[xenadu02]

I think you have to temper the skepticism a bit though.

SpaceX has dramatically lowered the cost of launching things into space. They are still the leader here. They can put a kg into orbit cheaper than anyone, even heavily subsidized state operations (EU and China).

Their order book continues to be full. Every single launch vehicle they roll off the line was pre-sold years ago, including its re-use flights.

I agree that Elon is their biggest potential problem and a big risk but their launch business is sound and wildly successful. If you believe access to space will be a growing segment of the economy in the future it isn't exactly a bad investment.

I remember all the people putting Tesla down when they IPO'd. I bought $4k of stock (all I could afford at that time). Sold $100k of it a few years ago, still have the other half worth near $220k. Their numbers at IPO time were garbage and it wasn't clear they would even survive. Then they started shipping hundreds of thousands then a million cars.

YMMV, consider all sides and make your own judgement. Just be careful about trusting the anti-SpaceX case. Even if everyone is technically correct about them it can still be a huge miss not to invest! The future is not static and if they can put the raised capital to productive use the IPO could end up being a fantastic deal. And FWIW I also agree the largest immediate risk is they are over-valued. Only time will tell on that front.

[afavour]

> Their order book continues to be full.

In 2024 66% of their launches were for Starlink. So it’s not quite correct to suggest there’s a vibrant external market for their product, a lot of it is sort of self dealing.

[BurningFrog]

Starlink is incredibly profitable though.

It's not like they're subsidizing some experimental internal project. Starlink is the majority of their profits and growing fast.

[MPSimmons]

> it’s not quite correct to suggest there’s a vibrant external market for their product

There is a very large demand for launch services. SpaceX balances launching customers and launching Starlink. It's not like they give every launch slot to customers and then launches Starlink whenever there's an opening they couldn't fill.

[nradov]

There's a vibrant external market for satellite Internet service.

[Rover222]

This is missing the point of their valuation. SpaceX will internally use their launch capabilities to build industries that no one else can. Starlink is already their main revenue stream. Starship will open up new realms of possibilities.

[ctchocula]

Tesla IPO'd at 1.7B and is worth 1.4T today. Giving you the benefit of doubt since it would be closer to a 1000x gain rather than the 100x gain that you didn't buy right at IPO, I will point out that there's a world's difference buying in at 1.7B, because there's still room for the stock to 1000x, but there's not much gain to be had buying in at 1.7T valuation.

Even the most highly company in the world Nvidia is less than 3x that valuation, so it's not a good comparison with Tesla's IPO.

[manquer]

As I mentioned at the end, if the pitch was just for the launch (and starlink) it would be an easy sell.

The problem is launch market is not worth 1.5+ trillion though, you need much more than just starlink and all the satellites today to justify that .

You and other early investors who had the opportunity to get in early may come of well in this and it was a good bet then.

However it is hard to see why rest of us should get in at $1.5T, the downside risks are far more than upside potential at this price .

[aeternum]

At current launch numbers it may not be worth 1.5+ trillion but valuations aren't about current, they're about discounted future cash flows.

It seems logical that there could/will be far more demand for launch if the price were lower. Prices are quite extreme currently, a standard 3U cubesat (loaf of bread size) is $300k and that's just for orbit.

There could be lots of startups that want to try robotic space mining but launch costs just make that mostly impossible currently so there are only a select few. It's like valuing the Dutch East India company based on the trade volumes in 1603. Of course people are not going to be buying much pepper or nutmeg if it costs them weeks of labor, but build lots of reusable ships, and with each voyage, more people can afford your pepper and nutmeg until it's a common household item.

[manquer]

> 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.

[childintime]

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

It did play out: there are many more launches today, it's 5x in 20 years. The 75% of SpaceX starlink launches (which account for nearly 50% of all launches) were quietly financed by their other launch customers, exactly because the real cost to launch dropped so much.

That doesn't mean you're wrong, but you do seem to forget that SpaceX, as its own customer, knows the number of launches is going to rise exponentially. They obviously choose to manufacture for where the market _will be_, while you don't see the market before its there. Which is good for them.

[applied_heat]

I am sure Elon can launch some type of space based directed energy beam and use it to intercept missiles and drones.

[joyeuse6701]

Not one more cent should be given to that man.

[nativeit]

I think you have to temper the glazing a bit though.

These people and their endeavors are thoroughly, irredeemably corrupt. It’s nice you got a taste, but their impact on society has been calamitous, and will take decades to recover (if at all).