3 ms·

> SpaceX is profitable. Strange. For me profitable means money_out > money_in, over the whole company history. OpenAI stock is worth 137 billion. Of this, at l

by spwa4 11mo ago

> SpaceX is profitable. Strange. For me profitable means money_out > money_in, over the whole company history. OpenAI stock is worth 137 billion. Of this, at least 20B was actual money put in (some "free" by the US government). So let's say $18B investment, although that should really be increased by whatever investments were made in Starlink, which is also >$10 billion. Revenue for SpaceX, with starlink split out (because starlink pays in equity). Obviously, these are guesses. 2024: $14 billion revenue, of which $10b is Starlink investment 2025: $15 billion revenue, of which $11b is Starlink investment Starlink, when some figures were publicly discussed, in 2023, had $55 million profit on $1.5 billion revenue (but that was counting Starlink shares as cash), about 3.7% Let's very generously say they doubled that in the past 2 years, and hey, we're being generous, round up. Say they're at 10% margin (Musk's claim, of course, is 60%). So: 2024: $140 million profit, of which $10b was invested in Starlink 2025: $150 million profit, of which $11b was invested in Starlink Cashflow: 2024: $-10 billion 2025: $-11 billion So I think I can be very comfortable in saying that SpaceX is not profitable, it's deep in the red, getting worse over time, only supported by Starlink valuation. With somewhat less confidence I can say it's actually getting less profitable over time, rather than more. They would need to at least 5x the launches they did in 2024 to just breakeven (while potentially reducing starlink launches to zero, which would make it close to 15x), and they only increased the launches by 20% (138 in 2024 vs 129 launches in 2025 up to october). 20% is generous. There is the question of how much of these launches were Starlink, and for 2025 there is no good data, but up to 2025 Starlink launches increased by over 40%. My assessment is unless Starlink takes over global internet, SpaceX is bankrupt and will have to sell it's designs and launch technology for pennies on the dollar. Oh and can I just add, I've interviewed at Starlink and received a (pathetic) offer, which people on reddit claim was pretty typical. Which told me one thing: Starlink is already very aware of the need to drastically save money.

s1artibartfast 11mo ago
That is not a standard definition of profitability, and basically a version of the sunk cost fallacy. you dont go bankrupt from sunk costs.
JumpCrisscross 11mo ago
> For me profitable means money_out > money_in, over the whole company history One, this is a nonsense definition. Two, SpaceX meets it. It’s why it hasn’t fundraised for years. > I've interviewed at Starlink and received a (pathetic) offer, which people on reddit claim was pretty typical. Which told me one thing: Starlink is already very aware of the need to drastically save money Wat. Based on this metric, Amazon and Walmart are broke.
- spwa4 11mo ago
  > One, this is a nonsense definition. Two, SpaceX meets it. It’s why it hasn’t fundraised for years. First, It's a private company. You can't know that. Second, even if true, massive investments were made into Starlink and paid into SpaceX, as I pointed out into my post. That counts as fundraising. > Wat. Based on this metric, Amazon and Walmart are broke. Not really. Amazon pays a lot, and for IT Manager roles, so does Walmart.
  - JumpCrisscross 11mo ago
    > It's a private company. You can't know that Private companies still have shareholders and audited financials. > massive investments were made into Starlink and paid into SpaceX, as I pointed out into my post. That counts as fundraising No. If I invest $1 in SpaceX and it invests that in Starlink, that’s $1 of fundraising. > Amazon pays a lot, and for IT Manager roles, so does Walmart They also pay other people peanuts. I know plenty of people whose net effectives at SpaceX are seven to eight figures. That doesn’t obligate them to pay top dollar for every role.
    - spwa4 11mo ago
      > No. If I invest $1 in SpaceX and it invests that in Starlink, that’s $1 of fundraising. Okay, I'll bite. And what if you "invest" $1 in Starlink, and Starlink immediately "invests" that $1 in SpaceX, while also giving SpaceX starlink shares? I guess I don't get to make the "wait, isn't that Elon Musk paying Elon Musk" argument, despite it being true? I mean I even wish you were correct, but by my estimates the most optimistic view of SpaceX is that they're still about 400% too expensive to get global satellite internet working, when launching at cost. That's a remarkable achievement ... but not good enough. It's so close it really sucks. On the other hand, I hate AT&T as much as the next guy but I also don't want a global mobile internet monopoly replacing them. And if Starlink is going to have competitors the value drops by half easily. > They also pay other people peanuts ... Well my point is, of course, that SpaceX pays very little compared to Amazon and Walmart for roles that pay a lot at Amazon and Walmart. SpaceX pays only a little better than NASA, and NASA pays about double what you get in an academic position. Oh, and yes, double what you get in an academic position is pretty badly paid, especially considering what most NASA engineers are capable of.

by spwa4 11mo ago

s1artibartfast 11mo ago

That is not a standard definition of profitability, and basically a version of the sunk cost fallacy. you dont go bankrupt from sunk costs.

JumpCrisscross 11mo ago

> For me profitable means money_out > money_in, over the whole company history One, this is a nonsense definition. Two, SpaceX meets it. It’s why it hasn’t fundraised for years. > I've interviewed at Starlink and received a (pathetic) offer, which people on reddit claim was pretty typical. Which told me one thing: Starlink is already very aware of the need to drastically save money Wat. Based on this metric, Amazon and Walmart are broke.

spwa4 11mo ago
> One, this is a nonsense definition. Two, SpaceX meets it. It’s why it hasn’t fundraised for years. First, It's a private company. You can't know that. Second, even if true, massive investments were made into Starlink and paid into SpaceX, as I pointed out into my post. That counts as fundraising. > Wat. Based on this metric, Amazon and Walmart are broke. Not really. Amazon pays a lot, and for IT Manager roles, so does Walmart.
- JumpCrisscross 11mo ago
  > It's a private company. You can't know that Private companies still have shareholders and audited financials. > massive investments were made into Starlink and paid into SpaceX, as I pointed out into my post. That counts as fundraising No. If I invest $1 in SpaceX and it invests that in Starlink, that’s $1 of fundraising. > Amazon pays a lot, and for IT Manager roles, so does Walmart They also pay other people peanuts. I know plenty of people whose net effectives at SpaceX are seven to eight figures. That doesn’t obligate them to pay top dollar for every role.
  - spwa4 11mo ago
    > No. If I invest $1 in SpaceX and it invests that in Starlink, that’s $1 of fundraising. Okay, I'll bite. And what if you "invest" $1 in Starlink, and Starlink immediately "invests" that $1 in SpaceX, while also giving SpaceX starlink shares? I guess I don't get to make the "wait, isn't that Elon Musk paying Elon Musk" argument, despite it being true? I mean I even wish you were correct, but by my estimates the most optimistic view of SpaceX is that they're still about 400% too expensive to get global satellite internet working, when launching at cost. That's a remarkable achievement ... but not good enough. It's so close it really sucks. On the other hand, I hate AT&T as much as the next guy but I also don't want a global mobile internet monopoly replacing them. And if Starlink is going to have competitors the value drops by half easily. > They also pay other people peanuts ... Well my point is, of course, that SpaceX pays very little compared to Amazon and Walmart for roles that pay a lot at Amazon and Walmart. SpaceX pays only a little better than NASA, and NASA pays about double what you get in an academic position. Oh, and yes, double what you get in an academic position is pretty badly paid, especially considering what most NASA engineers are capable of.