What do you mean "let it fail?" SpaceX has the most profitable launch system in the world and now operates >50% of all satellites in orbit. They aren't exactly in need of a bailout.

So proof of profitability is that they can shoot their own satellites into orbit?

When a company is operating at a scale where you are making orders of magnitude more orbital launches than NASA, operating a constellations of 10,000+ satellites, providing internet access to 10s of millions of people and 1 army, has raised $10s of billions in private markets at valuations in the $100s of billions, then the burden of proof is on you claiming the opposite.

The proof is that they are continuing to launch more mass into orbit than any other entity on the planet - while holding share liquidity events for their employees multiple times a year where they buy back shares. Proof is that they charge a lower cost to orbit than any of their competitors and has done so for years now.

Their revenue from Starlink is slated to be bigger than the entire NASA budget this year.

I am no fan of Musk the man. SpaceX is a strong company and Falcon is a solid vehicle. There is not a lot of competition, and NASA trying to in-source design and supply and construction of a new, reusable LEO rocket would be a complete nightmare.

I root for a competitive rocket market, but SpaceX is at the moment critical.

> Bring back NASA.

NASA is still here. Unfortunately, NATA fell victim to enshitification by government contracting. NASA even if it wants to simply cannot today design and launch a rocket. :(

And they still have a better track record for being on time than Elon

to replace the Shuttle, certainly not

> The private sector is far better when it comes to money.

I've heard this a lot, but I've worked for BigCos and it seems like all they do is spend money, often superfluously. I've seen BigCos spend large quantities money on support contracts every year that haven't been used in more than a decade, or sending people on business trips across the country so they can dial into a meeting, or buying loads of equipment that sits dormant in warehouses for years and then is eventually sold off for pennies on the dollar.

I'm not convinced that they're better than the government with money allocation, I think they're just better at telling people they are.

> The private sector is far better when it comes to money.

The private sector has different interests

I'm not talking specifically about SpaceX, although historically the cost of their rockets have been much lower than NASA. I'm being much more general. The public sector doesn't have the same incentives that private companies have, whether it's rockets or any other technology. It's sad, but it's the truth.

We have absolutely no way of gauging this until after SpaceX goes public.

SpaceX can use the same booster 30 times. NASAs new rocket can use it one time. We don't need to see financial statements to figure this one out.

I wouldn't be too sure. Depends on NASAs mission profiles and a lot of factors. Falcon heavy can bring 26.7t to GTO in expendable mode and only 8t in reusable mode. Reusable cost of Falcon is US$97 million vs US$150 million expendable.

How much does it cost to develop and maintain the reusability? Is it worth the trade-offs in lower tons to orbit due to more weight? Is it worth it adjusting the payload into smaller units, including developing things like refueling in LEO?

Idk, I'm not on the inside doing those calculations...

SpaceX tends to expend cores they've gotten significant use out of, rather than new ones - so the core would have been "paid off" by then.

And nasal didn't build the new rocket! They have paid Boeing 93 BILLION to design and manufacture it.

Everything is estimated.

If you want to trust estimates and "best-guesses", neat.