4 ms·

Considering that SpaceX keeps raising cash from private investors, I doubt that very much.

panick21_ 3y ago
What do you doubt? Private investors are private funding. And of course they are raising cash, they have literally have the most advanced rocket and satellites projects in development at the same time. I can't find when CALLISTO is supposed to fly, some information says its 2022 but yeah I don't think they will make that. Starship isn't really in a race with CALLISTO so its kind of irrelevant.
- carabiner 3y ago
  Yes 2022 launch date would be difficult. Some type of gravity field manipulation to create a closed time like curve would be required.
- martin8412 3y ago
  If they have the most advanced rockets and satellites, then surely they can sell those products? The profit from the sales would fund research into their next big product. Apple didn't keep raising money to pay for the development of their next iPhone. They made sufficient cash from the sale of current generation to fund the development of the next generation. So if SpaceX needs to continue raising cash, they're selling the product at a loss, meaning that they're not in fact significantly cheaper than the competition. They're just dishonest about their pricing.
  - FeepingCreature 3y ago
    That's not what "selling at a loss" means, it just means their costs are greater than their income. Which, again, is not what "selling at a loss" means - that's production cost per unit being greater than sales income per unit. SpaceX is just dumping a ludicrous amount of money into scaling faster. They could easily be operationally profitable.
    - martin8412 3y ago
      Source for your claim that they could easily be operationally profitable?
      - FeepingCreature 3y ago
        None, they're a private company, but: if a rocket company could be profitable while throwing rockets away, there is no way that SpaceX is not wildly profitable when it's getting them back pretty much in one piece.
        martin8412 3y ago
        Which again you have no source for. Reusable rockets are more expensive than single use rockets. That's just common sense. There's no proof that SpaceX is even cash flow positive.
        FeepingCreature 3y ago
        I don't follow why reusable rockets would be more expensive. In fact, I don't think that's true.
        panick21_ 3y ago
        > There's no proof that SpaceX is even cash flow positive. And you have no proof otherwise. You just assert it without evidence. And you disagree with everybody that has studied this topic. Pretty much everybody that has estimated cost comes down on the side that SpaceX core launch business is very profitable. Tons of investors who had insight into this information seem to believe it was a good investment. If the numbers showed that it didn't make sense the whole credibility of Starlink and Starship would instantly collapse. We don't have detailed numbers but its simply not credible that they have been launching for losing money.
  - panick21_ 3y ago
    > If they have the most advanced rockets and satellites, then surely they can sell those products? That's just a really strange thing to say. Before you can sell something you have to develop it, build the factory to build it (many times) and then scale up its operation. That takes years and costs many billions. > The profit from the sales would fund research into their next big product. The whole point of funding is that you can scale faster. This is like a really really basic thing that I expect everybody on Hacker News to understand. SpaceX did the same thing when they moved from Falcon 1 to Falcon 9. > So if SpaceX needs to continue raising cash, they're selling the product at a loss, meaning that they're not in fact significantly cheaper than the competition. They're just dishonest about their pricing. You falsely assume that raising cash implies that products are being sold at a loss. This simply isn't the case, and if that is your understand you are simply wrong. By all information we have from analists, journalist and investors, SpaceX core products they currently sell are very profitable for them. And the Falcon/Dragon architecture continues to see more investment like pad upgrades and other optimizations. If SpaceX books proved that re-usability doesn't work, why would they be valued so highly in the first place. DoD and NASA have recognized this. Pretty much every other rocket company has recognized this. Even competitors ULA and Arianespace have recognized it. To claim that it is all some vast scam by SpaceX is just not a credible argument. Arianespace has made this same accusation that you made, but unlike with the case of Boeing they have not brought this case to the WTO. This very likely is because they know they would lose horrible and expose the fact that they actually have far, far, far more direct subsidy in Ariane Group. Since you don't seem to be moved easily I will give you some actually details of what SpaceX actually does with the raise cash. If your assertion were true, that SpaceX raises cash to finance their operation, where did they get the case for these things: Raptor: - Developing the full flow stage combustion engine to fly. They also developed a Raptor Vacuum. - Raptor continues to get a lot of investment, now on the third iteration. Raptor 3 has just complete its first full test fire. It again breaks its record. - Volume Raptor manufacturing line in Hawthorne. - SpaceX is building a new high volume Raptor engine manufacturing facility in McGregor Texas - They are also expanding testing capabilities there to support the high volume manufacturing. Starship: - Huge production facility in South Texas continues to be built up. New major Highbay currently. Additional factory buildings being added right now. - Launch