I would say it should lead to reform in the legislative process for these sorts of projects. This launch represents the triumph of private enterprise, yes, but there is a strategic need for the US to have such capabilities independently of the ups & downs of private industry. So I would say it points to the need to have a blended approach. I would love, for example, for NASA to license the technology from SpaceX with a massive knowledge-transfer initiative to provide NASA the capabilities to do these launches itself.
I would love, for example, for NASA to license the technology from SpaceX with a massive knowledge-transfer initiative to provide NASA the capabilities to do these launches itself.
NASA wants to do exactly the opposite: help create an economy in low earth orbit in which there are many suppliers and many buyers in a healthy market. A market that doesn't need a lot of government intervention, so NASA can buy rides the way they buy regular non-space commercial shipping of people and cargo between NASA centers. They want LEO flights to eventually be managed by FAA and some traffic control organization, like airliner flights.
This can only work if there truly are many competing sellers and buyers of the same service.
A market with a monopoly or monopsony doesn't work well, and the military industrial sector often has both: NASA, NRO and DoD are not competing as buyers while Boeing, Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman basically take turns as contractors because DoD doesn't let one win or lose too many contracts in a row to prevent one of them needing rescue.
I would love, for example, for NASA to license the technology from SpaceX with a massive knowledge-transfer initiative to provide NASA the capabilities to do these launches itself.