval, were undermining their plans.
Individuals such as Musk and Bezos concluded that they could resolve this problem quickly and then turn their attention to more pressing matters. At the time, the prevailing view held that all the necessary technology was already available and that the problem stemmed solely from inefficient government management.
However, it became clear that there are relatively few genuine experts in rocket technology, and training someone from the ground up is nearly impossible. This is why, for example, Jeff Bezos’s Blue Origin was founded in 2000 and began designing spacecraft in 2003. It conducted its first uncrewed suborbital flight in 2015, its first crewed suborbital flight in 2021, and its first uncrewed orbital flight only in 2026.
SpaceX made more rapid progress in this regard. However, even in its case, the first unsuccessful launch attempt took place four years after the company was founded, the first successful launch occurred seven years later, and commercial flights began nearly ten years later.
A similar pattern can be observed with New Zealand-based Rocket Lab. After decades of efforts to launch a rocket, Astra Space eventually ceased to show signs of activity. Firefly nearly met the same fate, but was saved by Maxim Polyakov. Even the relatively straightforward goal of suborbital space tourism required Virgin Galactic to undergo nearly two decades of development. Following several successful launches, the company once again postponed operations indefinitely pending the readiness of a new spacecraft. The notion that private space companies could operate entirely independently of government support also proved unrealistic.
The notion that private companies could develop rockets rapidly and at low cost has proven unfounded. Why, then, do they continue to conduct the majority of rocket launches today? There are two primary reasons. First, launch service providers have concentrated on small commercial payloads, ensuring a steady volume of orders. Second, and indeed, the mass production of rockets has generated substantial cost savings.
Reusability is a significant factor, specifically because individual rocket stages can be recovered through soft landings and reused, in some cases multiple times. This matters less because of the stages’ cost than because of the complexity involved in their production. If each stage had to be manufactured from scratch for every launch, achieving such a high number of launches would not be possible.
A revolution for everyone
Assessing the extent to which the rocket revolution has been successful is more complex than it may initially appear. Over the past several decades, skeptics have repeatedly argued that failures demonstrate the fundamental inability of private companies to perform tasks once undertaken by the government. At the same time, the fact that most launches are now conducted by private companies indicates that the industry has indeed undergone significant change.
On the other hand, the American — and indeed global — space industry remains fundamentally centered on government control. The prospect of accelerating development appears highly doubtful. Rather, new industrial giants, only marginally more efficient than their predecessors, have entered the system.
Perhaps most importantly, a shift has indeed occurred in our collective consciousness. We have learned to regard private space as commonplace, recognizing that it is not reserved for a select few. However, these outcomes differ markedly from what everyone had expected.
When the space race was in its early stages, many believed it would cement the dominance of Western countries, where market-driven technological development is particularly well established. In reality, however, China ranks second in the number of companies that have conducted their own space launches, with India following. Although New Zealand was the second country from whose territory a private rocket was launched, Rocket Lab is now, in essence, an American company.
Europe has spent many years seeking to establish its own private companies and has only recently achieved success. Canada has not yet been able to implement its program. However, countries are developing plans for their own private-sector initiatives. In time, other countries are also likely to establish companies modeled on SpaceX, albeit on a smaller scale.
Ultimately, the revolution did achieve its goal. Space has indeed become more accessible. However, rather than erasing national borders, this development has expanded the circle of those who can consider themselves members of the select group upon which humanity’s future in space depends.
