3 ms·

Starship is going to be huge when it's finally operational. It seems like it should be worth more than $8/shr if the potential is accounted properly.

SideburnsOfDoom 3mo ago
> Starship is going to be huge when it's finally operational. Any day now. Yep, real soon, honest!
- jve 3mo ago
  Don't repeat mistakes of people that were making fun of SpaceX landing rockets before they started to land. Starship has so much innovation in there, the raptors itself etc. It launches, it flies, it re-enters and it lands. The engines work. The heat protection work. Even when they push it to the limits by intentionally experimenting with different heat protection, omitting tiles etc. Even when they are in R&D stage. I believe they can make it work with little refurbishment between flights. Even if all didn't work like they planned, they still have a very, very good vehicle. I mean something must go off the rails very very badly for the Starship NOT to enter the service.
  - yborg 3mo ago
    It has to make money. The Space Shuttle was a technical marvel as well and was massively subsidized by the US taxpayer.
  - __d 3mo ago
    Falcon9 has basically no market: the only thing that keeps it flying is Starlink. The whole AI/orbital datacentres/launch thing is a giant grift.
    - laughing_man 3mo ago
      Falcon 9 has easily enough market launching commercial satellites to keep it flying outside of Starlink. It's the most efficient launcher in the world from a cost perspective. Falcon 9 was making money before Starlink existed.
      - __d 3mo ago
        That's not what Glynne said. The whole justification for Starlink was to create demand for Falcon.
        deleted 3mo ago
        [deleted]
        jve 3mo ago
        I can believe that as people questioned the need for _rapid_ reusability without the market. However saying that F9 has no market besides starlink is false. Take a look at Q1'24. report: https://payloadspace.com/payload-research-q1-space-industry-via-charts/ https://payloadspace.com/payload-research-q1-space-industry-... 20 starlink / 11 commercial 2025 report https://spacedaily.com/t-spacex-launched-165-falcon-9-rockets-into-orbit-in-2025-nearly-one-every-other-day-accounting-for-roughly-85-of-all-u-s-orbital-launches-and-almost-twice-as-many-orbital-launches/ https://spacedaily.com/t-spacex-launched-165-falcon-9-rocket... 123 Starlink / 42 commercial. Almost 1 commercial launch per week. I don't think any other launcher does 42 launches per year apart from china. And the way F9 enabled Starlink is spectacular - a money printing machine on itself for SpaceX.
        laughing_man 3mo ago
        That's not the same thing as saying there was no market for F9. SpaceX wanted to have a larger market. They were already making money. A lot of money. They could slightly undercut the price legacy providers were offering with a much larger profit margin.
- laughing_man 3mo ago
  I don't understand this attitude. They're progressing steadily on something that's never been done before. They'll almost certainly be launching satellites next calendar year, and at a pretty good clip by Q4.
nicman23 3mo ago
just like full self driving tm
- laughing_man 3mo ago
  How is it like full self driving?
Earw0rm 3mo ago
I'm thinking of flying over on the Spruce Goose to watch the first operational launch.
Arnt 3mo ago
Why is it going to be huge? Who are the customers and what do they want? I don't follow this closely, just look at the pretty pictures. If there's demand for lifting much bigger/heavier things to orbit than presently possible, I would probably not know, for lack of pretty pictures. So please tell.
- laughing_man 3mo ago
  Starlink will be the biggest customer, at least initially. They're planning on both substantially increasing the number of satellites in the constellation and increasing the size of those satellites. That will keep it in the black for years even in the absence of other work.
  - jltsiren 3mo ago
    In that scenario, most of the value would be in Starlink. Launch vehicles have always been the cheap part in going to space. Payloads tend to be more expensive, and the actual value is in the services enabled by the payloads.
    - laughing_man 3mo ago
      The revenue is in Starlink, sure, but the value is in the launcher. The reason payloads are expensive is because launch was expensive. If you're paying $10k/kg to launch your satellite you have to make sure it has a 99.9999999% chance of working when it gets to orbit. But if you lived in a world where you pay $10/kg for that same launch and could schedule another launch the next day to replace a payload that didn't work, your satellite would be much cheaper because you could afford to have it fail. It would also be cheaper because you could afford more standardization. You could afford to use a standard bus, for example, even if it makes your satellite heavier than it needs to be. There's a virtuous circle here. Cheaper launches mean cheaper satellites, and cheaper satellites mean more launches as previously un-economic activities start to pencil out.
      - jltsiren 3mo ago
praseodym 3mo ago
Don’t forget that SpaceX has 3.884 billion outstanding shares!

