3 ms·

Launching their own payloads is not the same as launching those from a paying customer. They do not make any money off launching their own satellites until thos

Launching their own payloads is not the same as launching those from a paying customer. They do not make any money off launching their own satellites until those satellites are profitable. We can known if SpaceX turns a profit based on their employees and funding they've been raising. Just because you saw one in real life doesn't mean it's special compared to any of the other companies doing launches. Sure, they have lower cost, but you need paying customers to pay the 7,000 employees you have. They have a total of 2 paying customers (NASA) in 2020, 11 in 2019, and 20 in 2018. Do you see the trend now?

Melting_Harps 7y ago
> They do not make any money off launching their own satellites until those satellites are profitable. We can known if SpaceX turns a profit based on their employees and funding they've been raising. Product development takes time, and aerospace is a tightly regulated affair that the FAA has way too much control over, and still the fact remains that reusing first stages, and fairings drops the cost dramatically. So, what you are extrapolating is hardly going to give you a very definitive view in profitability. Also, why wouldn't you take as much funding as you want when you're in the development of other Value added services to add to your core program, especially when you've become the darling of the Aerospace Industry and anyone with money is falling over themselves to give you funding? That just seems like a horrible argument and doesn't detract from anything SpaceX is doing. The reason its significant is because how quickly they can iterate a design in real-time due the their vertical integration, Merlins seemed like they were were a choke point for future mission success from Falcon 1 to 9 so they overcame it using that methodology [1], so they realized moving over to Raptor was going to be fundamental to keep up with Starship's try/fail iteration as well. But just so its clear, I saw 5 just standing in front of the office at the Starship factory. At Hawthrone they have a bunch parts overflowing out the factory, a bunch of shrouds and shield prototypes were just propped up against the walls into the parking lot when I was there. And its clear to me that they're prioritizing their resources/funds where it matters most when you're trying to go for Market Share: innovation. But what makes you think they don't have investment in outside ventures that make them not just solvent, but profitable? Do you have access to their book keeping? What you're saying seem altogether academic, and nothing more than conjecture. Correction: NASA and the US DoD, the latter essentially having unlimited budgets and the former have granted them exclusive access to the ISS for resupply and transportation. Satelite missions from other private corps do pay bills but they're not as frequent and also have a lengthy lead-time with years of development and costs--I'm sure COVID will have disrupted it even further in ways we cannot discern until we go back online. I'd say if anything it shows how economies of scale can incentivize a company, if successful, to be able to create more supply then demand when they take the risks and iterate as much as the SpaceX Team has. Those boosters, fairing and engines are still being cranked out in earnest at HQ while the rest of the World has shutdown. I'm sure if you saw Facebook's satellite mission succeed you'd be clamoring about how great the company is because now they have a 'real pipeline developed' to serve the needs of FAANG. Honestly, the only trend I see is the ever greater lift capability because of R/D funding being where it was supposed to. I'm less convinced about their civilian transport usecase, but I'd love to be proven wrong. Other than that, they beat Nation States (specifically the only 2 super powers left in the World 20th/21st Century) out of an Industry that only they had access to despite how rigged the system is through creative destruction and left all of their competitors for dead in the wake of their disruption. Its a successful model anyway you cut it. But, lets assume for one second you are right and its not profitable: lets not forget that the World's richest Man is the CEO of a (exploitative) company that has never turned a profit in it's entire existence and yet it has become evidently what the World relies on during pandemics for delivery of goods. (With nearly a trillion in Market share in 2019.) Which is what my reply, and this thread, was actually about, mind you. So my final question is: what have you actually proven? 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_Merlin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_Merlin
- shaklee3 7y ago
  I don't think you read my comment. Well before covid hit, their launch cadence was dropping dramatically. They still have DoD and NASA missions, but those aren't enough (look at the manifest) to sustain a company of that size.
  - Melting_Harps 7y ago
    > I don't think you read my comment. I read it, I just don't see how that's anymore than conjecture. This was my response to that: > the latter [DoD] essentially having unlimited budgets The DoD also being a a customer that not only has an unlimited budget, but pays in advance, and gives you essential work status during Global shutdowns is more than enough to make it sustainable. NASA's involvement for missions to the Moon and Mars will also have a significant ramp up when this next mission gets the media attention it deserves and a viable Starship itertation is created. Believe me, I actually hate they have such deep Military and Government ties, because of my pwn personal ideology/ethics/morals but the fact remains its sustainable and is objectively a brilliant strategy: its pragmatic as it is effective and uses the latter to determine its trajectory and business model. I really have heard your (cyclical) argument, I disagree and I don't think we're doing much other than arguing the same points for what seems like arguments sake, so I'll leave it at that.

