SpaceX Profitable as Musk Pulls in NASA Contracts, Google Cash
bloomberg.com
bloomberg.com
I notice they've stopped putting dates on their manifest for future flights.[2][3] SpaceX is doing a great job, but they're behind their own schedule. They're two flights behind on ISS resupply, and launched less in 2014 than they'd planned. They may be having scaling problems with their organization. They have a a product and customers, but can't meet demand. This may get better once they get their own spaceport in Texas finished.
[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20130802104411/http://www.spacex... [2] https://web.archive.org/web/20141030024140/http://www.spacex... [3] httpd://www.spacex.com/missions
It's not the be-all and end-all of space stations, but it's better than something that was built decades ago for a previous generation of vehicle.
The most important aspect of the new launch site is that it is simply another site they can launch from. SpaceX has the rockets, they just need a couple weeks between launches at the moment to get the launch pad squared away and prepped for the next launch. By adding a second site[1], they have double their throughput.
[1] Technically it's the third site, but Vandy is limited in what it can launch, as you can only launch into very high inclination orbits from there.
The one part of that speculation that is sourced -- different range safety systems once the rocket is in flight -- does deal with facilities that SpaceX shares with the Air Force and other launch systems (ULA Atlas launches at both sites, at least). But handling of the rockets on the ground is already completely under SpaceX control, and done entirely with their own purpose-built equipment.
[+] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Traffic_in_Arms_R...
People transport extremely fragile things by sea all the time. You may have to be mindful of weather, but it is do-able with the will and money.
Empty pop cans? Several stories tall?
Any rate at all is higher than is tolerable for rockets costing many orders of magnitude more.
REALLY?!?!
Your pop can is not filled up with tons of explosive materials and didn't cost millions of dollars.
The worse thing that can happen if your pop can is damaged is you get a flat soda or a leaky can.
They'll still be near sea-water in Texas of course, but perhaps the wind tends to blow west to east, with the jetstream? I'm not sure.
That's not entirely on them. With manned spaceflight, they're on NASA time.
Even if it is just a company catering to customers who want to go to space for an orbit or two without actually docking with anything.
That said, it will be an exciting time when SpaceX launches are so common and regular as to seem boring.
Recognize that even if you don't own the radar equipment, it is impacting your ability to deliver value, so spend the necessary funds to get them to replace the radar equipment with something that doesn't have that problem.
And then convince the Air Force to certify and let you use your new radar for their payloads.
Well, yeah, which takes more money. I wasn't intending, upthread, to suggest that the route was easy...
There may not be any amount of money that'll make the Air Force certify a civilian radar for the purpose.
The reality is that aggressive scheduling is a reasonable tactic, even knowing that deadlines will almost certainly slip.
Technically that's still in spec. Example:
Date: Message
2010: We are 2-3 years away from launch.
2011: We are 2-3 years away from launch.
2012:
2013: We launch.
At some point though SpaceX will have the space port and the rocket and the gear to just tell the FAA that they are going up on such and such a date with the following orbital parameters. Plus you have to notify folks that care so that they won't wonder if a missile just launched out of Texas (not that the orbital track would put Russia or China in its path but still)
While...
"'Space-based applications, like imaging satellites, can help people more easily access important information, so we’re excited to support SpaceX’s growth,' Google spokesman Aaron Stein said in a statement."
> Why do self driving cars? Def no ad revenue there.
Sure there is. Many people commute in their cars for 1-2 hours per day, when it is illegal for them to look at ads on their smartphone. If Google makes this legal, it's another 10%ish increase in the waking hours that people may be clicking on their ads.
I think that Google's ambitions are a lot higher than this, of course. Self-driving cars will be a lucrative business for them in numerous ways. And increased ad revenue will be one of them.
Frankly, I'm not entirely sure such a roundabout benefit even comes up in management's eyes compared to the difficulty of getting self-driving cars working and on the roads, but it is one.
