SpaceX is _not_ profitable by most reasonable measurements of accounting. If you discount rocket depreciation costs and R&D, then yeah its profitable from starlink revenue.
SpaceX is _not_ profitable by most reasonable measurements of accounting. If you discount rocket depreciation costs and R&D, then yeah its profitable from starlink revenue.
They haven't released a 10k yet so we don't know, but from what I understand SpaceX+X.ai is not GAAP profitable.
SpaceX was, but SpaceTwitter is not. xAI is hoovering all the money out of SpaceX.
SpaceX reuses its boosters 20+ times. Surely the depreciation is tiny when compared to the revenue of 60M+ per launch?
The entire space launch market is about $20B with multiple competitors in 2025. And by the most generous estimates it is going to be $80B by 2035. They can reuse the rockets as much as they like, the company isn’t worth $1.7T.
3x growth in ten years is the “most generous” estimate?
Yes because outside Starlink and govt contracts, there isn’t that massive of a demand growth in the sector. There a limit to how many satellites can be in orbit at a time and land based telecom infrastructure makes it so that satellite based infra isn’t necessary unless you’re in remote areas.
Starlink is already most of the revenue.
What's the point of the except?
The main problem is the AI stuff.
How can you say “The company isn’t worth X”? Isn’t the company worth exactly as much as people are willing to pay for its shares?
I don’t personally think Google is worth $4T but the share price says otherwise.
You’re comparing a publicly traded company where the supply demand economics have established a price to a company whose financials are not public, and is valuing itself at $1.7T and forcing everyone’s 401Ks and pension funds to fund it. Not the same thing.
>forcing everyone’s 401Ks and pension funds to fund it.
Source?
https://theconversation.com/musks-spacex-is-shaping-up-as-th...
The source links in that website (which looks like clickbait) do not support your claim.
https://www.morningstar.com/funds/spacex-ipo-how-index-funds...
> S&P is reportedly considering a fast entry rule change to its flagship index, though it has not yet been approved, and details are scant.
> FTSE Russell is also considering a fast entry rule for its suite of US market indexes and is in a consultation period as of early April 2026.
Only Nasdaq 100 has changed its rules, but Nasdaq 100 is not (and should not be) in most retirement funds.
If 1/3 having changed rules and 2/3 considering changing the rules isn’t evidence enough then not really much to discuss here.
When someone says that it usually means they believe the price is bound to drop.
> Isn’t the company worth exactly as much as people are willing to pay for its shares?
Really? We're still making claims like this in the year of our Lord 2026? People in the markets today are not predicting the real value of a company, they're gambling that the various political and financial machinations from people like Elon Musk will increase the share price enough that they can sell at a profit. The value of shares like Tesla are utterly disconnected from the value of the underlying business.
They also have to replace 20%+ of their satellite network every year.
why is that ?
They are low earth orbit satellites. Generally, the lower the orbit, the faster they decay. You could also argue that this is a benefit in that they gain updated technology with each replacement.
> You could also argue that this is a benefit in that they gain updated technology with each replacement.
No, having the option to replace technology at your leisure would be a benefit. Being forced to replace your technology because it's destined to become aerosolized aluminum in less than five years is a detriment.
Planned obsolescence really only works well if someone else is paying.
The operational lifetime of their satellites is about 5 years.
Because they fall back to the ground…
No, the burn up in the atmosphere. Burning metals being added to the oxygen you breathe.
low earth orbit
because of gravity
More because of drag
What about the R&D costs of blowing up vehicle after vehicle?
They have over 300 falcon 9 launches in a row now, just in case you’re not caught up on the latest
C'mon, you know they're talking about Starship.
It's less than the yearly cost of ground stations (just under 1 million/year per installation)
5 million over 5 years capex+opex. Mostly opex
It's also a troll post
Depreciation isn't the only thing that matters. R&D, manufacturing, maintenance, fuel, launch, support staff, and I'm sure there are countless others.
I'm not saying they aren't profitable. I don't know, but it's definitely not a given.
They did report FCF before xai and also invested at least $1B before they merged xai
Given that it's one Musk company giving a mountain of money to another, and the only numbers floating around regarding SpaceX seem like marketing fluff, I don't think any meaningful conclusions can be reached until we get some real numbers giving a full look at the finances.
Between launches alone, Starlink and Starshield, SpaceX will likely be a money printing machine for a long time.