3 ms·
The progress is driven by the willingness of SpaceX to constantly run at a loss, and take in more cash to incinerate on the regular. This allows it to run bleed
by 7e 3y ago
The progress is driven by the willingness of SpaceX to constantly run at a loss, and take in more cash to incinerate on the regular. This allows it to run bleeding edge but money-losing programs that that other companies considered but rejected. This was also Tesla's model.
SpaceX has had 34, THIRTY FOUR, funding rounds. Usually 3-4 per year. They cannot operate except this way. Most investors and boards would balk at this mode of operation.
It's not good leadership, though. It's easy to spend money that others aren't willing to spend to achieve results that that other companies aren't willing to pay the price for. Progress while being capital efficient is true leadership.
- bradgessler 3y agoWait what? It’s not good leadership because they’re burning lots of cash? How are those two related? That’s only makes sense in a world where SpaceX stockholders have mandated SpaceX operate at a profit. I don’t think that’s what’s happening—investors know they’re putting money into a highly risky R&D project that could take years to pay off, if ever. So far they’ve gotten Falcon, Starlink, and Starship out of the deal. I’d say it takes pretty good leadership to achieve those results. Meanwhile NASA’s Artemus is expected to cost $93b and so far they’ve only had one launch.