[leoedin]

SpaceX received a subsidy from Elon Musk. The financial case for the company wasn't clear at the start - it was only because they had significant financial backing for the initial development period that they could get to where they are now. They may now be profitable, but if you'd tried to make a case a decade ago for funding you'd get nowhere. There are all sorts of high-capital technology developments that simply aren't immediately profitable or low risk enough for VC funding. Why should we as a society rely on the whims of a few wealthy people? This kind of technology, should it be realised, has a value to everyone.

[maxerickson]

Why not call it a risky investment? He ended up with a big ownership stake, he wasn't just supporting them for the hell of it.

[ceejayoz]

The UK isn't supporting Skylon "for the hell of it", either. Their taxpayers would likely be pretty happy to have the next Boeing/Airbus live on their soil.

[maxerickson]

I guess it's just a pet peeve of mine when people call a private, profitable financial arrangement a subsidy.

I complain about the usage for cell phones too.

[ceejayoz]

Both situations involve someone with money taking a bet on a currently non-profitable venture hoping it'll pay off in the future. SpaceX wasn't profitable when Musk put money in.

[pjc50]

Note that one of the partners is QinetiQ, the privatized wing of the UK defence research establishment. There's a strategic interest here too.