3 ms·
> I'm surprised they didn't take less risks just to avoid a narrative of failure. That's the advantage of being privately owned. "Vibes" (hah) don't matter. Pu
by NitpickLawyer 1y ago
> I'm surprised they didn't take less risks just to avoid a narrative of failure.
That's the advantage of being privately owned. "Vibes" (hah) don't matter. Public opinion doesn't matter. What matters is executing on your vision / goals. And they're doing that.
The fact that they're bringing in loads of cash from Starlink surely helps. They haven't had the need to raise money in a while, now.
- iwontberude 1y ago[flagged]
- avmich 1y agoI think you're wrong saying they are cash flow negative. Both Starlink and payload launching business are profitable in SpaceX.
- boxed 1y agoHe means that they are cash flow negative if you discount all government income and at the same time include all costs with those launches :P
- avmich 1y ago> He means that they are cash flow negative if you discount all government income and at the same time include all costs with those launches :P That would be a strange evaluation.
- boxed 1y agoI've seen worse from SpaceX haters. I've had a "conversation" here on HN by someone who claimed that SpaceX doesn't land boosters anymore for example. Conspiracy theories basically.
- iwontberude 1y agoBingo they aren’t anywhere near the solution to return the investment and will be raising debt or begging for more government money. They will be (progressively) nationalized to justify the additional cash infusions to keep the mission from being a complete failure. NASA wants their moon base I guess.
- WalterBright 1y agoSelling rockets to the government is not receiving gifts of taxpayer money.
- peterfirefly 1y agoEspecially not when they are cheaper and/or better than the competitors!