Author Topic: SpaceX's financial position?  (Read 9618 times)

Offline Admiral Thrawn

  • Member
  • Posts: 46
  • Liked: 0
SpaceX's financial position?
« on: 08/07/2006 02:58 AM »
I'm interested to know how SpaceX is being funded and in what position they are financially. I read recently that Elon stated the company was operating at a profit, even though they've only launched one rocket and it was a failure, with the loss of a customer's product.

Now I'm all for startup companies like SpaceX aiming to increase competition and lower the cost of delivering payloads to space, but I'm just curious as to how healthy SpaceX is financially.

As they're a private company, do they release financial statements or any other related documentation to the public?

Thanks,

James


Offline yinzer

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1509
  • Liked: 0
Re: SpaceX's financial position?
« Reply #1 on: 08/07/2006 05:08 AM »
In short, no, they don't.

Elon also didn't say that they were operating at a profit, but rather that they expected to be cash-flow positive in the coming year, due to customers putting down more money as deposits for launches than they were going to spend on R&D.
California 2008 - taking rights from people and giving rights to chickens.

Offline aero313

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 516
  • Liked: 0
RE: SpaceX's financial position?
« Reply #2 on: 08/07/2006 04:13 PM »
Quote
Admiral Thrawn - 6/8/2006  10:45 PM

I'm interested to know how SpaceX is being funded...

Elon writes checks from his personal bank account - or maybe he uses PayPal...

Quote
...and in what position they are financially.

According to Fortune magazine, Elon's net worth (admittedly a year or so ago now) was around $300M.  He's admitted to sinking $100M into SpaceX so far.

Quote
I read recently that Elon stated the company was operating at a profit, even though they've only launched one rocket and it was a failure, with the loss of a customer's product.  

As stated previously, don't confuse cashflow with profit

Quote
As they're a private company, do they release financial statements or any other related documentation to the public?

Nope. Not required.

Online braddock

  • NSF Private Space Flight Editor
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 992
  • Liked: 0
RE: SpaceX's financial position?
« Reply #3 on: 08/08/2006 03:02 PM »
Quote
Admiral Thrawn - 6/8/2006  10:45 PM
I'm interested to know how SpaceX is being funded and in what position they are financially. I read recently that Elon stated the company was operating at a profit, even though they've only launched one rocket and it was a failure, with the loss of a customer's product.

Elon comments fairly extensively on the "cash-flow positive" statement in the next installment of the interview.  It was actually the first thing I asked him about.  Or you can read it now in L2...

Of course, cash-flow positive THIS year doesn't equal cash flow positive NEXT year, since the money is coming primarily out of advance launch contract payments...

Offline Admiral Thrawn

  • Member
  • Posts: 46
  • Liked: 0
RE: SpaceX's financial position?
« Reply #4 on: 08/09/2006 02:32 AM »
Thanks for the replies. I'd be interested to read the next interview.

I want to sign up for L2, but for some reason I've been unable to access nasaspaceflight.com for the past 2.5 weeks from my home computer. I've been trying to troubleshoot the problem with my ISP, but with no success thus far.

Currently I'm accessing the site with no problem from a work computer which does not use Telstra as the ISP. My home connection is provided by Telstra Bigpond cable (www.bigpond.com.au).

I ran a trace route with VisualRoute 2006, and it connects okay for the first 24 hops.

Once it gets to the 25th hop, there is 40% signal loss, and the connection fails.

The details for this hop are:

IP Address: 64.182.192.5
Node Name: 5-192-182-64.cust.propagation.net
Location: Bedford, TX, USA
Network: C I Host CIHS

I sent propagation.net an email by did not receive a response.

I spoke with someone who had no problem accessing nasaspaceflight, and who also ran a traceroute, and they found that their traceroute failed on the 25th hop like mine, so I suspect there might be a firewall there preventing traceroutes, which is not related to me being unable to access the site.

The only other person I've spoken to who can't access the site is also on Telstra cable. Any idea what could be causing the problem?

 :(

Online Avron

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4511
  • Liked: 39
RE: SpaceX's financial position?
« Reply #5 on: 09/02/2006 05:11 PM »
Quote
Admiral Thrawn - 8/8/2006  10:19 PM
The only other person I've spoken to who can't access the site is also on Telstra cable. Any idea what could be causing the problem?

 :(

Check the config for timeouts of your IP packets, maybe the config on the target server has been set a little to short for long distance multi -hop traffic..

Online Avron

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4511
  • Liked: 39
Re: SpaceX's financial position?
« Reply #6 on: 09/02/2006 05:12 PM »
I may have missed this in the past, but I noticed an entry in the SpaceX manifest..

US Air Force     $100 million contract thru 2010     Falcon 1     TBD

whats this connected to?

