InvariantCapitalist Ars Centurion
1y
985
Subscriptor

Lee Vann said:
Anyone valuing SpaceX above the large Aerospace companies is a fool looking to be parted from their money. Their sales are just to low compared to the big boys. For example Lockhead Martin does ~50 billion a year in sales on a bad year. Northrop Grumman is a little behind them. How much in sales does SpaceX do in a good year? 9 Billion. A pretty good chink of change, but not up there with the big boys. More in the range of the mid tier.

Business valuations are based on expectations of future profits, not historical revenues. Starlink revenues are estimated to increase to over $6.5B this year from $4B last year, and projected to reach $20B to $30B with very high margins in a decade or so.

And that doesn't factor in the impact of switching from a partially reusable launch system (Falcon 9) that throws away a $15M first stage every launch to a fully reusable launch system like Starship lowering their cost per launch from around $30M to roughly $10M while increasing payload capacity by at least 5x. Its far improved cost structure should massively increase the demand for commercial launches. Not only will it dramatically reduce the cost of satellite launches, it enables satellite providers to build them with heavier cheaper materials and to make them far larger to offer even much improved capabilities.

It also massively reduces the costs of building space stations and potentially makes space tourism not only far cheaper but more attractive with weeks long stays for far more people. And If Starship is certified to fly humans its likely to fly more than 10,000 a year to orbit, that's a big business.

And again, likely with higher margins than a Lockheed Martin or Northrup Grumman. All this said, I wouldn't value SpaceX at $200B, but I'm a bottom feeding value investor. But its certainly worth a far higher price per dollar of revenues than these old space dinosaurs..