4 ms·

It is undeniable that NASA/NROL/USAF contracts and support benefited spaceX especially early on . However their commercial launch business is still considerabl

It is undeniable that NASA/NROL/USAF contracts and support benefited spaceX especially early on . However their commercial launch business is still considerably larger than what US gov gives them and always has been , it is possible and quite likely they would have existed as a successful commercial space launch company without government contracts , albeit smaller and perhaps slower to reach many milestones . I can also argue reasonably that many things US government wants is not useful (or simply restricted) for other customers and building those features were and are a distraction. No different for a startup to have a very large customer who has all sorts of customization needs that no other customer will focusing on that can kill the company as ULA and Boeing space are feeling today. SpaceX is successful because they don’t need government support not because of it, they can build starship without waiting for a nasa mission and not even using VC money but just money from their revenues .

verzali 2y ago
A big chunk of Starship funding is coming from NASA for the Artemis HLS.
- avmich 2y ago
  https://spacenews.com/nasa-awards-spacex-1-15-billion-contract-for-second-artemis-lander-mission/ https://spacenews.com/nasa-awards-spacex-1-15-billion-contra... So, two flights to the Moon - ~$4B. SpaceX already spent around that on the developments in Boca Chica, each flight - expendable - is estimated at $0.1B, we already had 4 and they are surely more costly. We still have to have 2 HLS to fly and 20-30 Starship flights to refuel them, and that's the lower bound in expenses. Big chunk, likely. But definitely not nearly all the money.
  - verzali 2y ago
    That's an interesting cost-based criticism of Starship. I hope you are wrong and SpaceX can actually do this profitably, otherwise its potential will be much reduced.
    - avmich 2y ago
      The development is what already being spent... Each flight, after development is complete, will be reusable - that's the plan - and will cost less than $0.1B == 100 millions dollars, if total per-Starship expenses are divided into the total number of that Starship flights. Yes, I hope the eventual costs per flight would be lower, the point is the cost of the program is surely way more than $4B.
ceejayoz 2y ago
> it is possible and quite likely they would have existed as a successful commercial space launch company without government contracts... Even Musk doesn't make that claim. 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... "“I messed up the first three launches. The first three launches failed. And fortunately the fourth launch, which was, that was the last money that we had for Falcon 1. That fourth launch worked. Or it would have been — that would have been it for SpaceX. But fate liked us that day. So, the fourth launch worked,” says Musk." Flights one, two, and three all involved government funding (Air Force and DARPA payloads). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RatSat#Aftermath https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RatSat#Aftermath "Even though SpaceX finally has achieved a successful orbital flight, Musk only has $30 million left and was unable to support both SpaceX and Tesla for two months. Contrary to popular belief, Falcon 1's flight 4 did not directly lead to more customer contracts. Through 2008, SpaceX launch manifest at the time only consisted of RazakSAT. Rather, it was NASA's Commercial Orbital Transportation Services and subsequent Commercial Resupply Services contracts that provided SpaceX much-needed fund to save it from bankruptcy."
- avmich 2y ago
  Don't forget SpaceX was the first private company which achieved orbit without external money, and did that for awfully less money than e.g. Air Force thought possible. Give the credit where it's due, as they say.
  - ceejayoz 2y ago
    > Don't forget SpaceX was the first private company which achieved orbit without external money... No; SpaceX received DARPA (https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20060048219/downloads/20060048219.pdf https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20060048219/downloads/20...), Air Force (https://www.space.com/2196-spacex-inaugural-falcon-1-rocket-lost-launch.html https://www.space.com/2196-spacex-inaugural-falcon-1-rocket-...), and NASA funding (COTS, in 2006) prior to their first orbital success with Falcon 1.
    - 2y ago

verzali 2y ago

A big chunk of Starship funding is coming from NASA for the Artemis HLS.

avmich 2y ago
https://spacenews.com/nasa-awards-spacex-1-15-billion-contract-for-second-artemis-lander-mission/ https://spacenews.com/nasa-awards-spacex-1-15-billion-contra... So, two flights to the Moon - ~$4B. SpaceX already spent around that on the developments in Boca Chica, each flight - expendable - is estimated at $0.1B, we already had 4 and they are surely more costly. We still have to have 2 HLS to fly and 20-30 Starship flights to refuel them, and that's the lower bound in expenses. Big chunk, likely. But definitely not nearly all the money.
- verzali 2y ago
  That's an interesting cost-based criticism of Starship. I hope you are wrong and SpaceX can actually do this profitably, otherwise its potential will be much reduced.
  - avmich 2y ago
    The development is what already being spent... Each flight, after development is complete, will be reusable - that's the plan - and will cost less than $0.1B == 100 millions dollars, if total per-Starship expenses are divided into the total number of that Starship flights. Yes, I hope the eventual costs per flight would be lower, the point is the cost of the program is surely way more than $4B.

ceejayoz 2y ago

> it is possible and quite likely they would have existed as a successful commercial space launch company without government contracts... Even Musk doesn't make that claim. 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... "“I messed up the first three launches. The first three launches failed. And fortunately the fourth launch, which was, that was the last money that we had for Falcon 1. That fourth launch worked. Or it would have been — that would have been it for SpaceX. But fate liked us that day. So, the fourth launch worked,” says Musk." Flights one, two, and three all involved government funding (Air Force and DARPA payloads). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RatSat#Aftermath https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RatSat#Aftermath "Even though SpaceX finally has achieved a successful orbital flight, Musk only has $30 million left and was unable to support both SpaceX and Tesla for two months. Contrary to popular belief, Falcon 1's flight 4 did not directly lead to more customer contracts. Through 2008, SpaceX launch manifest at the time only consisted of RazakSAT. Rather, it was NASA's Commercial Orbital Transportation Services and subsequent Commercial Resupply Services contracts that provided SpaceX much-needed fund to save it from bankruptcy."

avmich 2y ago
Don't forget SpaceX was the first private company which achieved orbit without external money, and did that for awfully less money than e.g. Air Force thought possible. Give the credit where it's due, as they say.
- ceejayoz 2y ago
  > Don't forget SpaceX was the first private company which achieved orbit without external money... No; SpaceX received DARPA (https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20060048219/downloads/20060048219.pdf https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20060048219/downloads/20...), Air Force (https://www.space.com/2196-spacex-inaugural-falcon-1-rocket-lost-launch.html https://www.space.com/2196-spacex-inaugural-falcon-1-rocket-...), and NASA funding (COTS, in 2006) prior to their first orbital success with Falcon 1.
  - 2y ago