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

351–360 of 397 posts

Re: A look into the finances of SpaceX

#351

Post by panick21_ »

renonce wrote: post #312
nordsieck wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Nonsense. Complete and uther nonsesens. Anybody who spends even 5 min realizes this is wrong. ULA isnt going away, no-matter how cheap SpaceX is. Arianespace wont go away. China, Russia, India and Japan wont go away. BlueOrigin wont go away.

If anything SpaceX has lead to an explosive increase in competition.

Re: A look into the finances of SpaceX

#352

Post by panick21_ »

reso wrote: post #329
nordsieck wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

And every expert who has analyised it or thought about it know its nonsense. SpaceX has told us, but you simple believe them.

SpaceX has shown these numbers to investors and have received money on good valuation. If not even there core buissness was profitable why would anybody invest in Starship?

The argument that SpaceX subsudizes their launch prices is just a nonsense argument that doesnt hold up to study.

Re: A look into the finances of SpaceX

#353

Post by BaseballPhysics »

el_nahual wrote: post #42
BaseballPhysics wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably cap ex which means they can use depreciation to improve their bottom line numbers.

By definition, spending on something that is consumable (like a rocket launch) is not a capital expenditure. A capital expenditure is when you buy something whose value slowly decreases with time. If a factory buys a building for $10MM, it isn't any poorer. Yes, it has $10MM less in the bank, but it also has a building worth $10MM. As the building loses value with time the factory gets poorer: it's that loss of value…

> By definition, spending on something that is consumable (like a rocket launch) is not a capital expenditure.

Uh, I was talking about the Starlink satellites which SpaceX owns, not the rockets. I am not, in fact, an idiot. But thanks for assuming so and giving me capex 101. Much appreciated.

Re: A look into the finances of SpaceX

#354

Post by panick21_ »

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…

You are just paratoing pork politicians claims. They dont give shit about these capabilities other then its from their state.

Gigant SRB are dead technology, totally useless. RS-25 is engine that should be retiered and has no future.

So your theory of techonpgical progrss is to spend huge amount of money into legacy technology rather then actually building new technology.

The reason the US will beat China is the Raptor, not the RS-25.

What you advocate works 100% against what you want to achieve.

And just FYI the shuttle stack never lead us to the moon. In fact its terrible for this task.

Re: A look into the finances of SpaceX

#355

Post by panick21_ »

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.

Wow fantastic, great measure. One has been in development 4x as long and cost 10x as much. And has a 100x operating cost.

Re: A look into the finances of SpaceX

#356

Post by BaseballPhysics »

firesteelrain wrote: post #44
BaseballPhysics wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably cap ex which means they can use depreciation to improve their bottom line numbers.

Not Capital Expenditure, more like an Operating Expenditure.

It's both. The Starlink satellite construction is cap ex (maaaaybe arguably part of the launch, which is required to make the satellite operational? Not sure...) while the launch and operating the network is ongoing op ex.

Re: A look into the finances of SpaceX

#357

Post by panick21_ »

martin8412 wrote: post #335
notfish wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Musk is chief engineer - he makes engineering decisions at SpaceX and has a reputation for mostly making good ones

It's a title he has given himself. You can give yourself whatever title you want when you own the company. Doesn't mean anything at all.

Ok so who was the chief engineer on the falcon 1?

Look you are just doing what everybody does who dislikes Musk.

The reality is we have overwhelming evidence from many sources who have actual knowlage on the topic.

Of course that does matter because a friend friends uncle has a sister at SpaceX who said something about how Musk was bad or whatever.

Re: A look into the finances of SpaceX

#358

Post by panick21_ »

pavon wrote: post #48
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

Many of those planned commercial launches will likely slip into 2024. It is common for space companies to not bother updating deadlines that they obviously are not going to meet until they get past some high-risk milestone and are in a better position to give a more realistic deadline.

There are also launches moveing forward or show up out of knowwhere.

Re: A look into the finances of SpaceX

#359

Post by panick21_ »

georgeg23 wrote: post #77
samr71 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This has elements of truth but is a conspiracy theory the way you describe it. If you listen to Musk, or listen to people who work for Musk, or the people who work for those people, they all say that the point of SpaceX is to enable human colonization of Mars. It's not just a marketing strategy to acquire talent (unless you think they're all lying -- hence the conspiracy aspect. Now, to do that, they'll need to scrat…

The only person that has to lie is Musk. That's why SpaceX is run as an autocracy. Everyone else drinks the Mars Kool aid. People who have been around a while connect the dots. To be more precise, the company is run by the DoD with significant technical and financial assistance. Elon is the main conduit between those deep resource and the rest of the company. He regularly meets with all teams to ensure they are align…

Lol the DoD giving SpaceX assistance is hilarious claim. And the are run by DoD noless. Complete nonsense with no evidence.

Re: A look into the finances of SpaceX

#360

Post by panick21_ »

mcpackieh wrote: post #144
samr71 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This has elements of truth but is a conspiracy theory the way you describe it. If you listen to Musk, or listen to people who work for Musk, or the people who work for those people, they all say that the point of SpaceX is to enable human colonization of Mars. It's not just a marketing strategy to acquire talent (unless you think they're all lying -- hence the conspiracy aspect. Now, to do that, they'll need to scrat…

Yes, it's literally a theory about a conspiracy . That doesn't mean it isn't true. And Elon Musk saying he wants to create Mars colonies doesn't make it true, anymore than Howard Hughes saying he wanted to mine magnesium nodules off the ocean floor made that true. Look at Starship objectively. It's not a Mars rocket. That bellyflop through the atmosphere stunt won't work on Mars, and man-rating it even for operation…

You just shit on their ideas. They are hard problem and they are doing what they can to solve them.

I tend to trust the people who have actually engineer such systems, have built hardware and have simulations.

The claim that its all a conspiricy theory is simply not credible. Honestly just make yourself look ridicoulus.

Post reply on HN