Mostly because, freight and passenger trains interfere badly. No passengers = easier freight. A big wave of deregulation of the market a few decades ago helped, too. The Economist ran a special about the US market a few years ago.
As for self driving cars, I can think of a ton of marketing use cases including tracking how often people drive, where they go, how long they stay there, the frequency in which someone goes to a location, what type of features in the car the user takes advantage of...
And that's just from the top of my head in 30 seconds. I'm sure the marketing kids at Google can think of far more ways to milk you.
The alternative is massive problems in a few years, when somebody has the guts to kickstart a consumer laptop that comes with adblock preinstalled.
Android (and iOS) make it (intentionally?) much harder to install adblock than any pc browser.
No ad revenue. But there's lots of car revenue.
Show popups ads of ongoing/upcoming events of the current street you are on. Going to the movie theatre, recommend a nearby lunch spot. Feeling lucky? Let the car plan your weekend
This bring huge potential to ads
Imagine how many more hours a day you'll have to look at your android device when you don't have to pay attention to driving to and from work? Or going on road trips.
It's nice when Google does things that benefit a lot of people, but they're a for-profit corporation and not motivated primarily by altruism. People might not fully understand that or its significance and simply enjoy Google products, but I think it's useful knowledge.
Because that's the part I'd find hard to believe.
My takeaway was that many people produce warm feelings about an entity that doesn't necessarily reciprocate or find those warm feelings important in it of themselves.
I personally like Google (so far). E.g. I could have seen them siding with ISPs, trying to dismantle net neutrality, and using their capital to stifle innovation keeping them at the top.
But if sometime in the future, Google enacts policies that aren't so "nice", people may do well to avoid confusion by remembering that Google isn't inherently "nice", but they are inherently "for-profit".
Even if you have some other intrinsic motive, you gotta pay your employees with money, and you gotta get that money form somewhere.
Edit: The article doesn't even mention any rep from SpaceX saying they're profitable. This SEEMS like a guesstimate by the writer
The existence of various ways of considering the finances of a corporation don't necessarily mean that any one method is "wrong". But when you get into questions of "is it profitable?" The answer depends a lot on who's asking.
In any one month, more money may go out of your checking account than came in, but does that mean you lost money that month? Maybe some of the outgoing money was paying for a year's worth of an expensive service, or was an investment in some other company, or was the purchase of some assets that will allow you to become more productive. In those cases, while your cash flow may be negative, you can keep a set of books that spreads the cost of a year's worth of service over the entire year, even if you pay it all at once on January 1. Or a building you might want to spread the cost out over the duration of any loans you took out to pay for part of it, or if you paid cash, you still may want to spread the expense out over the 15 year expected lifetime of the asset.
Obviously the IRS and SEC rules have to be pretty standard across the board, but within any particular industry or business model, a different representation may provide investors or management with a more accurate picture than the IRS or SEC rules would allow.
Obviously all of these can be abused, and investors should be skeptical and do due diligence, but even 100% honest businesses may report a loss to the IRS, a profit to investors, and a break-even for the SEC. They aren't necessarily trying to scam anyone.
Pretty much everything you mention in this paragraph is covered by accounting rules a student would learn in year 1. Cash flow isn't profitability. Spending on assets is capitalized, and they depreciate according to rules, not what you "may want" to do.
Yes, there is always some leeway to play fast and loose with accounting, and companies are always trying "adjust" earnings to suit to their business model. 4 times out of 5, it's horsecrap. That's why we have GAAP.
Re: Google investment of $1B. I'm not an accountant, but when did taking investment money constitute making a business "profitable"?
The "as" in the title isn't meant to be a "because of Google cash," rather it's an elaboration of the present context of SpaceX, noting they're both profitable and have the cash from Google.
think 'John types on the keyboard at his house as Jeff arrives to work'
He's done pretty much everything I wanted to do in life, only a little less efficiently, and much faster.
What's the point?
