4 ms·

"Our widgets are profitable, but all of the R&D, sales people, back-office people, etc. etc. required to actually run a business makes us unprofitable" So ummm

by mbesto 3y ago

"Our widgets are profitable, but all of the R&D, sales people, back-office people, etc. etc. required to actually run a business makes us unprofitable" So ummm who's gonna pay all of those people to make sure the robots and people make the widgets every day?

kobalsky 3y ago
if they are ever in financial distress, the US would never let this company get sold to questionable third party or any foreign power. probably some contract that will give them stability will appear from somewhere, at least until the ISS is decommissioned.
justrealist 3y ago
The other expense is the novel Starship R&D program. It's not "back-office people". You're either very uninformed or just sniping in bad faith.
- mbesto 3y ago
  > either very uninformed And you provided no source and narrowly scoped profitability to singular projects. This is so myopic when it comes to how a business is run.
  - justrealist 3y ago
    OK, if you want sources, just look at the numbers here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_launch_market_competition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_launch_market_competitio.... SpaceX has the vast majority of the worldwide private launch market. It's the only company with a reusable first-stage booster. The cost-per-KG is 10-20% of the competition. This isn't me speculating wildly, everyone with even passing familiarity with the industry knows this.
    - mbesto 3y ago
      > This isn't me speculating wildly, everyone with even passing familiarity with the industry knows this. I never questioned their market dominance, I questioned their overall company profitability. The cost of building a rocket can be easily fudged to create whatever financial picture you want. Not to mention Elon Musk is notorious for doing this. Unless you have access to their financial statements, all of this conjecture. > The cost-per-KG is 10-20% of the competition. Uhh might wanna check your source, from Wikipedia: "These varying cost and requirements makes market analysis imprecise."...

by mbesto 3y ago

kobalsky 3y ago

if they are ever in financial distress, the US would never let this company get sold to questionable third party or any foreign power. probably some contract that will give them stability will appear from somewhere, at least until the ISS is decommissioned.

justrealist 3y ago

The other expense is the novel Starship R&D program. It's not "back-office people". You're either very uninformed or just sniping in bad faith.

mbesto 3y ago
> either very uninformed And you provided no source and narrowly scoped profitability to singular projects. This is so myopic when it comes to how a business is run.
- justrealist 3y ago
  OK, if you want sources, just look at the numbers here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_launch_market_competition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_launch_market_competitio.... SpaceX has the vast majority of the worldwide private launch market. It's the only company with a reusable first-stage booster. The cost-per-KG is 10-20% of the competition. This isn't me speculating wildly, everyone with even passing familiarity with the industry knows this.
  - mbesto 3y ago
    > This isn't me speculating wildly, everyone with even passing familiarity with the industry knows this. I never questioned their market dominance, I questioned their overall company profitability. The cost of building a rocket can be easily fudged to create whatever financial picture you want. Not to mention Elon Musk is notorious for doing this. Unless you have access to their financial statements, all of this conjecture. > The cost-per-KG is 10-20% of the competition. Uhh might wanna check your source, from Wikipedia: "These varying cost and requirements makes market analysis imprecise."...