4 ms·

Musk can be fairly compensated and US national security preserved via nationalization.

nomel 1y ago
How much is SpaceX worth? How do you even calculate that, knowing that a long term plan includes Mars colonization, astroid mining, etc, with it having a near monopoly on space transport, at the moment?
- sorcerer-mar 1y ago
  Some multiple on the last funding round (perhaps a multiple <1) would be perfectly sufficient. Declaring my company has plans to build a Dyson sphere doesn't make it suddenly worth infinity money, and even if you believe it does, that belief won't stop the US government from seizing it.
  - nomel 1y ago
    You're irrational. They had $13B revenue in 2024, and profit > $4B, with the profit of the previous two years covering ~60% of their total accumulated funding to date.
    - sorcerer-mar 1y ago
      Let’s replay this. You: how would you even value SpaceX? Me: Some multiple of their last funding round You: You’re irrational. They made money last year. What? Do you think earning a profit makes your company uncountably valuable? Or earning a profit and adding some promises on top? Neither is true! These aren’t real problems in any scenario and certainly not in the scenario of “hello the United States of America is seizing your company, here’s a check we think is fair.”
      - nomel 1y ago
        I responded to what you actually wrote in your previous comment: > Some multiple on the last funding round (perhaps a multiple <1) The irrational part is that it could possibly be a fraction of their last round of funding. Do you agree it would have to be a multiple much greater than 1, since their last round of funding (750 million) was a small fraction of their profit last year, and they are on the path of exceeding their total accumulated funding for all rounds in another two years? I've never seen a profiting company valued based on their last round of funding rather than current/future revenue/profits. Do you have any examples of this, in the real world?
        sorcerer-mar 1y ago
        No, it wouldn’t have to be. Perhaps it would be, perhaps it wouldn’t be, as I said.
        nomel 1y ago
        https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43520384 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43520384 Again, do you have an example of the current value of a company, with similar circumstances, being based on the last round of funding?
    - kelnos 1y ago
      Well now you're just quibbling about the amount; it seems you do agree that SpaceX can be valued. You just don't agree with the <1 multiple the GP suggested. So ok, how about a 4x multiple? 8x? Whatever! Private companies can be valued; it's done every day. SpaceX is not an exception here. Musk can say he's going to colonize Mars or mine asteroids, but the markets are perfectly capable of deciding on how likely (or unlikely) it is that he'll succeed, and price accordingly. Colonizing Mars is a money-loser. It could completely tank the company. What business model involves colonizing Mars and then making a profit off that? Mining asteroids is something we're so far away from that it's not worth baking in at that point. With current technology, it's far, far, far cheaper just to mine on Earth, even for things that are relatively rare.
      - nomel 1y ago
        > Well now you're just quibbling about the amount; Of course, the question was about how to estimate the amount. It's a nonsensical answer that doesn't attempt to answer or help answer the question. If they were funded $1, their answer would still be correct: non zero multiple of a non-zero number (their last round of funding). It's an answer with unreasonable bounds, on both ends, especially the lower (fraction of last round of funding, even though current revenue is an order of magnitude more). It also has no precedence. The value of a company is never estimated based on rounds of funding from years ago (last was 2023 for SpaceX). It's based on both the present and projected performance. It's not a rational answer, by definition, since it wasn't made with logic or reason.
- tombert 1y ago
  I know that they claim their long term plan is Mars colonization and asteroid mining, but frankly I think those are lies. It cost the Diablo cheater nothing to simply lie about this, they have no concrete plans on how to get to Mars or establish a colony, they still can't even get to the moon, with the deadlines being pushed back years at a time and getting increasingly more convoluted. I'd be happy enough to be wrong, if we can get people on Mars in our lifetime that would be pretty cool, but Elon lies and embellishes nearly everything, and there's basically no consequence to lying or embellishing "plans" to colonize Mars.
  - Hyperboreanal 1y ago
    [flagged]
- alabastervlog 1y ago
  The Mars colonization thing is worth so little that it’d eclipse everything else and make the company worth negative dollars, if he ever really puts them all in on it. It’s pure fantasy. Mars sucks. It sucks very, very, very much. It sucks more than a nuclear-holocausted Earth that’s also had a decent size (but not crust-liquefying) impact and an insanely bad climate disaster, at once. It’s an awful place.
  - nomel 1y ago
    > it’d eclipse everything else and make the company worth negative dollars I'm not sure I understand this. SpaceX would potentially profit from any transport services provided. Why would others paying for the missions reduce the worth of SpaceX? Or are you suggesting SpaceX would be the one funding it all?

