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

311–320 of 397 posts

Re: A look into the finances of SpaceX

#311

Post by mr_toad »

lamontcg wrote: post #241
grimwall wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point of SLS is pork, full stop.

SLS is about maintaining the ability of the US to build rocket engines like the RS-25 and those massive SRBs. The Government is worried about waking up some morning and China has leapfrogged us to the Moon and it'll take 20 years for us to institutionally remember how to get back there. And SpaceX has not yet demonstrated the ability to land humans on the Moon while NASA has. They're making sure that we can definitel…

NASA has a rocket capable of delivering a lander to the Moon, but no lander to deliver.

Re: A look into the finances of SpaceX

#312

Post by renonce »

nordsieck wrote: post #277
objektif wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Price is not a good metric here you can subsidize your pricing to hell if you have budget. Elon loves to do this btw.

> Price is not a good metric here you can subsidize your pricing to hell if you have budget. 1. As far as I know, no one has presented any evidence that SpaceX sells Falcon 9/H launches for less than cost. ArianeSpace used to really talk up this point, but even they've mostly given up. 2. I'm not really sure why it matters. If SpaceX can sell for less than cost at their current volume, well... good for the tax payers…

> If SpaceX can sell for less than cost at their current volume, well... good for the tax payers - we're getting a deal.

At the cost of killing all other competitors and letting SpaceX monopolize so we are stuck with whatever quotes from SpaceX?

Re: A look into the finances of SpaceX

#313

Post by renonce »

nordsieck wrote: post #299
rhaway84773 wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s not the only relevant number because we know what tech has been over the past 2 decades. It’s been an effort to build non competitive monopolized markets. That’s what Uber is, that’s what the delivery services are, that’s what AirBNB is, that’s what Square is, etc. These companies will lose billions for years with this single intention. The true cost minus the listed price adjusted for years of interest and ex…

Your comment leads me to believe that you know very little about the rocket business. 1. SpaceX will never have a monopoly over launch because it's competing with lots of governments who will never give up their rocket programs. ArianeGroup, Japan/Mitsubishi, Russia, China, and India all have active launch programs (although Russia and China are isolated right now). 2. There are a truly stupid number of startups tryi…

Only US, Russia and China have capabilities to launch rocket with human. With both Russia and China isolated there is only US left.

Re: A look into the finances of SpaceX

#314

Post by janc_ »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #276
objektif wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Price is not a good metric here you can subsidize your pricing to hell if you have budget. Elon loves to do this btw.

The headline is that SpaceX is profitable, so they're not pricing below cost.

They still operate at a loss?

Re: A look into the finances of SpaceX

#316

Post by justapassenger »

Veedrac wrote: post #287
justapassenger wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They have huge majority of market that’s much smaller than their valuation, and isn’t growing anywhere close at the pace they predicted (if they didn’t burn their own money to lunch hundreds of starlinks, their growth in launches would be pretty flat). But anyway, op used P/E ratio to justify spacex valuation, in a totally wrong way. Their P/E ratio is in thousands (assuming there’s no creative accounting to show tha…

> if they didn’t burn their own money to lunch hundreds of starlinks, their growth in launches would be pretty flat False. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1aoRFnOFX_CzxTTOFLl8h... Note that this significantly understates market growth because Amazon's 83 launch deal did not include SpaceX, as Starlink is a competitor.

Why don’t you present data that supports your statement?

Weight to orbit isn’t number of lunches. They’ve been doing around 30 per year, for paying customer, for many years now. And one of deals may push it higher, like Amazon, but so far they didn’t show ability to sustainably grow the whole market.

Re: A look into the finances of SpaceX

#317

Post by networkchad »

reso wrote: post #259
wmf wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think they can book Starlink launches as revenue. Of course Starlink has >$1B of legitimate subscriber revenue. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Falcon_9_and_Falcon_He...

I suspect that SpaceX is booking Starlink launches as revenue. My basis for this is that their launch revenue is growing much faster than their non-starlink launch schedule. We can't prove or disprove this though, since their financials are secret.

[dead]
Post reply on HN