That mirrors my point of view (I'm in aerospace). Maybe interesting to add: Aerospace is one of the most conservative industries I know, to the brink of overconvidence and beyond. The main reason here are, for me:
1. A duopoly for big aircrafts by Boeing and Airbus (you have to look at the development and industrialisation nightmares of the B787 and the A380 to see where that got them)
2. National monopolies for military aircraft almost everywhere, meaning not pressure to deliver on-spec on-time in-budget since these contracts are basically subsidies
3. Protected space-flight markets, also to a high degree to military aspects
4. High entry barries, e.g. development costs, costs for market penetration, regulations (both civil and military), etc...
Given the above facts, it's clear that the big guys everywhere do everything to protect their market share against others like SpaceX, the chinese (commercial airliners) and the like. But a situation like that also means death to innovation, we are cooking in own juice (if you can say that in english...). The only thing the hold Boeings Lockheeds BAes and EADS grip on the industry are the above mentioned facts, hopfully that changes with the raise of the likes of Embraer, the chinese and (as I personally hope because I like the indesttuctable designs) the recovering russians, some competition can only help.
Another reason why aerospace is slow on innovation and radical design is also safety, something you cannot discard. When lifes are at stake, you don't take any unnecessary risk. First because you are most certainly not allowed too by regulations and also due to a culture of not taking unnecessary risks rooted in security issues. This was different in the past, but raisning costs a and a more risk aware (i'm not giong as far to say risk afraid) public changed that a lot. Again a quasi monoploy didn't help neither.
And as far as SpaceX is concerned: NASA open up a huge window of opportunity to disrupt space flight by retiering the shuttle which left almost overnight only the russians. And Elon Musk took that window, among others.
1. A duopoly for big aircrafts by Boeing and Airbus (you have to look at the development and industrialisation nightmares of the B787 and the A380 to see where that got them)
2. National monopolies for military aircraft almost everywhere, meaning not pressure to deliver on-spec on-time in-budget since these contracts are basically subsidies
3. Protected space-flight markets, also to a high degree to military aspects
4. High entry barries, e.g. development costs, costs for market penetration, regulations (both civil and military), etc...
Given the above facts, it's clear that the big guys everywhere do everything to protect their market share against others like SpaceX, the chinese (commercial airliners) and the like. But a situation like that also means death to innovation, we are cooking in own juice (if you can say that in english...). The only thing the hold Boeings Lockheeds BAes and EADS grip on the industry are the above mentioned facts, hopfully that changes with the raise of the likes of Embraer, the chinese and (as I personally hope because I like the indesttuctable designs) the recovering russians, some competition can only help.
Another reason why aerospace is slow on innovation and radical design is also safety, something you cannot discard. When lifes are at stake, you don't take any unnecessary risk. First because you are most certainly not allowed too by regulations and also due to a culture of not taking unnecessary risks rooted in security issues. This was different in the past, but raisning costs a and a more risk aware (i'm not giong as far to say risk afraid) public changed that a lot. Again a quasi monoploy didn't help neither.
And as far as SpaceX is concerned: NASA open up a huge window of opportunity to disrupt space flight by retiering the shuttle which left almost overnight only the russians. And Elon Musk took that window, among others.
And if you ask me, this was about time!