The different businesses that SpaceX is in

[nadreck]

Ok, first of all to stimulate discussion, my major learning technique, and second because the comments about SpaceX being a vertically integrated business on another thread, I thought I would explore with those of you here the different businesses that SpaceX is currently involved in and those that reasonable speculation would put them in in the future.

So, basically SpaceX is both a space transport company AND a spacecraft design company. However, it is more than just those two and had to become more just to become those two. I don't know that SpaceX has made any efforts to resell their manufacturing services, but given that Tesla made drive trains for other company's cars, I don't think Elon and the rest of SpaceX would have any objections to making rocket parts for other companies, nor designing them. I would consider that the work that SpaceX has done both internally and in conjunction with the various NASA development contracts so far has resulted in the expertise and administrative infrastructure to do contract design and contract manufacturing.

Current businesses that I know of (ie that they have been paid for):

1. Space launch services (including payload integration)
2. Spacecraft design
3. Ocean recovery of re-entry vehicles

Current businesses that they have demonstrated (as their own client):

1. Rocket engine design, manufacture, testing
2. Rocket tank/fuselage design, manufacture, testing
3. Aerodynamic control surface design, manufacture, testing
4. Avionics instrumentation and control design, manufacture, testing
5. Managing static engine test facilities, managing test range (Richardson)
6. Tracking and communications with space craft
7. Composite aerodynamic shells/fairing design, manufacturing, testing

Businesses we know that they plan to get into

1. Launch Facility development/management (Texas so far)
2. Launch range management (not sure whether there needs to be any Air Force involvement for their space port, eventually this will be like airport management)
3. Ocean, and eventually land based, propulsive landing recovery operations.
4. Design of deep space craft (Mars probe)
5. Space passenger services (LEO + further eventually)

It is not a far stretch to presume that at some point they will have global tracking, possibly space based tracking and communications, will they ever design/manufacture/operate their own space station/depot or just contract to launch those for others? It is certainly possible that they get into that business at some point.

Does anyone have other businesses areas that they see SpaceX operating in, or the potential to operate in?

[Jim]

Current businesses that I know of (ie that they have been paid for):

1. Space launch services (including payload integration)
2. Spacecraft design
3. Ocean recovery of re-entry vehicles

#3 belongs in the second group, and they also contracted for the boat

Current businesses that they have demonstrated (as their own client):

1. Rocket engine design, manufacture, testing
2. Rocket tank/fuselage design, manufacture, testing
3. Aerodynamic control surface design, manufacture, testing
4. Avionics instrumentation and control design, manufacture, testing
5. Managing static engine test facilities, managing test range (Richardson)
6. Tracking and communications with space craft
7. Composite aerodynamic shells/fairing design, manufacturing, testing

The second group is what all aerospace companies do. 

They contract for #6

1. Launch Facility development/management (Texas so far)
2. Launch range management (not sure whether there needs to be any Air Force involvement for their space port, eventually this will be like airport management)
3. Ocean, and eventually land based, propulsive landing recovery operations.
4. Design of deep space craft (Mars probe)
5. Space passenger services (LEO + further eventually)

They did #1 at the Cape and VAFB.

#3 doesn't involve much management.
#4 is TBD

It is not a far stretch to presume that at some point they will have global tracking, possibly space based tracking and communications, will they ever design/manufacture/operate their own space station/depot or just contract to launch those for others? It is certainly possible that they get into that business at some point.

Yes, it is at this time.  Not until they really start going to Mars
As for space station or depot, only if it helps them get to Mars

[oiorionsbelt]

Jim, all aerospace companies design and build rocket engines?
Can we add new technologies, now that they are starting engines in a hypersonic air flow?

[Lar]

Jim, all aerospace companies design and build rocket engines?

Yes... I think Jim might have misspoke a bit....

All launcher companies at least integrate engines, but I think it's fair to say that not all design and build their own engines, some buy engines from other suppliers.  Ditto tankage, pumps, etc.  But the line is really blurry. If OSC, for example (prior to the ATK merger) had said "can we have more X and less Y in this solid motor" to ATK that's some design too... specs are a kind of design, after all...

