
SpaceX wins $440M contract with NASA to develop Space Shuttle successor - natep
http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1208/03ccicap/spacex.html
======
btilly
It is easy to use superlatives like "safest rocket ever designed". But a lot
of stuff can go wrong - fast - when you're sitting on a big pile of potential
explosives that under other circumstances you'd keep a safe distance from.
Until they actually achieve it, you shouldn't throw the superlatives around.

I will be the first to applaud if SpaceX achieves this goal. I am certain that
they want to achieve this goal. But when you look at previous launch vehicles
from existing agencies that had over 100 launches, their launch failure rate
vary from 1.4% (the Space Shuttle) to 14% (US Atlas) with the Russian Soyuz
and European Ariane both coming in somewhere around 5%. SpaceX would have to
improve on existing rocket designs by several orders of magnitude just to get
to a pretty crappy safety record.

So far SpaceX has had 8 launches with 5 consecutive successes. The initial
failures were clearly part of the learning process. But their current string
of successes does not provide any statistical evidence that they will prove to
be safer in the long run than even the worst major rocket program. Sure they
plan to be safe. But safety is based on seeing what happens, not what they
planned to have happen.

In this light it is worth reviewing
[http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/missions/51-l/docs/roger...](http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/missions/51-l/docs/rogers-
commission/Appendix-F.txt) to see how safe people thought that the Space
Shuttle would be. Initial estimates of the safety of a launch went from 1/100
to 1/100,000 with the riskier estimates coming from lower level engineers and
the safer ones coming from upper management. Whenever you see numbers in the
press, it is guaranteed that they represent the view from the top. We should
therefore assume that they will prove to be shockingly optimistic until there
is concrete data.

~~~
ceejayoz
> It is easy to use superlatives like "safest rocket ever designed". But a lot
> of stuff can go wrong - fast - when you're sitting on a big pile of
> potential explosives that under other circumstances you'd keep a safe
> distance from. Until they actually achieve it, you shouldn't throw the
> superlatives around.

This claim revolves more around the fact that the rocket can do a powered
abort at any time, I think. It's purely liquid fueled, with full ability to
shut off and restart the engines. They're also designing the capsule to land
on rockets, meaning it won't need to aim at a runway or water - any flat area
will do.

~~~
btilly
So what you're telling me is that they have a more sophisticated system than
previous ones with sophisticated backups. When it comes to reliability
sophisticated can go either way - it can be better or can just give more
things than can go wrong. For instance what happens on your vertical landing
if a sensor malfunction causes the software to decide that the rocket is not
vertical unless it is at a 20% tilt? (Don't laugh - based on the description
that Elon gave in an interview, the failure of their third launch was due to a
sensor that concluded they were in high in the atmosphere while they were
still on the ground. Bad things happened when it tried to initiate rocket
separation on the launch pad.)

Until you have actual experience with the weird stuff that goes wrong in the
field, you do not really know what is going to go wrong. And the more
complicated the system is, the more true this fact is.

Incidentally I had the opportunity at one point to ask the first software
developer ever hired at SpaceX whether he would trust his own software. His
answer was enlightening, _I wouldn't want to put my life in the hands of
someone who trusted his own software, so I'm going to say no._

There is always SOMETHING that can go wrong. You want the person who created
your safety system to be a paranoid freak. And you have to pray that they
didn't miss something. You hope and pray for the best, but until you have
actual data, you don't know how it is going to turn out.

~~~
ceejayoz
> So what you're telling me is that they have a more sophisticated system than
> previous ones with sophisticated backups.

Given that the shuttle's SRBs were "once they start, they don't stop until
they're empty", sometimes more complicated is a good thing.

> Until you have actual experience with the weird stuff that goes wrong in the
> field, you do not really know what is going to go wrong. And the more
> complicated the system is, the more true this fact is.

I'm fairly certain SpaceX has been employing people with actual experience.

> Incidentally I had the opportunity at one point to ask the first software
> developer ever hired at SpaceX whether he would trust his own software. His
> answer was enlightening, I wouldn't want to put my life in the hands of
> someone who trusted his own software, so I'm going to say no.

That's why they probably have more than one developer plus QA team.

> There is always SOMETHING that can go wrong. You want the person who created
> your safety system to be a paranoid freak. And you have to pray that they
> didn't miss something. You hope and pray for the best, but until you have
> actual data, you don't know how it is going to turn out.

True, certainly, but the same argument can be used on cars. Things still go
wrong, but we can also safely say they're safer than a car from the 1970s.

