That's not a valid counter argument. He's using an analogy to produce a practical counter-example where private funded research is producing better / cheaper solutions (presumably, I'm uninformed on the subject). I think a more valid counter-argument would be arguing SpaceX isn't better, or that the domains share no similarities.
>*a more valid counter-argument would be arguing that SpaceX isn't better or that the domains share no similarities
Not quite. Arguing that Space X is no better would be following a red herring and arguing that there are no similarities is too high a standard. A valid counterargument merely needs to show that they are sufficiently different in some important way.
And, my (admittedly pithy) counterargument ran exactly along those lines.
Meanwhile, the main difference between the domains had already been pointed out in my original comment, and I even provided an example of a relevant domain.
So, you've gotten it exactly backwards: the burden is on my respondent to demonstrate why SpaceX is a relevant analogy/counterargument.
