Musk spent $100 million to get SpaceX off the ground in 2006.

• On the other hand, his private charity, the Musk Foundation, started in 2001, gave away $54 million over 15 years to environmental, educational, medical and other causes, according to an analysis by The Guardian. (He has also signed the Giving Pledge.)
• “We’re faced with a choice: Which future do you want?" Musk said at the unveiling of SpaceX's Starship in September.
• "Do you want the future where we become a space-faring civilization and are on many worlds and are out there among the stars, or one where we are forever confined to Earth?”

Bezos has reportedly funneled $1 billion a year into Blue Origin — compared with recent grants of $98.5 million focused on homelessness and education from his year-old philanthropy, the Bezos Day One Fund, that was seeded with $2 billion.

• As for space travel, “I think it is important for this planet," Bezos told CBS in July.
• "I think it’s important for the dynamism of future generations. It is something I care deeply about. And it is something I have been thinking about all my life.”

Both billionaires believe the only way for humanity to survive as a species is to go to space — to provide an insurance policy against damage to Earth, or allow harmful activities to be moved off-world.

• But critics say there are risks of having mankind's course in space shaped by a few —including ethical questions about who owns (and profits from) space, and concerns over repeating the negative consequences of earthly colonization.

Keep in mind: SpaceX brings in billions from government and commercial contracts, and Blue Origin is chasing after those contracts to get its launch business up and running.

The bottom line: The Bezos-and-Musk brand of philanthropy says, in effect: “My big contribution to human knowledge and understanding is my space company.”

Go deeper:

• Billionaire philanthropists turn money into influence
• Silicon Valley's brand of philanthropy
• What Michael Bloomberg's philanthropy says about Michael Bloomberg

The big picture: Pressures are coming to bear as the growth of smartphones stalls and innovators vie to figure out what will replace them. Platform transitions always make tech incumbents quake.

• In Washington, regulators and lawmakers are finally getting the details they've wanted about the full power of tech companies — and how to fight back.
• In state capitals, attorneys general and legislators are stepping in to investigate and counter anticompetitive practices.
• On the campaign trail, liberals assail the power of big tech and call for breaking up Facebook and Google, while conservatives decry their power and accuse them of silencing their voices.
• In newsrooms, investigative reporters are following more threads and leads to expose the power of tech giants and the false promises of new startups.
• On Wall Street, investors have lost patience with money-hemorrhaging startups and loose-cannon founders.
• Around the world, a trade breakdown is severing supply chains and nationalist forces are splintering the global internet, shaking the foundations of the tech industry's decades-long march to dominance.

Yes, but: Tech giants today control vast hoardes of cash, armies of talent and troves of data, and they provide billions of customers around the world with convenient, personalized, often free services.

• Unlike their predecessors, they might have the resources to outmaneuver and outlast government assaults.

The bottom line: Partisan political battles dominate the headlines, but this is the conflict that will shape our economy and society.

Go deeper:

• The fall of unicorns
• States add to Big Tech's headaches

• Our interviews included Democrats who want to move ahead with an impeachment inquiry and those who are advocating restraint, citing the political ramifications of forging down that path too soon.

The trends:

• Several members, including Reps. Veronica Escobar (D-Texas), Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas), Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) and Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), shot down the notion that impeachment is bad politics.
• Each of them pointed to what happened in the aftermath of the 1998 impeachment of former President Bill Clinton, where Republican George W. Bush went on to win the presidency and the GOP held its majority in the House until 2007.
• The caucus is divided on concern about timing. Some, like Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), who doesn't yet call for impeachment, argues that an inquiry must be launched in 2019 or risk deteriorating in the 2020 election year. Others, like Reps. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.), Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.) and Jeff Van Drew (D-N.J.) said the timetable shouldn't matter.
• They're split on whether it matters that the Republican Senate wouldn't convict Trump. Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC) is against impeachment for this reason, while other members maintain the House has an obligation to provide a check on the president irrespective of the Senate.

A common theme: Nearly every Democrat we interviewed argued that the caucus is united in the belief that Trump is unfit for office, but they disagree on the tactics for how to hold him accountable.

The bottom line: The impeachment whip count currently stands at 66 House Democrats and one House Republican publicly in support of it, according to an Axios analysis. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has held most of the caucus together by calling for restraint — but that's going to get harder as Democrats lose patience with Trump.

Go deeper: Where 2020 Democrats stand on impeaching Trump