The New Frontier, Why Human Spaceflight Has Replaced the Electric Vehicle as the Crucible of Strategic Competition

The New Frontier, Why Human Spaceflight Has Replaced the Electric Vehicle as the Crucible of Strategic Competition

For the better part of two decades, the electric vehicle occupied a singular position in the global imagination of technological progress. It was not merely a product category but a moral and civilisational signifier. To embrace the EV was to embrace the future; to resist it was to cling to a dying hydrocarbon past. Governments subsidised them, activists celebrated them, and investors valued young automakers at sums that exceeded century-old industrial conglomerates. The EV was, in the words of the accompanying article’s bracing dismissal, “the Christ of consumer products, our saviour”—a secular messiah that would redeem transportation, decarbonise the atmosphere, and consecrate the energy transition as the defining project of our time.

That era is ending. Not because electric vehicles have failed—global sales continue to grow, battery costs continue to fall, and Chinese manufacturers continue to achieve economies of scale that their Western competitors can only envy—but because the ideological halo has detached from the product category. The conviction is “leaking from the voices” of those who once preached the EV gospel with unshakeable certainty. Solar panels are useful, but they seem “less and less strategic by the hour.” The “nonsensical ideological worldview” of the energy transition has collapsed under the weight of its own overpromising. Emissions continue. Fossil fuels continue to find customers and myriad applications. And the fantasy of a single technological fix for the complex, multidimensional challenge of climate change has been consigned, in the article’s memorably blunt phrase, to “the ideological landfill in the sky.”

The question that follows this diagnosis is not whether electric vehicles will survive—they will, as one important technology among many—but what will replace them as the frontier of strategic competition and technological imagination. The article’s answer is as provocative as its diagnosis: human spaceflight. Specifically, the revolution in rocketry pioneered by Elon Musk’s SpaceX and now being pursued by Jeff Bezos’s Blue Origin: reusability, which has already driven launch costs down by orders of magnitude and promises, with the forthcoming Starship system, to reduce the cost of placing a kilogram of mass into orbit to 1 per cent of the cost under the space shuttle.

This is not science fiction. It is not speculative futurism. It is a present-tense economic transformation with measurable consequences. SpaceX alone is generating $12 billion annually in revenue from Starlink, its space-based internet constellation, and that figure is growing. Blue Origin is preparing its own entry into the satellite broadband market. Microgravity manufacturing—the production of purer crystals, more uniform alloys, and novel drug compounds in the unique environment of orbit—is moving from laboratory demonstration to commercial viability. Helium-3 mining on the moon, long the province of science fiction, is now the subject of serious engineering assessment. The processing of artificial intelligence data, which requires vast amounts of energy and cooling, may prove more economical in orbit, where solar energy is abundant and heat rejection is simplified.

And on Monday, Musk announced his intention to merge SpaceX with his AI company, explicitly to pursue these opportunities.

This is the new frontier. The question is whether the United States possesses the policy maturity and institutional wisdom to navigate it successfully.

The Collapse of the Energy Transition Consensus

The article’s assessment of the energy transition is deliberately, even aggressively, provocative. It is not an argument against renewable energy or electric transportation; it is an argument against theology masquerading as engineering. The conviction that battery electric vehicles represent not merely a superior technology for certain applications but the singular, inevitable, and morally mandatory path for all transportation has always been more an article of faith than a conclusion of dispassionate analysis. It ignored the diversity of use cases, the persistence of range anxiety, the challenges of charging infrastructure, the mineral extraction intensity of battery production, and the continued viability of internal combustion engines powered by increasingly sophisticated fuels.

That faith is now eroding. The article’s observation that “fossil fuels will continue to find customers and myriad applications” is not a celebration of carbon but a recognition of complexity. The energy system is not a software platform that can be force-upgraded through regulatory mandate. It is a vast, interdependent, capital-intensive infrastructure that evolves through multiple pathways at multiple paces. The internal combustion engine will not disappear in 2030 or 2040 or 2050; it will coexist with electric powertrains, hybrid systems, hydrogen fuel cells, and technologies not yet invented.

The policy implication is not that climate action should be abandoned but that it should be liberated from technological determinism. A carbon tax, as the article notes, remains “the sensible approach to moderating CO2″—a price signal that allows the market to discover the most efficient pathways to emission reduction, rather than having politicians and bureaucrats pick winners. That this approach remains politically unavailable in the United States is a failure of governance, not a refutation of the underlying economics.

The Reusability Revolution: How SpaceX Changed the Economics of Space

If the energy transition consensus has collapsed under the weight of its own overpromising, the spaceflight revolution has exceeded even the most optimistic forecasts. When Elon Musk founded SpaceX in 2002, the idea of a private company developing orbital rockets from scratch was widely regarded as quixotic. When he announced his intention to make those rockets reusable, the aerospace establishment was openly derisive. The space shuttle had been nominally reusable, but its refurbishment costs were so high that it actually increased the per-launch expense of reaching orbit.

SpaceX succeeded where NASA failed because it approached reusability not as a technical novelty but as an economic imperative. A fully reusable launch vehicle transforms the cost structure of space access. The propellant required to reach orbit is inexpensive; the vehicle itself is expensive. If the vehicle can be used hundreds of times, the per-launch cost approaches the cost of propellant plus amortised maintenance. This is the difference between taking a commercial airline flight and chartering a private jet—or, more accurately, between taking a commercial airline flight and building a new aircraft for every trip.

The results are now visible. Falcon 9 boosters have flown 20 times or more. The cost of launching a kilogram of payload to low Earth orbit has fallen from approximately $65,000 on the space shuttle to approximately $1,500 on Falcon 9. Starship, which is designed for full and rapid reusability, is projected to reduce that cost to below $100 per kilogram—a 99 per cent reduction from the shuttle era.

This is not incremental improvement. This is paradigm shift. And its consequences extend far beyond rocketry.

Starlink, Blue Origin, and the Commercialisation of Low Earth Orbit

The most visible manifestation of this paradigm shift is Starlink, SpaceX’s constellation of thousands of small satellites providing broadband internet access to previously unserved and underserved populations. Starlink is not a speculative venture; it is a mature business generating $12 billion in annual revenue and growing. It is also a strategic asset, providing resilient communications capabilities to Ukraine in its war against Russian invasion and to disaster-stricken communities when terrestrial infrastructure fails.

Jeff Bezos’s Blue Origin is preparing to enter this market with its own satellite broadband constellation, leveraging its New Glenn launch vehicle (designed, like Falcon 9, for reusability). The competition between these two ventures—and between their visionary founders—will drive further innovation and further cost reduction.

But satellite internet is only the beginning. The article identifies three additional domains of commercial opportunity that low-cost launch enables:

Microgravity manufacturing. The absence of sedimentation, convection, and hydrostatic pressure in orbit allows the production of materials that cannot be manufactured on Earth. Perfectly uniform protein crystals for pharmaceutical research. Alloys that do not segregate during solidification. Optical fibres of unprecedented purity. These are not laboratory curiosities; they are addressable markets with customers willing to pay premium prices for superior products.

Lunar resource extraction. Helium-3, deposited on the lunar surface by billions of years of solar wind, is a potential fuel for advanced nuclear fusion reactors. Whether fusion power will ever be commercially viable remains uncertain; what is certain is that helium-3 delivered to Earth from the moon would be extremely valuable if fusion achieves commercialisation. The prospect of lunar mining is no longer science fiction; it is a real option that investors are beginning to value.

Orbital data processing. Artificial intelligence training requires enormous computational resources, which consume enormous amounts of energy and generate enormous amounts of heat. In orbit, solar energy is abundant and continuous, and heat rejection to the cold vacuum of space is straightforward. The economics of orbital data centres are not yet proven, but the conceptual case is compelling, and Musk’s announced merger of SpaceX with his AI company signals that serious capital is being committed to exploring this frontier.

The Threat Multipliers: Debris, Regulation, and Political Animosity

This extraordinary commercial expansion faces three distinct but interrelated threats.

The first is debris proliferation. Low Earth Orbit is becoming crowded. Thousands of active satellites, tens of thousands of pieces of trackable debris, and millions of fragments too small to track but large enough to destroy a spacecraft on impact. The Kessler syndrome—a cascade of collisions that renders entire orbital regimes unusable—is no longer a theoretical concern but a credible risk. SpaceX will soon attempt in-orbit refuelling of Starship, a critical capability for lunar missions and beyond. As the article notes, “For once, move fast and break things isn’t the order of the day.” The orbital environment is a finite commons, and its preservation requires deliberate, cooperative stewardship.

The second is regulatory dysfunction. Private spaceflight has flourished in part because it has been lightly regulated, operating under licensing regimes designed for occasional government launches, not frequent commercial operations. This permissive environment is now attracting the attention of regulators and legislators, not all of whom are friendly to the industry’s rapid expansion. The Senate is considering a bill to codify a Trump executive order streamlining licensing rules and procedures. The state of California, “possibly out of animus for Mr. Musk,” opposes the order. The outcome of this legislative battle will significantly influence the pace of commercial space development.