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 20635
  • Liked: 306
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
Re: SpaceX's financial position?
« Reply #7 on: 09/02/2006 07:28 PM »
That is the potential size of the contract.  It is an IDIQ contract.   The USAF can order missions as they want, just like the NLS contract.  They have yet to order one

Offline publiusr

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1541
  • Liked: 0
Re: SpaceX's financial position?
« Reply #8 on: 10/17/2006 08:36 PM »
The Ares (Falcon) HLV (not the Ares V HLLV) spaceplane was largely nixed--so small payloads are perhaps more in Musk's reach.

Offline Comga

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2292
  • Liked: 72
Re: SpaceX's financial position?
« Reply #9 on: 10/18/2006 02:30 AM »
Quote
publiusr - 17/10/2006  2:19 PM

The Ares (Falcon) HLV (not the Ares V HLLV) spaceplane was largely nixed--so small payloads are perhaps more in Musk's reach.

Eh? What?  Could you explain this?  Ares 1 is not Falcon 1, and neither is an HLV which I thought meant Heavy Launch Vehicle or Horizontal Launch Vehicle.   The Ares V, which is a Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle is not a spaceplane, at least not the NSAS RS-68 plus solid rockets powered Ares V I know of.  THe rest I can't even guess at.

Offline aero313

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 516
  • Liked: 0
Re: SpaceX's financial position?
« Reply #10 on: 10/18/2006 11:29 PM »
Quote
Comga - 17/10/2006  10:13 PM

Quote
publiusr - 17/10/2006  2:19 PM

The Ares (Falcon) HLV (not the Ares V HLLV) spaceplane was largely nixed--so small payloads are perhaps more in Musk's reach.

Eh? What?  Could you explain this?  Ares 1 is not Falcon 1, and neither is an HLV which I thought meant Heavy Launch Vehicle or Horizontal Launch Vehicle.   The Ares V, which is a Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle is not a spaceplane, at least not the NSAS RS-68 plus solid rockets powered Ares V I know of.  THe rest I can't even guess at.

There seems to be a lot of unfortunate reuse of program names lately.  For example the SpaceX Falcon (lower case) was one of several vehicles selected under the DARPA FALCON (orignally upper case), which stood for Force Application with Launch from CONus.  Unfortunately, the term "Force Application" has become politically incorrect, so it's now the DARPA Falcon (lower case) and the party line is that the program was named after the Air Force mascot...

Same with ARES, which was originally an Air Force program to develop a responsive small launch vehicle (1,000 lb to LEO class) using a flyback first stage and an expendable upper stage (possibly derived from the DARPA Falcon vehicle).  Since it was part reuseable and part expendable, the Air Force came up with the unfortunate name of "hybrid launch vehicle" or HLV, which obviously raises confusion with both hybrid propulsion systems and heavy lift vehicles.  Also, NASA has taken the ARES name for the CLV/CaLV, which are completely unrelated.  Anyway, the Air Force ARES program has been killed, which is why there was a reference to SpaceX.  Confused yet?

And to get back to the original question, the $100M IDIQ contract (which so far has been worth a token $30,000 for a user's guide) was awarded under the Responsive Small Spacelift (RSS) procurement long before the Air Force ARES came and went.  Orbital also received awards under RSS for two different vehicles - Raptor 1 and 2.  Raptor 1 is simply a Pegasus by a different name so they can justify different launch costs without pissing off NASA and Raptor 2 is an internally carried wingless Pegasus that's air-dropped using a Coleman-style pallet.

Offline Comga

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2292
  • Liked: 72
Re: SpaceX's financial position?
« Reply #11 on: 10/21/2006 06:45 PM »
Quote
aero313 - 18/10/2006  5:12 PM

Quote
Comga - 17/10/2006  10:13 PM

Quote
publiusr - 17/10/2006  2:19 PM

The Ares (Falcon) HLV (not the Ares V HLLV) spaceplane was largely nixed--so small payloads are perhaps more in Musk's reach.

Eh? What?  Could you explain this?  ,snip..

There seems to be a lot of unfortunate reuse of program names lately.  <snip>.

Thanks for the refersher on recent history.  I still don't understand the last part of your statement "so small payloads are perhaps more in Musk's reach."

It may be that we are in strong agreement.  SpaceX's original goal of an inexpensive small rocket we a worthy attainable goal.  That problem has not yet been solved, but is manageable.  The short flight of the first SpaceX Falcon 1 showed that they could get this right, if they stay focused. It might even be a profitable business, which would answer the orignial question of this discussion: SpaceX finances.
« Last Edit: 10/07/2013 04:27 PM by Comga »

Offline aero313

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 516
  • Liked: 0
Re: SpaceX's financial position?
« Reply #12 on: 10/22/2006 03:39 PM »
Quote
Comga - 21/10/2006  2:28 PM
Thanks for the refersher on recent history.  I still don't understand the last part of your statement "so small payloads are perhaps more in Musk's reach."

