upvote
On one order, correct, but it's still on the order of hundreds of millions to billions.

Also, keep in mind that a stock price discounts expected future cash flows. Is it likely that SpaceX will have a near-peer competitor within a few years? No, it's not, and that market share is being priced-in.

reply
Is it likely that SpaceX will have actual reasonable demand? Their major customer is Starlink. How legitimately confident are we in the numbers with regard to price reduction vs creative accounting to offload costs to Starlink and subsidize the launches to appear to offer huge cost reductions?

If there exists sufficient demand for the product of space launches then it's probably reasonable to expect their to be a near-peer competitor soon, but that's only if SpaceX were to be profitable, which it isn't, even with the subsidization by Starlink on the order of many billions.

reply
> If there exists sufficient demand for the product of space launches then it's probably reasonable to expect their to be a near-peer competitor soon

Space is not that easy. Even with unlimited money, it'll probably take 10 years to build a rocket like starship. Going from nothing to orbit needs a lot of money but more money doesn't make that faster.

reply
There is about 3 chinese orbitallaunchers with some reusability support flying & about as much scheduled to debut this year.

But other than that, yeah - outside of China, progress has been horrendously slow & Blue Origin, the only other US company that demonstrated a partially reusable rocket just had a devastating pad explosion, destroying one of their 2 rockets and their only launchpad.

reply
Sure but SpaceX can get you into orbit for $1400 per kilogram, and future projection and goal is $100 per kilogram. The competition is at $15,000 per kilogram. I think it's a no-brainer for anybody trying to get anything into orbit. Unless someone figures out superior tech that surpasses SpaceX, I'm just not seeing why anyone would spend more for less capable and costly rockets.
reply
Doesn't SpaceX charge 2 to 3 times their internal cost to external customers? ISRO is still more expensive, IIRC they charged ~US$60 million (roughly $6000/kg) for the OneWeb launches whereas after the recent price hikes SpaceX is supposedly charging ~US$74 million on a larger rocket (~$4200/kg), but that's far from an order of magnitude difference like your comment suggests, which I assume would be using the $25 million they charge Starlink internally (IIRC ISRO's internal cost is much higher, around $40 to 50 million, but that's still not anywhere near an order of magnitude). Using internal cost from one provider and external price for another is somewhat misleading.
reply
> future projection and goal is $100 per kilogram

This can't be treated as meaningful, given other projections and goals (Mars colony, etc.).

reply
how many packages have you shipped so far to space? SpaceX could disappear tomorrow and most people wouldn't notice. Your satellite TV might get slightly more expensive. Those rare people that don't have LTE internet access and need starlink are exception.
reply
deleted
reply
At the rates you quote, $1 T (the size of the market) is 714,285 tons of stuff in the space each year. I don’t think there is enough space in space for that much cargo.
reply
Let me introduce you to the 30 km long rotating O'Neill Cylinder: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O%27Neill_cylinder

Although realistically this will be built from lunar materials, you still need to lift a lot of mass to build the necessary industrial processing and mass drivers to launch it from the Moon to some Lagrange point.

And there are many other useful space megastructures that can be built in space from common materials, like giant solar arrays beaming power down via microwaves: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space-based_solar_power

Most of these proposals date from even 1980s.

reply
I guess for a trillion dollars vine can built Elysium. Generating solar power in space (vs. on the ground) makes as much sense as running AI inference in data centers in space.
reply