6 ms·

>SpaceX is disgustingly undervalued at $92 billion. Maybe, maybe not. None of these things have proven to have a profitable business model, so how are derivin

>SpaceX is disgustingly undervalued at $92 billion. Maybe, maybe not. None of these things have proven to have a profitable business model, so how are deriving the value? Of course, if that doesn't matter to you, there are myriad ways to hand your money over to SpaceX.

bpodgursky 6y ago
Uber's market cap is $100B and it's not a proven profitable business model either. SpaceX has wildly bigger upside if the big bets pay off.
- matmatmatmat 6y ago
  I mean, maybe Uber's way overvalued?
fastball 6y ago
Space launch isn't a profitable business model? How exactly are they making money by launching payloads for people then?
- shaklee3 6y ago
  They aren't. Not enough to stay in business. See the Bloomberg article from a while back. It's VC and FCC money at the moment.
  - fastball 6y ago
    Are they not launching Falcon 9s with customer payloads and charging more than it costs?
    - shaklee3 6y ago
      They are charging more than it costs to launch, but remember they employee thousands of extremely expensive engineers all year, and unless there are new businesses, that business isn't sustainable: https://www.wsj.com/articles/exclusive-peek-at-spacex-data-shows-loss-in-2015-heavy-expectations-for-nascent-internet-service-1484316455 https://www.wsj.com/articles/exclusive-peek-at-spacex-data-s...
      - fastball 6y ago
        The OC claimed they did not have a profitable business model. They do have a profitable business model (in fact they have multiple), they have just not scaled it up enough while at the same time are pumping massive amounts of money into new projects / R&D, so they are not a profitable business. There is a difference between the two things. Space launch and satellite internet are both proven profitable business models where SpaceX is actively growing their marketshare. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if in 2 years time SpaceX is the satellite internet market. No one will want the subpar internet experience provided by geosync satellites when Starlink is fully operational. Also worth noting that the article is about data from 2015, which was the first year they had ever landed an orbital-class booster (Falcon 9), and only the one time (in December 2015). The first time they ever re-used a booster for a customer payload was in 2017 (after the WSJ article you cite was published). Since then they've re-used boosters many times, with their recent launch actually being the 8th launch+recovery of the same booster. So what was iffy/nascent in 2015/2017 is now proven/consistent in 2021. They are doing much, much better from when that article as published.
        shaklee3 6y ago
        Sure, StarLink may be profitable, especially if they continue to get RDOF funding from the government. I'm skeptical it would be profitable otherwise given the cost of the terminal. I don't believe their launch business will be profitable since the number of launches has been dropping every year, and they are becoming their main customer.
        fastball 6y ago
        Sorry, I significantly edited my comment before seeing your reply. Also are we looking at the same chart? Not sure how you can make the claim that the number of launches has been dropping every year... every year since when? 2020 was the most launches ever, and in 2021 they are expected to do more commercial customer launches than all launches in 2020 + Starlink launches on top of that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9#Launch_outcomes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9#Launch_outcomes
  - nickik 6y ago
    The launch business has been profitable since before 2008. All their work for government is profitable. But of course you can finance Starlink and continue to be, so that part is VC funded. And they have not received FCC money yet.
    - shaklee3 6y ago
      https://www.wsj.com/articles/exclusive-peek-at-spacex-data-shows-loss-in-2015-heavy-expectations-for-nascent-internet-service-1484316455 https://www.wsj.com/articles/exclusive-peek-at-spacex-data-s...
      - nickik 6y ago
        I can't read WSJ. This article is from 2017, since then they have done a lot better.
        shaklee3 6y ago
        You asserted they had been profitable since 2008, and this article was almost a decade later (and forward-looking). They are not profitable (enough) with launches.
        nickik 6y ago
        I have said they are profitable, not by how much. Of course they are not profitable 'enough' to do what they want to do in terms of Starlink and Mars. SpaceX always reinvested every penny into development and they have done so for a long time.
        shaklee3 6y ago
        They are not profitable. They have funding rounds from VCs, and in the future FCC money for RDOF. VC money does not make you profitable.
- darknavi 6y ago
  They have funding rounds and their customers (NASA, government, private industry) pays. Because SpaceX is a private company, none of us really know (publicly) its financial state. It could be profitable at this point.