pad and testing facility are being expanded and upgraded. - Starship evolution and development continues, with newer version already being built and even newer version are in competent testing. - Starship heat-shield required a whole new factory, this factory is in Flordia. - Compenents of Starship are also built in SpaceX facotry in Hawthorne - SpaceX adding Starlink: - SpaceX already has the highest volume satellite factory in the world in Seattle. - SpaceX is currently building a new even bigger satellite factory in Austin - SpaceX also need factories to mass produce both ground stations and the terminals. - Given that Starlink makes SpaceX into a global ISP, SpaceX has to set up offices in every country, go threw regulatory processes in every country. That takes capital as well. - After initial Starlink sats were designed and mass produced SpaceX didn't stop, Starlink v2 is already being launched with many improvements. Starlink v2 include a complete new propulsion systems, and pioneering inter-satellite laser link. These are all very capital intensive project and labor intensive development projects, funding these things only with the profit from it current business would be insane. And SpaceX simply could not invest in all of these things at the same time if their core business was bleeding money. Starlink is already producing significant cash flow with 1.5 million subscribers. SpaceX announced its now cashflow positive. That is quite an achievement given how new the technology is and that the primary launch vehicle that will reduce cost isn't online yet. Starship is of course not yet making much money. The lunar lander contract with the government is milestone based, that means it will only be paid out when goals are achieved. This means SpaceX needs to raise or lend money to do the development and production so that they can then get it back from NASA once milesstones are achieved. What SpaceX has raised: - 2023: 750M - 2022: 2B - 2021: 1.5B - 2020: 2B - 2019: 1.3B - 2018: 500M - 2017: 500M This if for all the things mentioned above. Now lets actually compare SpaceX to some competitors: - Ariane 6, only a marginal upgrade over the Ariane 5 using mostly components already developed for the Ariane 5 ME. Will cost at a minimum 5 billion $ (likely more when its actually done). - SLS rocket has cost 23 billion $ in development cost. - All of Project Kuiper is planned to need 3,236 satellites. Just the launch alone will likely cost Amazon 10 billion $. Given the capital intensity of aerospace projects I think the amount of money SpaceX raised to run 2 of the largest aerospace projects in the history of humanity is pretty damn reasonable.
  - 908B64B197 3y ago
    > Apple didn't keep raising money to pay for the development of their next iPhone. But they did raise more money (from Mike Markkula) than what they made from the Apple 1 sales in order to fund the development of the Apple ][.

What do you doubt? Private investors are private funding. And of course they are raising cash, they have literally have the most advanced rocket and satellites projects in development at the same time. I can't find when CALLISTO is supposed to fly, some information says its 2022 but yeah I don't think they will make that. Starship isn't really in a race with CALLISTO so its kind of irrelevant.

carabiner 3y ago
Yes 2022 launch date would be difficult. Some type of gravity field manipulation to create a closed time like curve would be required.
martin8412 3y ago
If they have the most advanced rockets and satellites, then surely they can sell those products? The profit from the sales would fund research into their next big product. Apple didn't keep raising money to pay for the development of their next iPhone. They made sufficient cash from the sale of current generation to fund the development of the next generation. So if SpaceX needs to continue raising cash, they're selling the product at a loss, meaning that they're not in fact significantly cheaper than the competition. They're just dishonest about their pricing.
- FeepingCreature 3y ago
  That's not what "selling at a loss" means, it just means their costs are greater than their income. Which, again, is not what "selling at a loss" means - that's production cost per unit being greater than sales income per unit. SpaceX is just dumping a ludicrous amount of money into scaling faster. They could easily be operationally profitable.
  - martin8412 3y ago
    Source for your claim that they could easily be operationally profitable?
    - FeepingCreature 3y ago
      None, they're a private company, but: if a rocket company could be profitable while throwing rockets away, there is no way that SpaceX is not wildly profitable when it's getting them back pretty much in one piece.
      - martin8412 3y ago
        Which again you have no source for. Reusable rockets are more expensive than single use rockets. That's just common sense. There's no proof that SpaceX is even cash flow positive.
        FeepingCreature 3y ago
        I don't follow why reusable rockets would be more expensive. In fact, I don't think that's true.
        panick21_ 3y ago
        > There's no proof that SpaceX is even cash flow positive. And you have no proof otherwise. You just assert it without evidence. And you disagree with everybody that has studied this topic. Pretty much everybody that has estimated cost comes down on the side that SpaceX core launch business is very profitable. Tons of investors who had insight into this information seem to believe it was a good investment. If the numbers showed that it didn't make sense the whole credibility of Starlink and Starship would instantly collapse. We don't have detailed numbers but its simply not credible that they have been launching for losing money.