Interesting topic but we could end up debating how many angels dance on the head of a pin and whether they are waltzing or polkaing...

I think we could agree that SpaceX is more vertically integrated than many other companies in this space though?

[nadreck]

#3 belongs in the second group, and they also contracted for the boat

I considered NASA the client there, particularly the part about the different retrieval urgencies

The second group is what all aerospace companies do. 

The comment was made below that they are more integrated than most companies (and particularly than the ones far larger than them)

They contract for #6

I understood that not only did they contract some of the up and down comms and tracking but that they did some from California at least (and possibly other locations) the following link at least suggests that they might be looking at parts of it, though on a search that was what turned up not the reference I was hoping for to comments about their tracking and comms operations.
http://www.startuphire.com/job/ground-segment-engineer-communications-189092

They did #1 at the Cape and VAFB.

#3 doesn't involve much management.
#4 is TBD

You can't say they exist for the purpose of going to Mars and then say that designing a Mars probe is TBD - in fact they have probably designed (at a high level anyway) several different probes and some in-situ resource stuff.

Yes, it is at this time.  Not until they really start going to Mars
As for space station or depot, only if it helps them get to Mars

I think, much like when Elon first wanted to get into launch his greenhouse to Mars, he will find steps along the way of getting what he wants that require a space station/depot that to meet his schedule SpaceX or some other Musk venture, will have to build.

[Lars_J]

I fail to see the point of this thread.

Besides, we don't want to cause Jim to spontaneously combust due to another "look how great SpaceX is" type of thread.

[nadreck]

Lars my purpose for this thread is to find out what other businesses SpaceX is in, is planning on being in, and those businesses that people 'reasonably' expect them to go into. Why I want to learn more about that, and about how other people see it, is because I can't help but want to understand what space related businesses (and some not so obviously related) will change.

Just like Tesla's battery factory has implications that may change other types of businesses, so may SpaceX.  This isn't about mindless SpaceX cheerleading, it is about learning more about their impact.  I feel Google's contributions to robotics is critically important to understand where robotics will be applied that changes life and business. I feel the same way about SpaceX.  We can argue all we want about how far off 2nd stage recovery and rapid reuse is (or if it will ever happen at all) but I am also interested in the implications of what that cost reduction would do independent of that discussion.

[Jim]

#3 belongs in the second group, and they also contracted for the boat

I considered NASA the client there, particularly the part about the different retrieval urgencies

No, Spacex is the client.  They need the capsule so they can unload the cargo it is carrying for NASA.  NASA doesn't care about the capsule.

You can't say they exist for the purpose of going to Mars and then say that designing a Mars probe is TBD - in fact they have probably designed (at a high level anyway) several different probes and some in-situ resource stuff.

Yes, I can since it is too early for one much less several

[Jim]

Lars my purpose for this thread is to find out what other businesses SpaceX is in, is planning on being in, and those businesses that people 'reasonably' expect them to go into. Why I want to learn more about that, and about how other people see it, is because I can't help but want to understand what space related businesses (and some not so obviously related) will change.

Just like Tesla's battery factory has implications that may change other types of businesses, so may SpaceX.  This isn't about mindless SpaceX cheerleading, it is about learning more about their impact.  I feel Google's contributions to robotics is critically important to understand where robotics will be applied that changes life and business. I feel the same way about SpaceX.  We can argue all we want about how far off 2nd stage recovery and rapid reuse is (or if it will ever happen at all) but I am also interested in the implications of what that cost reduction would do independent of that discussion.

They are in the same business as other aerospace contractors, not much to see here.
And what impact?

This is just another variation of a cheerleading thread that rehashes the same topics that have been discussed many times.

[Jim]

Jim, all aerospace companies design and build rocket engines?
Can we add new technologies, now that they are starting engines in a hypersonic air flow?

Many have and do. Boeing owned Rocketdyne at one time
Starting engines in a hypersonic air flow is not new technology, just a new application to existing.

[Overmind]

To argue from a first principle her.
Do SpaceX have any design customers beside themselves.?
No.
But they were involved in the Stratolaunch booster for a time. AFAIK the only case were they designed  hardware for sale. But som technology has been transfared between the Musk companies.

