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

SpaceX closing in on first Starship Super Heavy launch

spacenews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 189 posts

Re: SpaceX closing in on first Starship Super Heavy launch

#121

Post by bumby »

panick21_ wrote: post #117
bumby wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hell, SpaceX is private so we have limited information across all domains. I acknowledged in my first post that accurate numbers are hard to come by. But we have to work with what information we have. Foreign govts would still be govt money; many of those you listed are still public projects. Do you have estimates for those other private launches? If not, it's just speculation. Based on the information we have, it se…

> But we have to work with what information we have. No sorry, if you know the numbers you have are clearly bias and wrong then you don't need to work with them.

Do you know SpaceX's cash flow? If so, please share. Otherwise, I can just claim you are speculating towards your own bias.

If you think the data is bad, at best all you can claim is "we don't know"

Re: SpaceX closing in on first Starship Super Heavy launch

#122

Post by s1artibartfast »

bumby wrote: post #98
Meegul wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That source only lists contracts where the price is known or can be reasonably estimated. Naturally, US government entities which have a semi-public bidding process are much easier to obtain a price estimate from. There's a large amount of foreign government contracts and private commercial contracts that are omitted from that list. Just from 2020 alone, SkySats 16-21, ANASIS-II, SXRS-1, SAOCOM 1B, GNOMES 1, Tybak-01…

Hell, SpaceX is private so we have limited information across all domains. I acknowledged in my first post that accurate numbers are hard to come by. But we have to work with what information we have. Foreign govts would still be govt money; many of those you listed are still public projects. Do you have estimates for those other private launches? If not, it's just speculation. Based on the information we have, it se…

As a side note, There are easy esimates for private launches. SpaceX widely publicises their launch pricing, which lines up pretty well for the publicly disclosed contracts.

Re: SpaceX closing in on first Starship Super Heavy launch

#123

Post by sgtnoodle »

detritus wrote: post #109
sgtnoodle wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's certainly dumb, but what's the harm with being a little irreverent and having fun while you're doing good, impactful work?

If you knew me irl, you'd know I'm very much in favour of humour and irreverency, especially where it might not be expected or even appropriate – but I'm not that much younger than Musk and honestly, I just find his particular flavour of humour childish and cringe-inducing. 13-year old me would've been gleefully receptive to it – the not-far off 50-year old me... somewhat less so. The trouble for him here is – I'm no…

I think part of Elon's charm is his cringe. He's a crazy uber-billionaire literally digging tunnels, making flame throwers and launching interplanetary rocket ships. His childish irreverence is what makes him dorky Tony Stark (Marvell superhero) rather than Hugo Drax (Bond villain).

Re: SpaceX closing in on first Starship Super Heavy launch

#124

Post by s1artibartfast »

bumby wrote: post #112
s1artibartfast wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The other respondent brought up a good point regarding selection bias. A different way to approach the problem would be to look at total SpaceX launches by customer. This has its own problems, but might paint a better picture. When talking about funding in general, you also have to consider that SpaceX has significant non launch Equity funding to the tune of $10B, and that contracts can include potential future Reven…

Sure, I can acknowledge there is likely a selection bias based on public reporting. But I would push back that it skews the data by an order of magnitude as suggested. We'd likely see many, many more private launches compared to public for that to be true. Let's be super generous and say that Starlink brings in $1B in revenue; that still means govt funding accounts for 80% of their revenue. And, yes, we can talk abou…

Like I said, I dont disagree with your broader point, and would agree that 80+% is a reasonable estimate.

$1B income for Starlink makes sense given they have ~1M customers paying ~$100/mo, and a $4-500 hookup cost.

Lasty, you have to consider that the government contract numbers you have are cummulative going back to 2012, while the Starlink revenue is annual (2022 only). If you look at government contracts for 2021, you only get $1.6B. Using those numbers, Starlink internet would be closer to 40% of revenue, with launch contracts at 60%, which starts to paint a very different story.

I think a lot of the feedback you are getting is a kneejerk reaction based on language. E.g. "government funding" had a very different connotation than "government sales". People think subsidies and then their minds short circut.

Re: SpaceX closing in on first Starship Super Heavy launch

#125

Post by s1artibartfast »

bumby wrote: post #119
panick21_ wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry but this is complete nonsense. You can literally just go threw the list of their launches on Wikipedia an notice that nothing close to even 80% of them are for the government. And that is outside of their Starship business, that is by now a large part of its revenue. The numbers you present are ridicoulus, they have easily more money just from human space flight from Polaris and Axiom.

The bulk of their own launches are for their own infrastructure. That doesn't bring revenue at the launch date. They aren't paying themselves to launch their equipment; it's an investment in future revenue. Even looking at optimistic projections for 2023 Starlink revenue puts would still mean govt contracts dwarf Starlink revenue by 4:1. > And that is outside of their Starship business, that is by now a large part of…

>Even looking at optimistic projections for 2023 Starlink revenue puts would still mean govt contracts dwarf Starlink revenue by 4:1.

As I just point at elsewhere, you get 4:1 by comparing cummulative contract revenue with an annual Starlink revenue.

Re: SpaceX closing in on first Starship Super Heavy launch

#126

Post by detritus »

sgtnoodle wrote: post #123
detritus wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you knew me irl, you'd know I'm very much in favour of humour and irreverency, especially where it might not be expected or even appropriate – but I'm not that much younger than Musk and honestly, I just find his particular flavour of humour childish and cringe-inducing. 13-year old me would've been gleefully receptive to it – the not-far off 50-year old me... somewhat less so. The trouble for him here is – I'm no…

I think part of Elon's charm is his cringe. He's a crazy uber-billionaire literally digging tunnels, making flame throwers and launching interplanetary rocket ships. His childish irreverence is what makes him dorky Tony Stark (Marvell superhero) rather than Hugo Drax (Bond villain).

I'd suggest that perhaps that simply implies that Ian Fleming's imagination could only run so far.. :)

Re: SpaceX closing in on first Starship Super Heavy launch

#127

Post by bumby »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #124
bumby wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, I can acknowledge there is likely a selection bias based on public reporting. But I would push back that it skews the data by an order of magnitude as suggested. We'd likely see many, many more private launches compared to public for that to be true. Let's be super generous and say that Starlink brings in $1B in revenue; that still means govt funding accounts for 80% of their revenue. And, yes, we can talk abou…

Like I said, I dont disagree with your broader point, and would agree that 80+% is a reasonable estimate. $1B income for Starlink makes sense given they have ~1M customers paying ~$100/mo, and a $4-500 hookup cost. Lasty, you have to consider that the government contract numbers you have are cummulative going back to 2012, while the Starlink revenue is annual (2022 only). If you look at government contracts for 2021,…

You're probably right; I could have phrased it better. I think we pretty much agree, given what data is available. My main point is that their business model is predicated government contracts early before they can transition to other income streams. That's not really crony capitalism and it's part of the intent of the government to spur new industries. But I would also hold it as distinct from pure free-market capitalism that can exist outside of government money. (Which, ironically, is a point many people hold against legacy aerospace). And I think that latter point is relevant because SpaceX (and Musk himself) is often held up as some sort of capitalistic ideal and any counterpoint to that makes people bristle. In all, however, I think that hybrid approach is ultimately beneficial to both SpaceX and the public.

Re: SpaceX closing in on first Starship Super Heavy launch

#128

Post by macintux »

bumby wrote: post #106
wolfram74 wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

also: this model is 9 meters in diameter, and will already be more robust to weather effects than the f9, the 18 meter diameter model would be a beast if ever built.

Sorry, I didn't necessarily mean from a physical reliability perspective. I was speaking to launch/timetable reliability.

I’d be curious how many scrubs are technically necessary, vs precautionary.

If war is afoot you’re willing to take far more risks, with the weather and with sensor glitches.

Re: SpaceX closing in on first Starship Super Heavy launch

#129

Post by bumby »

macintux wrote: post #128
bumby wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, I didn't necessarily mean from a physical reliability perspective. I was speaking to launch/timetable reliability.

I’d be curious how many scrubs are technically necessary, vs precautionary. If war is afoot you’re willing to take far more risks, with the weather and with sensor glitches.

I imagine there's a lot to go into it. For example, if it's a one-of-a-kind weapon with a long lead time to develop, they probably have a pretty low risk threshold.

Re: SpaceX closing in on first Starship Super Heavy launch

#130

Post by bumby »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #125
bumby wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The bulk of their own launches are for their own infrastructure. That doesn't bring revenue at the launch date. They aren't paying themselves to launch their equipment; it's an investment in future revenue. Even looking at optimistic projections for 2023 Starlink revenue puts would still mean govt contracts dwarf Starlink revenue by 4:1. > And that is outside of their Starship business, that is by now a large part of…

>Even looking at optimistic projections for 2023 Starlink revenue puts would still mean govt contracts dwarf Starlink revenue by 4:1. As I just point at elsewhere, you get 4:1 by comparing cummulative contract revenue with an annual Starlink revenue.

No disagreement; this actually is proving my point. I'm pretty clear about using the larger business cycle as my point. I'm not taking a snapshot in time, I'm saying relying on govt contracts early is necessary for their business to survive. Others are either twisting or misinterpreting my point.

To be absolutely explicitly clear: their business model requires using govt contracts/funding/sales early before they can transition to other viable means of revenue. They could not survive as a company without those early govt contracts, but this does not mean they are dependent on govt contracts into perpetuity.

A dependency on govt contracts early and an increasingly private revenue stream can both be true. This isn't bad, but it also isn't the often-lauded ideal of free-market capitalism.

Post reply on HN