Genuine question, is it profitable because of government contracts?

I don't know. I also don't know why that is relevant. Just because a business is selling a good or service to the government doesn't mean it's not competitive, dominant, efficient or really anything.

SpaceX exists because of commercial resupply but that was still a good deal for the government since it was cheaper than the shuttles or buying extra Soyuz cargo launches.

nah Starlink is the money printer

Capitalism is incredibly efficient this way and it really should be appreciated as being such an advantage. I wonder if it’s not a free advantage though. I suspect there’s a risk that it might diminish the ability to accomplish projects that aren’t compatible with capitalism. Ie. ROI isn’t sufficiently short term, ROI is socialized, no ROI at all, excessive risk.

An open question as I really don’t have an answer either way: what’s the last mega project the U.S. succeeded in completing that wasn’t directly tied to a short term business plan? Something for future generations or a major environmental project or a transportation or infrastructure project, etc.

I mean, falcon 9 reusability is a decent example, if 13 years from work starts to reusability is proven commercially viable counts as a long term business plan.

The private space industry doesn't belong to the US, it belongs to the billionaires.

We might even be better to have no one advancing space travel than to have only the billionaires doing it. At least then they can't find some way to use it to screw us over.

SpaceX isn't a billionaire.

Clearly the poster is saying that SpaceX is "the billionaires".

SpaceX is majority owned by billionaires.

It's not a billionaire but it is owned by a billionaire.