381–390 of 397 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well putting half your fortune in a venture is literally taking significant personal financial risk. Besides that, there are plenty of firms taking government money but Elon actually delivered.
It was a risk free venture.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It was a risk free venture.
That is simply false. SpaceX's chances were widely estimated to be quite low at the time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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...
Irrelevant. Hollywood accounting works because a film studio can, by shifting expenses to a particular film from elsewhere in the company, always claim that the film is unprofitable; the overall revenue and profit/loss for the studio is unaffected. The documents WSJ viewed are for SpaceX as a whole, not "SpaceX's launcher division". Even if the launcher division charged the Starlink division 9000 megazillion dollars…
I don't think you understood what I wrote. GP claimed "SpaceX is profitable, so they're not pricing below cost", but the bulk of SpaceX's revenue can be attributed to the company owner transferring his money around.
Your comment is so far off it reads as something outputted by a poor machine learning model.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is simply false. SpaceX's chances were widely estimated to be quite low at the time.
If you are following along above, even if SpaceX failed, only the government would have lost money spent. The government contract did not take equity so Elon could liquidate and get all his money back. His cash investment was very little compare to government up front money provided by Griffin.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Irrelevant. Hollywood accounting works because a film studio can, by shifting expenses to a particular film from elsewhere in the company, always claim that the film is unprofitable; the overall revenue and profit/loss for the studio is unaffected. The documents WSJ viewed are for SpaceX as a whole, not "SpaceX's launcher division". Even if the launcher division charged the Starlink division 9000 megazillion dollars…
> Irrelevant. Hollywood accounting works because (...) I don't think you understood what I wrote. GP claimed "SpaceX is profitable, so they're not pricing below cost", but the bulk of SpaceX's revenue can be attributed to the company owner transferring his money around. Your comment is so far off it reads as something outputted by a poor machine learning model.
My point is that even if SpaceX books Starlink launches as revenue,[1] it would still have to be accounted for as an expense on Starlink's side, so SpaceX's overall bottom line would not change. If SpaceX's confidential internal financials show that SpaceX has achieved profitability then, yes, that indicates that SpaceX is not pricing its launches below cost.
>Your comment is so far off it reads as something outputted by a poor machine learning model.
Sorry, not my fault that you can't comprehend the fact that revenue can't come out of nowhere. It has to always be balanced by expense, and this isn't some magic way for Musk to generate "fake profits".
[1] A fairly common business practice, in and of itself. When an Apple employee receives a new Apple computer for use at work, that computer is booked as revenue for Apple; after all, Apple is acting as a customer for a product, albeit its own. The division that employee works for in turns records the price of that computer as an expense. The revenue amount is going to be lower than what an outside customer would pay—basically, Apple as seller will charge Apple as customer zero markup—but some revenue will be recorded all the same.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you are following along above, even if SpaceX failed, only the government would have lost money spent. The government contract did not take equity so Elon could liquidate and get all his money back. His cash investment was very little compare to government up front money provided by Griffin.
If SpaceX failed all the money in the company would've been gone.
Read the links above, this is not speculation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If SpaceX failed all the money in the company would've been gone.
They had no debt, and plenty of assets funded by the government. Other failed rocket companies liquidated and return value to investors. Elon only had to recover 10% of the spend to be made fully whole. Read the links above, this is not speculation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
It's a title. It means fuck all. If you start a company, you can name yourself whatever. I'm the director of a company. In the concrete case, Musk has NO credentials for being a chief engineer. He's a bachelor of arts in physics. Ironically a bachelor of science in economics. His main talent is extracting subsidies from the US government.
> His main talent is extracting subsidies from the US government.
That's just flat out inaccurate nonsense.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What I do is browse aimlessly through RH until see a tag like "Industrials". Then, I click this and I can see a list of like 50 companies that do all things yellow-square in sim city. It's like fish in a barrel if you have patience to sort through the information and type fake contact info into investor web forms to get at presentation materials. You definitely don't need a Bloomberg terminal subscription to do this…
Why the need for fake contact info?
Do we like being added to arbitrary contact lists?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Crew-1 to Crew-6, DM-2, Inspiration 4, Axiom 1, Axiom 2 10 missions A crewed mission to the ISS every 6 months plus a handful of commercials. Your numbers are way off.
thanks, thats what i get for asking bing instead of looking myself
I think this was an xkcd.