SideburnsOfDoom 3mo ago

> Starship is going to be huge when it's finally operational. Any day now. Yep, real soon, honest!

jve 3mo ago
Don't repeat mistakes of people that were making fun of SpaceX landing rockets before they started to land. Starship has so much innovation in there, the raptors itself etc. It launches, it flies, it re-enters and it lands. The engines work. The heat protection work. Even when they push it to the limits by intentionally experimenting with different heat protection, omitting tiles etc. Even when they are in R&D stage. I believe they can make it work with little refurbishment between flights. Even if all didn't work like they planned, they still have a very, very good vehicle. I mean something must go off the rails very very badly for the Starship NOT to enter the service.
- yborg 3mo ago
  It has to make money. The Space Shuttle was a technical marvel as well and was massively subsidized by the US taxpayer.
- __d 3mo ago
  Falcon9 has basically no market: the only thing that keeps it flying is Starlink. The whole AI/orbital datacentres/launch thing is a giant grift.
  - laughing_man 3mo ago
    Falcon 9 has easily enough market launching commercial satellites to keep it flying outside of Starlink. It's the most efficient launcher in the world from a cost perspective. Falcon 9 was making money before Starlink existed.
    - __d 3mo ago
      That's not what Glynne said. The whole justification for Starlink was to create demand for Falcon.
      - deleted 3mo ago
        [deleted]
      - jve 3mo ago
        I can believe that as people questioned the need for _rapid_ reusability without the market. However saying that F9 has no market besides starlink is false. Take a look at Q1'24. report: https://payloadspace.com/payload-research-q1-space-industry-via-charts/ https://payloadspace.com/payload-research-q1-space-industry-... 20 starlink / 11 commercial 2025 report https://spacedaily.com/t-spacex-launched-165-falcon-9-rockets-into-orbit-in-2025-nearly-one-every-other-day-accounting-for-roughly-85-of-all-u-s-orbital-launches-and-almost-twice-as-many-orbital-launches/ https://spacedaily.com/t-spacex-launched-165-falcon-9-rocket... 123 Starlink / 42 commercial. Almost 1 commercial launch per week. I don't think any other launcher does 42 launches per year apart from china. And the way F9 enabled Starlink is spectacular - a money printing machine on itself for SpaceX.
      - laughing_man 3mo ago
        That's not the same thing as saying there was no market for F9. SpaceX wanted to have a larger market. They were already making money. A lot of money. They could slightly undercut the price legacy providers were offering with a much larger profit margin.
laughing_man 3mo ago
I don't understand this attitude. They're progressing steadily on something that's never been done before. They'll almost certainly be launching satellites next calendar year, and at a pretty good clip by Q4.

nicman23 3mo ago

just like full self driving tm

laughing_man 3mo ago
How is it like full self driving?

Earw0rm 3mo ago

I'm thinking of flying over on the Spruce Goose to watch the first operational launch.

Arnt 3mo ago

Why is it going to be huge? Who are the customers and what do they want? I don't follow this closely, just look at the pretty pictures. If there's demand for lifting much bigger/heavier things to orbit than presently possible, I would probably not know, for lack of pretty pictures. So please tell.

laughing_man 3mo ago
Starlink will be the biggest customer, at least initially. They're planning on both substantially increasing the number of satellites in the constellation and increasing the size of those satellites. That will keep it in the black for years even in the absence of other work.
- jltsiren 3mo ago
  In that scenario, most of the value would be in Starlink. Launch vehicles have always been the cheap part in going to space. Payloads tend to be more expensive, and the actual value is in the services enabled by the payloads.
  - laughing_man 3mo ago
    The revenue is in Starlink, sure, but the value is in the launcher. The reason payloads are expensive is because launch was expensive. If you're paying $10k/kg to launch your satellite you have to make sure it has a 99.9999999% chance of working when it gets to orbit. But if you lived in a world where you pay $10/kg for that same launch and could schedule another launch the next day to replace a payload that didn't work, your satellite would be much cheaper because you could afford to have it fail. It would also be cheaper because you could afford more standardization. You could afford to use a standard bus, for example, even if it makes your satellite heavier than it needs to be. There's a virtuous circle here. Cheaper launches mean cheaper satellites, and cheaper satellites mean more launches as previously un-economic activities start to pencil out.
    - jltsiren 3mo ago

praseodym 3mo ago

Don’t forget that SpaceX has 3.884 billion outstanding shares!