Actually, that wasn't my quote, but I suspect the intent was that with the Air Force ARES program being cancelled, there was one less competitor in the 1,000 lb to LEO class.   Of course, that still leaves Pegasus, Minotaur, Orbital's Raptor vehicles, AirLaunch, the new ATK booster, ESA's Vega, Japan's MV (OK, these two are actually Taurus-class),  Russia's START, Angora, and converted Russian SLBMs.  All competing for the two-or-so launches a year in this class.  Oh, and don't forget marginally-priced secondary opportunities on EELV and Ariane.  And except for Pegasus and ATK, all the others have been developed on Gov't funds, so the launch price doesn't need to include amortization of the development cost.  This isn't SpaceX bashing, just a realistic view of the marketplace.  Granted, the Air Force TacSat program is developing small satellites, but Air Force leaders are cutting those funds for FY08.  Also, except for TacSat 1, the rest (2 through 4) are committed to flying on Minotaur launchers, since the Air Force has already invested in the development of that vehicle.

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8061
  • Liked: 47
Re: SpaceX's financial position?
« Reply #13 on: 10/22/2006 04:54 PM »
I don't believe that Elon plans for the Falcon I to be a big money maker for SpaceX, I believe that it is more of a technology test bed. However, given that its launch price is cheaper than virtually all of the vehicles mentioned above, it is not inconceivable that the Falcon I could "retire" many of the competitors. There is another dynamic at play here: as most small launcher are extremly expensive per pound orbited, a significantly cheaper new supplier could serve to enlarge the market. Although the Russian LVs will always be cheap, there are non-monetary costs associated with Russian launches, AirLaunch does not actually exist, Vega is > $20 million per launch, the MV is so expensive that not even the Japanese can afford it, and the Minuteman deririvatives have very low payload capability. That kind of leaves Falcon I vs Pegasus. My prediction is that Pegasus disappears within 12 months of Elon stringing together 2 successful Falcon launches.

Not that I am predicting that Elon is a lock to make his LVs work, mind you.

Offline aero313

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 516
  • Liked: 0
Re: SpaceX's financial position?
« Reply #14 on: 10/22/2006 05:58 PM »
Quote
Danderman - 22/10/2006  12:37 PM

I don't believe that Elon plans for the Falcon I to be a big money maker for SpaceX, I believe that it is more of a technology test bed. However, given that its launch price is cheaper than virtually all of the vehicles mentioned above, it is not inconceivable that the Falcon I could "retire" many of the competitors. There is another dynamic at play here: as most small launcher are extremly expensive per pound orbited, a significantly cheaper new supplier could serve to enlarge the market.
At the risk of sounding like a broken record in this forum, "if you build it they will come" didn't materialize when Pegasus was $6M a launch, so what's different now?  Everyone points to the supposed large number of small and university payloads that can't afford a ride, but frankly even $6M a launch is at least an order of magnitude too expensive for these payloads.

Quote
Although the Russian LVs will always be cheap, there are non-monetary costs associated with Russian launches, ...
As opposed to operating out of Kwaj...

Quote
AirLaunch does not actually exist, ...
...yet, but the DoD has pumped $30M into the project so far, with more likely to come.

Quote
Vega is > $20 million per launch, the MV is so expensive that not even the Japanese can afford it, ...
Yes, but having spent the considerable investment to develop them, foriegn satellites will be forced to use them.  My point was that there will be non-financial reasons for European and Japanese satellite to fly their indigenous boosters, removing them as potential commerical customers.

Quote
...and the Minuteman deririvatives have very low payload capability.
Not sure why you think that, since Minotaur 1 (Orbital's Minuteman II based vehicle) has about 50% greater payload capability than Pegasus, or slightly greater than the advertised (as opposed to actual) Falcon 1 performance.  MSLS might have been a turd, but Minotaur 1 has considerable performance since it uses Pegasus stages 2 and 3 on top of the Minuteman 1 and 2.  MSLS used all three Minuteman solid stages with a Star 37, but this configuration was dropped when Martin couldn't even get it to orbit with zero payload.  But at least Martin's $4.4M projected price more than doubled before the plug was pulled.  This, by the way, was after $70M of Gov't pork, er, investment.  Thanks, Senator Stevens...

Quote
That kind of leaves Falcon I vs Pegasus. My prediction is that Pegasus disappears within 12 months of Elon stringing together 2 successful Falcon launches.
First, Pegasus is already being put out of business by Minotaur.  It's pretty hard to be cheaper than free when it comes to getting your solid rocket motors.  More to the point, the Air Force funded the development of Minotaur and has "ownership" in the program (not to mention that Minotaur keeps some of the ICBM mafia employed in supporting launches).  Second, NASA has invested well over a decade in getting Pegasus certifed and up to their standards (which is in no small part why the price has gone up).  My sources at NASA indicate that SpaceX has a long, long way to go to also satisfy these standards.  In the meantime, NASA will continue to buy their one Pegasus a year.


Tags: