Musk's asset accrual and paying for Mars

[spacenut]

Yes, cheaper launch costs per/kg means more launches.  More people will want to make satellites for various reasons.  NASA, the Space Force, friendly countries, will all want to get something up there.  Maybe space station labs, moon mining, asteroid mining, as well as trips to Mars.  Growth potential is great for SpaceX because they are so far ahead of others in reusability. 

Tesla on the other hand, has growth potential as they are ahead of others on vehicle manufacturing.  However, other car makers (more car makers than rocket makers), will be entering the vehicle markets.  Mostly with hybrids first, then full electric vehicles.  Yes, Tesla may be involved in other activities, but vehicles are their primary market.  For America it is mostly replacement vehicles, probably as well as Europe and Japan.  This market is limited.  You have GM, Ford, Chrysler, Volvo, Audi, Volkswagon, Mercedes, BMW, Toyota, Nissan, and many others, working on electrics, and still making conventional vehicles.  Electric charging stations are not in every town and on every corner, and they need to be fast charging.  They are also working on algae based fuels which are carbon neutral.  It may take 50 years or more for electrics to overtake conventional fuels.

SpaceX on the other hand will have Starship up and running within 2 years and price/Kg will come down and real growth will only just be beginning for space. 

[DistantTemple]

Yes, cheaper launch costs per/kg means more launches.  More people will want to make satellites for various reasons.  NASA, the Space Force, friendly countries, will all want to get something up there.  Maybe space station labs, moon mining, asteroid mining, as well as trips to Mars.  Growth potential is great for SpaceX because they are so far ahead of others in reusability. 

Tesla on the other hand, has growth potential as they are ahead of others on vehicle manufacturing.  However, other car makers (more car makers than rocket makers), will be entering the vehicle markets.  Mostly with hybrids first, then full electric vehicles.  Yes, Tesla may be involved in other activities, but vehicles are their primary market.  For America it is mostly replacement vehicles, probably as well as Europe and Japan.  This market is limited.  You have GM, Ford, Chrysler, Volvo, Audi, Volkswagon, Mercedes, BMW, Toyota, Nissan, and many others, working on electrics, and still making conventional vehicles.  Electric charging stations are not in every town and on every corner, and they need to be fast charging.  They are also working on algae based fuels which are carbon neutral.  It may take 50 years or more for electrics to overtake conventional fuels.

SpaceX on the other hand will have Starship up and running within 2 years and price/Kg will come down and real growth will only just be beginning for space.

All BOLDS are mine!

Edit: ************ my reply is pretty OTT. Its not supposed to be an attack.... but I admit it reads like one... I was half a mind to delete it. **********
Edit: my tone is way out of line here. Everyone's opinion is worth hearing in a conversation.
(EDIT: paragraph deleted...)

Refuting some of your points:
"Tesla may be involved in other activities" etc. dismisses out of hand Tesla Energy, (& Solar Generation) and ignores Full Self Driving, both likely increasingly important parts of Tesla, and contributors to its valuation.

The likely realization of your last "assertion" (prevaricated by "may") "It may take 50 years or more for electrics to overtake conventional fuels." is threatened by many western nations regulating against continued sale of ICE vehicles, and the effect this may :-) have on customer purchasing decisions, and resale values. If it becomes illegal to sell ICE cars in say 2035, at (/by) that point (in that jurisdiction) NEW ICE cars WILL overtake new non-ICE ones. If a car lasts 12 years, then by 2047, far less than 50 years, there will be a (large?) majority of non-ICE cars on the roads. I suggest this will be happening for other vehicles on a not much longer timeframe!
Similarly other manufacturers catching up, or holding significant market share is widely argued. It certainly looks like Tesla is way out in front, and has loads of room to grow, and whilst your use of "LIMITED" is factually correct it ignores the fact that there mayis likely loads of room to grow before it approaches those limits!
And charging at workplaces and residences doesn't need to be fast, and will account for most overall charging. The vast network of superchargers expanding at the current exponent, will comfortably support long distance EV travel in many regions of the world, including North America, Europe, and the richer parts of Asia.
Countering your unsubstantiated opinion with an alternative: Tesla may have 40% of the world's vehicle manufacturing market in 20 years. 80% of all new vehicles will be non-ICE, which will be 95% battery electric. Tesla FSD and RoboTaxi will be a large earner for Tesla. Tesla Energy will be a significant power storage, and distributor around the world, again raking in profits whilst reducing the cost of electricity!
Investors looking ahead at this trajectory will push Tesla to be likely the highest valued Earth company.

