SpaceX's mission to colonize Mars isn't about making money, it's about colonizing Mars.

But SpaceX needs to make money to make colonization of Mars happen.

I'm not sure what your point is exactly.

Making money is about making things people want. Colonizing Mars is the thing that people want; and every step towards that goal (launch vehicles, human spacecraft, etc) bootstraps them onto the next step. Much like how Amazon works; they forfeit profit today to invest in not just tomorrow, but several decades from now.

If they were ready to make a serious attempt, I'm sure they could pull the funding together with sponsorships alone.

Amazon's failures do not result in the obliteration of their most valuable infrastucture. A small hickup isn't likely to completely ruin their company, it will only set them back a small amount.

Amazon isn't launching billion dollar servers that will explode in a big publicly visible fireball when you forget to plug a cable in.

I'm not comparing what Amazon & SpaceX are making, but the very-long-horizon vision both companies are committing to. Amazon reinvests today's income to work towards what they want to be in the 2030s and beyond.

Amazon could start turning a huge profit tomorrow if it wanted. The only reason it doesn't is because of titanic capital expenditures funded by operating profits.

How exactly is a mission to Mars comparable to this?

Amazon reinvests all operating income from today to build the Amazon of the future.

SpaceX reinvests all operating income from today's offerings (launch vehicles) to build the SpaceX of the future.

Both companies appear to be bootstrapping towards a gargantuan vision that is likely decades away.

SpaceX basically has just one customer which it is entirely reliant upon. The government.

Amazon has millions.

> SpaceX basically has just one customer which it is entirely reliant upon.

As far as I can tell NASA accounts for less than half of SpaceX's business. According to their website they have nearly $5 billion in contracts and I can only find reference to just over $2 billion in NASA contracts.

> As far as I can tell NASA accounts for less than half of SpaceX's business.

NASA ⊂ "The Government"

SpaceX also has Defense (USAF) contracts. At least around $900 million already awarded (and that may not be all), and they recently sued to be allowed to compete for much more under the EELV program.

Good point, I hadn't realized the USAF contract was awarded to them yet. That puts government funding at significantly more than half of SpaceX's existing contracts. I still wouldn't say they basically have only one customer, but it's closer than I thought.

With the "technological moat" SpaceX is building, does it matter how few customers they have today if no one can compete with them?

Didn't a SpaceX competitor install second-hand 1960s Russian rocket engines in a launch vehicle that failed recently? Its not a fault on the engines - I'm sure they were excellent - but rather an anecdote on the gargantuan barrier to competition inventing new space technology offers SpaceX.