bpodgursky 6y ago

Uber's market cap is $100B and it's not a proven profitable business model either. SpaceX has wildly bigger upside if the big bets pay off.

matmatmatmat 6y ago
I mean, maybe Uber's way overvalued?

fastball 6y ago

Space launch isn't a profitable business model? How exactly are they making money by launching payloads for people then?

shaklee3 6y ago
They aren't. Not enough to stay in business. See the Bloomberg article from a while back. It's VC and FCC money at the moment.
- fastball 6y ago
  Are they not launching Falcon 9s with customer payloads and charging more than it costs?
  - shaklee3 6y ago
    They are charging more than it costs to launch, but remember they employee thousands of extremely expensive engineers all year, and unless there are new businesses, that business isn't sustainable: https://www.wsj.com/articles/exclusive-peek-at-spacex-data-shows-loss-in-2015-heavy-expectations-for-nascent-internet-service-1484316455 https://www.wsj.com/articles/exclusive-peek-at-spacex-data-s...
    - fastball 6y ago
      The OC claimed they did not have a profitable business model. They do have a profitable business model (in fact they have multiple), they have just not scaled it up enough while at the same time are pumping massive amounts of money into new projects / R&D, so they are not a profitable business. There is a difference between the two things. Space launch and satellite internet are both proven profitable business models where SpaceX is actively growing their marketshare. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if in 2 years time SpaceX is the satellite internet market. No one will want the subpar internet experience provided by geosync satellites when Starlink is fully operational. Also worth noting that the article is about data from 2015, which was the first year they had ever landed an orbital-class booster (Falcon 9), and only the one time (in December 2015). The first time they ever re-used a booster for a customer payload was in 2017 (after the WSJ article you cite was published). Since then they've re-used boosters many times, with their recent launch actually being the 8th launch+recovery of the same booster. So what was iffy/nascent in 2015/2017 is now proven/consistent in 2021. They are doing much, much better from when that article as published.
      - shaklee3 6y ago
        Sure, StarLink may be profitable, especially if they continue to get RDOF funding from the government. I'm skeptical it would be profitable otherwise given the cost of the terminal. I don't believe their launch business will be profitable since the number of launches has been dropping every year, and they are becoming their main customer.
        fastball 6y ago
        Sorry, I significantly edited my comment before seeing your reply. Also are we looking at the same chart? Not sure how you can make the claim that the number of launches has been dropping every year... every year since when? 2020 was the most launches ever, and in 2021 they are expected to do more commercial customer launches than all launches in 2020 + Starlink launches on top of that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9#Launch_outcomes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9#Launch_outcomes
- nickik 6y ago
  The launch business has been profitable since before 2008. All their work for government is profitable. But of course you can finance Starlink and continue to be, so that part is VC funded. And they have not received FCC money yet.
  - shaklee3 6y ago
    https://www.wsj.com/articles/exclusive-peek-at-spacex-data-shows-loss-in-2015-heavy-expectations-for-nascent-internet-service-1484316455 https://www.wsj.com/articles/exclusive-peek-at-spacex-data-s...
    - nickik 6y ago
      I can't read WSJ. This article is from 2017, since then they have done a lot better.
      - shaklee3 6y ago
        You asserted they had been profitable since 2008, and this article was almost a decade later (and forward-looking). They are not profitable (enough) with launches.
        nickik 6y ago
        I have said they are profitable, not by how much. Of course they are not profitable 'enough' to do what they want to do in terms of Starlink and Mars. SpaceX always reinvested every penny into development and they have done so for a long time.
        shaklee3 6y ago
        They are not profitable. They have funding rounds from VCs, and in the future FCC money for RDOF. VC money does not make you profitable.
darknavi 6y ago
They have funding rounds and their customers (NASA, government, private industry) pays. Because SpaceX is a private company, none of us really know (publicly) its financial state. It could be profitable at this point.