> Is the Falcon 9 really low-cost or maybe is it that NASA and the American government is indirectly subsidizing the company by overpaying for their launch cont

> Is the Falcon 9 really low-cost or maybe is it that NASA and the American government is indirectly subsidizing the company by overpaying for their launch contracts? How can it be overpaying when they crushed the previous monopoly on launch held by ULA? It is known that both Delta and Atlas are a lot more expensive than F9. And that's been borne out when competing for government contracts, they pretty much always have the low bid and/or have forced their competitors to significantly lower their prices. ISS resupply 1 and 2, Commercial Crew, NROL launches, GPS launches, etc. Look back at the award process if you like. They did come in 2nd to Vulcan for the recent NSSL contract, which surprised a lot of people. Vulcan, of course, is a newly developed, as yet to be flown rocket and it looks like factors other than price made the difference.