Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A look into the finances of SpaceX

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 397 posts

Re: A look into the finances of SpaceX

#191

Post by jackmott »

reso wrote: post #107
bell-cot wrote: post #35

From Reuters... > In 2022, revenue doubled to $4.6 billion, helping the company reduce its loss last year to $559 million from $968 million, the WSJ reported. > The company reported about $5.2 billion in total expenses for 2022, up from $3.3 billion the year earlier, according to the report. That $5.2B of expenses got 61 successful, production Falcon rocket launches in 2022. Vs. some pretty-reasonable estimates put t…

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…

[dead]

Re: A look into the finances of SpaceX

#192

Post by pclmulqdq »

pfdietz wrote: post #157
pclmulqdq wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

One where we just launch one rocket instead of building a giant orbital bomb slowly (accumulating fuel) and transferring all those explosives through a complex series of difficult rendezvous maneuvers? One rocket is risky enough.

There's a huge amount of extra risk involved in that sort of idea, which is why NASA isn't doing it, which can just be avoided with SLS and Starship.

Re: A look into the finances of SpaceX

#193

Post by phlipski »

fredgrott wrote: post #182
TheAlchemist wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is very possible, even probable, that Tesla's glory days are already behind it. Their margin are contracting, and it's actually probable they will loose money in Q3, Q4 this year. They don't have any significant advantage on competition anymore, and China's competition is already well ahead Tesla. Elon himself suggested Tesla is worthless as a 'car making company' and it's value will come from solving autonomy wit…

You need to re-read Elon, It's not that he will solve FSD, Tesla is valuable until FSD is solved as then it becomes just a car company. And he picked the correct impossible puzzle that will never be solved. Same with the SpaceX premise. The market value is the desire of groups of people that it be solved. The lesson here is what impossible problem is our domains that we can market that our company is attempting to so…

By this logic someone should start a company promising to cure cancer then just let the trillions roll in....

Re: A look into the finances of SpaceX

#194

Post by Panzer04 »

Laremere wrote: post #10
stephenitis wrote: post #3

Is there a way for a mortal to buy or invest into SpaceX or are we just waiting for an IPO eventually?

Go work for them on a position that has equity as part of the compensation. Otherwise, I doubt it. Elon has been pretty vocal about regretting making Tesla public. Additionally SpaceX as a company is oriented around putting humans on mars. Until that happens, I expect a supermajority of ownership would be against the profit seeking motives that an IPO creates. Short of investing in them, you could look for companies…

Making Tesla public was clearly elons best ever decision lol. The moment it went ballistic in early 2020 made it well worthwhile - Tesla has access to an effectively unlimited pile of cash from public investors (and gave Elon more money than he could possibly hope for to invest in other pursuits)

Re: A look into the finances of SpaceX

#195

Post by germinalphrase »

LeifCarrotson wrote: post #164
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…

Used to, as of when? The good old days of the 1990s? I think it goes back a lot further than that. For a much more thorough look at how our modern financial systems produce what naive thinkers would consider to be bizarre results, I highly recommend Mariana Mazzucato's "The Value of Everything." It's a challenging read, but it goes into the details of how economic and political thought has shifted over the centuries…

She also gave a talk in 2019 called “Rethinking Value” at the Long Now Foundation: https://longnow.org/seminars/02019/jun/24/rethinking-value/

Re: A look into the finances of SpaceX

#196

Post by pengaru »

electriclove wrote: post #168
dabeeeenster wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure why this is being upvoted. They are launching mass into space at between 1 and 2 orders of magnitude lower cost than anyone else. The R+D costs on that is insane. And they are almost profitable. I 100% agree that du-jour saas companies raising 300MM on limited revenue is one thing, but this is not the same.

There is a lot of hate on anything Elon does. The market is valuing his companies based on exactly what you stated. If people read the mission statements of these companies and listen to what Elon says, it is pretty clear on what his goals are. And contrary to what most believe, it is not to make himself tons of money. These companies are going to make money as a means to accomplish their goals. The control could shi…

[flagged]

Re: A look into the finances of SpaceX

#197

Post by bmitc »

wmf wrote: post #186
bmitc wrote: post #166

Are there reporting requirements that separate actual revenue, my term for revenue from private parties, and revenue from government grants and contracts? What is the percentage of SpaceX's "revenue" that comes from government grants and contracts?

SpaceX has billions worth of government contracts but why do you ask? Remember that SpaceX is charging the government lower prices than its competitors...

I'm just asking to know.

Re: A look into the finances of SpaceX

#198

Post by swid »

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.

Falcon Heavy is capable of going to the Moon or even Mars.

Re: A look into the finances of SpaceX

#199

Post by avmich »

pclmulqdq wrote: post #152
grimwall wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point of SLS is pork, full stop.

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

And yet the point of SLS is pork, full stop. That is reached orbit, surprisingly, is less than relevant.

Re: A look into the finances of SpaceX

#200

Post by avmich »

fooker wrote: post #153
pfdietz wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

Surprisingly NASA, or ULA, couldn't recruit those very same citizens.
Post reply on HN