> I'm surprised they didn't take less risks just to avoid a narrative of failure.

That's the advantage of being privately owned. "Vibes" (hah) don't matter. Public opinion doesn't matter. What matters is executing on your vision / goals. And they're doing that.

The fact that they're bringing in loads of cash from Starlink surely helps. They haven't had the need to raise money in a while, now.

▲

iwontberude 5 days ago | parent [-]

[flagged]

▲

WalterBright 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

Selling rockets to the government is not receiving gifts of taxpayer money.

	▲	peterfirefly 5 days ago \| parent [-]
		Especially not when they are cheaper and/or better than the competitors!

▲

avmich 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I think you're wrong saying they are cash flow negative. Both Starlink and payload launching business are profitable in SpaceX.

▲

boxed 4 days ago | parent [-]

He means that they are cash flow negative if you discount all government income and at the same time include all costs with those launches :P

▲

avmich 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

> He means that they are cash flow negative if you discount all government income and at the same time include all costs with those launches :P

That would be a strange evaluation.

	▲	boxed 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		I've seen worse from SpaceX haters. I've had a "conversation" here on HN by someone who claimed that SpaceX doesn't land boosters anymore for example. Conspiracy theories basically.

▲

iwontberude 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Bingo they aren’t anywhere near the solution to return the investment and will be raising debt or begging for more government money. They will be (progressively) nationalized to justify the additional cash infusions to keep the mission from being a complete failure. NASA wants their moon base I guess.