The third is the structural inefficiency of government space programs. NASA’s Artemis programme, intended to return humans to the moon, has been “plagued with problems, delays and overruns.” The Space Launch System rocket and Orion capsule, which together represent an investment of approximately $100 billion, are cost-plus contracts with the traditional aerospace industry—the very model that SpaceX’s fixed-price, performance-based contracts have rendered obsolete. The Trump budget proposal reportedly calls for scrapping this investment after the planned 2028 lunar landing, recognising that it is “too expensive, too complicated, too uncompetitive with private rockets for a sustainable moon presence.” The political bravery required to terminate a $100 billion programme employing thousands of workers in key congressional districts should not be underestimated.

Industrial Policy, Protectionism, and the Global Division of Labour

The article’s concluding reflection on industrial policy and the global division of labour is not a digression; it is the conceptual framework within which the space revolution must be understood.

For decades, American policy toward advanced technology industries oscillated between two poles: faith that market forces would naturally preserve American leadership, and panic that foreign competition would inevitably extinguish it. The former produced complacency; the latter produced protectionism. Neither produced sustained strategic advantage.

The article poses the question with characteristic bluntness: “Ask yourself which countries are likely to prevail: Those that afford their industries relatively free access to a global division of labour? Or those that follow the lure of industrial policy and protectionism?”

The implied answer is the former. But the evidence is more ambiguous. China’s rise as a technological power has been enabled not by free access to global division of labour but by systematic, sustained, strategically targeted industrial policy. Its dominance in solar manufacturing, its rapid advance in electric vehicles, and its growing capabilities in space are not accidents of comparative advantage; they are the products of deliberate state intervention.

The distinction that matters is not between industrial policy and its absence but between competent industrial policy and incompetent industrial policy. China’s industrial policy has been, on balance, competent—ruthlessly focused on capability acquisition, willing to tolerate excess capacity and consolidate winners, and disciplined in its allocation of subsidised credit. America’s industrial policy, to the extent it has existed, has often been incompetent—captured by incumbent interests, distorted by congressional earmarks, and evaluated by inputs (contracts awarded, dollars spent) rather than outputs (capabilities created, commercial viability achieved).

The space revolution offers an opportunity to demonstrate that the United States can still execute competent strategic policy. The commercial companies leading this revolution are American. Their supply chains are predominantly domestic. Their competitive advantage is real and sustainable. The policy task is not to protect them from competition—the article explicitly rejects the proposition that shielding the domestic market from Chinese EVs is a winning strategy—but to enable them to compete through streamlined regulation, strategic public procurement, and investment in enabling infrastructure.

Conclusion: The New Strategic Frontier

The transition from electric vehicles to human spaceflight as the crucible of technological imagination is not a rejection of environmental values. It is a recognition of strategic reality. The energy transition, however necessary and however slowly proceeding, will be a multi-decade, multi-technology, globally distributed endeavour. No single nation will “win” it in the sense of achieving lasting, unassailable dominance.

Space is different. The low-cost launch capability that SpaceX has pioneered, and that Blue Origin is now pursuing, confers first-mover advantages that are likely to be durable. The companies that control the high-frequency, low-cost logistics network to orbit will control access to the most valuable real estate in the solar system. The nations that host and support these companies will capture the attendant economic and strategic benefits.

This is not a prediction; it is a description of the present. Starlink is already generating $12 billion annually. Starship is already undergoing flight testing. The first commercial microgravity manufacturing facilities are already in development. The moon is already being surveyed for resource extraction potential. The frontier is not coming; it is here.

The question is whether American governance can rise to the occasion—whether it can overcome the regulatory sclerosis, political animosity, and institutional inertia that threaten to squander this extraordinary inheritance. The article’s concluding observation about the political bravery required to terminate a $100 billion programme that has outlived its usefulness applies equally to every other domain where legacy interests resist the logic of the new. The space revolution will not wait for Congress to overcome its dysfunctions. It will proceed with or without enlightened policy. The only question is whether the United States will lead it or follow it.

---

Q&A Section

Q1: What does the article mean by describing the EV as having been sent to “the ideological landfill in the sky”?
A1: The phrase is deliberately provocative, signifying the collapse of the electric vehicle’s status as a moral and civilisational signifier. For years, the EV was presented not merely as a superior technology for certain applications but as the singular, inevitable, and morally mandatory path for all transportation—”the Christ of consumer products, our saviour.” This was an article of faith, not a conclusion of dispassionate analysis. It ignored the diversity of use cases, the persistence of range anxiety, the challenges of charging infrastructure, and the mineral extraction intensity of battery production. The conviction that the EV would single-handedly redeem transportation and consecrate the energy transition has now “leaked” from the voices of its most fervent advocates. The article is not arguing that EVs have failed as products—global sales continue to grow—but that the ideological halo has detached from the product category, allowing a more sober assessment of its actual capabilities and limitations.

