A look into the finances of SpaceX • Hacker News Board

Re: A look into the finances of SpaceX

#151

Post by tomp » Thu, Aug 17, 2023, 9:05 PM UTC

losteric wrote: post #100

Leary wrote: post #23

Its revenue will almost double again this year (2023) by looking at the number of launches[1]. Definitely the most exciting company Elon has (personal opinion) [1] https://www.spacexstats.xyz/#launchhistory-per-year

Gwynne Shotwell deserves all the thanks, she's brilliant

I mean, not all the credit.

She might be brilliant, but she's worked other space jobs before. So clearly whatever company Musk has created, has allowed her to actually showcase her brilliance.

CEO sets the vision. Without vision, even perfect execution is pointless.

Re: A look into the finances of SpaceX

#152

Post by pclmulqdq » Thu, Aug 17, 2023, 9:06 PM UTC

grimwall wrote: post #58

mrguyorama wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And NASA will probably be very happy to use such a cheap system once they are convinced it meets their reliability standards. The point of SLS IMO is to keep a backup option if SpaceX has some horrific, unpredicted setback or design problem. Surely people understand redundancy in aerospace right?

The point of SLS is pork, full stop.

And yet only one of SLS and Starship has reached orbit.

Re: A look into the finances of SpaceX

#153

Post by fooker » Thu, Aug 17, 2023, 9:07 PM UTC

pfdietz wrote: post #97

fooker wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> funding and jobs being directed at their states. This is more important than it seems on the surface and is often a good thing. You want to train and preserve local expertise with heavy industries. That ensures generations of successful companies rejuvenating your economy as opposed to relying on federal handouts.

It completely fails as a justification for SLS, though. It's preserving nonsense that needs to die, instead of pushing the actually successful part of commercial space.

How do you recon Spacex has managed to recruit several thousand US citizens with the proper expertise?

These people don’t grow on trees(/classrooms).

Re: A look into the finances of SpaceX

#154

Post by pclmulqdq » Thu, Aug 17, 2023, 9:07 PM UTC

pfdietz wrote: post #52

cypress66 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Falcon isn't really comparable to the SLS, but yes the SLS is awful cost wise. Starship will almost surely be between one and two orders of magnitude cheaper per launch vs SLS.

A rational return to the moon program that had to choose between Falcon and SLS would choose Falcon.

Falcon rockets can't get to the moon. You need a lot more fuel to do that. That's why SLS and Starship are both being developed.

Re: A look into the finances of SpaceX

#155

Post by why_at » Thu, Aug 17, 2023, 9:09 PM UTC

Leary wrote: post #23

Its revenue will almost double again this year (2023) by looking at the number of launches[1]. Definitely the most exciting company Elon has (personal opinion) [1] https://www.spacexstats.xyz/#launchhistory-per-year

Interesting site, but it's not clear to me what they count as a failed launch. My guess is some of the Starship tests since I don't think there has been a failed Falcon 9 launch is a few years.

Also, unrelated: This site is the worst case of hijacking the browser back button I've ever seen

Re: A look into the finances of SpaceX

#156

Post by wddkcs » Thu, Aug 17, 2023, 9:13 PM UTC

htss2013 wrote: post #140

Isn't it amazing that you can become the richest person in the world by building companies that lose money? By lose money I mean all money ever put into the company versus profits made. The idea of creating a profitless company that somehow makes you personally rich used to be thought of as a fluke. Yes it's possible but it shouldn't happen and aside from extreme luck it won't. Something has changed. Losing money and…

The market is pricing in future growth. You can say the market is incorrectly evaluating the potential return, but it's hard to argue that Tesla and SpaceX aren't going to cash in on that potential. How else should the market be treating companies with obvious high growth potential?

Re: A look into the finances of SpaceX

#157

Post by pfdietz » Thu, Aug 17, 2023, 9:13 PM UTC

pclmulqdq wrote: post #154

pfdietz wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A rational return to the moon program that had to choose between Falcon and SLS would choose Falcon.

Falcon rockets can't get to the moon. You need a lot more fuel to do that. That's why SLS and Starship are both being developed.

SLS is needed only because they were not allowed to adopt on-orbit propellant transfer. With rockets like the Falcons, propellant (which is most of the mass needed to get something to the moon) is launched in smaller quantities and accumulated.

What sort of future in space do those advocating SLS imagine for us if moving a liquid from one tank to another is too challenging?

Re: A look into the finances of SpaceX

#158

Post by penjelly » Thu, Aug 17, 2023, 9:14 PM UTC

resolutebat wrote: post #126

reso wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't compare falcon to SLS because Falcon cannot do what SLS does. You can't compare SpaceX's figures to NASA because NASA has many, many more reporting obligations than SpaceX. Every report on Falcon 9 costs has made this mistake forever. SpaceX does not release their full costs. What numbers we have for them are PR releases. Meanwhile, NASA's budgets are public and comprehensive, and they have legal parameters…

At time of writing, it's the opposite: Falcon is launching humans into space on a regular basis, something SLS has entirely failed to do to date.

my search says falcon has launches humans twice. Am i mistaken? that doesnt qualify as "regular basis"

Re: A look into the finances of SpaceX

#159

Post by toss1 » Thu, Aug 17, 2023, 9:15 PM UTC

ISL wrote: post #148

resolutebat wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At time of writing, it's the opposite: Falcon is launching humans into space on a regular basis, something SLS has entirely failed to do to date.

SLS hasn't yet been asked to launch a human.

Only because SLS has so far failed to qualify to launch a human.

SLS was on the schedule to launch humans several years ago. However, failing to qualify means that NASA can NOT ask them to launch a human

Re: A look into the finances of SpaceX

#160

Post by jeffreyrogers » Thu, Aug 17, 2023, 9:15 PM UTC

htss2013 wrote: post #140

Isn't it amazing that you can become the richest person in the world by building companies that lose money? By lose money I mean all money ever put into the company versus profits made. The idea of creating a profitless company that somehow makes you personally rich used to be thought of as a fluke. Yes it's possible but it shouldn't happen and aside from extreme luck it won't. Something has changed. Losing money and…

Wait until you learn about the biotech industry, they often go public with no revenue. I don't think there is anything wrong with this though, markets are pricing future growth, which may or may not materialize.