It's obviously inflated, as I took the whole lifecycle of the company and technically they still haven't completed it yet (Because that and starship is what the whole company has been working towards since inception)
They've received around $10B[0] in funding. About 3.2B [1] in fed payment, with about $13B, in appropriated funding. I would say they've launched a number of private missions as well that made them a profit.
well NASA does alot more than launches. They have telescopes, a portion of the ISS, and generally conducts advanced research on exploration.
>Now do the cost for SLS based on the total cost to date for NASA and all contractors since inception, including the costs for Apollo and the shuttle.
But I would agree with that sentiment if you only included rocket development. It's not just the cost of that vehicle but also the total cost of the institutional knowledge to get there. Starship might cost _X_, but it's because you already developed reusability and the ability to land the boosters.
Also, the biggest difference between spaceX and nasa is spaceX is verticly integrated where NASA avoids the development of alot of manufacturing capability.
They've received around $10B[0] in funding. About 3.2B [1] in fed payment, with about $13B, in appropriated funding. I would say they've launched a number of private missions as well that made them a profit.
[0]https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/space-exploration-te... [1]https://www.fpds.gov/ezsearch/search.do?q=spacex+UEI_NAME%3A...