I do agree that SpaceX also has great prospects, but apart from Starlink, it will take the world more years to take advantage of new cheap access to space, and for new markets to build. Consumers can make decisions about buying an EV much more easily than nations and corporations can about having a new large (and seemingly financially risky) presence in space or on the Moon or Mars.
However (IMO) SX will become "THE" company, and followers will be just that, followers, and relatively specialised or niche competitors, even if very successful.

[Slarty1080]

Yes, cheaper launch costs per/kg means more launches.  More people will want to make satellites for various reasons.  NASA, the Space Force, friendly countries, will all want to get something up there.  Maybe space station labs, moon mining, asteroid mining, as well as trips to Mars.  Growth potential is great for SpaceX because they are so far ahead of others in reusability. 

Tesla on the other hand, has growth potential as they are ahead of others on vehicle manufacturing.  However, other car makers (more car makers than rocket makers), will be entering the vehicle markets.  Mostly with hybrids first, then full electric vehicles.  Yes, Tesla may be involved in other activities, but vehicles are their primary market.  For America it is mostly replacement vehicles, probably as well as Europe and Japan.  This market is limited.  You have GM, Ford, Chrysler, Volvo, Audi, Volkswagon, Mercedes, BMW, Toyota, Nissan, and many others, working on electrics, and still making conventional vehicles.  Electric charging stations are not in every town and on every corner, and they need to be fast charging.  They are also working on algae based fuels which are carbon neutral.  It may take 50 years or more for electrics to overtake conventional fuels.

SpaceX on the other hand will have Starship up and running within 2 years and price/Kg will come down and real growth will only just be beginning for space.

Internal combustion powered cars are going to be sidelined in a lot fewer than 50 years. Sales of petrol and diesel powered cars are set to be banned across wide areas in Europe within 20 years (Spain, France, UK, Ireland, Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, Slovenia and Iceland). Many cities are also planning to introduce combustion car free zones before 2030 (Rome, Milan, Amsterdam, Strasbourg, Oslo, Bergen, London and Paris). And there are plenty of other initiatives around the world.

It won’t be long before combustion cars are seen as dirty and un-cool and as electric car prices drop they will also become increasingly expensive compared to electric cars. New charging infrastructure is already appearing and will only increase over time. Large numbers of people can already recharge their cars overnight at home and for many that is sufficient for commuting purposes, with Supercharger or other fast charge stations used occasionally for longer trips. The range of electric cars is also likely to increase with battery advances.

Tesla was under estimated, misunderstood and ignored by many in the industry until it was too late and they now have a tiger by the ears. Somehow over the last ten years or so Tesla have taken on the incumbents and run rings around them. The combustion car manufactures now face an uphill struggle against an emerging giant that has rewritten the automotive manufacturing rule book.

Tesla has a better battery supply chain, a supercharger network, better software, better technology all round with more in the pipeline such as the new tab-less battery, no dealership network costs and no advertising costs. They have massive vertical integration saving them money and enabling easier software control of the entire vehicle. They are in an unparalleled position to take advantage of the coming change from combustion to electric which I’m certain they will take every advantage of.

The main stream car manufacturers are laden with debt, are behind the curve in technology, have stranded assets and will have to cannibalize their own combustion car order books to sell electric vehicles. Tesla now is the 6th most valuable American company on the US stock market, worth more than half a trillion dollars. Its market cap is now larger than Toyota’s, Ford’s and GM’s put together. It could easily be worth a multi trillion dollar amount in ten years time.

With huge new factories in Berlin Austin, Shanghai and who knows where else, Tesla is very likely to be producing millions of cars in a few years and possibly tens of millions ten years hence. The traditional combustion car manufacturers will also have to produce tens of millions of electric cars between them to compete. But they won’t all make it. I predict there will be big name casualties and mergers in the next ten years in the stampede to electric. And the biggest looser with be the combustion engine.

[DistantTemple]

Tesla is even re-inventing and up-ending even the core manufacturing processes that are touted as valuable experience and expertise of the incumbent auto manufacturers.

