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

The SpaceX Sham

dissentmagazine.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 51 posts

Re: The SpaceX Sham

#31

Post by sfblah »

ggreer wrote: post #22
sfblah wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To me, the bigger issue with SpaceX is that there's no real argument for how space exploration will benefit humanity in any tangible way. Humans cannot live sustainably on Mars or the moon -- that's just a straight-up lie. Satellites add some value for sure, but it's pretty limited, which helps explain why most of the launches just support StarLink (which itself is probably unsustainable financially). This whole thin…

How is Starlink financially unsustainable? In 2025, Starlink generated $4.42 billion in income from $11.39 billion in revenue. Last quarter Starlink generated $1.6 billion in income from $4.3 billion in revenue.[1] So it's already a profitable enterprise, and their costs will likely go down over time as their launch capabilities improve. 1. https://s21.q4cdn.com/184289198/files/doc_financials/2026/q2...

Here's an OK article on the topic: https://archive.is/eKCJu

Starlink is almost certainly playing games with capex and depreciation to appear profitable when it is not. They're also using political patronage to get contracts from the government to do things that are probably worthless.

Re: The SpaceX Sham

#32

Post by b3orn »

AlexMuir wrote: post #2

> Although SpaceX stock has since fallen far below its IPO price I'm a skeptic on SpaceX but the IPO price was $135, low was $108 and current price is $130. I wouldn't say that's far below.

There are a lot of people who want to see them fail. Have some patience, it's not even been a year.

Re: The SpaceX Sham

#33

Post by rurp »

bigbuppo wrote: post #24

Whether it's a good idea don't matter. Fundamentals don't matter. What matters is if enough investors think they can make a lot of money. The bet is on a government bailout of some sort. SpaceX itself is now critical to national security, as is Starlink. Tossing every other Musk company into SpaceX means that when they fail SpaceX itself has to be bailed out. Probably safer than government bonds at this point if you…

SpaceX isn't more secure than the government because the government might bail it out in the future, that makes no logical sense. Obviously SpaceX is a higher default risk than the entity supposedly backstopping it.

Not to mention that stock holders are hardly guaranteed to be made whole if the company crashes hard enough to need a bailout.

Re: The SpaceX Sham

#34

Post by caconym_ »

encoderer wrote: post #12
caconym_ wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Worth noting that it actually opened at $150 on public markets. It's kind of funny how we call the $135 figure the "public offering" price when there is really nothing public about it. Maybe it made more sense in some past era when it was more difficult for third parties to make private pre-IPO investments. Not that there's anything particularly unusual about this. High profile tech companies almost universally (actu…

All you had to do was put in an order with your broker (robinhood, E*Trade, etc). Some brokers did not get much allocation (Schwab) but this was not a hard stock to get at $135.

My understanding based on reading first hand accounts is that very few people who tried for a retail allocation got anything close to what they asked for. Total retail allocation was apparently around 20% of the IPO.

Hard to get a few shares so you can say you have some? Probably not.

Re: The SpaceX Sham

#35

Post by caconym_ »

Dig1t wrote: post #16
caconym_ wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Worth noting that it actually opened at $150 on public markets. It's kind of funny how we call the $135 figure the "public offering" price when there is really nothing public about it. Maybe it made more sense in some past era when it was more difficult for third parties to make private pre-IPO investments. Not that there's anything particularly unusual about this. High profile tech companies almost universally (actu…

Anyone could sign up for the IPO price. I’m a nobody and I was able to buy some shares at $135 on the opening day. You just had to sign up to participate before opening day.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49264831

Re: The SpaceX Sham

#36

Post by zrobotics »

rurp wrote: post #33
bigbuppo wrote: post #24

Whether it's a good idea don't matter. Fundamentals don't matter. What matters is if enough investors think they can make a lot of money. The bet is on a government bailout of some sort. SpaceX itself is now critical to national security, as is Starlink. Tossing every other Musk company into SpaceX means that when they fail SpaceX itself has to be bailed out. Probably safer than government bonds at this point if you…

SpaceX isn't more secure than the government because the government might bail it out in the future, that makes no logical sense. Obviously SpaceX is a higher default risk than the entity supposedly backstopping it. Not to mention that stock holders are hardly guaranteed to be made whole if the company crashes hard enough to need a bailout.

Plus, couldn't a theoretical bailout come with pretty onerous terms and focus on just the actual space launch & starlink divisions? It isn't hard to argue that they are as critical of a defense contractor as Lockheed. However, supposedly ~80% of the value is AI and Twitter, which certainly aren't in the same category.

I agree that stockholders would likely not come out well at all in a theoretical bailout. A bailout would likely involve chapter 11 or something similar, and shareholders would be last in line behind other creditors. They might get additional protection if it looked like the collapse of the company would significantly affect retirement and pension funds, but that hypothetical certainly doesn't give me any additional faith in the stock.

Re: The SpaceX Sham

#37

Post by ggreer »

sfblah wrote: post #31
ggreer wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is Starlink financially unsustainable? In 2025, Starlink generated $4.42 billion in income from $11.39 billion in revenue. Last quarter Starlink generated $1.6 billion in income from $4.3 billion in revenue.[1] So it's already a profitable enterprise, and their costs will likely go down over time as their launch capabilities improve. 1. https://s21.q4cdn.com/184289198/files/doc_financials/2026/q2...

Here's an OK article on the topic: https://archive.is/eKCJu Starlink is almost certainly playing games with capex and depreciation to appear profitable when it is not. They're also using political patronage to get contracts from the government to do things that are probably worthless.

The income/profit numbers I used include depreciation, and even if you subtract all space capex from Starlink income, the program would still have a profit of $482 million last quarter. That's a very pessimistic estimate, as it includes costs for many things outside of what's necessary to build Starlink satellites and put them in orbit.

The post you linked to seems to be incorrect on matters of fact. For example, it claims that, "...a large portion of the Starlink constellation consists of V1 and V1.5 satellites...". But of the 9,200 operational Starlink satellites today, 8,000 are v2 minis. Over half of the older v1 and v1.5 satellites have been deorbited, so they don't seem critical to its continued operation. The post also claims that higher RAM and fuel prices will increase the cost of Starlink significantly, but neither are significant costs. It costs SpaceX around $1.4 million to construct a v2 mini and put it into orbit. Even if each satellite had 1TB of RAM, that's what, $50k at the most? And propellant is only a few percent of launch costs. The main expenses (besides satellite construction) are building second stages, refurbishing boosters, and vehicle integration.

If SpaceX is lying about Starlink's profitability, then it seems like the best way to show that is to focus on the numbers. They have 9,200 operational satellites and 12 million customers, meaning each satellite serves 1,300 customers on average. ARPU is $66/month, which means each satellite earns them $86k/month, or $5 million over a 5 year life. (And this is just consumer revenue, not B2B or government contracts.) Each Falcon 9 launch puts 24-29 v2 mini satellites in orbit, so each launch gets them $120-150 million in expected revenue. So the question is: is the cost to construct the satellites, launch them, and operate the network lower than that? SpaceX charges customers $76 million for a Falcon 9 launch, but their costs are much lower. (Probably around $20 million.) Even with pessimistic cost estimates, it's hard to find a way to make Starlink unprofitable without also making things like ISS missions or GPS satellite launches unprofitable. And if that's the case, then arguing over Starlink's profitability is academic, and the real issue is that SpaceX is blatantly lying in their SEC filings. I seriously doubt that is the case.

Re: The SpaceX Sham

#38

Post by sfblah »

ggreer wrote: post #37
sfblah wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's an OK article on the topic: https://archive.is/eKCJu Starlink is almost certainly playing games with capex and depreciation to appear profitable when it is not. They're also using political patronage to get contracts from the government to do things that are probably worthless.