- panick21_ 3y ago
  > If they have the most advanced rockets and satellites, then surely they can sell those products? That's just a really strange thing to say. Before you can sell something you have to develop it, build the factory to build it (many times) and then scale up its operation. That takes years and costs many billions. > The profit from the sales would fund research into their next big product. The whole point of funding is that you can scale faster. This is like a really really basic thing that I expect everybody on Hacker News to understand. SpaceX did the same thing when they moved from Falcon 1 to Falcon 9. > So if SpaceX needs to continue raising cash, they're selling the product at a loss, meaning that they're not in fact significantly cheaper than the competition. They're just dishonest about their pricing. You falsely assume that raising cash implies that products are being sold at a loss. This simply isn't the case, and if that is your understand you are simply wrong. By all information we have from analists, journalist and investors, SpaceX core products they currently sell are very profitable for them. And the Falcon/Dragon architecture continues to see more investment like pad upgrades and other optimizations. If SpaceX books proved that re-usability doesn't work, why would they be valued so highly in the first place. DoD and NASA have recognized this. Pretty much every other rocket company has recognized this. Even competitors ULA and Arianespace have recognized it. To claim that it is all some vast scam by SpaceX is just not a credible argument. Arianespace has made this same accusation that you made, but unlike with the case of Boeing they have not brought this case to the WTO. This very likely is because they know they would lose horrible and expose the fact that they actually have far, far, far more direct subsidy in Ariane Group. Since you don't seem to be moved easily I will give you some actually details of what SpaceX actually does with the raise cash. If your assertion were true, that SpaceX raises cash to finance their operation, where did they get the case for these things: Raptor: - Developing the full flow stage combustion engine to fly. They also developed a Raptor Vacuum. - Raptor continues to get a lot of investment, now on the third iteration. Raptor 3 has just complete its first full test fire. It again breaks its record. - Volume Raptor manufacturing line in Hawthorne. - SpaceX is building a new high volume Raptor engine manufacturing facility in McGregor Texas - They are also expanding testing capabilities there to support the high volume manufacturing. Starship: - Huge production facility in South Texas continues to be built up. New major Highbay currently. Additional factory buildings being added right now. - Launch pad and testing facility are being expanded and upgraded. - Starship evolution and development continues, with newer version already being built and even newer version are in competent testing. - Starship heat-shield required a whole new factory, this factory is in Flordia. - Compenents of Starship are also built in SpaceX facotry in Hawthorne - SpaceX adding Starlink: - SpaceX already has the highest volume satellite factory in the world in Seattle. - SpaceX is currently building a new even bigger satellite factory in Austin - SpaceX also need factories to mass produce both ground stations and the terminals. - Given that Starlink makes SpaceX into a global ISP, SpaceX has to set up offices in every country, go threw regulatory processes in every country. That takes capital as well. - After initial Starlink sats were designed and mass produced SpaceX didn't stop, Starlink v2 is already being launched with many improvements. Starlink v2 include a complete new propulsion systems, and pioneering inter-satellite laser link. These are all very capital intensive project and labor intensive development projects, funding these things only with the profit from it current business would be insane. And SpaceX simply could not invest in all of these things at the same time if their core business was bleeding money. Starlink is already producing significant cash flow with 1.5 million subscribers. SpaceX announced its now cashflow positive. That is quite an achievement given how new the technology is and that the primary launch vehicle that will reduce cost isn't online yet. Starship is of course not yet making much money. The lunar lander contract with the government is milestone based, that means it will only be paid out when goals are achieved. This means SpaceX needs to raise or lend money to do the development and production so that they can then get it back from NASA once milesstones are achieved. What SpaceX has raised: - 2023: 750M - 2022: 2B - 2021: 1.5B - 2020: 2B - 2019: 1.3B - 2018: 500M - 2017: 500M This if for all the things mentioned above. Now lets actually compare SpaceX to some competitors: - Ariane 6, only a marginal upgrade over the Ariane 5 using mostly components already developed for the Ariane 5 ME. Will cost at a minimum 5 billion $ (likely more when its actually done). - SLS rocket has cost 23 billion $ in development cost. - All of Project Kuiper is planned to need 3,236 satellites. Just the launch alone will likely cost Amazon 10 billion $. Given the capital intensity of aerospace projects I think the amount of money SpaceX raised to run 2 of the largest aerospace projects in the history of humanity is pretty damn reasonable.
- 908B64B197 3y ago
  > Apple didn't keep raising money to pay for the development of their next iPhone. But they did raise more money (from Mike Markkula) than what they made from the Apple 1 sales in order to fund the development of the Apple ][.