Here's my shot at answers:
- he can't fix the entire world by himself, there are a lot of things you can do to make a difference;
- edw519 would probably point out that he's not making the thing he makes by the power of his own hands, he leverages the global economy to achieve his goals; if you do anything that's even remotely useful, you're helping him and everyone else;
- somebody needs to buy those Teslas ;).
(not that they sound very convincing, I'm not sure if I ever believe them myself)
You will die, and someone else will follow in your footsteps. Make sure that person has what they need to live the life you wanted, because you're probably the only person who really knows what that is worth.
Does anyone want a small robotics company?
Citation: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/342566837852200960
Most of us will see SpaceX go to Mars. And optimistically, I think many of us will go too.
1. The people who want to move there - target price $500k USD.
$500,000 is the estimated price at which the demand is estimated at 80,000 tickets. Elon figures that if the price of moving to Mars is comparable to buying a home in California, the number of people who could afford to go and would want to go is ~80,000. So that's ~$40B or so.
2. Elon - maybe worth $50-100B by then?
If we assume that SolarCity and Tesla will continue to grow for the next 10-20 years, then Elon's net worth will probably be ~$50B or so. Not enough to fund a full Mars colony, but it'd be a really good start.
3. Satellite internet profits
The recently announced satellite internet effort by SpaceX, financed by Google and Fidelity, is intended to provide high-speed, low-latency global internet access to billions of people. Elon expects to be able to fund part of the Mars colonization project with profits from that.
4. NASA / Congress
NASA already expects to spend many billions on making trips to Mars. It does not seem unlikely that, in 20 years, they would be willing to join some efforts and allocate $10-30B towards Mars colonization with SpaceX.
5. VCs and billionaires.
The Martian economy may have a rough start but will probably grow wildly once established. SpaceX already attracts VC funds in the billions from large firms and billionaires, and this will certainly be amplified in the future.
Judging from Dragon, Elon says 10-12, so it'll be 10-12 years off in 10 years.
SpaceX might be profitable today. It might be very profitable tomorrow. But because of the classified nature of the industry that can change in a heartbeat. Fall out of favour with certain government agencies and suddenly that constant stream of background checks slows, deadlines get missed, and profits become loss. There are many fingers on many kill switches.
Maybe the company is or will be a great success, but that success comes only with permission. Investors beware: Balance sheets are only half the story. The other half is not open for inspection.
I'm reminded of the first calls (90s->2002, not the later programs) for bids to replace the KC-135. There were only two real contenders, Airbus and Boeing. Airbus's first reaction was essentially: "why even bother."
A primary reason why payloads are so expensive is because launch services - used to be - so expensive. With lowering the launch price payloads can become cheaper.
You're right that tomorrow, a different one could be built with the new launch cost in mind. The entire "new space" movement revolves around lowering launch costs and building much cheaper satellites to take advantage of lower launch costs.
A computer that is substantially cheaper would be hobbyist-grade computer.
Of course I'm only talking about traditional military rather than forces like A* Qda which might make do with whatever they can get their hands on, which is probably what you're referring to.
I suppose a very cheap satellite could be terrorist-grade. ;)
Just assume that military is the standard, and in order to qualify as consumer, you need to add extra features.
So far your argument is symmetric.
Yes, you may always want a unique, expensive, cutting edge satellite. But you won't always need that - military doesn't directly set the goal to spend as much as possible. X-37 demonstrates a lot of capabilities while being much cheaper than previous reusable space vehicle. So with launch costs going down other, cheaper opportunities open - to everybody, including military. That's beside the idea that cheaper rocket doesn't mean worse rocket, reminding Japanese cars of few decades back.
Sure, politics comes into play. But the idea of a less-regulated spaceflight industry doesn't seem feasible anytime soon. Even the airline industry is still heavily regulated compared to even automobiles. That's just the risk associated with the massive inherent dangers associated with flight.
They haven't even proven that yet. This version of Dragon can't dock - they just get within arm's reach (heh) of the station so they can be dragged in.