Melting_Harps 7y ago

> They do not make any money off launching their own satellites until those satellites are profitable. We can known if SpaceX turns a profit based on their employees and funding they've been raising. Product development takes time, and aerospace is a tightly regulated affair that the FAA has way too much control over, and still the fact remains that reusing first stages, and fairings drops the cost dramatically. So, what you are extrapolating is hardly going to give you a very definitive view in profitability. Also, why wouldn't you take as much funding as you want when you're in the development of other Value added services to add to your core program, especially when you've become the darling of the Aerospace Industry and anyone with money is falling over themselves to give you funding? That just seems like a horrible argument and doesn't detract from anything SpaceX is doing. The reason its significant is because how quickly they can iterate a design in real-time due the their vertical integration, Merlins seemed like they were were a choke point for future mission success from Falcon 1 to 9 so they overcame it using that methodology [1], so they realized moving over to Raptor was going to be fundamental to keep up with Starship's try/fail iteration as well. But just so its clear, I saw 5 just standing in front of the office at the Starship factory. At Hawthrone they have a bunch parts overflowing out the factory, a bunch of shrouds and shield prototypes were just propped up against the walls into the parking lot when I was there. And its clear to me that they're prioritizing their resources/funds where it matters most when you're trying to go for Market Share: innovation. But what makes you think they don't have investment in outside ventures that make them not just solvent, but profitable? Do you have access to their book keeping? What you're saying seem altogether academic, and nothing more than conjecture. Correction: NASA and the US DoD, the latter essentially having unlimited budgets and the former have granted them exclusive access to the ISS for resupply and transportation. Satelite missions from other private corps do pay bills but they're not as frequent and also have a lengthy lead-time with years of development and costs--I'm sure COVID will have disrupted it even further in ways we cannot discern until we go back online. I'd say if anything it shows how economies of scale can incentivize a company, if successful, to be able to create more supply then demand when they take the risks and iterate as much as the SpaceX Team has. Those boosters, fairing and engines are still being cranked out in earnest at HQ while the rest of the World has shutdown. I'm sure if you saw Facebook's satellite mission succeed you'd be clamoring about how great the company is because now they have a 'real pipeline developed' to serve the needs of FAANG. Honestly, the only trend I see is the ever greater lift capability because of R/D funding being where it was supposed to. I'm less convinced about their civilian transport usecase, but I'd love to be proven wrong. Other than that, they beat Nation States (specifically the only 2 super powers left in the World 20th/21st Century) out of an Industry that only they had access to despite how rigged the system is through creative destruction and left all of their competitors for dead in the wake of their disruption. Its a successful model anyway you cut it. But, lets assume for one second you are right and its not profitable: lets not forget that the World's richest Man is the CEO of a (exploitative) company that has never turned a profit in it's entire existence and yet it has become evidently what the World relies on during pandemics for delivery of goods. (With nearly a trillion in Market share in 2019.) Which is what my reply, and this thread, was actually about, mind you. So my final question is: what have you actually proven? 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_Merlin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_Merlin

shaklee3 7y ago
I don't think you read my comment. Well before covid hit, their launch cadence was dropping dramatically. They still have DoD and NASA missions, but those aren't enough (look at the manifest) to sustain a company of that size.
- Melting_Harps 7y ago
  > I don't think you read my comment. I read it, I just don't see how that's anymore than conjecture. This was my response to that: > the latter [DoD] essentially having unlimited budgets The DoD also being a a customer that not only has an unlimited budget, but pays in advance, and gives you essential work status during Global shutdowns is more than enough to make it sustainable. NASA's involvement for missions to the Moon and Mars will also have a significant ramp up when this next mission gets the media attention it deserves and a viable Starship itertation is created. Believe me, I actually hate they have such deep Military and Government ties, because of my pwn personal ideology/ethics/morals but the fact remains its sustainable and is objectively a brilliant strategy: its pragmatic as it is effective and uses the latter to determine its trajectory and business model. I really have heard your (cyclical) argument, I disagree and I don't think we're doing much other than arguing the same points for what seems like arguments sake, so I'll leave it at that.