> about discounted future cash flows.

discounted future cash flows is discounted by risk. There is a lot of risk on growing future revenue is the point.

>seems logical that there could/will be far more demand for launch if the price were lower.

This thesis hasn't played out much in the 10 years since Falcon landed in first 2015.

The non Starlink component of revenue has not massively grown beyond what size the market in 2015 to today. SpaceX isn't lowering launch price to induce demand beyond out being the cheapest just by enough, they would be going lower if cost was the only barrier for more revenue.

It not that businesses aren't possible there at lower launch prices. Starlink is testament that it is.

The problem is that rest of the world is not able to innovate fast enough to take advantage of it even after 10 years. The industry struggles with things like manufacturing satellites at scale or raising money for it, or executing on innovation etc.

What that means for SpaceX is that even if launch costs are cheaper than now, the launch market simply may not grow quick enough for the valuation number to make sense. They would need to enter a lot of new markets directly and be their own launch customer beyond Starlink. This comes with its own set of execution, regulatory and other risks. The data-center[1] in space play is an attempt to do this.

Either DC play or something else, they will need to find and sustain a large business to grow, maybe they will, maybe not.

It is not very clear now and that is a lot of risk so any future cash flow projection has to be discounted heavily.

---

[1] I am not qualified to comment on the technical feasibility, however to analyze the company finances that is not needed, it is just one more risk factor, depending on how you feel you can assign 0 or 1 or anything in between.