Therefore this existing "value" is called into question. If to compete with Tesla they have to learn new technologies that Tesla is inventing... such as high pressure precision aluminium casting large parts of the body!

We are told that existing manufacturers know manufacturing, and Tesla is just learning, and that they can pivot to EV technology....

However it may be that they have very little that's worth taking forward, and Tesla has already mastered those that are, and anything they have is outweighed by the burden of effectively obsolete factories, and processes.

Tesla has the benefit of starting from a clean slate. Its new factories, although expensive can be built to their requirements, without historical constraints.

[Coastal Ron]

Tesla is even re-inventing and up-ending even the core manufacturing processes that are touted as valuable experience and expertise of the incumbent auto manufacturers.

Therefore this existing "value" is called into question. If to compete with Tesla they have to learn new technologies that Tesla is inventing... such as high pressure precision aluminium casting large parts of the body!

We are told that existing manufacturers know manufacturing, and Tesla is just learning, and that they can pivot to EV technology....

"We are told..."

That is one of those statements that purports to convey facts but doesn't. Just wanted to point that out.

However it may be that they have very little that's worth taking forward, and Tesla has already mastered those that are, and anything they have is outweighed by the burden of effectively obsolete factories, and processes.

Tesla has the benefit of starting from a clean slate. Its new factories, although expensive can be built to their requirements, without historical constraints.

The key with Tesla that isn't always appreciated is that they don't have the same overhead that current car manufacturers have. For legal reasons car companies couldn't sell their own cars, and had to use dealerships to sell cars. Those are added profit points that increase the cost of the car to the ultimate buyer.

Tesla sells direct to the consumer, without sales people and dealerships (they do have some showrooms though), which removes a lot of 3rd party profit from the ultimate consumer price of the car. Tesla also doesn't advertise, or do periodic sales events, which also can affect the ultimate profit of a car.

Tesla is able to this so far because they don't build a commodity product. Sure, they sell sedans and SUV's, and soon a pickup truck, but everything they build is all electric, which is still a niche market. However they dominate that niche market, and they are well positioned to expand that niche market - as they have been doing since the Model S.

Bottom line is that they currently have a winning formula, which is why their stock price has been going up so much. The big question is whether someone else will be able to compete with them, but even so I think Tesla can still be a dominant car manufacturer.

Which means Elon Musk is going to continue to be very wealthy, and he will be able to convert that wealth into assets for Mars colonization.

[Slarty1080]

Tesla is even re-inventing and up-ending even the core manufacturing processes that are touted as valuable experience and expertise of the incumbent auto manufacturers.

Therefore this existing "value" is called into question. If to compete with Tesla they have to learn new technologies that Tesla is inventing... such as high pressure precision aluminium casting large parts of the body!

We are told that existing manufacturers know manufacturing, and Tesla is just learning, and that they can pivot to EV technology....

"We are told..."

That is one of those statements that purports to convey facts but doesn't. Just wanted to point that out.

However it may be that they have very little that's worth taking forward, and Tesla has already mastered those that are, and anything they have is outweighed by the burden of effectively obsolete factories, and processes.

Tesla has the benefit of starting from a clean slate. Its new factories, although expensive can be built to their requirements, without historical constraints.

The key with Tesla that isn't always appreciated is that they don't have the same overhead that current car manufacturers have. For legal reasons car companies couldn't sell their own cars, and had to use dealerships to sell cars. Those are added profit points that increase the cost of the car to the ultimate buyer.

Tesla sells direct to the consumer, without sales people and dealerships (they do have some showrooms though), which removes a lot of 3rd party profit from the ultimate consumer price of the car. Tesla also doesn't advertise, or do periodic sales events, which also can affect the ultimate profit of a car.

Tesla is able to this so far because they don't build a commodity product. Sure, they sell sedans and SUV's, and soon a pickup truck, but everything they build is all electric, which is still a niche market. However they dominate that niche market, and they are well positioned to expand that niche market - as they have been doing since the Model S.

Bottom line is that they currently have a winning formula, which is why their stock price has been going up so much. The big question is whether someone else will be able to compete with them, but even so I think Tesla can still be a dominant car manufacturer.

Which means Elon Musk is going to continue to be very wealthy, and he will be able to convert that wealth into assets for Mars colonization.

It seems likely that the smaller manufacturers like GM, Ford and Toyota (compared to Tesla) will have time to capture a significant part of the electric car market due to brand loyalty and the shear size of the market if they are focused enough. But the car market is gong to look very different in ten years time and some familiar faces are likely going to be absent. I suggest its possible even likely that Tesla will eventually take a huge slice out of the global market and become the most valuable company on Earth. I think Elon Musk will become very rich indeed.

[Johnnyhinbos]

As soon as people change their understanding of Tesla as a “car company” and instead understand it as a service and utility company, the sooner they will understand why it has its current and future valuation...

[Coastal Ron]

As soon as people change their understanding of Tesla as a “car company” and instead understand it as a service and utility company, the sooner they will understand why it has its current and future valuation...

Tesla currently only gets 6% of their revenue from services. Overwhelmingly the revenue Tesla gets is from hardware sales (mainly car sales), so you're going to have to explain why we should be calling the Tesla of 2020 a "services" company...

[Johnnyhinbos]

As soon as people change their understanding of Tesla as a “car company” and instead understand it as a service and utility company, the sooner they will understand why it has its current and future valuation...

Tesla currently only gets 6% of their revenue from services. Overwhelmingly the revenue Tesla gets is from hardware sales (mainly car sales), so you're going to have to explain why we should be calling the Tesla of 2020 a "services" company...

I don’t consider the Tesla of 2020 a services company, but I do look to 2030 or even 2025 Tesla as such and therefore my investments are long (and I’ve done extremely well by it already). Tesla as an insurance provider, energy supplier, autonomous software provider, transportation provider - both in freight and people moving - as well as a many tier automotive provider. There is a many X increase multiplier still built into this company. And with Elon’s compensation structure there’s a very high probability chance he’ll be the world’s wealthiest person by 2030.

I won’t even go into what’s about to happen to the stock price by Dec 21

[OTV Booster]

Asteroid mining remains the biggest long term opportunity of all. Impossible BSE (Before Starship Era), an immense opportunity ASE (After Starship Era).

I see this as as more important for martian economic development than for earthing Musk's asset growth. But then, if things work out, it might be hard to tell them apart.

I can see asteroid mining as being a thing in the more distant future, but I doubt it will be here fast enough to play a significant role in the development of Mars during Musk's lifetime. A huge amount of work will first be required on mining technology and new space based infrastructure. There is zero support infrastructure currently and building it will take a lot of time and money. The focus for the foreseeable future appears to be on LEO, the Moon and Mars. Just getting anyone to the red planet and returning them to Earth will require a huge investment and could easily take the best part of a decade.

Veering OT and I'll shut up. Big nuts to crack before Mars can even think about venturing further. But, after the first one or two landings an ever increasing amount of effort will go to some combination of expanding capabilities and research that supports expansion.


One resource that Mars will be rich in is spaceships. Propellant production will be a proven technology and dedicating some for a prelim asteroid survey would definitely fall under the heading of supporting research that furthers expansion. Instrumentation would have to come from earth. Even one ton of remote sensing apparatus is a big payload by current interplanetary standards. That's payload, not payload support equipment.


Most of the support equipment will already be on the starship hulks. All earth needs to directly supply will be the instrumentation.


We know of earth crossing asteroids. Surely there are mars crossing asteroids and dV to the main belt isn't all that great. It wouldn't take much to get started and the potential payoff, even if not imminent, is too large to ignore. Yup, not a shoo in. But then Mars isn't either.


Mr. Musk may not see economical asteroid mining in his lifetime but I bet he gets to see enough of the prelim work to know it will work.


Back On Topic.

[OTV Booster]

Yes, cheaper launch costs per/kg means more launches.  More people will want to make satellites for various reasons.  NASA, the Space Force, friendly countries, will all want to get something up there.  Maybe space station labs, moon mining, asteroid mining, as well as trips to Mars.  Growth potential is great for SpaceX because they are so far ahead of others in reusability. 

Tesla on the other hand, has growth potential as they are ahead of others on vehicle manufacturing.  However, other car makers (more car makers than rocket makers), will be entering the vehicle markets.  Mostly with hybrids first, then full electric vehicles.  Yes, Tesla may be involved in other activities, but vehicles are their primary market.  For America it is mostly replacement vehicles, probably as well as Europe and Japan.  This market is limited.  You have GM, Ford, Chrysler, Volvo, Audi, Volkswagon, Mercedes, BMW, Toyota, Nissan, and many others, working on electrics, and still making conventional vehicles.  Electric charging stations are not in every town and on every corner, and they need to be fast charging.  They are also working on algae based fuels which are carbon neutral.  It may take 50 years or more for electrics to overtake conventional fuels.

SpaceX on the other hand will have Starship up and running within 2 years and price/Kg will come down and real growth will only just be beginning for space.

All BOLDS are mine!
It is good to see in your opinion piece that you do not commit yourself, and condition most of your statements with "may". Such an indecisive position is an inadequate foundation for even an impression that Tesla has a lower potential for growth than SpaceX. You have also used this no-committal approach to voice many arguments commonly seen from short-sellers and FUD merchants, leaving yourself open to (from this piece) seemingly justified accusations of bias.

Refuting some of your points:
"Tesla may be involved in other activities" etc. dismisses out of hand Tesla Energy, (& Solar Generation) and ignores Full Self Driving, both likely increasingly important parts of Tesla, and contributors to its valuation.

The likely realization of your last "assertion" (prevaricated by "may") "It may take 50 years or more for electrics to overtake conventional fuels." is threatened by many western nations regulating against continued sale of ICE vehicles, and the effect this may :-) have on customer purchasing decisions, and resale values. If it becomes illegal to sell ICE cars in say 2035, at (/by) that point (in that jurisdiction) NEW ICE cars WILL overtake new non-ICE ones. If a car lasts 12 years, then by 2047, far less than 50 years, there will be a (large?) majority of non-ICE cars on the roads. I suggest this will be happening for other vehicles on a not much longer timeframe!
Similarly other manufacturers catching up, or holding significant market share is widely argued. It certainly looks like Tesla is way out in front, and has loads of room to grow, and whilst your use of "LIMITED" is factually correct it ignores the fact that there mayis likely loads of room to grow before it approaches those limits!
And charging at workplaces and residences doesn't need to be fast, and will account for most overall charging. The vast network of superchargers expanding at the current exponent, will comfortably support long distance EV travel in many regions of the world, including North America, Europe, and the richer parts of Asia.
Countering your unsubstantiated opinion with an alternative: Tesla may have 40% of the world's vehicle manufacturing market in 20 years. 80% of all new vehicles will be non-ICE, which will be 95% battery electric. Tesla FSD and RoboTaxi will be a large earner for Tesla. Tesla Energy will be a significant power storage, and distributor around the world, again raking in profits whilst reducing the cost of electricity!
Investors looking ahead at this trajectory will push Tesla to be likely the highest valued Earth company.

I do agree that SpaceX also has great prospects, but apart from Starlink, it will take the world more years to take advantage of new cheap access to space, and for new markets to build. Consumers can make decisions about buying an EV much more easily than nations and corporations can about having a new large (and seemingly financially risky) presence in space or on the Moon or Mars.
However (IMO) SX will become "THE" company, and followers will be just that, followers, and relatively specialised or niche competitors, even if very successful.

Yo. I pretty much agree with the points you make but there was no call to turn it into a personal attack on spacenut. We have a lot of new members and lurkers. You set the wrong tone for NSF.

[DistantTemple]

Yes, cheaper launch costs per/kg means more launches.  More people will want to make satellites for various reasons.  NASA, the Space Force, friendly countries, will all want to get something up there.  Maybe space station labs, moon mining, asteroid mining, as well as trips to Mars.  Growth potential is great for SpaceX because they are so far ahead of others in reusability. 

Tesla on the other hand, has growth potential as they are ahead of others on vehicle manufacturing.  However, other car makers (more car makers than rocket makers), will be entering the vehicle markets.  Mostly with hybrids first, then full electric vehicles.  Yes, Tesla may be involved in other activities, but vehicles are their primary market.  For America it is mostly replacement vehicles, probably as well as Europe and Japan.  This market is limited.  You have GM, Ford, Chrysler, Volvo, Audi, Volkswagon, Mercedes, BMW, Toyota, Nissan, and many others, working on electrics, and still making conventional vehicles.  Electric charging stations are not in every town and on every corner, and they need to be fast charging.  They are also working on algae based fuels which are carbon neutral.  It may take 50 years or more for electrics to overtake conventional fuels.

