“Cost-plus” means a government contract where if the contract ends up costing more than you expected, the government will cover the shortfall. Versus “firm fixed price”, where if the vendor underestimates the expense of implementing the contract, the vendor wears that loss, not the government.

SpaceX received over US$15 billion in US federal government contracts, but the vast majority (maybe even all?) of them were firm fixed price. I’m not aware that SpaceX has any cost-plus federal contracts; Boeing has multiple cost-plus contracts with NASA (not Starliner; contracts like SLS Core Stage, EUS, ISS engineering support) and many more with the Pentagon. Cost-plus is the norm for Boeing and firm fixed price is the exception; for SpaceX, firm fixed price is the norm.

> Is that not “cost-plus?”

No it is not. From wiki:

> A cost-plus contract, also termed a cost plus contract, is a contract such that a contractor is paid for all of its allowed expenses, plus additional payment to allow for risk and incentive sharing.

Spacex has received money over the last 20 years because they were awarded different contracts and they provided different services to the government.

From re-supplying the ISS, to launching satellites, to taking people to orbit.

Grants are very different from contracts.