Exclusive Peek at SpaceX Data Shows Loss in 2015

[Brovane]

So our "favorite" WSJ journalist published another hit piece on SpaceX using internal confidential documents from SpaceX that had been leaked (I assume).  It is an interesting peak into SpaceX's financials and expected rate of launches, 52 launches in 2019. 

(Mod Note: If you think sharing this leaked information from the WSJ article is inappropriate feel free to remove this thread.)

http://www.wsj.com/articles/exclusive-peek-at-spacex-data-shows-loss-in-2015-heavy-expectations-for-nascent-internet-service-1484316455

[Robotbeat]

Yeah, commsats are /potentially/ way more profitable than launch.

Intelsat is $2 billion per year revenue, and Viasat $1.5 billion (with just a few satellites).

Even with competition from OneWeb (hi, Jon!), it'd be hugely surprising if a successfully deployed SpaceX constellation doesn't exceed SpaceX's launch revenue. Assuming SpaceX stays in business.

[Robotbeat]

Hit piece using stolen documents.

And it actually makes SpaceX look pretty good in spite of the failure.

[yg1968]

Hit piece using stolen documents.

And it actually makes SpaceX look pretty good in spite of the failure.

Documents provided by former employees according to the article.

[FishInferno]

Holy hell, those are some incredible estimates for the internet revenue!  That's a huge market, and if they can undercut Comcast and the like in terms of cost and performance (and customer service), they may not need any outside investors for the ITS...

[yg1968]

Yeah, commsats are /potentially/ way more profitable than launch.

Intelsat is $2 billion per year revenue, and Viasat $1.5 billion (with just a few satellites).

Even with competition from OneSat (hi, Jon!), it'd be hugely surprising if a successfully deployed SpaceX constellation doesn't exceed SpaceX's launch revenue. Assuming SpaceX stays in business.

It confirms what you were saying about ITS being funded by commsats.

[dglow]

Publishing a breakdown of revenue by customer is in incredibly poor taste.

[Brovane]

Hit piece using stolen documents.

And it actually makes SpaceX look pretty good in spite of the failure.

I agree, considering the failure and then the amount of revenue being pushed right back into the company for R&D.  I would think they would have very little to no profit even without a failure. 

I expect some harsh language came out of Musk's mouth when he found out about this article and the data published.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

Profitable for 2011 through 2014 is no mean feat given all they had going on.

[woods170]

Hit piece using stolen documents.

And it actually makes SpaceX look pretty good in spite of the failure.

Documents provided by former employees according to the article.

If that is the case than those former employees are in deep sh*t, assuming that the published documents are real. Pasztor himself may be in trouble if those documents are indeed stolen.

[Robotbeat]

Holy hell, those are some incredible estimates for the internet revenue!  That's a huge market, and if they can undercut Comcast and the like in terms of cost and performance (and customer service), they may not need any outside investors for the ITS... more than twice NASA's budget eventually.

Yup.

The global launch service market is like $6b per year. Satellite services is like $150 billion and growing. There's more than an order of magnitude more money in satellite services than in launch.

And this is continually growing and expanding. Internet on airline flights, for instance. And satellites are also used for cellphone back haul (i.e. Connecting the towers) in remote locations in spite of the high cost and high latency of current satellite communications.

An overall industry worth $200-300 billion. Easy could end up being a trillion dollar industry in a couple decades from now (even inflation adjusted).

[yg1968]

Hit piece using stolen documents.

And it actually makes SpaceX look pretty good in spite of the failure.

Documents provided by former employees according to the article.

If that is the case than those former employees are in deep sh*t, assuming that the published documents are real. Pasztor himself may be in trouble if those documents are indeed stolen.

The documents are from early 2016 which suggests that the employee(s) brought these documents with them when they left SpaceX. 

[Kosmos2001]

The documents are from early 2016 which suggests that the employee(s) brought these documents with them when they left SpaceX.

What a professional behavior.

[Chris Bergin]

Thread is fine as it's open for discussion - and it's not like we're hosting the leaked info (not that we would. Financials are a big no no). Ironic this was published one day before RTF. Coincidence? Doubt it.

[yg1968]

The documents are from early 2016 which suggests that the employee(s) brought these documents with them when they left SpaceX.

What a professional behavior.

Actually, they may have had these documents prior to leaving SpaceX. But you are right, the former employee(s) likely had a motive for leaking the documents. Not very professional to leak the document, I agree. It could also get them in legal trouble if SpaceX ever found the source of the leak.

[woods170]

The documents are from early 2016 which suggests that the employee(s) brought these documents with them when they left SpaceX.

What a professional behavior.

Assuming this is what happened... If I pulled a similar stunt on my employer I would be looking at a subpoena faster than I can say quidditch.

[envy887]

Well, I think that answers the questions about whether SpaceX was losing money on every successful launch.

[yg1968]

The documents are from early 2016 which suggests that the employee(s) brought these documents with them when they left SpaceX.

What a professional behavior.

Assuming this is what happened... If I pulled a similar stunt on my employer I would be looking at a subpoena faster than I can say quidditch.

They would have to know who the leaker is. I doubt that the WSJ will disclose its source(s).

[Negan]

If the documents are from early 2016 why does the first one show the Amos-6 accident?

[dglow]

If the documents are from early 2016 why does the first one show the Amos-6 accident?

The WSJ didn't need the documents to report that.