[CuddlyRocket]

The problem with diversification is that it distracts management attention from the core objectives of the company. SpaceX isn't purely motivated by the aim of making money, but by its primary objective of creating the transportation infrastructure to enable the colonisation of Mars. Anything that distracts from that they won't pursue - unless a shortage of cash is even more distracting! - but it's possible that there could be businesses they could pursue that won't be distracting, or which bring in additional management resource to compensate.

The obvious one is to sell any of their products - Merlin engines, Draco thrusters, avionic systems etc - to third parties. Or if they have under-utilised resource; perhaps in design or manufacture, or launch services from any of the pads they operate.

[Overmind]

The problem with diversification is that it distracts management attention from the core objectives of the company. SpaceX isn't purely motivated by the aim of making money, but by its primary objective of creating the transportation infrastructure to enable the colonisation of Mars. Anything that distracts from that they won't pursue - unless a shortage of cash is even more distracting! - but it's possible that there could be businesses they could pursue that won't be distracting, or which bring in additional management resource to compensate.

The obvious one is to sell any of their products - Merlin engines, Draco thrusters, avionic systems etc - to third parties. Or if they have under-utilised resource; perhaps in design or manufacture, or launch services from any of the pads they operate.

Exactly. Thats why they  dropped that Stratolaunch project.

[Dave G]

Ok, first of all to stimulate discussion, my major learning technique, and second because the comments about SpaceX being a vertically integrated business on another thread, I thought I would explore with those of you here the different businesses that SpaceX is currently involved in and those that reasonable speculation would put them in in the future...

I don't know that SpaceX has made any efforts to resell their manufacturing services, but given that Tesla made drive trains for other company's cars, I don't think Elon and the rest of SpaceX would have any objections to making rocket parts for other companies, nor designing them...

Many people here are super-focused on the "what", and try to make conclusions from that.

I'm more focused on the "why". 

For example: Why is SpaceX vertically integrated?

Below is an excerpt from an interview with Max Vozoff, formerly of SpaceX.  This seems to indicate vertical integration was never really a goal for SpaceX, but rather just a necessity to achieve other goals.  Here's the excerpt:

There's a YouTube video of Elon speaking somewhere in 2003 saying ...  "we're really just a systems integrator, we're buying things from other people", but by the time I showed up in 2005 that had completely turned around and pretty much everything was getting done in-house. 

And you can see why when you see the interactions with these suppliers, particularly the ones in the space industry.  They think they're the only ones who can make this widget or who have the secret sauce, and when you say "no, you're too expensive", they say "well, that's what it is". And they're used to customers who, if they slip the schedule and double the price, the customer shrugs and goes back to headquarters and says, "well, it's gonna take twice as long and it's gonna cost twice as much", and that's how things go in a traditional government run program.

But SpaceX would say "no, that's not acceptable", and they'd cancel the contract.  And sometimes these suppliers were literally scoffing on the phone as you hung up, and call you back a couple of months later saying "so, have you changed your mind yet?"  And being able to say to them that "no, if you can do it, then maybe somebody else can do it too", like either SpaceX figured out how to do it themselves, because they hired some smart people and gave them the resources and tools, or you find another supplier with maybe a non-space version and you upgrade and qualify it for space.

And now what you've done, this backward supplier has bred a competitor for themselves, where they're not used to competition.  I mean, many of the suppliers in this industry would just go out of business in a heartbeat if competition were actually introduced.

So really that's the game changing stuff that SpaceX has been doing: bringing stuff in-house, not just because it gives them control of cost and schedule, but because the space suppliers, traditional suppliers just don't get it.  They're not used to being held to schedules and budgets.

And that's not true of everybody, but there is list of anecdotes I could tell you about suppliers with this attitude.  And in each case either SpaceX brings in in-house and makes it successfully, or they find another supplier and upgrade it, and that supplier is usually thrilled to have a whole new market opened up for them.

http://thespaceshow.wordpress.com/2011/03/05/max-vozoff-friday-3-4-11/

Or for that matter: Why was SpaceX formed to begin with?

Elon's original idea philanthropic.  He wanted to put a small greenhouse on Mars using a Russian ICBM.  At the time, he thought putting "life" on Mars would get people interested in space again, which would help build the political will for space exploration.  But after Elon's initial investigations into this effort, he found two things:
1) Most people are already interested in space.
2) Launch vehicle costs are the major issue holding back space exploration.

So Elon formed SpaceX specifically to lower launch vehicle costs.  To be clear, SpaceX was not formed to maximize profits, as this would hinder space exploration.  This is why they've pushed out their IPO indefinitely.  SpaceX needs revenue to expand toward their goal, but its pretty clear that all revenue will be reinvested in the company, leaving no profits for the next decade, probably longer.

So then: Why would SpaceX want to use their vertical integration capabilities to sell parts that would enable their competitors?

To me, the answer seems simple.  They would do it if they thought it would advance their goals, which is to accelerate space exploration.  In other words, if they believed that the project that would use their vertically produced part or sub-assembly has a good chance of success, and it would help to lower launch costs within the industry, they would probably sell it.

[Darkseraph]

To paraphrase the late Walter White

"I'm not in the satellite launch business, I'm in the EMPIRE business!" 

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

Yes, all the effort in new projects have the single goal of lowering access to space costs.  This include launchers and returnable cargo and crew spacecraft. 

So from a point of view of what will SpaceX do with thier current and future capabilities always evaluate against that goal to see if it fits.

[nadreck]

So Elon formed SpaceX specifically to lower launch vehicle costs.  To be clear, SpaceX was not formed to maximize profits, as this would hinder space exploration.  This is why they've pushed out their IPO indefinitely.  SpaceX needs revenue to expand toward their goal, but its pretty clear that all revenue will be reinvested in the company, leaving no profits for the next decade, probably longer.

So then: Why would SpaceX want to use their vertical integration capabilities to sell parts that would enable their competitors?

To me, the answer seems simple.  They would do it if they thought it would advance their goals, which is to accelerate space exploration.  In other words, if they believed that the project that would use their vertically produced part or sub-assembly has a good chance of success, and it would help to lower launch costs within the industry, they would probably sell it.

SpaceX wasn't formed to maximize profits, however you maximize profits by finding the way to have lower costs than your competitors and price at a point where the amount of business you stimulate into existence with lower pricing multiplied by your margin hits a peak (which in the case of companies like Ford, Southwest Airlines, Microsoft created the most total profit but more importantly the highest return on equity in their areas for an extended period of time).  Legacy Aerospace companies in your example above (I think I heard Elon say what you quoted about the interchange with a company over parts) actually don't maximize profit for the company by playing the game the way it has been played from 1975 to today, what they do is keep the people in charge, in charge, and new entrants (except the audacious ones like Elon) from breaking in.  You make very little profit in cost plus contracting, and certainly no great return on capital, you do make a lot of paper work, levels of management, schedule delays, and you make good people leave a sector they love for a sector where they feel they contribute a larger part to the whole.

SpaceX is making what is needed to accomplish Elon's goal, and because that includes drastically reducing launch costs, it will drastically change the launch industry, that change should be similar to the one ushered in by the Tin Lizzy. The crux will be how much new business is stimulated by much lower launch costs?  Some people will tell you that if you cut launch costs by 50% you might get 100% more business for a net spending that is roughly the same for launching and maybe 50% more for the actual payloads, many would also opine that the other costs for the payloads would then kick in to limit how much more was spent on launches and that drastically reducing the price by a subsequent 50% (now to 25% of the current costs) would do little to stimulate more business.  The proof that this logic is wrong will come when we see payload costs come down significantly to match the drop in launch costs. This can and will happen as the main reason for the ultra high payload costs is that they have become entrenched like the launch services - fortunately there is a far lower barrier to entry there - and thousands of people already involved in existing micro and nano satellite projects on shoe string budgets (shoe string compared to existing commercial payloads). Crowdsourcing  has already funded several projects. 

[Robotbeat]

Launch is a low-margin industry. Spacecraft building I believe has higher margins. If SpaceX does succeed in lowering launch costs, their revenue may drop unless they add some higher margin business. Dragon is responsible for probably about half their revenue though I'd bet they spend more resources on F9, FH, Merlin, and their launch sites. So unless the launch industry increases dramatically, SpaceX may very well be incentivized to keep their prices high. Diversification (in a way that takes advantage of significantly lower launch costs) may make sense for them and might be critical for their future. Remember that their work with Dragon means they have significant in-house experience with power, thermal, propulsion, qualification, etc for spacecraft, so there is overlap for something like commsats there.

That said, I'm not convinced there's significant evidence that SpaceX IS entering the commsat business. But it wouldn't be the worst idea ever, considering the experience from Dragon.

[symbios]

Launch is a low-margin industry. Spacecraft building I believe has higher margins. If SpaceX does succeed in lowering launch costs, their revenue may drop unless they add some higher margin business. Dragon is responsible for probably about half their revenue though I'd bet they spend more resources on F9, FH, Merlin, and their launch sites. So unless the launch industry increases dramatically, SpaceX may very well be incentivized to keep their prices high.

Maybe this is why they are so keen on the security launches. That will be high priced new LVs. They will have a low priced segment the commercial F9R and the the high priced segment military/NASA. 10% on a 140 mil is a lot better than 10 % on what 20... 40... mil? They can make 1 government flight and earn as much as on 7 commercial...

[Dave G]

SpaceX wasn't formed to maximize profits, however you maximize profits by finding the way to have lower costs than your competitors and price at a point where the amount of business you stimulate into existence with lower pricing multiplied by your margin hits a peak

I'll say it again.  SpaceX is aiming for zero profits (none) for at least the next 10 years.

To be clear, I'm not talking about income.  Profit = Income - Expenses.  For the next 10 years or more, SpaceX will raise their expenses to meet their income, or perhaps exceed their income by using more investment.  By raising expenses, I mean developing BFR, MCT, and other new projects.

This is why SpaceX has pushed out their IPO indefinitely.  Stock holders generally want to see a profit a lot sooner.

[Space Ghost 1962]

Launch is a low-margin industry. Spacecraft building I believe has higher margins.

Yes, but each has very different capital structures.

Companies in both have a reason - usually its a fall back ride to orbit to keep under control galloping launch services costs.

If SpaceX does succeed in lowering launch costs, their revenue may drop unless they add some higher margin business. Dragon is responsible for probably about half their revenue though I'd bet they spend more resources on F9, FH, Merlin, and their launch sites. So unless the launch industry increases dramatically, SpaceX may very well be incentivized to keep their prices high.

You mean flight rate/frequency/cadence.

Either you supplement/enhance market size, which saps your capital base, or you must increase productivity to accomplish increase in payloads. This assumes an increase in demand - where?

Diversification (in a way that takes advantage of significantly lower launch costs) may make sense for them and might be critical for their future. Remember that their work with Dragon means they have significant in-house experience with power, thermal, propulsion, qualification, etc for spacecraft, so there is overlap for something like commsats there.

That said, I'm not convinced there's significant evidence that SpaceX IS entering the commsat business. But it wouldn't be the worst idea ever, considering the experience from Dragon.

Nor am I. They could easily become to thinly spread with not enough benefit and to large a cost structure.

A more efficient way is to identify productivity improvements in existing industries, specify such that to source through that path it compels industry/market to use such. That means that capacity in SC matches launch services.

It is the only way to create the conditions to support a growth in demand that drives sustainable launch frequency that then results in a chance to bring down cost to orbit permanently.

You cannot compel demand, you can only reduce the barriers to accessing the demand, such that the demand can occur and not be bottle necked.

[nadreck]

SpaceX wasn't formed to maximize profits, however you maximize profits by finding the way to have lower costs than your competitors and price at a point where the amount of business you stimulate into existence with lower pricing multiplied by your margin hits a peak

I'll say it again.  SpaceX is aiming for zero profits (none) for at least the next 10 years.