~~~
btilly
You're wrong that the same argument can be used on cars. Because one thing
that we have with cars is lots and lots of real data from the field. We don't
say that cars today are safer than cars from the 70s because we have a list of
safety features. We can say it because we have actual accident statistics and
casualty rates.

Yet even with cars, even with the fact that they have experienced designers,
when you build a new car model and put it out, you don't always get it right.
You don't know what you did wrong. Which is why we regularly see safety
recalls issued on cars - even from the best companies - for everything from
software updates to changing the floor mat.

Until you see a model in use in the real world you simply don't know. Even if
you have experience on a related model, there is the possibility of something
new going wrong. Something you would have never thought of. Like the gas pedal
getting stuck on a floor mat.

You take into account everything you know about. You run every feasible test
that you think is useful. You run tests in simulators, on isolated components,
on the whole model. You review and double review your work. You set up safety
checklists to verify everything on the spot. But until you actually see the
accident data, you don't really know whether you missed something important.

This is true for cars. It is true for airplanes. It is true for rockets. But
the critical differences are that rockets are inherently more dangerous, it
isn't feasible to do the same number of tests on them, and we don't get nearly
as much accident data.

~~~
ceejayoz
OK, let's put it this way.

You have to options:

Option 1: Ride in a car with a single button labeled "press to start engines,
you will not be able to stop until they run out of fuel". This car has been
driven about a hundred times.

Option 2: Ride in a car with a "start engine" button and a "stop engine"
button, plus a throttle. This car has been driven several times plus extensive
testing on the ground.

"Option 2 is a safer setup" seems like a fair statement.

~~~
Tloewald
The shuttle also contains design compromises caused by congress splitting up
contracting. E.g. The o-rings are there to seal connections that an ideal
design wouldn't have. The pieces joined were assembled in different
congressional districts.

------
javanix
According to
[http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/about/information/shuttl...](http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/about/information/shuttle_faq.html#10)
each Shuttle launch cost about $450 million.

This contract amount seems to suggest that SpaceX launches will come in
significantly lower than the Shuttle - a very good sign for continued space
research.

~~~
dfriedmn
One of Musk's original goals was to do it 10x cheaper, and accd to his recent
discussion with NPR, he's already at 1/8th of the cost(1). What an amazing
accomplishment. 1\. [http://www.npr.org/2012/05/18/153015277/on-eve-of-launch-
spa...](http://www.npr.org/2012/05/18/153015277/on-eve-of-launch-spacex-head-
talks-about-mission)

~~~
erikpukinskis
I commend SpaceX for the work they've done to reduce the costs, but it's not
particularly fair to compare to the Shuttle program for several reasons:

1) SpaceX employs engineers who worked on the Shuttle, thus getting all of
their lessons learned for free.

2) SpaceX gets to use facilities NASA built, like launchpads and testing
facilities much more cheaply than if they had to build their own facilities.
They tested their heat shields at NASA Ames, for example.

3) Everything is cheaper now. Not just raw materials, but imagine the cost
savings when every engineer has a (Shuttle Era) supercomputer on their desk.
Testing is dramatically less expensive.

4) Everything is better now. The (NASA developed) heat shields are much higher
performance than those available in the Shuttle era. The level of computer
control is much more sophisticated. Better technology means you can do more
with less.

In short, SpaceX has massive, _massive_ advantages over the original Shuttle
team. I would hope that they could do more, more safely, at less cost.

~~~
alpine
If I remember my history correctly, the original shuttle objectives were
compromised by US intelligence interests that required the shuttle to attain
certain latitudes that were good for launching intel assets? If so, the
shuttle program could have been a lot cheaper?

~~~
anovikov
It was even worse. They required ability to fly to polar orbits, plus ability
to make single-orbit missions, which meant a lot of cross-range (meaning
otherwise unnecessarily heavy wings). To make things worse, nobody ever paid
for these features because Air Force bailed out of Shuttle project long before
first flight, but when it was too late to delete hardware needed for these
now-unnecessary features. Shuttle had terribly bad luck since the beginning.

