alt Hacker News>“50th rocket company, previous ones failed on financials not tech”
Its Falcon 9 has flown 667 times to orbit with a 99.55% success rate. SpaceX isn't like the other rocket companies and it's pretty obvious to anyone who looks at the metrics objectively. Not in technology or in finances.
>"minus $5B/year but AI/Space makes it +$200B”
$18.7B revenue in 2025. Starlink alone was $11.4B
The comparison to Iridium isn't even worth refuting because it's like comparing the Wright Flyer to the 747.
It's a shame that otherwise intelligent people have such difficulty objectively assessing anything Elon Musk; I assume it's mostly idealogical reasons. Do I think $135 is a bit high for the SpaceX IPO? probably. Do I agree with everything Elon Musk says? nah. Is Elon Musk the most capable entrepreneur and innovator to ever live? It's definitely possible.
> $18.7B revenue in 2025. Starlink alone was $11.4B
But ... you do realize how you have to use those numbers right? SpaceX owns Starlink. So let's do some basic accounting.
For ease of calculation I call upon the Math Gods to change $11.4B to $12B.
SPCX -> Starlink $12B
Starlink -> SPCX $12B
SPCX uses 50% more than that amount to launch the rockets (because SPCX has a negative margin (if you include debt service + research), after with 50% SPCX would have less than $5B loss). Hence:
SPCX -> $18B (to whatever SPCX does to build rockets)
In other words: your fabulous "Starlink alone was $11.4B" really means SpaceX lost $18B (a bit less) and gained starlink shares, which it already owned ... in other words: that revenue represents a $18B loss for the company.
This is the same problem people have with AI spending, but there the math is 100x more complicated.