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

321–330 of 397 posts

Re: A look into the finances of SpaceX

#321

Post by xNeil »

epakai wrote: post #292
xNeil wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

what uber rich lifestyle? he owns no mansions, no yachts, and i’m not sure he has any super cars. this is a man who sleeps at the office on several occasions.

He owns a jet (maybe 4 by some counts), several supercars in the past at least, and goes on stage with a famous comedian.

While owning a jet is a valid point, in his case I'm willing to believe its efficiency related as opposed to some luxury purchase (the time savings are simply insane, that's why Warren Buffett has one - would you call him indulgent?)

> Several supercars in the past Valid point - I remember seeing him crash his McLaren. That was, however, 20 years ago, and have seen no indications of him indulging in any supercars or anything of the sorts in the past 10 years.

>Goes on stage with a famous comedian Seems to be more of an attention-seeking thing as opposed to a luxury lifestyle.

Re: A look into the finances of SpaceX

#322

Post by rewmie »

nordsieck wrote: post #130
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…

> Every report on Falcon 9 costs has made this mistake forever. SpaceX does not release their full costs. Not really relevant. The correct metric to make the comparison on is the fully amortized cost to the government per launch. The government doesn't pay for SpaceX's facilities or development - all of those costs are rolled into the launch price. But that's not true of SLS.

> Not really relevant.

I disagree. The whole theme of these corporate worship sessions is to praise how efficient they are, and how inefficient everything in comparison.

Claiming that these corporations are free to lie and omit expenses from their reporting to appear efficient goes directly against their supposed superiority.

> The correct metric to make the comparison on is the fully amortized cost to the government per launch.

Not really. The goal is to assess if a government institution meets it's goals in a fiscally responsible and efficient way.

The main goal of NASA is to "Expand human knowledge through new scientific discoveries." This involves all aspects of rocket science. The likes of SpaceX were only possible because NASA invested in research which SpaceX took advantage to design its production services.

Another goal of NASA is to "Address national challenges and catalyze economic growth." This also covers creating and funding demand for skilled high-tech professionals in places where there would otherwise be none. This also contributes to create opportunities in a workforce to support and develop highly specialized and experienced engineers, the likes of which can then transfer their knowledge and experience to the likes of SpaceX. Take, for example, SpaceX's own Gwynne Shotwell, who started her career in aerospace by working in government contracts for the Space Shuttle.

It's perfectly ok to argue that a government can and should buy services from private companies. It's awfully disingenuous to misrepresent both the private companies' offerings and alleged efficiency and the actual roles and responsibilities of government institutions like NASA.

Re: A look into the finances of SpaceX

#323

Post by rewmie »

nordsieck wrote: post #161
reso wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not possible to do a fair comparison of launch costs between Falcon 9 and other platforms without knowing the true cost of Falcon 9 launches.

> It is not possible to do a fair comparison of launch costs between Falcon 9 and other platforms without knowing the true cost of Falcon 9 launches. I don't know why you're so obsessed with cost. The only thing that matters when it comes to commercial providers is price. And SpaceX, (as far as I can tell) stands alone among the medium-heavy lift providers by providing a price directly on their website. Of course, fo…

> I don't know why you're so obsessed with cost.

This whole discussion is centered around cost. The only argument presented in favor of paying SpaceX for launches is launch cost.

If it wasn't for costx why would an org like NASA even consider delegating a critical part of their mission to a third party?

Re: A look into the finances of SpaceX

#324

Post by rewmie »

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 (...)

This can and is considered predatory pricing, which is a criminal offense in some jurisdictions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predatory_pricing

Re: A look into the finances of SpaceX

#325

Post by rewmie »

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.

Profit is the result of all operations, not just launches. For instance, starlink is a SpaceX company. Starlink is reported to be responsible for up to 40% of SpaceX's revenue.

https://spacenews.com/starlink-may-account-for-up-to-40-of-s...

Re: A look into the finances of SpaceX

#326

Post by georgeg23 »

Dig1t wrote: post #234
mrguyorama wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Elon has been pretty vocal about regretting making Tesla public That's laughable, because without making Tesla public he wouldn't be able to live the superstar uber rich lifestyle he thinks he deserves. Pretty much everything he has personally is owed to Tesla public valuation.

Elon had tens of millions of dollars before starting Tesla. He risked all of it to start Tesla and SpaceX.

Actually SpaceX was 85% government funded according to the guy who gave him the money, Michael D. Griffin. This was front-loaded. Private money was never at risk.

Re: A look into the finances of SpaceX

#328

Post by reso »

nordsieck wrote: post #161
reso wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not possible to do a fair comparison of launch costs between Falcon 9 and other platforms without knowing the true cost of Falcon 9 launches.

> It is not possible to do a fair comparison of launch costs between Falcon 9 and other platforms without knowing the true cost of Falcon 9 launches. I don't know why you're so obsessed with cost. The only thing that matters when it comes to commercial providers is price. And SpaceX, (as far as I can tell) stands alone among the medium-heavy lift providers by providing a price directly on their website. Of course, fo…

Cost is more important than price in the long run because it tells us whether SpaceX has made genuine efficiency and technology developments that allow their prices to be long-term viable. Any one can sell a service at a loss, but you eventually run out of VC or saudi bucks to make up the difference, and then you have to jack your prices up again.

Re: A look into the finances of SpaceX

#329

Post by reso »

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…

You're correct, we don't have evidence that SpaceX is pricing below cost, because we have no idea what Falcon 9 launches actually cost, because SpaceX refuses to tell us.

Re: A look into the finances of SpaceX

#330

Post by HumanReadable »

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…

Of course the Falcon can be compared to the SLS. Both are vehicles designed to take things into space for crying out loud!

The figures are easy to compare as well. Just include these factors in your comparison! Even if we don't know exactly what those factors are, we can make a ballpark estimate the total difference and add that as a percentage to spaceX's final figure.

The idea that things can't be compared because they are different is nonsense. When things are different is the only time comparisons are meaningful to make!

Post reply on HN