Q2: What is the “reusability revolution,” and why is it described as a paradigm shift rather than incremental improvement?
A2: The reusability revolution refers to the development of fully reusable launch vehicles, pioneered by SpaceX and now pursued by Blue Origin, which fundamentally transform the cost structure of space access. Under the space shuttle, which was nominally reusable but required extensive refurbishment, the cost of launching a kilogram to low Earth orbit was approximately $65,000. Under Falcon 9, which reuses boosters up to 20 times, the cost fell to approximately $1,500. Starship, designed for full and rapid reusability, is projected to reduce that cost to below $100 per kilogram—a 99 per cent reduction from the shuttle era. This is not incremental improvement because it changes the economic logic of every space-enabled activity. Activities that were prohibitively expensive become commercially viable; industries that did not exist become possible; strategic assumptions that were settled become open for revision. The difference between $65,000/kg and $100/kg is the difference between space as a national prestige activity and space as a routine commercial environment.

Q3: What are the three “new paying space ventures” the article identifies beyond satellite communications?
A3: The article identifies three emerging commercial domains enabled by low-cost launch:

1. Microgravity manufacturing: The absence of sedimentation, convection, and hydrostatic pressure in orbit allows production of materials that cannot be manufactured on Earth—perfectly uniform protein crystals for pharmaceutical research, non-segregating alloys, ultra-pure optical fibres. These are not laboratory curiosities but addressable markets with customers willing to pay premium prices.

2. Lunar resource extraction: Helium-3, deposited on the lunar surface by solar wind, is a potential fuel for advanced nuclear fusion reactors. While fusion’s commercial viability remains uncertain, helium-3 delivered to Earth would be extremely valuable if fusion is commercialised. Lunar mining is now a real option that investors are beginning to value.

3. Orbital data processing: AI training requires enormous computational resources, consuming vast energy and generating vast heat. In orbit, solar energy is abundant and continuous, and heat rejection to space is straightforward. The economics are not yet proven, but Musk’s announced merger of SpaceX with his AI company signals serious capital commitment to exploring this frontier.

Q4: What are the three threats to commercial space expansion identified in the article, and how does each operate?
A4: The three threats are:

1. Debris proliferation: Low Earth Orbit is increasingly crowded with active satellites, trackable debris, and untrackable fragments. A cascade of collisions—the Kessler syndrome—could render entire orbital regimes unusable. The article notes that “for once, move fast and break things isn’t the order of the day.” The orbital environment is a finite commons requiring deliberate, cooperative stewardship.

2. Regulatory dysfunction: Private spaceflight has flourished under light regulation, but this permissive environment is attracting legislative attention. The Senate is considering a bill to codify streamlined licensing; California, “possibly out of animus for Mr. Musk,” opposes it. The outcome will significantly influence the pace of commercial development.

3. Structural inefficiency of government space programs: NASA’s Artemis programme, centred on the Space Launch System and Orion capsule, represents a $100 billion investment in cost-plus contracts with traditional aerospace—the model SpaceX’s fixed-price contracts rendered obsolete. The Trump budget proposal reportedly calls for scrapping this investment after 2028, recognising it is “too expensive, too complicated, too uncompetitive.” Terminating a $100 billion programme with workers in key congressional districts requires political bravery that may not materialise.

Q5: How does the article reframe the debate over industrial policy and protectionism in the context of the space revolution?
A5: The article reframes the debate by rejecting both complacent faith that markets will automatically preserve American leadership and panicked protectionism that seeks to shield domestic industries from competition. China’s rise in solar, EVs, and space was enabled not by free markets but by systematic, sustained, strategically targeted industrial policy. The distinction that matters is not between industrial policy and its absence but between competent and incompetent industrial policy. China’s has been, on balance, competent—focused on capability acquisition, tolerant of excess capacity, disciplined in credit allocation. America’s has often been incompetent—captured by incumbents, distorted by earmarks, evaluated by inputs rather than outputs. The space revolution offers an opportunity to demonstrate competent strategic policy: the leading companies are American, their advantage is real, and the task is not protection but enabling competition through streamlined regulation, strategic procurement, and investment in enabling infrastructure. The article’s concluding question—which countries are likely to prevail, those affording industries free access to global division of labour or those following industrial policy?—is answered implicitly: those that practise competent industrial policy, whether they acknowledge doing so or not.