SpaceX on the other hand will have Starship up and running within 2 years and price/Kg will come down and real growth will only just be beginning for space.

All BOLDS are mine!
It is good to see in your opinion piece that you do not commit yourself, and condition most of your statements with "may". Such an indecisive position is an inadequate foundation for even an impression that Tesla has a lower potential for growth than SpaceX. You have also used this no-committal approach to voice many arguments commonly seen from short-sellers and FUD merchants, leaving yourself open to (from this piece) seemingly justified accusations of bias.

Refuting some of your points:
"Tesla may be involved in other activities" etc. dismisses out of hand Tesla Energy, (& Solar Generation) and ignores Full Self Driving, both likely increasingly important parts of Tesla, and contributors to its valuation.

The likely realization of your last "assertion" (prevaricated by "may") "It may take 50 years or more for electrics to overtake conventional fuels." is threatened by many western nations regulating against continued sale of ICE vehicles, and the effect this may :-) have on customer purchasing decisions, and resale values. If it becomes illegal to sell ICE cars in say 2035, at (/by) that point (in that jurisdiction) NEW ICE cars WILL overtake new non-ICE ones. If a car lasts 12 years, then by 2047, far less than 50 years, there will be a (large?) majority of non-ICE cars on the roads. I suggest this will be happening for other vehicles on a not much longer timeframe!
Similarly other manufacturers catching up, or holding significant market share is widely argued. It certainly looks like Tesla is way out in front, and has loads of room to grow, and whilst your use of "LIMITED" is factually correct it ignores the fact that there mayis likely loads of room to grow before it approaches those limits!
And charging at workplaces and residences doesn't need to be fast, and will account for most overall charging. The vast network of superchargers expanding at the current exponent, will comfortably support long distance EV travel in many regions of the world, including North America, Europe, and the richer parts of Asia.
Countering your unsubstantiated opinion with an alternative: Tesla may have 40% of the world's vehicle manufacturing market in 20 years. 80% of all new vehicles will be non-ICE, which will be 95% battery electric. Tesla FSD and RoboTaxi will be a large earner for Tesla. Tesla Energy will be a significant power storage, and distributor around the world, again raking in profits whilst reducing the cost of electricity!
Investors looking ahead at this trajectory will push Tesla to be likely the highest valued Earth company.

I do agree that SpaceX also has great prospects, but apart from Starlink, it will take the world more years to take advantage of new cheap access to space, and for new markets to build. Consumers can make decisions about buying an EV much more easily than nations and corporations can about having a new large (and seemingly financially risky) presence in space or on the Moon or Mars.
However (IMO) SX will become "THE" company, and followers will be just that, followers, and relatively specialised or niche competitors, even if very successful.

Yo. I pretty much agree with the points you make but there was no call to turn it into a personal attack on spacenut. We have a lot of new members and lurkers. You set the wrong tone for NSF.

You are right. It was not meant to be a personal attack. But it certainly reads like one. NSF is civil and respectful, and my writing wasn't. I decided to edit it and delete the first paragraph which is the worst bit.

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

With winning a total of $885M in FCC subsidies for Starlink services to rural areas. A subscriber base of more than half a million. That is showing that there is significant expectations that Starlink at least just from these areas would have a yearly revenue of up to $780M.

So what I wonder has this just done to SpaceX's valuation. The last one was ~$46B. I would not be surprised to see the next one to be above $50M.

Note that if Starlink's actual subscribers for these ares and all worldwide is just 10X this base. That is 5 million subscribers potential and a yearly revenue potential of >$7B. In my simple valuation cal of company valuation being 10X the yearly revenue. Or the revenue expected over the next 10 years (my model assumes non-growth which is not really the case). The the value just on Starlink revenue would be $70B. Add the ~$2B in other revenue that SpaceX currently has. The valuation becomes $90B.

[Robotbeat]

With winning a total of $885M in FCC subsidies for Starlink services to rural areas. A subscriber base of more than half a million. That is showing that there is significant expectations that Starlink at least just from these areas would have a yearly revenue of up to $780M.

So what I wonder has this just done to SpaceX's valuation. The last one was ~$46B. I would not be surprised to see the next one to be above $50M.

Note that if Starlink's actual subscribers for these ares and all worldwide is just 10X this base. That is 5 million subscribers potential and a yearly revenue potential of >$7B. In my simple valuation cal of company valuation being 10X the yearly revenue. Or the revenue expected over the next 10 years (my model assumes non-growth which is not really the case). The the value just on Starlink revenue would be $70B. Add the ~$2B in other revenue that SpaceX currently has. The valuation becomes $90B.

Add in the fact that Tesla is on a tear right now, and within a year, it's not impossible that Elon would be the richest man in the world.

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

With winning a total of $885M in FCC subsidies for Starlink services to rural areas. A subscriber base of more than half a million. That is showing that there is significant expectations that Starlink at least just from these areas would have a yearly revenue of up to $780M.

So what I wonder has this just done to SpaceX's valuation. The last one was ~$46B. I would not be surprised to see the next one to be above $50M.

Note that if Starlink's actual subscribers for these ares and all worldwide is just 10X this base. That is 5 million subscribers potential and a yearly revenue potential of >$7B. In my simple valuation cal of company valuation being 10X the yearly revenue. Or the revenue expected over the next 10 years (my model assumes non-growth which is not really the case). The the value just on Starlink revenue would be $70B. Add the ~$2B in other revenue that SpaceX currently has. The valuation becomes $90B.

Add in the fact that Tesla is on a tear right now, and within a year, it's not impossible that Elon would be the richest man in the world.

Note is that in as little as 3 years SpaceX could reach a valuation of as much as $100B or more. When a rapidly expanding Starlink is added with a rapidly accelerating Starship launch rate. And with launch prices that are of even now would be unheard of.

Also NOTE is that in a period of 1 year SpaceX valuation increased >30%. If does that every year for 3 more years then it will reach that $100B valuation at EOY 2023.

Added: If that yearly increase keeps up through to 2030 then in 2030 it would have a valuation of >$600B.

[DistantTemple]

With winning a total of $885M in FCC subsidies for Starlink services to rural areas. A subscriber base of more than half a million. That is showing that there is significant expectations that Starlink at least just from these areas would have a yearly revenue of up to $780M.

So what I wonder has this just done to SpaceX's valuation. The last one was ~$46B. I would not be surprised to see the next one to be above $50M.

Note that if Starlink's actual subscribers for these ares and all worldwide is just 10X this base. That is 5 million subscribers potential and a yearly revenue potential of >$7B. In my simple valuation cal of company valuation being 10X the yearly revenue. Or the revenue expected over the next 10 years (my model assumes non-growth which is not really the case). The the value just on Starlink revenue would be $70B. Add the ~$2B in other revenue that SpaceX currently has. The valuation becomes $90B.

Add in the fact that Tesla is on a tear right now, and within a year, it's not impossible that Elon would be the richest man in the world.

Note is that in as little as 3 years SpaceX could reach a valuation of as much as $100B or more. When a rapidly expanding Starlink is added with a rapidly accelerating Starship launch rate. And with launch prices that are of even now would be unheard of.

Also NOTE is that in a period of 1 year SpaceX valuation increased >30%. If does that every year for 3 more years then it will reach that $100B valuation at EOY 2023.

Added: If that yearly increase keeps up through to 2030 then in 2030 it would have a valuation of >$600B.

So another slant/opinion from me...
SpaceX should be on a tear. A couple of years ago (2018) it was getting into the swing of reliably launching F9, with 21 launches. Commercial resupply was going fine, but Commercial Crew, was still in the future. Starship had only the carbon composite 12m tank. Reusability was still novel and in early stages. Starlink was consuming money, but visible hardware was in the future. And SX was valued around $25B

So 2019 was a low number of launches at 10F9  plus 2FH (?) Lots of good stories for us fans, but likely not so obvious to the public.

Now however (Dec 2020) SX is on a roll (a tear -Old Atlas-) Looking like 2is launches, and reaching 100 successful missions, reuse leaders reaching re-uses validating its success... Commercial resupply transitioned to D2 and CREW now operational and looking seriously smooth!!! And SX not seeming to break a sweat! AND
Starship has come from (our) Sci-fi fantasy through recent muddy marsh, to a smart concrete pad, businesslike smart production area, immense high (and mid) bays... and the cusp of real sub-orbital testing, with a Starship appearing every month!!!

Oh I forgot Starlink! -Operational in Beta! heading for 1000 sats! (also ignoring point-to-point)

This is not "doubling of value... this is the wriggly grub bursting out as a butterfly. "You ain't seen nothin' yet" - style. All that seemed potential, hopes, and plans, is marching into actuality, functionality, operation and towards (vast) revenues! And nobody is anywhere close to catching them in any of their developments!

Forbes Morgan Stanley I think suggested a $100B notional value... ah: https://www.forbes.com/sites/daviddawkins/2020/10/23/elon-musks-spacex-gets-bullish-100-billion-valuation-from-morgan-stanley-double-what-investors-said-it-was-worth-in-august/  and their bull case: " “bull case”–its absolute best-case scenario–puts SpaceX at a value above $200 billion."

IMO this is a real breakthrough time for SX, and there is no downside short of widespread war! Or unbelievable regulatory blocking/attack. If SX Can sell Moon landings internationally by 2024, and Has a functional unmanned presence on Mars in 2024, plus widespread Starlink.... It will pass $1T    -IM OPINION-

https://dashboards.trefis.com/no-login-required/yaQTBXoY/What-Is-Driving-SpaceX-s-Revenues-Valuation-?fromforbesandarticle=trefis200602

[darkenfast]

I like watching SpaceX on this "tear", and Musk's value soaring (because we know what he's going to use his money on, right?).  Just remember, though: SpaceX (and others), are one explosion or other disaster away from a big crash.  Probably not SN8, because Musk has done a good job of tempering expectations, but other things.  The sharks are always circling!

My own hope is that Elon will continue to confound the critics and make old-space attitudes obsolete. 

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

SpaceX existing business areas/and expected expansions in the future:

Telecom: existing and growing rapidly ->Starting revenue for 2021 $88.5M+

Satellite Manufacturing: Starlink, Military/Government (existing DOD contracts for sats ~$140M), expanding into other commercial sat applications + comm services around other celestial bodies: Moon, Mars ...

Launch Services: Medium/Heavy/Super Heavy class launchers (F9/FH), Cargo and Crew to LEO (revenue ~$2B), expanding into even larger and cheaper to orbit (Starship) in $ per flight or $ per kg, propellant deliveries to orbit, P2P transport services on Earth, Cargo and Crew BEO, Space Tourism, Lunar Bases, Mars Bases ...


The other item is Forbes just pegged Musk's assets at $143B.

[mikegi]

Can I be the contrarian here? I hope Musk cashes in some of his TSLA stock/options so that he'll have cash available to fund his other ventures. TSLA is clearly in a bubble. Yes, they have good products that are on the bleeding edge. They're also expensive for what you get. That's fine but there's a more important reason for caution on BEVs taking over the automotive market: charging.

If you plug in a Tesla to your standard house outlet (120VAC+15A), you only get 3-4 miles per hour of charge. That's basically unusable. You need to have a high power circuit ($$$) installed to get decent charge rates (240VAC+48A is around 35 miles/hour) in your home. This is a killer to widespread adoption of BEVs. No one in an apartment can afford or use them.

Another charging issue is on longer trips. If there's a Tesla Supercharger along the way you get a huge charging rate, say, 400-500 miles/hour. Sounds great but how does that compare to a typical ICE? Well, to charge halfway (~200 miles), it takes 20-30 minutes. An ICE can "charge" completely (400 miles) in less than five minutes and ICE "chargers" are everywhere. There simply is no comparison.

None of this takes into account the issues with temperature sensitivity, road conditions, etc. They're all range-killers for a BEV. For a truly practical BEV you'd need to double the energy density of the batteries.

PS. I say this as an owner of a Tesla 3P. It's an incredibly fun vehicle. Instantaneous acceleration, low CoG, no clunky transmission, fantastic ease of use, low maintenance, etc. But I could afford the car, afford installing the 240+48 circuit at my house, and mostly use it around town.

[Robotbeat]

A friend of mine has a Model 3 and charges with a 120V outlet just fine. Unlike earlier BEVs with low range, you have plenty of buffer.

And a dryer or RV outlet isn’t that expensive. I had a dryer outlet put in for $500 or so.