How much is SpaceX worth? How do you even calculate that, knowing that a long term plan includes Mars colonization, astroid mining, etc, with it having a near monopoly on space transport, at the moment?

sorcerer-mar 1y ago
Some multiple on the last funding round (perhaps a multiple <1) would be perfectly sufficient. Declaring my company has plans to build a Dyson sphere doesn't make it suddenly worth infinity money, and even if you believe it does, that belief won't stop the US government from seizing it.
- nomel 1y ago
  You're irrational. They had $13B revenue in 2024, and profit > $4B, with the profit of the previous two years covering ~60% of their total accumulated funding to date.
  - sorcerer-mar 1y ago
    Let’s replay this. You: how would you even value SpaceX? Me: Some multiple of their last funding round You: You’re irrational. They made money last year. What? Do you think earning a profit makes your company uncountably valuable? Or earning a profit and adding some promises on top? Neither is true! These aren’t real problems in any scenario and certainly not in the scenario of “hello the United States of America is seizing your company, here’s a check we think is fair.”
    - nomel 1y ago
      I responded to what you actually wrote in your previous comment: > Some multiple on the last funding round (perhaps a multiple <1) The irrational part is that it could possibly be a fraction of their last round of funding. Do you agree it would have to be a multiple much greater than 1, since their last round of funding (750 million) was a small fraction of their profit last year, and they are on the path of exceeding their total accumulated funding for all rounds in another two years? I've never seen a profiting company valued based on their last round of funding rather than current/future revenue/profits. Do you have any examples of this, in the real world?
      - sorcerer-mar 1y ago
        No, it wouldn’t have to be. Perhaps it would be, perhaps it wouldn’t be, as I said.
        nomel 1y ago
        https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43520384 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43520384 Again, do you have an example of the current value of a company, with similar circumstances, being based on the last round of funding?
  - kelnos 1y ago
    Well now you're just quibbling about the amount; it seems you do agree that SpaceX can be valued. You just don't agree with the <1 multiple the GP suggested. So ok, how about a 4x multiple? 8x? Whatever! Private companies can be valued; it's done every day. SpaceX is not an exception here. Musk can say he's going to colonize Mars or mine asteroids, but the markets are perfectly capable of deciding on how likely (or unlikely) it is that he'll succeed, and price accordingly. Colonizing Mars is a money-loser. It could completely tank the company. What business model involves colonizing Mars and then making a profit off that? Mining asteroids is something we're so far away from that it's not worth baking in at that point. With current technology, it's far, far, far cheaper just to mine on Earth, even for things that are relatively rare.
    - nomel 1y ago
      > Well now you're just quibbling about the amount; Of course, the question was about how to estimate the amount. It's a nonsensical answer that doesn't attempt to answer or help answer the question. If they were funded $1, their answer would still be correct: non zero multiple of a non-zero number (their last round of funding). It's an answer with unreasonable bounds, on both ends, especially the lower (fraction of last round of funding, even though current revenue is an order of magnitude more). It also has no precedence. The value of a company is never estimated based on rounds of funding from years ago (last was 2023 for SpaceX). It's based on both the present and projected performance. It's not a rational answer, by definition, since it wasn't made with logic or reason.
tombert 1y ago
I know that they claim their long term plan is Mars colonization and asteroid mining, but frankly I think those are lies. It cost the Diablo cheater nothing to simply lie about this, they have no concrete plans on how to get to Mars or establish a colony, they still can't even get to the moon, with the deadlines being pushed back years at a time and getting increasingly more convoluted. I'd be happy enough to be wrong, if we can get people on Mars in our lifetime that would be pretty cool, but Elon lies and embellishes nearly everything, and there's basically no consequence to lying or embellishing "plans" to colonize Mars.
- Hyperboreanal 1y ago
  [flagged]
alabastervlog 1y ago
The Mars colonization thing is worth so little that it’d eclipse everything else and make the company worth negative dollars, if he ever really puts them all in on it. It’s pure fantasy. Mars sucks. It sucks very, very, very much. It sucks more than a nuclear-holocausted Earth that’s also had a decent size (but not crust-liquefying) impact and an insanely bad climate disaster, at once. It’s an awful place.
- nomel 1y ago
  > it’d eclipse everything else and make the company worth negative dollars I'm not sure I understand this. SpaceX would potentially profit from any transport services provided. Why would others paying for the missions reduce the worth of SpaceX? Or are you suggesting SpaceX would be the one funding it all?