Not sure what you mean by fair. If only nasa did it, lots of folks would say it's fair because it's all government and there's no profit. NASA had a shuttle launch price of $1.6B per mission. That's a lot of money to send some toilet paper and a couple of folks to the space station. SpaceX charges $55MM a seat to transport people. I don't think there's that many seats, so this is inexpensive (so inexpensive that no other space force, for profit or not no matter how low the in country ages, etc. can match it).But is it a "fair" price? All the subsidies and government contracts distort the entire operation, and the endless money printing just means someone, somewhere, will have an unpleasant awakening eventually. It is unlikely to be Elon Musk paying the true cost in the end. Much more likely that every American will pay, instead.
There are other groups here - one is called United Launch Affiliation, etc, or something of that sort.
What happens with something like this is there's no initial investment unless someone calls it a hobby (like Bezos, but bezos wasn't around in the 1940s and 1950s to develop this stuff - nasa was rewarded for progress back then, not punishing for any chance of error - the latter is a predictable thing once efforts become politicized instead of progress-based). At any rate, Nasa recognizes they can't do anything for any reasonable budget at this point, gives up on a lot of their efforts in terms of launching people, especially, and searches for contractors to control costs. They award less than it costs to do things but their awards attract private money, so the ventures are funded by private and public dollars. If venture capital is lost, it's lost. Too bad, but it's unencumbered by publicly listed monies, etc (as in, you can lose money on a venture without getting sued).
We had a wholly private system of bridges and roads more than a century ago - it didn't work well. Then we built like crazy, that worked well. Then the government groups filled themselves with red tape instead of results and now we have crumbling infrastructure (which is a good lesson about costing things at the outset - project budgets are a fraction of future costs. If you build something, you'd better want it in the long term, because you can't just back out later).
We're generally quite delighted with spaceX here - we have a group who isn't going as slow as they can and milking projects as long as they can, but rather they're in growth phase and solving problems as fast as possible and initiating projects that aren't just government awards. We're sending people to space for an eighth or tenth of what it was costing under NASA, which leaves nasa to do other things. The amounts awarded to spaceX will be saved in launching about 20 astronauts. Perhaps sooner because the cargo loads that spaceX takes up may have covered a bunch more already. It's not just people that spaceX can launch more cheaply than china, it's everything of any significance, and they completely changed the outlook in regard to what can be done. Instead of assuming spacecraft are consumable, now everyone will be stuck figuring out how to make them reusable - it's not just a savings in spaceX.
Of course, half of the country hates musk because he's not a virtue signaler.