> The US government "funds" SpaceX in the same way you fund Apple when you buy an iPhone or Shell when you buy gas.

It's a bit different. Without the US gov as a early customer taking lots of risk, they company wouldn't exist. Apple or Shell wouldn't change even if 100,000 customers decided not to buy their products/service anymore.

> The first two Falcon 1 launches were purchased by the United States Department of Defense under a program that evaluates new US launch vehicles suitable for use by DARPA. The first three launches of the rocket, between 2006 and 2008, all resulted in failures, which almost ended the company. Financing for Tesla Motors had failed, as well, and consequently Tesla, SolarCity, and Musk personally were all nearly bankrupt at the same time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX#2005%E2%80%932009:_Falc...

That's not "keeps funding". Which is what GP was objecting to.

> Without the US gov as a early customer taking lots of risk, they company wouldn't exist

OK, it's like early Apple customers buying the Apple I.

Without those customers taking the risk Apple wouldn't exist today.

Still just a customer buying something, not "funding" in the way you make it sound.

If they pay more than the open-market price (and they were, in the early days - they were paying significantly more than any commercial customer would have paid such an unproven entity, explicitly because they saw strategic value in SpaceX's existence) then that's funding them.

I believe the CRS contracts carried a launch failure penalty and a no-insurance (mission assurance) clause like the LSP, which would’ve fetched a higher price.