[panick21_]

Sorry but this is complete nonsense.

You can literally just go threw the list of their launches on Wikipedia an notice that nothing close to even 80% of them are for the government.

And that is outside of their Starship business, that is by now a large part of its revenue.

The numbers you present are ridicoulus, they have easily more money just from human space flight from Polaris and Axiom.

[bumby]

The bulk of their own launches are for their own infrastructure. That doesn't bring revenue at the launch date. They aren't paying themselves to launch their equipment; it's an investment in future revenue. Even looking at optimistic projections for 2023 Starlink revenue puts would still mean govt contracts dwarf Starlink revenue by 4:1.

>And that is outside of their Starship business, that is by now a large part of its revenue.

Starship is bringing in investment money, not revenue that I'm aware of. I don't know what revenue it would be bringing without actual launches. Maybe I'm wrong and you can correct me here, but I think you are conflating some business aspects.

Now if you're saying that the private money will be a bigger factor in the future, I agree. That's the whole idea behind govt money being used to foster along nascent industries: the govt props them up early until a viable private enterprise can exist later.

[panick21_]

I meant to say Starlink rather then Starship. They have over a million subscribers now. Plus larger clients in shipping and air travel, plus the military.

Honestly I don't get your issue. You can just go to wikipedia and look at the list of the launches. So clearly the 98% is wrong, this isn't a question, its not speculation.

[bumby]

This doesn’t pass a simple sanity check.

The original claim was “US government can't be more than some low double digit percentage”.

Let’s say it’s by “low double digit percentage” we’re generous and say 20%. (I interpreted their stance to be lower, but they didn’t specify).

We can are there is incomplete data but we have reasonably good data on the the govt side: U.S. govt contacts are at least $5.4B, likely higher. So that means we expect the complementary private side to be 5x, or over $22B. The absolute most optimistic Starlink estimates about $2B through 2023. Do you think the other private streams dwarf Starlink by 10x? I just don’t see how we get there given the govt is still there #1 launch customer after Starlink, and this is the most generous interpretation to steelman the case. The only way is true is if there is some unknown customer launching nearly 3x that of the US govt.

The only way the numbers work out is if the govt is the major revenue stream or there’s some secret launch customer that dwarfs the US space agencies.

It’s a claim based on wishful feeling, not on data.

[bumby]

Fair enough, but it’s still a multiple smaller than their govt revenue.

[s1artibartfast]

>Even looking at optimistic projections for 2023 Starlink revenue puts would still mean govt contracts dwarf Starlink revenue by 4:1.

As I just point at elsewhere, you get 4:1 by comparing cummulative contract revenue with an annual Starlink revenue.

[bumby]

No disagreement; this actually is proving my point. I'm pretty clear about using the larger business cycle as my point. I'm not taking a snapshot in time, I'm saying relying on govt contracts early is necessary for their business to survive. Others are either twisting or misinterpreting my point.

To be absolutely explicitly clear: their business model requires using govt contracts/funding/sales early before they can transition to other viable means of revenue. They could not survive as a company without those early govt contracts, but this does not mean they are dependent on govt contracts into perpetuity.

A dependency on govt contracts early and an increasingly private revenue stream can both be true. This isn't bad, but it also isn't the often-lauded ideal of free-market capitalism.