Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

FTR_1077 t1_jdmc9id wrote

Reply to comment by pm_me_ur_ephemerides in Rocket Lab targets $50 million launch price for Neutron rocket to challenge SpaceX’s Falcon 9 by cnbc_official

>The purchase price of a Falcon9 launch did not decrease significantly after they achieved reusability, they just increased their profit margins.

We don't know that, SpaceX financials are not public. Given the fact that SpaceX has consistently run rounds of funding, costs may have increased with reusability.

−1

BrangdonJ t1_jdmeimb wrote

If reusability didn't save them money I doubt they'd do it. And they've said it's much cheaper to refurbish than to build new. Those rounds were to raise funds for Starship and/or Starlink development. Both of those have been money-sinks.

13

FTR_1077 t1_jdmg3xx wrote

>Those rounds were to raise funds for Starship and/or Starlink

We don't know that.. we can speculate though. Isn't it fun?

−4

SpaceInMyBrain t1_jdn9k2r wrote

>we can speculate though.

We can speculate - but also have to base the speculations on which is more likely. With its vertical integration and the simplified design of F9, SpaceX could build expendable F9s for cheaper than ULA or other competitors - in all likelihood. But they don't so in all likelihood the reuse approach is working for them, giving them even larger profits than being expendable.

7

FTR_1077 t1_jdpgee7 wrote

>giving them even larger profits

SpaceX is not profitable. You can't have a larger something that you don't have.

−6

Anthony_Pelchat t1_jdms3rt wrote

We don't know all of SpaceX's financials, but we do have very good info on the cost per launch of the Falcon 9. Three execs have spoken about the F9 launches being well under $30m with everything counted. All of these were prior to the massive launch cadence and reuse they started hitting in 2021. Cost are very likely down to $15m-$20m per F9 launch and easily under $25m now.

As for the rounds of funding, we also know what that is for. The vast majority of the funding SpaceX has received came after Starship and Starlink development began. And that is what it is for. Not Falcon 9 which basically had to freeze it's development in 2019 for final crew rating. And if F9 wasn't much cheaper to fly reused, then we would see SpaceX take it easier on launches and they would ramp up production of new boosters as mass production also reduces cost.

9

FTR_1077 t1_jdpg6dm wrote

>We don't know all of SpaceX's financials, but we do have very good info on the cost per launch of the Falcon 9.

We don't, unless you work for their financial department, we can only speculate.

>Three execs have spoken about the F9 launches being well under $30m

And there's no way to confirm that, it's fine if you decide to trust them, but History shows Elon's companies are not know for being truthful.

>As for the rounds of funding, we also know what that is for.

Again, we don't.. unless you work for their financial department, we can only speculate.

>And if F9 wasn't much cheaper to fly reused, then we would see SpaceX take it easier on launches

Why would they do that? The only way SpaceX is getting money is from investors is because they think SpaceX is revolutionizing the industry.. without the reusability gimmick, SpaceX is just another rocket company.

−2

Anthony_Pelchat t1_jdrqpkl wrote

You are making up crap in your head. Look, 3 execs confirmed at multiple different times in multiple different interviews the cost. People have also gone through to verify numbers as best as possible. The Execs have no reason to lie. And reuse is not some gimmick. It's actually making a meaningful difference. Not just price, but cadence.

And yes, we do know the funding reasons. They specifically made a big deal about both Starlink and Starship. Plus we can see with our own eyes the huge production being done. Factories ain't cheap, nor is the huge amount of construction for Starship and the massive number of satellites for Starlink.

And of course common sense clearly shows that reuse is making a huge financial difference. If it wasn't, they wouldn't have reduced the cost of reusable launches, they wouldn't push customers towards reused rockets, and they wouldn't fly Starlink missions entirely on reused boosters. You are effectively accusing SpaceX of being a pyramid scheme when it clearly isn't.

6

binary_spaniard t1_jdmf38d wrote

SpaceX has invested at least 10 billions in Starship related expenses, without having any revenue there. That's way more than any Falcon estimated profit.

Plus all those Starlink satellites are not cheap.

5

FTR_1077 t1_jdmgkh9 wrote

Exactly, SpaceX is operating under the start-up model "grow without caring about profits". That's makes it very possible they are just dumping F9, France already accused them of doing so.

** BTW, SpaceX was founded 20 years ago, it should be profitable by now, behaving like a start-up after so long is just a bad sign.

−4

morosis1982 t1_jdmqwx4 wrote

I'd agree with you on that last point if they had left it at refurbishable F9 and just taking profits from flights. But they have committed serious funds to develop both a LEO satellite constellation for fast internet and also a fully reusable rocket design that would lift 150t to LEO, both of which have yet to profit, in the true startup fashion.

It's like Amazon, where they didn't 'profit' for 2 decades because they were building AWS. If they'd just left it at the online store they'd have been in profit a long time ago.

12

FTR_1077 t1_jdpfbwu wrote

>But they have committed serious funds to develop both a LEO satellite constellation for fast internet and also a fully reusable rocket design that would lift 150t to LEO,

Well, the former one changes the business model of the company, from orbital launches to telecommunications. It's a bad sign for a start-up to pivot that late in the game.

And on the later, although it sounds like a natural progression of the launch services, the failure of FH is a bad sign for starship.. SpaceX may end up never making money.

>It's like Amazon, where they didn't 'profit' for 2 decades because they were building AWS.

Sure, but SpaceX is still far away.. let's say it takes another 10 to make starship as smooth as F9. Are the investors willing to wait 30 years? 40 years? At some point money is going to run out.

−6

morosis1982 t1_jdpmax8 wrote

I wasn't aware FH had failed, mind expanding on that? I was under the impression it's just that most launches don't require that capability given how ubiquitous F9 has become.

Starlink is a bit of a left field idea but from the sounds of it was designed as a way to provide cashflow long term to develop Starship. Not all that crazy given they owned the launch vehicles and used it to test the reusability of them long term.

I somewhat agree with Starship, it's hard to see that many people with requirements that fit it's capability, but that's also possibly just because those capabilities just a few years ago were hundreds of millions per launch. It's likely the lower launch costs will see a lot more development in the space just as we saw with F9.

8

FTR_1077 t1_jdqwef9 wrote

>I wasn't aware FH had failed,

FH has flown about once a year, a rocket more capable than F9. The market just doesn't exists.. A product left on the shelves is a failed product.

Starship is even more powerful, the only actual client is Artemis, and that will fly once every few years (if we are Lucky). And on top of that SpaceX is not making money out of HLS, part of the reason why they got the contract was because SpaceX is putting like half of the money.

>Starlink is a bit of a left field idea but from the sounds of it was designed as a way to provide cash flow long term to develop Starship. Satellite internet already exists, is a mature market.. even if SpaceX completely dominated the market, there's not enough money there to fund starship development. That's why SpaceX keeps running rounds of investment.

SpaceX is a start-up, a 20 year old start-up that doesn't make money.

−1