A forecast of the fair market value of SpaceX's businesses • Hacker News Board

Re: A forecast of the fair market value of SpaceX's businesses

#211

Post by fastball » Mon, Apr 06, 2026, 3:13 AM UTC

ben_w wrote: post #210

fastball wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The argument was "why do you even need Starship?", not "will it be fully re-usable at the end of the day?"

> Almost every single Falcon 9 customer will prefer launching on Starship if/when it is available, because the cost will be much lower Cost reduction depends on it being fully reusable.

Not actually sure that is true. Entirely possible that just by re-using Superheavy and expending Starship they could get to a price point lower than F9 (which also has an expendable upper stage).

Re: A forecast of the fair market value of SpaceX's businesses

#212

Post by ben_w » Mon, Apr 06, 2026, 9:32 AM UTC

fastball wrote: post #211

ben_w wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Almost every single Falcon 9 customer will prefer launching on Starship if/when it is available, because the cost will be much lower Cost reduction depends on it being fully reusable.

Not actually sure that is true. Entirely possible that just by re-using Superheavy and expending Starship they could get to a price point lower than F9 (which also has an expendable upper stage).

Perhaps. But until it is demonstrated, unfortunately because Musk has been overstating future costs of a lot of things for a while now, we can't rely on his optimistic statements for forecasts of our own.

I'm only saying your previous "will be" is too strong a claim, not that it's completely unthinkable that it may come to be.

That said, it's not like other billionaires aren't working on the same basic idea, even if they're copying what was already proven with the Falcon 9, which is great for people who want to go to space but not so much for SpaceX investors.

Re: A forecast of the fair market value of SpaceX's businesses

#213

Post by darth_aardvark » Wed, Apr 08, 2026, 4:30 AM UTC

Noaidi wrote: post #154

darth_aardvark wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Of course they would! If the P/E of a company is 1.1 it is overvalued by definition so why would anyone buy an over valued company? This is obviously untrue. Would you sell a box that spits out $1 million dollars a year for 1 million dollars?

I do not know the P/E ratio for your magic box, sorry. A P/E ratio of 1 indicates that a company's share price is equal to its earnings per share, suggesting that investors are paying $1 for every $1 of earnings. A P/E ratio of 10 indicates that a company's share price is equal to its earnings per share, suggesting that investors are paying $10 for every $1 of earnings. Which is the better deal? Neither! The first co…

The P/E of that box is 1...This isn't a difficult calculation.

Re: A forecast of the fair market value of SpaceX's businesses

#214

Post by cerved » Wed, Apr 15, 2026, 12:47 PM UTC

ahahahahah wrote: post #94

cerved wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For $380B you can get both AT&T and Verizon and you pay ~1.55x the revenue. Why pay 38x for Starlink?

What do you mean $380B? This "fair market value" forecast also includes $147B for starlink enterprise and $75B for starlink direct-to-cell. So almost $600B all in.

> Starlink Consumer Broadband at $380B (9.2M subscribers, ~38x revenue)

I mean that Starlinks consumer broadband is valued at ~38x revenue, when other telcos are valued around 1.5x revenue. That revenue is 2533% more expensive, why pay such a big premium for something that's essentially the same?