4 ms·

In my opinion, the key information: "SpaceX required [..] nearly $3 billion [..] The Exploration Company would require a similar amount [..] It is not possible

In my opinion, the key information: "SpaceX required [..] nearly $3 billion [..] The Exploration Company would require a similar amount [..] It is not possible to raise that money from private capital markets right now by promising a great return a decade from now." In other words: All the investors are looking for a quick buck. Nobody is willing to invest into the longer-term future anymore.

JumpCrisscross 1y ago
> Nobody is willing to invest into the longer-term future anymore SpaceX raised private capital. It continues to raise private capital. (It still tapped into public coffers for Crew Dragon, though, because the demand side of that market remains entirely public.) It could do this because NASA had committed to the Artemis programme. That’s the demand. ESA has no similar promise of returns for a private backer; giving money to these guys strikes closer to a grant or donation than investment.
- agos 1y ago
  Right now you can’t say much about NASA long time commitment either
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    > you can’t say much about NASA long time commitment either Of course one can. Those plans could change. But they were set and funded and that inertia appears to be saving them [1]. ESA has nothing similar planned. (Beyond collaboration [2].) [1] https://yellowhammernews.com/u-s-senate-directive-would-revive-artemis-iv-v-protect-huntsvilles-nasa-jobs-and-ensure-american-dominance-in-space/ https://yellowhammernews.com/u-s-senate-directive-would-revi... [2] https://www.nasa.gov/news-release/nasa-european-space-agency-formalize-artemis-gateway-partnership/ https://www.nasa.gov/news-release/nasa-european-space-agency...
fsckboy 1y ago
>All the investors are looking for a quick buck. Nobody is willing to invest into the longer-term future anymore. that's a myth you are confusing liquidity with other aspects of investing. name the biggest companies on the stock exchanges, they've been around for many years, and are expected to be around many more years. That's long term investing. liquidity means that any particular investor can change their own personal priorities and get out of the long term play in the short term. You want to buy a house with your money, that's ok, the projects you've been invested in can soldier on without you. if a new company with no track record of making money wants to tie up your investment while showing no results for a decade or more, you yourself would probably be unwilling to invest, because there are many alternative investments that give you liquidity and show results regularly.
- fxtentacle 1y ago
  I agree, it's about liquidity. But isn't building a company from the ground up always a pretty illiquid process? Until the company starts generating profits, your shares in a new start-up will always be hard to sell. But then, how can anyone finance a start-up that takes a bit longer to build than the usual web mitm or web advertising play?
  - whiplash451 1y ago
    Large investors have a balanced portfolio mixing short-term bets with longer term ones. Companies offering long-term prospects definitely fill a need.
upoisnd2mny 1y ago
aren't they just trying to get others to invest? and wouldn't such European Investments spur military funding or at least spark some heightened "interest"? or are they trying to prove that the EU isn't willing "to adequately do space stuff"? the US grabbed a top robotics company from the EU because the EU apparently refuses to evolve the game based on the rule set they created and CEOs are complaining about too much regulation instead of working with the constraints. the US reduced constraints to an absolute minimum and, without question, got much farther than European companies but there is zero chance they can handle all the future load without becoming dependent on Chinese supply chains, or is there? and so they need to drive EU spending and European competition in order to drive the creation of European supply chains, in order to keep the markets diverse and incentivise the EU to strengthen their game on the African continent. I'm out of the loop and mostly guessing ... a lot of middle class Germans are about to be 3rd, 4th, 5th generations heirs, ascending into the 1% and they will have the liquidity to build and expand 3D printing companies in all industries, including metal and construction and German universities are up to speed and I assume other European countries aren't too far behind. then there is the whole 'Wiederaufbau' of Ukraine in the planning, a country with tech talent and space and now more than present in people's minds, which should additionally drive investments and partnerships aiming at next gen city, civil, construction and space tech. would love to hear some opionions.

JumpCrisscross 1y ago

> Nobody is willing to invest into the longer-term future anymore SpaceX raised private capital. It continues to raise private capital. (It still tapped into public coffers for Crew Dragon, though, because the demand side of that market remains entirely public.) It could do this because NASA had committed to the Artemis programme. That’s the demand. ESA has no similar promise of returns for a private backer; giving money to these guys strikes closer to a grant or donation than investment.

agos 1y ago
Right now you can’t say much about NASA long time commitment either
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > you can’t say much about NASA long time commitment either Of course one can. Those plans could change. But they were set and funded and that inertia appears to be saving them [1]. ESA has nothing similar planned. (Beyond collaboration [2].) [1] https://yellowhammernews.com/u-s-senate-directive-would-revive-artemis-iv-v-protect-huntsvilles-nasa-jobs-and-ensure-american-dominance-in-space/ https://yellowhammernews.com/u-s-senate-directive-would-revi... [2] https://www.nasa.gov/news-release/nasa-european-space-agency-formalize-artemis-gateway-partnership/ https://www.nasa.gov/news-release/nasa-european-space-agency...

fsckboy 1y ago

>All the investors are looking for a quick buck. Nobody is willing to invest into the longer-term future anymore. that's a myth you are confusing liquidity with other aspects of investing. name the biggest companies on the stock exchanges, they've been around for many years, and are expected to be around many more years. That's long term investing. liquidity means that any particular investor can change their own personal priorities and get out of the long term play in the short term. You want to buy a house with your money, that's ok, the projects you've been invested in can soldier on without you. if a new company with no track record of making money wants to tie up your investment while showing no results for a decade or more, you yourself would probably be unwilling to invest, because there are many alternative investments that give you liquidity and show results regularly.

fxtentacle 1y ago
I agree, it's about liquidity. But isn't building a company from the ground up always a pretty illiquid process? Until the company starts generating profits, your shares in a new start-up will always be hard to sell. But then, how can anyone finance a start-up that takes a bit longer to build than the usual web mitm or web advertising play?
- whiplash451 1y ago
  Large investors have a balanced portfolio mixing short-term bets with longer term ones. Companies offering long-term prospects definitely fill a need.

upoisnd2mny 1y ago

aren't they just trying to get others to invest? and wouldn't such European Investments spur military funding or at least spark some heightened "interest"? or are they trying to prove that the EU isn't willing "to adequately do space stuff"? the US grabbed a top robotics company from the EU because the EU apparently refuses to evolve the game based on the rule set they created and CEOs are complaining about too much regulation instead of working with the constraints. the US reduced constraints to an absolute minimum and, without question, got much farther than European companies but there is zero chance they can handle all the future load without becoming dependent on Chinese supply chains, or is there? and so they need to drive EU spending and European competition in order to drive the creation of European supply chains, in order to keep the markets diverse and incentivise the EU to strengthen their game on the African continent. I'm out of the loop and mostly guessing ... a lot of middle class Germans are about to be 3rd, 4th, 5th generations heirs, ascending into the 1% and they will have the liquidity to build and expand 3D printing companies in all industries, including metal and construction and German universities are up to speed and I assume other European countries aren't too far behind. then there is the whole 'Wiederaufbau' of Ukraine in the planning, a country with tech talent and space and now more than present in people's minds, which should additionally drive investments and partnerships aiming at next gen city, civil, construction and space tech. would love to hear some opionions.