[bumby]

Again, this comment, like most, misses the point. I'm saying they required govt contracts early to be a viable business. You're pointing to late-game information that doesn’t speak to that point. They can both be true without the point being "nonsense".

The point is their business model is predicated on using govt contracts early, when they were an unproven commodity, because the govt is generally the only organization who can take those kinds of risks. In turn, this fosters the development of a space industry which can transition to more private revenue streams. Musk himself said they were in the 11th hour of bankruptcy before NASA "saved" them with a huge contract.

[starik36]

It doesn't miss the point because the OP is talking in the present tense. Not something from 10 years ago, e.g. "they get something like 98% of their funding from the govt"

[bumby]

The OP was intended to convey that their business model is predicated on heavy govt funding early. I never said they get, and will continue to require, that level of support in perpetuity. The intent was to show the level of govt support necessary to where they're at. Those "old" contracts are still in execution; they're not done and and in the past. Meaning the funding is still relevant and so are the rules attached to those funds. If you doubt that, what do you think will happen to SpaceX if they suddenly start going against their SpaceAct agreements that are part of those contracts?

Even if you want to go against HN guidelines and not read the comment generously, they have still gotten the vast majority of their revenue from the govt in present tense. We can quibble about the exact percentage, and in reality it's probably impossible to pin-point without insider information. But we can use the information we know to estimate that it's still a major part of their business and it wouldn't be viable without it. And they'd still have to keep those customers happy by following their rules.