------
beambot
SpaceX is just one part of this program... _As part of the new agreements,
Sierra Nevada will receive $212.5 million, SpaceX will receive $440 million,
and Boeing will receive $460 million._

[http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/08/03/nasa-
awards-11-bil...](http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/08/03/nasa-
awards-11-billion-in-support-for-3-private-space-taxis)

~~~
branola
_Sierra Nevada will receive $212.5 million_

Didn't realize beer was such an integral part of space exploration.

~~~
AgentConundrum
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sierra_Nevada_Corporation>

------
ahsteele
To set an infinite value on the life of an astronaut is to set both the goals
of the space exploration effort and the needs of the rest of humanity at
naught.

[http://reason.com/archives/2012/01/26/how-much-is-an-
astrona...](http://reason.com/archives/2012/01/26/how-much-is-an-astronauts-
life-worth)

------
ColinWright
The SpaceX announcement: <http://www.spacex.com/press.php?page=20120803>

------
austenallred
I'm impressed that there's $440M left in NASA (or over $1 Billion with Sierra
Nevada and Boeing included) to fund a new space shuttle, somehow I was under
the false impression that there wouldn't be any more of that type of thing.

Hats off, Elon Musk. Hats. Off.

~~~
JPKab
It's a travesty that Boeing got more than SpaceX, and Sierra Nevada got any
money at all. I can't wait to see those two bloated, horrifically managed
behemoths fail miserable with the money. The only reason NASA gave them
anything was to shut up the congressman Boeing and Sierra have in their
pockets. Remember this, because SpaceX, with slightly less money than Boeing,
will produce FAR, FAR more.

~~~
zcvosdfdgj
Sierra Nevada and SpaceX have almost the same number of employees. So not sure
why you think they're bloated and SpaceX isn't.

Personally I'm happy NASA spread the money around. The last thing we need is
the government to simply build another Boeing or Lockheed. And by that I mean:
if SpaceX has 100% of the market because of NASAs funding, I fully expect them
to stop competing on price (at some point).

~~~
jessriedel
> if SpaceX has 100% of the market because of NASAs funding, I fully expect
> them to stop competing on price (at some point).

Probably, although you should keep in mind that SpaceX == Elon Musk, since he
plans on retaining a majority share.

------
catshirt
with that money they could have built a whole 4/10ths of an instagram though

~~~
archangel_one
No, they could have _bought_ 4/10 of an Instagram. Building it cost a lot
less.

~~~
catshirt
you're right, but that doesn't sound any better

~~~
stcredzero
Sounds more fun.

------
rwhitman
Eventually one of these private space companies will have a highly public,
challenger-type disaster. I wonder if a startup like SpaceX could survive
something like that.

~~~
ChuckMcM
Kind of depends on ratios apparently. Not to pick on Airbus but they have had
planes drop out of the sky over the ocean, plow into the ground at an air
show, and run out of gas mid flight. But they have survived. Most of their
planes have worked fine.

If SpaceX has 500 successful launches and one blows up and kills everyone on
board, it will be sad, but it wont kill them, it might not even hurt their
stock if they couldn't have avoided it.

That is a long way of saying the answer is that they probably won't have an
issue if they have done a good job on the engineering and find out quickly the
root cause of the accident.

~~~
Tloewald
Airbus was some kind of convoluted giant joint venture between Europe's
governments and largest aerospace concerns, with a Lot of national prestige
(and defense connections) wrapped up in it so it was kind of too big to fail
and not a very good example in this context.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EADS>

------
samstave
Musk is the most interesting man in the valley. This is awesome! Congrats to
SpaceX!

~~~
Donwangugi
He lives in Bel Air

~~~
ChuckMcM
He must have meant the San Fernando Valley :-)

------
rms
If you're reading this and are in LA, you might want to come to this party
Saturday night (August 4th). [http://blog.ancientlasers.com/come-party-with-
bill-nye-to-ce...](http://blog.ancientlasers.com/come-party-with-bill-nye-to-
celebrate-the-mars-landing/)

------
ck2
How about we give them the TSA annual budget for a year? ($8+ billion)

------
FrojoS
Awesome. So essentially, SpaceX will go ahead and add an escape and life
support system to dragon. Plus, they will use the escape thruster for _ground
touchdown_ as well!

------
chucknelson
Good for them - let's hope more commercial space companies appear in the next
decade.

