[kranke155]

SpaceX vs SLS that hasn’t even launched and will cost some 10x to 100x more by the time it’s done. Sure, spaceX charges money for its missions but it is radically better than the alternative. Any suggestion otherwise is stupidity or a lie.

[PaulDavisThe1st]

GP said:

> Commercial companies like SpaceX on the other hand, who are spending their own money

If there's a lie here (and I'm not saying it is a lie), that would be it. SpaceX being cheaper (and maybe better) than the alternatives doesn't change the fact that they are not "spending their own money" exclusively (or even majority).

[signatoremo]

That’s disingenuous. Is your salary your own money? The fact that you earn the money by working for your employer doesn’t make that money their money. It is still yours. You can spend it however you like.

[JumpCrisscross]

As has been mentioned elsewhere, SpaceX has received development grants. Less than old space. But more than zero.

[Retric]

True, though a small fraction of their total R&D budgets.

[JumpCrisscross]

> though a small fraction of their total R&D budgets

Not at the time of the grants.

[s1artibartfast]

If I buy a cheeseburger from McDonald's and they decide to invest the profit in R&D, is it still my money at that point?

To be more fair, SpaceX is mostly spending VC money, while SLS is spending taxpayer money. They are gambling that they can make a better product for the customer without working under contract with the customer and being payed for their development..

SLS has a government contract that pays up front for development, and will work hand in hand with the customer throughout development.

[avmich]

> doesn't change the fact that they are not "spending their own money" exclusively (or even majority)

You know you spend my money, right? I mean, I paid taxes, which government used to buy products from the company which pays your salary. So behave please.

:)