Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

The industry is going through growing pains, New Glenn is almost ready for payloads, Neutron is a year or two away from flying, and other small launch companies are in the process of pivoting to either medium launch or space services.

I'm not seeing what makes SpaceX government funded beyond just that it provides services to the government? The same as any other launch provider would be doing? At this point the vast majority of SpaceX's activity, and likely cashflow, is from its mostly self-funded Starlink.

SpaceX won the original HLS contract because their design actually had hardware in testing, actually met NASA's payload, landing area and testing requirements, had a clear path to commercialization and was willing to cover most of the cost themselves, as otherwise NASA wouldn't have been able to choose anyone given the limited funding allocated by Congress.





> * I'm not seeing what makes SpaceX government funded beyond just that it provides services to the government*

Take away all of SpaceX‘s government contracts. You imagine SpaceX would still be in business?

As you said, every launch provider is basically dependent on government contracts to stay in business because the government is the only entity that has a legitimate need for launch capability such that it’s willing to pay for its development. There are no sufficiently profitable private contracts out there to sustain a launch provider.


Do you have any evidence for any of your claims beyond not liking the idiot that owns the company?


It’s true of all private launch providers, not just SpaceX.

Do you disagree that cultivating the launch provider industry in this way has strategic value?

Nope, but that wasn’t what I was responding to, either.



Consider applying for YC's Winter 2026 batch! Applications are open till Nov 10

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: