SpaceX Reportedly Attracts Another $200 Million in Investment (Update)
Elon Musk’s SpaceX Is Raising Money At A Valuation Approaching $10B, TechCrunch
Space Exploration Technologies, the commercial space transportation startup founded by Elon Musk with ambitions to land people on Mars, is raising investment that values the company somewhere south of $10 billion, TechCrunch has learned.
Musk’s SpaceX Denies Blog Report of Capital Raising Plan, Bloomberg Business Week
“SpaceX is not currently raising any funding nor has any external valuation of that magnitude or higher been done,” John Taylor, a company spokesman, said in an e-mail. “The source in this [TechCrunch] report is mistaken.”
Marc’s note: It should be noted SpaceX did not refute the original story by Quartz in April where Quartz said SpaceX was close to closing a round of funding at that time.
why would anyone invest in SpaceX, they either haven’t done their homework or drank the spacex Kool-Aid from the propaganda wagon
So Jerry, why do you have it in for SpaceX? It seems every single you comment you make is about bashing them. Are you a former employee? Do you work for the competition? What’s your story?
Interesting pointed comment he made earlier about how SpaceX treat staff. I’m beginning to think the active phrase is: “Disgruntled ex-employee”.
Verses “SpaceX can do no wrong cheerleaders”?
Like most things, the reality is in the middle, somewhere between the “do no wrongers” and ULA mouthpieces. Elon Musk isn’t really the second coming of Tony Stark, but he sure managed to create a viable competitor to ULA in short period of time. SpaceX is a cool place to work, but based on even the positive reviews at places like Glassdoor, it’s not for everyone. Certainly SpaceX are in a good enough position where you don’t need to drink Kool-Aid (well, actually Flavor Aid), to support them.
I support them, I’m just not blindly in love with them. They are rattling Arianspace. ILS has their own problems with the losss of confidence in the Proton. I wonder if Lockheed would ever consider bundling satellite contracts with launches the way the Chinese do and offer a “package deal” with discounts.
Red herring. It’s not about Jerry.
They’re innovative (re: Falcon 9-R and Grasshopper), reliable (re: their order book) and indispensable (re: down cargo from the ISS). They are also inexpensive and on the cusp of reshaping the launch industry with dramatically lower costs….with the obvious exception of protected species such as the Atlas V and it’s sole source military contracts.
One could go on, but you get the picture.
You are kidding right? How many successful comsat launches has ULA done in the last year?
I can tell you, the number is zero, because their vehicle is not competitive in the market place.
Fact check: ULA just launched a commercial satellite for DigitalGlobe last week.
To be fair, other than that launch I believe their last commercial launch was in 2009 for Intelsat 14.
To be fair, Lockheed Commercial Launch Services also has two additional commercial launches manifested for 2015. Mexsat-2 and another DigitalGlobe Imagery sat.
Yep but will they have the RD-180s to launch them. 🙂
Just tongue in cheek comment.
Cheers
Not to mention that ULA has launched 10 times so far this year. They’re getting the job done, while SpaceX is years behind in getting certified to even get in the game.
Way too early to say that SpaceX has a shot at winning launches for any high priority spacecraft.
edit
Keep telling yourself that if it keeps you warm at night. Just be prepared for someone to yank that blanket off your bed fairly soon so you won’t be too traumatized when it happens.
That is really a fair comparison… TWO launch companies launched 10 times.. not one.
If you are going to compare them, then compare Lockheed Martin to SpaceX or Boeing to SpaceX, do not combine the two and then try and compare.
ULA is a single company which was the merger of LM and Boeing launch businesses. ULA consolidated manufacturing plants, reduced and relocated personnel, consolidated engineering, operations and management. It’s certainly not 2 launch companies.
they have 3 separate production lines (delta 2 and 4, atlas v). and separate faculties in GA and TX. Plus they buy their engines from other companies and from the Russkies.They also have 3 launch pads at Vandenberg and 4 launch pads in Florida. Plus they always get first dibs on launch dates because Military Goes First.
SpaceX has 2 launch pads, 1 in CA and 1 in FL. That is being changed big-time as pad 39a and the TX launch site come online.
Even then, they have 4 launches completed this year and either 4 or 5 by the EOY. ULA has 4.
SpaceX appears to finally develop a launch cadence. 3 weeks between the last two and 3 weeks between the last launch and the next one next week, and about 4 weeks to the next.
It is a joint venture between the two parent companies. A merger of two companies eliminates one of them. A joint venture is not the same thing as two companies doing a merger. They are pooling resources but each company pulls out its own profts and can end the venture at anytime. Once two companies do a merger and it is complete one can not end it and pull out because a new single company is formed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wik…
“A joint venture (JV) is a business agreement in which the parties agree to develop, for a finite time, a new entity and new assets by contributing equity. They exercise control over the enterprise and consequently share revenues, expenses and assets. There are other types of companies such as JV limited by guarantee, joint ventures limited by guarantee with partners holding shares.”
http://www.ulalaunch.com/ab…
“ULA is a 50-50 joint venture between Lockheed Martin and The Boeing Company formed in 2006 to provide reliable, cost-efficient access to space for U.S. government missions.”
The two OWNER’S launch companies are in a joint venture they still take their profits as TWO seperate launch companies that OWN a joint venture.
Mexsat is a Mexican government satellite.
Digitalglobe’s major customer is the government.
Still commercial launches.
I wonder if they made a profit on it?
What did they charge for this last flight?
What if ulas rockets were much cheaper than we all think?
What if Falcon’s are much more expensive than they advertise?
Hint: they are. Air Force is paying close to $100M for Falcon-9 to launch DSCOVR. Nearly double the advertised web price.
The Air Force requires an enormous amount of administrative work for all their launches. It does, in fact, add tens of millions of dollars to the cost.
From Spacex:
“It’s more expensive to do these missions,” she said of U.S. government launches compared with commercial missions. “The Air Force asks for more stuff. The missions we do for NASA under the [NASA Launch Services] contract are also more expensive because NASA asks to do more analysis.
“They have us provide more data to them. They have folks that basically reside here in SpaceX, and we need to provide engineering resources to them and respond to their questions. So by definition, the way the government buys missions is more expensive.”
So then to really compare price of ULA vs SpaceX one needs to compare apples to apples, and guess what? The difference is not the 3x that some claim.
SpaceX’s prices are also continuing to climb as they build out more of their infrastructure and learn what it takes to design, analyze, integrate, produce, and operate a reliable and dependable launch business that has the capacity to routinely, reliably, and dependably launch a dozen or more missions a year on schedule for customers who are banking a whole lot more than money on their missions.
Also, keep in mind that ULA’s pricing may be trapped by government procurement law that won’t allow them to sell to other customers for less than the government pays. Not impossible to separate things out, but becomes a management, accounting, and audit nightmare.
Not really Apples to Oranges.
SpaceX is launching NASA’s DSCVR for $97mil on a Falcon 9
ULA is charging to $226mil to launch NASA’s GEOS-R on an Atlas V.
ULA is charging $173mil to launch ESA’s Solar Orbiter on an Atlas V.
ULA charges $370mil for a Delta IV Heavy to NASA
SpaceX is charging $165mil to launch the Air Force STP-2 on a Falcon Heavy
(Plus the Falcon Heavy has twice the payload capacity)
It is true that the government tends to drive up costs. Some of it is non-value added BS, but some of it is also has contributed to maintaining reliability at very high levels. Most of the national security missions are not “commodity launches” like most commercial launches are.
I predict that once things settle down–when SpaceX steps up to the rigor and process needed and ULA slims down to its fighting weight, the price difference between SpaceX and ULA will be minimal. At that point, competition will have done it’s thing. But it’s not clear that the taxpayer will pay any less than it is already, since it will be burdened with carrying a significant portion of the infrastructure and supply chains for 2 suppliers.
Also, will competing in the government world complicate SpaceX’s ability to compete in the commercial world? TBD (I don’t think Elon knows either).
“when SpaceX steps up to the rigor and process needed and ULA slims down to its fighting weight, the price difference between SpaceX and ULA will be minimal.”
Excuse me? SpaceX has flown 5 missions to the International Space Station, as rigorous and procedural as can be.
ULA slim down? Yeah, make a cryogenic hydrogen non-reusable vehicle compete with a kerosene reusable rocket.
Atlas V and Delta IV are technological antiques.
“Also, will competing in the government world complicate SpaceX’s ability to compete in the commercial world? “
Why? The more vehicles it builds the more its costs are amortized Combined with re-usablity, nobody will be able to compete with SpaceX.
5 cargo missions with food and clothing to ISS are not the same as an irreplaceable $1B spacecraft. For better or worse, NASA and the Air Force are very different customers with very different cultures and demands. certification standards may be similar, but the implementation is not really the same.
Lox/H2 cryo stage is expensive, but it also gives you killer performance to do a lot of things SpaceX has difficulty, like high/multi-burn orbits or escape trajectories. That capability is golden for many missions. Regardless, the root of the cost drivers for ULA are not technological, and there is a lot that can be done to slim down, imo.
To your last point, it is true the more vehicles one builds the lower the price in general, but the government has thus far required full insight and tracking of costs and processes in a manner that is alien to commercial practices. DoD can (and has in the past) purchased launch on a commercial basis, but it’s not clear it’s willing to give up the insight and control. SO, the problem for SpaceX (and ULA) is what is the penalty for maintaining two largely incompatible approaches for business, (govt vs commercial). Doing both comes with a penalty in terms of efficiency and thus may make it difficult/complicate SpaceX’s commercial business competitiveness,. I know some may think it’s crazy, but we can’t just wish this stuff away.
Its just a waste of time I know, but NASA trusts SpaceX to fly right up to the ISS. Nothing is more irreplaceable. Remember the MIR crash. Stage performance is depends on your design. Higher ISP is exchangable against other design factors. The FH using kerosene has twice the payload of the Delta and 1/3 the cost. And don’t forget, most of SpaceX’s launches are for the gov, using gov oversight and they still destroy ULA and for commercial payloads ANY vendor.
“Also, keep in mind that ULA’s pricing may be trapped by government procurement law that won’t allow them to seek to other customers for less than the government pays. Not impossible to separate things out, but becomes a management, accounting, and audit nightmare.”
Just the opposite.:
“( Robert )Cleave, (president of Lockheed Martin Commercial Launch Services) credited the U.S. Air Force’s planned block buy of up to 36 Atlas 5 and Delta 4 launch vehicle cores from ULA for Lockheed Martin’s ability to bring its commercial launch prices to more competitive levels.”
Good point, but we’re talking about different things. Yes, block buy will help reduce cost. But government requirements for oversight, insight tend to increase cost. It’s the net effect. Everyone wants to simplify this into catch phrases, but it’s chock full of nuances.
I don’t agree. More than half of SpaceX launches are for the massively picky NASA, both for boosters and spacecraft. They live in an oversight environment yet are eating UAL’s
lunch.There is a reason that the head of UAL was s-canned. UAL prefers to innovate by lobbyist.
keep in mind, SpaceX has lost NASA missions to ULA, mostly in the uber picky science arena. Also, there are a number of missions, e.g. planetary, that SpaceX has a hard time doing for lack of good performance to escape trajectories.
the missions Spacex has won are mostly low priority (DSCOVR,) or low value food/clothing for ISS. We’ll see how they do with crew.
As I said earlier, it’s way too early to chalk up a bunch of wins for SpaceX on high priority spacecraft missions.
Utter horse manure. Give it up. Spacex has lost nothing. SpaceX was given the first available science mission. Plus, they have flown spacecraft directly up to the ISS. NOTHING is as sensitive, NOTHING.
The difference is not the 3x that some claim.
I’m afraid it is. As you note yourself in another comment above, SpaceX is charging USAF $100 million for a particular mission. That’s about what SpaceX has said a typical EELV mission, once they’re certified to bid, will cost.
The ULA block buy deal USAF signed pays $11 billion for 36 Atlas V and Delta IV cores. That’s over $305.5 million per core. Sure looks like 3:1 vs. SpaceX to me.
Given that a dozen of those three dozen cores are supposed to go for four Delta IV Heavies, that makes the D4H a #900+ million bird. The Falcon Heavy hasn’t flown yet, but is set to do so next year. Since it uses nearly all the same components as the Falcon 9R, it probably won’t take as long to EELV certify. Even doubling the FH’s catalog price of $85 million to $170 million, FH would be over a factor of five cheaper than what USAF is paying for a D4H under the block buy.
I hope the block buy per-core price is the total price of each all-up government launch mission that uses one of these cores. I don’t know, but I sure hope so. Otherwise ULA’s prices are worse than 3:1 higher than SpaceX.
Interestingly, ULA claims the block buy is saving USAF $4.4 billion. That would mean USAF used to pay ULA an average of $428 million for each core.
You seriously underestimate the price advantage SpaceX has and will have over ULA.
That price does not include intragration, which can run 10% – 20% or more of the launch price depending on the cargo, There is also a huge paper data requirement for government launches. Also some cargo’s, national security, require a lot more actual security associated with the launch.
The government apparently imposes a considerable number of bureaucratic burdens on launch providers that are not matched by commercial cusromers. The catalog price for a standard Falcon 9 satellite launch is $62.5 million. If USAF is paying $100 million to launch DSCOVR it’s because USAF wants $37.5 million worth of extra stuff the comsat and other commercial customers are willing to do without. SpaceX has been quite candid about the fact that EELV launches for USAF are going to cost $90-100 million each. The CRS flights NASA buys cost $133.3 million each because they also get a brand new Dragon each time. You imply that SpaceX is running some kind of bait-and-switch game here. They’re not. I have no idea why you imagine this stuff not to be well known.
The government applies those additional burdens for a reason. From what I understand, government organizations aren’t authorized to purchase insurance on their spacecraft like commercial operators are. Couple that with the fact that technology and function tend to drive certain types of military spacecraft, such as spy satellites, to be much more expensive than typical commercial satellites, and it’s only natural that the military is going to be much more risk-averse than a commercial operator would be, as they have a much bigger financial stake riding on the success of the launch.
In other words, if a commercial satellite launch fails, though it might have business implications, the company can reasonably expect to receive a good portion of the cost of the spacecraft back from the insurance payout. If a military launch fails though, that’s up to billions of taxpayer dollars wasted that aren’t going to be reimbursed.
Semi-Commercial.
(DigitalGlobe has U.S. National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency contracts for this satellite.)
Yes…another incestuous little arrangement in the making, between DoD and one player, this time imagery…
I think it’s so cute when Old Space tries to use social media to take on a company built by a guy who’s an expert in social media.
What??!
SpaceX has a manifest of more than 30 launches in the can.
Plus, coming up – commercial Crew (do you think they won’t make the cut??)
Plus, if things go their way, ULA will have to hand over much of their government launches because they charge 3-6 times the freight of SpaceX.
“why would anyone invest in SpaceX…”
Because commercial space seems to be the only hope for someone getting to Mars in my lifetime. (And maybe I’d get to see those anomaly reports. 😉
Because they are creating about one billion dollars of wealth per year? At the rate they are creating wealth they stand to be a 30+ billion dollar company by the time they want to attempt a Mars launch….
Another idiot joins the mix. Just ignore this idiot…he’s a troll.
Jerry
Please don’t give me any investment advice OK?
Who in their right mind would challenge IBM??
I mean a little startup that began in a garage and has a fruit for a logo??
I’m thinking that the way that SpaceX’s launch rate has started to accelerate has given them a little extra credibility in the eyes of the hard-eyed money men.
The whole ULA versus SpaceX debate reminds me of 1992 and the debate then raging about the choice between “real” IBM desktop computers (on one hand) and the legion of clones that were beginning to hit the market (on the other). Lots of businesses held onto IBM ‘puters for the sake of reliability and brand name, even though they were hugely more expensive. At least, they did for awhile until the flood gates broke loose. Pretty much the same dynamic is at play now with “old, trusted, reliable, albeit expensive” ULA and newcomer SpaceX. Give it another few years, and SpaceX will own ’em.
SpaceX has denied this report: http://gigaom.com/2014/08/1…
SpaceX has denied the contents of this report as being true so you all can go home now for the day
SpaceX has officially denied the TechCrunch investment round story: http://www.businessweek.com…
Huh, well, I was solidly duped by that article. Kind of funny that after I was posting on the Forbes thread about questioning stuff about SpaceX that I bit this one without thinking. Also makes me want to know the full story on who the original shills, I mean sources, were on the Tech Crunch article. (Although Tech Crunch also said last fall there would be a new Kindle Paperwhite by spring so maybe that’s a sign of their sources). This whole ULA and SpaceX thing is starting to get way too close to being like entrenched politics.
The delivery is not a surprise. These cores had already been purchased. Russian wasn’t about to give it up the money for something that was already built and paid for.