> the NASA has … been throwing money at SpaceX since (at least) 2006: * https://www.nasa.gov/exploration/news/COTS_selection.html https://www.nasa.gov/explora

> the NASA has … been throwing money at SpaceX since (at least) 2006: * https://www.nasa.gov/exploration/news/COTS_selection.html https://www.nasa.gov/exploration/news/COTS_selection.html The thing about R&D is that you do not know ahead of time what will work and what will fail. Some of NASA's programs failed and some have succeeded. But there was no way to know if SpaceX would be the winner, or SLS, or anything else. SpaceX itself nearly failed: * https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/29/elon-musk-9-years-ago-spacex-nearly-failed-itself-out-of-existence.html https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/29/elon-musk-9-years-ago-spacex... > … and certainly nothing reusable. Reusable was never done before (AFAICT). It turns out that it is actually technically possible and useful. But there was no way to know that ahead of time. It was a risk that SpaceX, and NASA by funding them, that just happened to work out.