The income/profit numbers I used include depreciation, and even if you subtract all space capex from Starlink income, the program would still have a profit of $482 million last quarter. That's a very pessimistic estimate, as it includes costs for many things outside of what's necessary to build Starlink satellites and put them in orbit. The post you linked to seems to be incorrect on matters of fact. For example, it…

It doesn't require "lying," per se. It just requires hiding the truth, kind of like what Musk has done for dozens of his other ventures. You do know that SpaceX owns Twitter now, for example? You do know that he tricked his investors into giving his cousin a ton of money for his fake solar lease scheme? You do know that there's still no new roadster, something like 10 years after he accepted deposits for it?

Even if we assume the numbers you're citing are right and this business is insanely profitable, won't this just invite competition? Or are you assuming the government will make SpaceX a monopoly, as it did for Tesla via neverending subsidies?

Re: The SpaceX Sham

#39

Post by root_axis »

bigbuppo wrote: post #24

Whether it's a good idea don't matter. Fundamentals don't matter. What matters is if enough investors think they can make a lot of money. The bet is on a government bailout of some sort. SpaceX itself is now critical to national security, as is Starlink. Tossing every other Musk company into SpaceX means that when they fail SpaceX itself has to be bailed out. Probably safer than government bonds at this point if you…

"Gambling on a bailout" doesn't sound like an appealing investment prospect.

Re: The SpaceX Sham

#40

Post by ggreer »

sfblah wrote: post #38
ggreer wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The income/profit numbers I used include depreciation, and even if you subtract all space capex from Starlink income, the program would still have a profit of $482 million last quarter. That's a very pessimistic estimate, as it includes costs for many things outside of what's necessary to build Starlink satellites and put them in orbit. The post you linked to seems to be incorrect on matters of fact. For example, it…

It doesn't require "lying," per se. It just requires hiding the truth, kind of like what Musk has done for dozens of his other ventures. You do know that SpaceX owns Twitter now, for example? You do know that he tricked his investors into giving his cousin a ton of money for his fake solar lease scheme? You do know that there's still no new roadster, something like 10 years after he accepted deposits for it? Even if…

I'm trying to address one very specific point: Whether Starlink is profitable. I'm not trying to litigate other business practices. The development timeline for a different's company's fancy car for the super-rich is not related to whether Starlink is profitable.

You can't hide the truth if you say you're following GAAP in your SEC filings, and then publish numbers saying that Starlink is making money. Doing so risks massive fines and even criminal penalties.

There are at least three other companies trying to build Starlink competitors (Amazon Leo, Guowang, & Qianfan). It's difficult for them to compete because unlike SpaceX, they don't have reusable boosters. Amazon is hoping that Blue Origin's New Glenn will be able to reduce their launch costs, but until their launch facility is rebuilt, Amazon has to rely on SpaceX, ULA, and Arianespace to get their satellites into orbit. The Chinese competitors also lack reusable spacecraft (and are also working to on that problem), so their launch costs are significantly higher. In the long term, whoever has the lowest launch costs will have the lowest prices, and SpaceX is betting that by the time others have reusable boosters (similar to Falcon 9), they'll have Starship operational. Time will tell if that works out for them.

When you say things like, "Or are you assuming the government will make SpaceX a monopoly, as it did for Tesla via neverending subsidies?" I'm not sure how to respond. First, SpaceX is practically a monopoly because their launch costs are so much lower than the competition. They were responsible for approximately 80% of all mass put in orbit in 2025 (over 2,400 tons). They needed subsidies and government contracts when the company started, but that is no longer their main source of revenue. Second, I don't see how Tesla is a monopoly (there are many competing car companies), nor how they're significantly subsidized compared to other US car manufacturers. How much in subsidies do you think Tesla has gotten compared to their revenue over the years, and how do you think that compares to say, Ford?

Post reply on HN