To be clear, I'm not talking about income.  Profit = Income - Expenses.  For the next 10 years or more, SpaceX will raise their expenses to meet their income, or perhaps exceed their income by using more investment.  By raising expenses, I mean developing BFR, MCT, and other new projects.

This is why SpaceX has pushed out their IPO indefinitely.  Stock holders generally want to see a profit a lot sooner.

I completely disagree with you. Profit = Income - operating costs - depreciation/amortization - taxes - interest.  Capital spending does not come out of profit. SpaceX will keep from having any free cash flow for 10 years - or maybe forever (many long term giants in their industry stayed growth companies for ever and never paid out dividends always finding ways to take free cash and reinvest it in capital projects).

SpaceX to accomplish what it needs to accomplish needs to make capital investments, the only way you make big capital investments is to either issue a lot of equity (IPO) or you spend your profits on growth. Microsoft, Berkshire Hatheway, etc all piled their huge profits into new businesses areas. SpaceX's (really Elon's) goal is a new business area (MCT) that is a ways down the road. It will generate inordinate profits compared to the equity invested OR it will have to go public OR it will totally fail to accomplish Elon's goal.  A number bandied about not that long ago was $1B to get from zero to hero (attached to a booster) on the Raptor engine. That $1B has to come from somewhere. Unlike a cost plus contract environment SpaceX needs to make a profit to invest in that.

[nadreck]

I mean capital expenses are not deducted from income to calculate profit. Capital expenses are paid for with borrowed money, equity raised in private or public markets, or from the cash flow of a business.

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

The business has two parts: Operations (includes manufacture) and new development.

Any cash flow surplus in operations is used to fund new development.  Somewhere they have balanced their prices on operations to fund the development rate they want to accomplish.  Also new investors/investments from external sources can be used to increase the development rate or other capitol property expansions (real estate, launch pads, etc).

P.S. Remember Development work is mostly manpower costs not capitol equipment.

[nadreck]

Labour to develop a new product or device that has a life cycle longer than a year is a capital expense. Microsoft had little plant or equipment to buy, but as they developed Windows, Office, and a variety of things that never left drawing boards they spend a lot of capital on R&D. When a product was discontinued as a product, any capital that had not been depreciated would be been written down.

Still, taking the Raptor as an example all development work on it, until the first use, is a capital expense. If it never is used then they write off the R&D and it becomes an expense at the time the project is discontinued. However, if it is used they could arguably depreciate some of the development expenses over 10 years or more - look how long the RD-180 has been in manufacturing.

[JasonAW3]

SpaceX wasn't formed to maximize profits, however you maximize profits by finding the way to have lower costs than your competitors and price at a point where the amount of business you stimulate into existence with lower pricing multiplied by your margin hits a peak

I'll say it again.  SpaceX is aiming for zero profits (none) for at least the next 10 years.

To be clear, I'm not talking about income.  Profit = Income - Expenses.  For the next 10 years or more, SpaceX will raise their expenses to meet their income, or perhaps exceed their income by using more investment.  By raising expenses, I mean developing BFR, MCT, and other new projects.

This is why SpaceX has pushed out their IPO indefinitely.  Stock holders generally want to see a profit a lot sooner.

So, in otherwords, they are currently charging just enough to cover all their expenses, including taxes, fees, FAA certification, experimenting with new landing techniques, and pretty much what they are currently doing.  I'm not quite sure that I believe that.  While making enough money to support all current activities, they would have to be making enough to support planned expansion of the company, unless they are "stealing from Peter to pay Paul" from Tesla and Solar City.

Edit/CR - material related to Tesla and subsequent posts in response removed

[deruch]

Did SpaceX suddenly get into the accounting business and no one told me? 

[Robotbeat]

SpaceX wasn't formed to maximize profits, however you maximize profits by finding the way to have lower costs than your competitors and price at a point where the amount of business you stimulate into existence with lower pricing multiplied by your margin hits a peak

I'll say it again.  SpaceX is aiming for zero profits (none) for at least the next 10 years.

