3 ms·
SpaceX reuses its boosters 20+ times. Surely the depreciation is tiny when compared to the revenue of 60M+ per launch?
by geertj 6mo ago
SpaceX reuses its boosters 20+ times. Surely the depreciation is tiny when compared to the revenue of 60M+ per launch?
- computerex 6mo agoWhat about the R&D costs of blowing up vehicle after vehicle?
- jdross 6mo agoThey have over 300 falcon 9 launches in a row now, just in case you’re not caught up on the latest
- metabagel 6mo agoC'mon, you know they're talking about Starship.
- inemesitaffia 6mo agoIt's less than the yearly cost of ground stations (just under 1 million/year per installation) 5 million over 5 years capex+opex. Mostly opex It's also a troll post
- hooloovoo_zoo 6mo agoThey also have to replace 20%+ of their satellite network every year.
- jgord 6mo agowhy is that ?
- tverbeure 6mo agoBecause they fall back to the ground…
- hawaiianbrah 6mo agoThe operational lifetime of their satellites is about 5 years.
- FlyingAvatar 6mo agoThey are low earth orbit satellites. Generally, the lower the orbit, the faster they decay. You could also argue that this is a benefit in that they gain updated technology with each replacement.
- kibwen 6mo ago> You could also argue that this is a benefit in that they gain updated technology with each replacement. No, having the option to replace technology at your leisure would be a benefit. Being forced to replace your technology because it's destined to become aerosolized aluminum in less than five years is a detriment.
- qzw 6mo agoPlanned obsolescence really only works well if someone else is paying.
- metabagel 6mo agolow earth orbit
- gsky 6mo agobecause of gravity
- echoangle 6mo agoMore because of drag
- darth_avocado 6mo agoThe entire space launch market is about $20B with multiple competitors in 2025. And by the most generous estimates it is going to be $80B by 2035. They can reuse the rockets as much as they like, the company isn’t worth $1.7T.
- chatmasta 6mo ago3x growth in ten years is the “most generous” estimate?
- darth_avocado 6mo agoYes because outside Starlink and govt contracts, there isn’t that massive of a demand growth in the sector. There a limit to how many satellites can be in orbit at a time and land based telecom infrastructure makes it so that satellite based infra isn’t necessary unless you’re in remote areas.
- inemesitaffia 6mo agoStarlink is already most of the revenue. What's the point of the except? The main problem is the AI stuff.
- Dig1t 6mo agoHow can you say “The company isn’t worth X”? Isn’t the company worth exactly as much as people are willing to pay for its shares? I don’t personally think Google is worth $4T but the share price says otherwise.
- darth_avocado 6mo agoYou’re comparing a publicly traded company where the supply demand economics have established a price to a company whose financials are not public, and is valuing itself at $1.7T and forcing everyone’s 401Ks and pension funds to fund it. Not the same thing.
- scuff3d 6mo agoDepreciation isn't the only thing that matters. R&D, manufacturing, maintenance, fuel, launch, support staff, and I'm sure there are countless others. I'm not saying they aren't profitable. I don't know, but it's definitely not a given.
- inemesitaffia 6mo agoThey did report FCF before xai and also invested at least $1B before they merged xai
- scuff3d 6mo agoGiven that it's one Musk company giving a mountain of money to another, and the only numbers floating around regarding SpaceX seem like marketing fluff, I don't think any meaningful conclusions can be reached until we get some real numbers giving a full look at the finances.
- inemesitaffia 5mo agoWe have real numbers for both the launch and Internet business. We know how much was spent by Xai too. You can wait for Godot if you wish.