[l3amm]

TL;DR version (though you should just read it): The space industry is a great example of path dependency and lock-in in innovation. The reasons why we use rockets to launch satellites are historical dating back to the days of Hitler and the H-Bomb. After trillions spent on developing ICBMs capable of crossing the world, our governments are 'locked-in' to using rockets to get things into space. Using rockets for this purpose is not nearly as efficient as other methods, but we have perfected that practice to the point of perfection. In order to increase space accessibility we need to "cross-the-valley" to another technology, but since it has taken so much money (path-dependent) we are locked-in, and it will be very hard to innovate in this space.

[crikli]

TL;DR version of this TL;DR version:

We use rockets to get to space because getting as good at other methods is too expensive.

[iuygtfrgth]

Not quite - we use very large expensive rockets to launch very large expensive payloads. The rockets are large and expensive because the payloads are large and expensive - which they need to be because launches are large and expensive.

Imagine if Nasa had been in charge of developing aviation in the US - you certainly wouldn't have Cessnas and 737s.

There is a brilliant parody about Nasa being in charge of the old wagon trains going into the weat and their plans to make one giant wagon that would be able to make the journey and return safely.