To be clear, I'm not talking about income.  Profit = Income - Expenses.  For the next 10 years or more, SpaceX will raise their expenses to meet their income, or perhaps exceed their income by using more investment.  By raising expenses, I mean developing BFR, MCT, and other new projects.

This is why SpaceX has pushed out their IPO indefinitely.  Stock holders generally want to see a profit a lot sooner.

So, in otherwords, they are currently charging just enough to cover all their expenses, including taxes, fees, FAA certification, experimenting with new landing techniques, and pretty much what they are currently doing.  I'm not quite sure that I believe that.  While making enough money to support all current activities, they would have to be making enough to support planned expansion of the company, unless they are "stealing from Peter to pay Paul" from Tesla and Solar City.

They aren't the same companies. I would have thought that's obvious.

Edit/CR - material related to Tesla in quote removed

[Dudely]

I agree that they will seek to minimize profits. This is the model Amazon uses and it works. You can dominate any market really easy when you make it almost impossible for anyone to make money.

[MTom]

I agree that they will seek to minimize profits. This is the model Amazon uses and it works. You can dominate any market really easy when you make it almost impossible for anyone to make money.

The simple strategy "minimizing profit" is a suicide strategy. Amazon and SpaceX following not that strategy.
They are following the strategy making quality and delivering fast, for low prices. This is the heaviest: three in one.
Most of the companies can make only two from this three.)

[watermod]

Don't forget Musk's family of companies that could behave mutually to support colonization.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keiretsu Kieretsu: ( SpaceX, Tesla, Battery Company, Solar City )

[wannamoonbase]

I agree that they will seek to minimize profits. This is the model Amazon uses and it works. You can dominate any market really easy when you make it almost impossible for anyone to make money.

The simple strategy "minimizing profit" is a suicide strategy. Amazon and SpaceX following not that strategy.
They are following the strategy making quality and delivering fast, for low prices. This is the heaviest: three in one.
Most of the companies can make only two from this three.)

I don't think Amazon and SpaceX are similar businesses in anyway.  I manage my own investment and I would never touch amazon.  One might make money trading it, but it's not an investment.  They lose money constantly.  That's a path to failure.

SpaceX is a startup.  The most there revenues are going to be is 1-3 billion a year.  At least for the next 10 years or so. 

I think the day SpaceX becomes publicly traded is the end of the 'can do, revolutionary culture'. Make it a widely held employee owned company.  One where space and rocket fans have a home.  Start filing quarterly reports with the SEC and vision dies.

Besides, until someone finds a solid block of gold on Mars there's no way I'd buy shares in a company that says it's sending people to mars.  Exciting yes, a viable paying business no.

[Pete]

Besides, until someone finds a solid block of gold on Mars...

At current launch costs, the sands of Mars could be all 100-carat diamonds, and it would still not pay economically to go fetch them.

Mind you, the scientific community might pay more for a nice authentic scoop of Mars dirt than for a similar weight of diamond....

[QuantumG]

Diamonds aren't really that fungible, you want something a little more moreish.

[wannamoonbase]

Besides, until someone finds a solid block of gold on Mars...

At current launch costs, the sands of Mars could be all 100-carat diamonds, and it would still not pay economically to go fetch them.

Mind you, the scientific community might pay more for a nice authentic scoop of Mars dirt than for a similar weight of diamond....

Only for the first few scopes, pounds or tons. Then it becomes dirt.

[CuddlyRocket]

Besides, until someone finds a solid block of gold on Mars...

At current launch costs, the sands of Mars could be all 100-carat diamonds, and it would still not pay economically to go fetch them.

No, but if you'd gone to Mars anyway, and your reusable lander/return vehicle has (as envisaged) spare payload when returning, both gold as well as diamonds would certainly be worth bringing back!

[StealerofSuns]

Besides, until someone finds a solid block of gold on Mars...

At current launch costs, the sands of Mars could be all 100-carat diamonds, and it would still not pay economically to go fetch them.

No, but if you'd gone to Mars anyway, and your reusable lander/return vehicle has (as envisaged) spare payload when returning, both gold as well as diamonds would certainly be worth bringing back!

Why the mention of "current launch costs" anyway? This is, after all, SpaceX we are talking about.