------
JoeCortopassi
Every time I see something like a rocket or space shuttle launch, _I can't
help but wonder how much of the weight and cost could be saved using
alternative methods_. Even helium/hydrogen filled balloons could get them a
good chunk of the way there. I know that would be horribly impractical for
something the size of the shuttle and it's rocket boosters/fuel tanks, but if
a balloon rig can get them to 120,000 ft they have gotten 15% of the way there
(and overcome initial inertia) for pennys, and could probably shed a lot of
weight that it normally uses to overcome those first 20 miles or so. Plus, at
120,000ft, gravity has already dropped from something like 9.8 newtons (sea
level) to 9.68 (120,000ft). This might not seem like much, but it a good chunk
of the way to the 9newtons that the Space Shuttle normally orbits at, and has
to allow them to shed even more weight.

I'm obviously not an astro-physicist, physicist, or even that smart of a guy.
I just can't help but think there are more efficient ways to get past
100,000ft without brute forcing the problem with rockets

~~~
derekp7
The job of the rockets isn't to gain height (that is a side effect), unless
you are working with a sub-orbital design. The job is to accelerate the
payload to around Mach 25 or so. The reason this is challenging is that you
not only have to accelerate the payload, you also have to accelerate the fuel,
fuel tanks, engines, and other associated hardware too. Which is why the
promising techs mostly revolve around using less fuel (such as rail launch for
the initial oomph), or something like scram jet for the first stage (they part
of the fuel and reaction mass comes from the atmosphere for the first few
Mach). Or something that has very small fuel amounts, and only caries reaction
mass (nuclear with H2O as the reaction mass).

~~~
learc83
However, air density is lower the higher you go--allowing for easier
acceleration.

~~~
danielweber
This is the big deal with air-launch or dirigible-launch or whatever you call
it. The air resistance of the atmosphere is significant.

IIRC, it takes 9 km/s of delta-v to get from ground to LEO. LEO is only
orbitting at ~7.7 km/s, though, so you can save at least 1 km/s of fuel.

As others have said, schemes like Stratolaunch or SpaceShipOne also get
horizontal velocity from the mothership.

~~~
zevets
It's not that high. A lot of the losses in take-off aren't the consequence of
drag. I think I saw on wikipedia that the aerodynamics losses are only 1-200
m/s of the delta-v budget.

~~~
danielweber
I surely don't want to use this site as gospel (especially since I can't pull
up a better version of that graph) but it claims that the losses are around
25% at sea level. [http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/07/commercial-shows-
reig...](http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/07/commercial-shows-reignited-
interest-air-launch-system/)

Going by raw math, if the Earth were a perfect magic sphere with no
atmosphere, you could attain "orbit" at ground-level by accelerating to 7.90
km/s. Then you could Hohmann to LEO with one 0.06 km/s burn to transfer up and
another 0.06 km/s burn to achieve a circular orbit, so that's only 8.02 km/s
in an ideal world. [Oh, I forgot that you start with about 0.40 km/s from
rotation if you are near the equator.]

Oh, finally found a nice reference, on Wiki:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_Earth_orbit#Human_use> _The delta-v needed
to achieve low earth orbit starts around 9.4km/s. Atmospheric and gravity drag
associated with launch typically adds 1.5–2.0 km/s to the delta-v launch
vehicle required to reach normal LEO orbital velocity of around 7.8 km/s
(28,080 km/h)._ It doesn't break those out, unfortunately.

~~~
lutorm
They aren't independent, though. "Gravity drag" comes from the fact that you
need to put in 1G just to remain at constant speed. It's thus most efficient
to have as high acceleration as possible. Unfortunately the aerodynamics work
in the opposite direction: you _don't_ want to go fast because that increases
aero losses and there's a limit to how fast you can go in the lower atmosphere
without breaking up. So the combined effects probably mean that the net loss
is quite a bit larger than you could achieve if you only had to minimize one
of them.

------
filipncs
So where does this leave Blue Origin?

There's been almost no news since last year, and they weren't included in this
round of funding.

------
bengl3rt
$440M is pocket change compared to what the first shuttle cost and it is a
small fraction compared to what I imagine a new one might cost. If they can
pull it off, though, huge kudos to them.

