[FeepingCreature]

That's not what "selling at a loss" means, it just means their costs are greater than their income. Which, again, is not what "selling at a loss" means - that's production cost per unit being greater than sales income per unit. SpaceX is just dumping a ludicrous amount of money into scaling faster. They could easily be operationally profitable.

[martin8412]

Source for your claim that they could easily be operationally profitable?

[FeepingCreature]

None, they're a private company, but: if a rocket company could be profitable while throwing rockets away, there is no way that SpaceX is not wildly profitable when it's getting them back pretty much in one piece.

[martin8412]

Which again you have no source for. Reusable rockets are more expensive than single use rockets. That's just common sense. There's no proof that SpaceX is even cash flow positive.

[panick21_]

> There's no proof that SpaceX is even cash flow positive.

And you have no proof otherwise. You just assert it without evidence.

And you disagree with everybody that has studied this topic. Pretty much everybody that has estimated cost comes down on the side that SpaceX core launch business is very profitable.

Tons of investors who had insight into this information seem to believe it was a good investment. If the numbers showed that it didn't make sense the whole credibility of Starlink and Starship would instantly collapse.

We don't have detailed numbers but its simply not credible that they have been launching for losing money.

[FeepingCreature]

I don't follow why reusable rockets would be more expensive. In fact, I don't think that's true.