Human Spaceflight: No Longer Possible Without SpaceX

In June 2025, the bromance between President Donald Trump and Elon Musk turned into a public feud. Upset by rising government debt, the SpaceX CEO called the president's new "Big Beautiful" budget bill "disgusting," and an "abomination" -- to which the president responded with threats to save money by canceling government contracts with SpaceX and its Starlink subsidiary.

The argument threatened to spiral out of control until Musk played his trump card (pun intended): If the U.S. government no longer required SpaceX's services, then it shouldn't mind SpaceX decommissioning its Dragon space capsules, used to shuttle astronauts to and from the International Space Station (ISS).

Musk withdrew the threat within hours, but the point had been made. Shortly thereafter, the feud simmered down. And why?

I'm assuming it's because someone pointed out that without the Dragon capsules, America is almost entirely incapable of human spaceflight.

Image source: SpaceX.

Boeing can't launch astronauts anymore

To many taxpayers (and investors), this probably comes as a surprise. After all, more than a decade ago, when NASA first proposed shifting astronaut missions to commercial contractors, it sought to avoid a situation in which the government would be dependent on just one space provider by awarding twin Commercial Crew contracts to both SpaceX and Boeing (NYSE: BA).

Problem was, while SpaceX performed on its contract, and has indeed already conducted nearly a dozen Commercial Crew missions with its Dragon capsules, Boeing has only done (half of) one. A test flight in 2024 went awry, forcing NASA to bring Boeing's Starliner space capsule back to Earth empty, and stranding the two astronauts it was carrying aboard ISS until SpaceX was able to rescue them earlier this year.

Boeing had hoped to fix the problems with its spacecraft and continue trying to get Starliner certified for human spaceflight. But late last month, NASA announced that the next Starliner mission will carry cargo only, as it's still not certain the spacecraft is safe for astronauts. The space agency ratcheted down the number of crewed missions Boeing might eventually perform, too, from six previously, to four -- and set no dates for when those flights might (or might not) happen.

Long story short, NASA cannot simply substitute Boeing's Starliner if the Dragon capsules are retired, at least not yet.

Russia can't launch astronauts, either

The next shoe dropped just days after this Boeing news broke. Over at Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan, at the Roscosmos launch site 31/6 used for crewed missions known, a Soyuz rocket blasted off with two Russian cosmonauts and one American astronaut on board on Nov. 27. The launch itself went fine, and the crew members all arrived safely aboard ISS a day later.

Site 31/6 itself wasn't so lucky.

Do to a mechanical defect that the Russians aren't eager to discuss publicly, it seems the "launch service platform," which supports the Soyuz rocket before liftoff and is retracted just before launch (to not get toasted), broke free from its restraints and fell into the launch pad's flame trench, either during or shortly after launch. It's essential for future launches, but apparently broken beyond repair, and replacing it "could take up to two years," according to Russian media.

Historically, Russia and America have taken turns giving each other's spacefarers lifts to ISS. But for the next two years, Russia can't launch cosmonauts to ISS.

And they can't launch American astronauts, either.

No good alternatives to SpaceX

Are there any alternatives to using SpaceX to reach the International Space Station? Short answer: no. Longer answer: Maybe, but they're far-fetched.

Theoretically, Chinese rockets based on the Soyuz design might carry astronauts (or cosmonauts, or Chinese taikonauts) to ISS. But current U.S. law forbids Chinese participation in the ISS project, so that's probably a no-go.

Lockheed Martin has a crew-capable spacecraft, the Orion, that it plans to use to send astronauts to the moon. However, that vessel is intended to be launched only atop Space Launch System rockets, which cost $2 billion apiece, making this solution cost-prohibitive.

And that's it. While other space companies exist, such as Rocket Lab, for example, Northrop Grumman, and many others, none of them currently fly spacecraft that are rated safe for humans.

As a result, SpaceX, with its Falcon 9 rockets and Dragon capsules, are now the only way to get astronauts to and from ISS. In a situation like this one, SpaceX can (theoretically) now name its price for this service, as it has literally no competition for the service it provides.

Entirely coincidentally, I'm sure, earlier this week, Elon Musk announced that he will finally proceed with the long-awaited SpaceX IPO in 2026. I suspect it will be very successful.

Rich Smith has positions in Rocket Lab. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Boeing and Rocket Lab. The Motley Fool recommends Lockheed Martin. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.