------
RyanMcGreal
Has SpaceX gotten a contract to manufacture the ship according to NASA's
preset specifications, or has it been hired to design and manufacture a ship
that fulfills NASA's requirements?

~~~
ceejayoz
Dragon is already designed to fit their requirements, IIRC.

------
JL2010
Is manned flight necessary anymore?

I feel that a lot of design overhead is put into making a shuttle or space
station safe and livable for humans. Why not focus on the main mission: to
conduct research experiments.

I know there is the romantic idea of human space travel, but if it's not ready
yet, why not invest more in autonomous systems and more advanced robotics for
the sake of conducting the actual mission and sparing the lives of some truly
brilliant and extraordinary people (potential astronauts).

~~~
InclinedPlane
Is anything necessary? It's easy to define away the necessity of anything,
even living. The point of manned space exploration is ultimately about
colonization. The point is for people to go, to do, to live. And you can't get
that with robots no matter how hard you try.

We can no doubt learn the secrets of the Universe through robots, and we very
much should do so. But there is more to the Universe than just studying it. We
should touch it. Play in it. Live in it.

~~~
JL2010
Perhaps I should've re-worded my previous comment because I did not mean to
suggest that we abandon manned missions forever or that we try to experience
space vicariously through robots.

I'll elaborate. There is tremendous risk involved in sending people to space,
I'm sure those who sign up for it understand and accept that, but it's a
tragedy when it goes wrong given the caliber of people who end up dying. The
overhead in designing for human needs (oxygen, water, food, waste facilities,
etc) seems like a waste of time and engineering effort until we can _better
guarantee their safety_. Of course I think the time will come when it becomes
as safe and accessible as a trip on a 747, but I think an effort in purely
autonomous systems that parallels the efforts being done on manned space
technology should be considered to serve as a supplemental aid to further
space research - a lot of which, I'm sure, would end up contributing to that
dream of reaching the stars.

~~~
InclinedPlane
I think that's being overly and unnecessarily cautious. If we wait until
there's no risk then we'll end up waiting far too long. There's always going
to be some risk. There's a ton of risk just in getting out of the house and
driving on the road. But there's risk in sitting on your ask at home too.
Also, a great many astronauts are more than willing to take these risks. If
you look at the Gemini program, for example, where astronauts knowingly
strapped themselves in to a capsule on top of a modified ICBM which had up
until that point around a 1/3 failure rate.

Personally I think that engineering even safer manned spaceflight systems is a
good idea and a very worthy goal but I think if our choice was to explore the
Solar System with a vehicle no safer than the Soyuz or to stay at home the
choice has to be to explore, every time.

~~~
JL2010
> _There's a ton of risk just in getting out of the house and driving on the
> road. But there's risk in sitting on your ask at home too._

The risk factor involved in manned space missions versus a trip to the grocery
store has got to be huge orders of magnitude in difference. This is an unfair,
and frankly, useless comparison.

> _if our choice was to explore the Solar System with a vehicle no safer than
> the Soyuz or to stay at home the choice has to be to explore, every time._

This is where I can't agree. You have to define "explore" - i.e. the
particular objective of that flight on a case by case basis - and ask if it
really warrants sending a human being up to do that job. Yes? Then by all
means. Do it. No? Then find a safer alternative that accomplishes the same
goal and that sheds the challenges of keeping a human being alive in a truly
hostile and unforgiving environment. Also, I wouldn't consider sending an
autonomous vehicle out to explore as "staying at home".

I get the emotional appeal... I just don't think it's rational for _every_
case unless we really need a human's capabilities _in_ space.

------
droithomme
"the Falcon 9-Dragon combination will be the safest spacecraft ever developed"

Oh I wish they hadn't said that, they said the same thing about the Titanic.

~~~
jlgreco
Well, they said the Titanic would be _un_ sinkable, not _less_ sinkable than
previously developed ships.

~~~
droithomme
Actually White Star claimed it was "designed to be unsinkable", not that it
was. And this was after describing a long list of safety features.

It's a very dangerous attitude, to claim a priori that your design is safer.
The Titanic was so safe that it was not necessary to carry enough life boats
for all the passengers. That's how safe it was. Once your focus is on the
incredible confidence you have in the safety of your design, it's not on
actual safety anymore, it's on making bold and confident advertising claims.
It's hubris and there's a long history of what follows from it.

