[lmm]

> SpaceX is unique not for sending 'rockets' but it for being the first privately funded company to successfully launch, orbit and recover a spacecraft also the first private company to send spacecraft to ISS.

In what sense? The SpaceX launches were under NASA contract. Neither STS nor Apollo before it was built purely in-house by NASA; most of the parts were built by Rockwell, Lockheed and others. What's the big distinction here? Just that SpaceX was taking a bigger chunk of the failure risk?

[Crito]

SpaceX retains ownership of the rockets, they sell flights on the rockets rather than the rockets themselves. My understanding is that this is a recent development in the industry. For example, the Shuttles were built by Rockwell but, as I understand it, owned by NASA.

[vidyesh]

You are confusing two things, NASA outsourcing the parts built by other companies is a contract based project for which NASA was funded by the government. This means if any losses, are faced by NASA/government not the companies which made the parts.

SpaceX is more like a privately funded Space Exploration Company. NASA awarded them the contact not to outsource parts like in earlier projects but for SpaceX's design and technology.

Also the NASA contract to send cargo to ISS was one thing of the many SpaceX is doing. So in a lot of sense it is unique. Not sure why you think the ISS contract is the only thing what SpaceX is living on.