4 ms·

My understanding is that the Starship program is fully-funded already; the NASA cash is just the cherry on top for SpaceX. Which is why their bid was so low com

My understanding is that the Starship program is fully-funded already; the NASA cash is just the cherry on top for SpaceX. Which is why their bid was so low compared with the others. Congress didn't give NASA the funding it originally wanted for Artemis, which is probably the reason why they went with only one provider.

itsoktocry 6y ago
>My understanding is that the Starship program is fully-funded already Where does that information come from? SpaceX just raised another round of money. I keep seeing things about how profitable the organization is, but it looks like the operations are shareholder subsidized. Rockets are expensive, I don't think this stuff is profitable yet. https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/spacex-raises-valuation https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/spacex-raises-valuation
- emilecantin 6y ago
  Just from general announcements around this. As you mentioned, they just raised a round of funding which will probably be used for Starlink and Starship. Another big chunk of change came from Yusaku Maezawa for the Dear Moon project. SpaceX is a private company and doesn't disclose its financials so there's way to know for sure; that's why I qualified my statement with "My understanding is". Also their launch business (Falcon 9) is massively profitable already, there have been public statements by the company on this matter.
- Denvercoder9 6y ago
  > I keep seeing things about how profitable the organization is, but it looks like the operations are shareholder subsidized. Operations (Falcon/Dragon) likely is profitable, R&D (Starship/Starlink) likely isn't.
- jasonwatkinspdx 6y ago
  Musk is very aggressive about raising capital to accelerate scaling up. That Musk is raising sheds no light on profitability. He'll raise even with fat margins if he thinks it's the fastest path to his goals. There's no question F9 has been deep into profitability for ages. Most people estimate they're operating at about 10% of the cost of their competitors now on a per flight basis.
- ncallaway 6y ago
  Starship being largely privately funded does not mean it's profitable. One can exist without the other. From NASA's perspective it's irrelevant whether the funding for Starship is coming from extra margin on Falcon 9 launches, or from outside investors putting money into SpaceX. Privately funded != Profitable

itsoktocry 6y ago

>My understanding is that the Starship program is fully-funded already Where does that information come from? SpaceX just raised another round of money. I keep seeing things about how profitable the organization is, but it looks like the operations are shareholder subsidized. Rockets are expensive, I don't think this stuff is profitable yet. https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/spacex-raises-valuation https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/spacex-raises-valuation

emilecantin 6y ago
Just from general announcements around this. As you mentioned, they just raised a round of funding which will probably be used for Starlink and Starship. Another big chunk of change came from Yusaku Maezawa for the Dear Moon project. SpaceX is a private company and doesn't disclose its financials so there's way to know for sure; that's why I qualified my statement with "My understanding is". Also their launch business (Falcon 9) is massively profitable already, there have been public statements by the company on this matter.
Denvercoder9 6y ago
> I keep seeing things about how profitable the organization is, but it looks like the operations are shareholder subsidized. Operations (Falcon/Dragon) likely is profitable, R&D (Starship/Starlink) likely isn't.
jasonwatkinspdx 6y ago
Musk is very aggressive about raising capital to accelerate scaling up. That Musk is raising sheds no light on profitability. He'll raise even with fat margins if he thinks it's the fastest path to his goals. There's no question F9 has been deep into profitability for ages. Most people estimate they're operating at about 10% of the cost of their competitors now on a per flight basis.
ncallaway 6y ago
Starship being largely privately funded does not mean it's profitable. One can exist without the other. From NASA's perspective it's irrelevant whether the funding for Starship is coming from extra margin on Falcon 9 launches, or from outside investors putting money into SpaceX. Privately funded != Profitable