Original | Odaily Planet Daily(@OdailyChina)
Author|Azuma(@azuma_eth)
Last week, several mainstream media outlets including Bloomberg reported on the news that 'SpaceX will gradually phase out the Falcon 9 and fully commit to the Starship'.
These reports indicated, according to an insider, SpaceX has begun refusing dedicated commercial launch orders for its main rocket the 'Falcon 9' scheduled beyond 2028, and has suspended new bookings for its rideshare launch program, in order to accelerate the transition to Starship.
The source also added that SpaceX has halted production of some non-reusable components for the Falcon 9 series but is expected to continue using the rocket for missions for the U.S. Department of Defense and NASA. Should the subsequent development of Starship fall short of expectations, related plans may be adjusted.
After this news spread, it quickly stirred up the entire commercial space market, with analysts from various fields subsequently launching discussions and analyses.
Some believe that the Falcon 9 has long dominated the global commercial launch market with its high success rate, low cost, and mature reusability, while Starship represents SpaceX's bet on the next-generation super heavy-lift launch vehicle and the deep space exploration market. Therefore, if SpaceX begins actively scaling back its Falcon 9 business, it would signify an acceleration in its commercial strategic shift and could also alter the competitive landscape of the entire commercial space industry chain.
Others argue that SpaceX's overly aggressive bet on the not-yet-mature Starship could present an opportunity for second-tier commercial space companies like Rocket Lab, which might take over some of the market gap left by SpaceX.
However, just as the market was discussing this news, an even more dramatic twist emerged.
On July 25th, a user named Yatharth Mann posted on a social media platform, stating that the 'SpaceX insider' referenced in the above reports actually did not exist, and that he himself was the creator of this 'leak'.
Mann claimed that several months ago, he had sent emails to multiple media outlets, including Bloomberg, The Wall Street Journal, and Reuters, posing as an engineer on SpaceX's Falcon rocket team.
To enhance credibility, Mann not only used a seemingly authentic internal company identity but also deliberately included expressions of dissatisfaction with Elon Musk and Trump in the emails, to align with external expectations regarding the stance of SpaceX employees.
In the emails, Mann fabricated a series of false information about the Falcon 9 business adjustments, including that SpaceX would gradually reduce Falcon 9 component production, retain missions only for NASA and others in the future, and complete the transition by 2028. This information, entirely concocted by Mann, later appeared in media reports, packaged as 'insider revelations'......
Mann also highlighted a specific detail: in his leak, he clearly stated 'SpaceX will gradually reduce production of Falcon 9 first stages,' but Bloomberg and other media reported 'reduce second-stage production.' Mann raised a professional objection to Bloomberg and other media on this point, commenting that 'this makes no sense at all,' because the first stage is the reusable part, while the second stages are single-use. Production for the second stage could never be stockpiled in large quantities like other rockets to meet launch demand.
Currently, Mann's account has not been publicly confirmed by the related media, and the media outlets implicated in the reporting have yet to issue public responses. Regardless, this storm triggered by a 'fake email' has become one of the most dramatic episodes in the commercial space sector recently.
The facts are so absurd and ironic. An ordinary netizen, by forging an identity and sending a few emails, managed to get news about SpaceX's business route adjustments into mainstream media, directly influencing market discussion and secondary market speculation.
Next time you see mentions of 'anonymous sources,' 'sources,' or 'insiders' in media reports, perhaps you should be more cautious.