~~~
jlgreco
The difference in this situation of course is that SpaceX is claiming that
their rocket will be safe _because_ they are adding more lifeboats (in other
words, they are bragging about their planned abort systems).

They are not claiming to be designing a rocket that cannot fail, but rather
one that fails _safe_ (though low failure rate is undoubtedly a high priority
for them.)

I do not see how such an attitude could possibly be a liability. What is
preferable?

Edit: I'm trying to understand your point of view. Is your issue that the are
trying to make it the safest, or that they _said_ that they are trying to make
it the safest?

~~~
droithomme
> Is your issue that the are trying to make it the safest, or that they said
> that they are trying to make it the safest?

The article doesn't say they are _trying_ to make it the safest and it doesn't
say they said they are trying to make it the safest.

The article says it _will be_ the safest, even though it hasn't even been
tested in flight.

~~~
jlgreco
Specifically what it says:

 _"SpaceX, along with our partners at NASA, will continue to push the
boundaries of space technology to develop the safest, most advanced crew
vehicle ever flown."_

That reads to me as _"We are working hard with the goal of making it the
safest."_ They haven't done it yet, but they are stating what they hope to do.

Anyway, I think you are looking at this too hard.

~~~
droithomme
Specifically what the article says, and which I quoted in my opening post here
on this topic, is "the Falcon 9-Dragon combination will be the safest
spacecraft ever developed".

This article is not just the unqualified opinion of the blog SpaceFlight Now,
the article is a word for word printing of the following official Space-X
corporate Press Release, exactly as quoted. It is an official claim by the
company.

<http://www.spacex.com/press.php?page=20120803>

~~~
jlgreco
Regardless, I maintain that you are looking for something that really is not
there.

This is from a company that has faced criticism from prominent figures that
safety would be an issue simply because they were not NASA. It only makes
sense that they would place a high emphasis on safety in their public
relations in light of that.

Not to mention this is coming from a company who's president said just a few
days ago, _"In the early days of aviation there was a great deal of
experimentation and a high death rate. We don't want that — the public would
not be accepting — but by the same token we can't have a situation where no
deaths are ever allowed, because that would put innovation in a coffin too."_

This simply is not a company that is taking the safety of their craft for
granted.

I still don't understand what you think their attitude towards safety _should_
be.

------
bborud
Note that it says "millions" and not "billions". If this was a research
project to figure out how to bomb the shit out of people more efficiently, it
would have said "billions".

------
afterburner
$440M? Hey, that's exactly the amount Knight Capital Group lost due to
unchecked trading algos run amok... number 1 and 2 stories on HN.

------
hammock
So SpaceX is now officially a government contractor. This may be the beginning
of the end for them. Can we name any govt contractor with a $400MM contract
that has stayed true to its entrepreneurial principles and not fallen into the
rent-seeking abyss?

~~~
ballooney
As others point out, they've been funded by the US taxpayer, mostly via Nasa
and a bit by the DoD, almost entirely (before this announcement it was about
80% US taxpayer, not sure what that would be now, but more) so far. There are
not many other places you can go if you want to get that kind of money.

Maybe they should release an app that puts some filters on your photographs.

~~~
hammock
No one's ruled out the idea that they may be the exception to the rule.
Nevertheless we can't name any other contractor that has done what you say
they are doing, for very long without sliding into rent-seeking.

------
chris123
Wow, rockets, drugs, expensive escorts, and now this! Sweeeet!

------
shtylman
wins 440M from knight

~~~
sbanach
In other news a Knight Capital programmer's fat fingers cost exactly the
amount of money required to build a Space Shuttle.

------
alpine
I would hate to see SpaceX become an acquisition of NASA, or a nationalised
company of the US Federal Government. Stranger things have happened, of
course, but if Musk wants to retire to Mars, he had best be concerned with
this.

~~~
joshuahedlund
I'm pretty sure I've read (though I could be wrong) that SpaceX is already
profitable from contracts to launch commercial satellites, even without NASA's
budget dollars.

~~~
alpine
That's wonderful - the more private contracts they win the better - and the
brighter all private space initiatives will hopefully be. Unfortunately,
accepting several million dollars from the US government leaves SpaceX (and
other Musk ventures) vulnerable to government meddling. When the government
starts to meddle in your business, they are the ones that decide where to
stop. You cede control of your company's destiny often when you accept the
first cheque.

