>I wasn't aware FH had failed,

FH has flown about once a year, a rocket more capable than F9. The market just doesn't exists.. A product left on the shelves is a failed product.

Starship is even more powerful, the only actual client is Artemis, and that will fly once every few years (if we are Lucky). And on top of that SpaceX is not making money out of HLS, part of the reason why they got the contract was because SpaceX is putting like half of the money.

>Starlink is a bit of a left field idea but from the sounds of it was designed as a way to provide cash flow long term to develop Starship. Satellite internet already exists, is a mature market.. even if SpaceX completely dominated the market, there's not enough money there to fund starship development. That's why SpaceX keeps running rounds of investment.

SpaceX is a start-up, a 20 year old start-up that doesn't make money.

>giving them even larger profits

SpaceX is not profitable. You can't have a larger something that you don't have.

>We don't know all of SpaceX's financials, but we do have very good info on the cost per launch of the Falcon 9.

We don't, unless you work for their financial department, we can only speculate.

>Three execs have spoken about the F9 launches being well under $30m

And there's no way to confirm that, it's fine if you decide to trust them, but History shows Elon's companies are not know for being truthful.

>As for the rounds of funding, we also know what that is for.

Again, we don't.. unless you work for their financial department, we can only speculate.

>And if F9 wasn't much cheaper to fly reused, then we would see SpaceX take it easier on launches

Why would they do that? The only way SpaceX is getting money is from investors is because they think SpaceX is revolutionizing the industry.. without the reusability gimmick, SpaceX is just another rocket company.

>But they have committed serious funds to develop both a LEO satellite constellation for fast internet and also a fully reusable rocket design that would lift 150t to LEO,

Well, the former one changes the business model of the company, from orbital launches to telecommunications. It's a bad sign for a start-up to pivot that late in the game.

And on the later, although it sounds like a natural progression of the launch services, the failure of FH is a bad sign for starship.. SpaceX may end up never making money.

>It's like Amazon, where they didn't 'profit' for 2 decades because they were building AWS.

Sure, but SpaceX is still far away.. let's say it takes another 10 to make starship as smooth as F9. Are the investors willing to wait 30 years? 40 years? At some point money is going to run out.

Exactly, SpaceX is operating under the start-up model "grow without caring about profits". That's makes it very possible they are just dumping F9, France already accused them of doing so.

** BTW, SpaceX was founded 20 years ago, it should be profitable by now, behaving like a start-up after so long is just a bad sign.

>Those rounds were to raise funds for Starship and/or Starlink

We don't know that.. we can speculate though. Isn't it fun?

>The purchase price of a Falcon9 launch did not decrease significantly after they achieved reusability, they just increased their profit margins.

We don't know that, SpaceX financials are not public. Given the fact that SpaceX has consistently run rounds of funding, costs may have increased with reusability.

>hooking their thumbs into their vest straps like they were waiting to be aggressively confronted.

I know it looks like that, but is actually done out of comfort. I use vests and do that all the time, it's a way to rest your arms.

Still, dressing like going to a war zone in suburbia is the most ridiculous shit people do..

>EVs were really looked down on back then, even if they could have worked.

That has never been true, electric cars have always been the "future". The problem has always been the batteries. Tesla just came at the time when the right technology/price point came to market.

I was there, 3000 years ago.. Ok, I'm not that old, but old enough to remember electric cars in the 80s and 90s, concept cars that is.

>Your claim was that the decline was devastating to Tesla.

To be fair, it's devastating to stock valuation.. how much that matters is relative.

> I guess a negative connotation brings in more clicks.

The negative connotation comes from the expectation for Tesla to dominate the market, without it the market cap is unjustifiable.

>No auto companies would touch EV with a ten foot pole 20 years ago,

Because the batteries needed didn't existed yet.. making them out of lead acid was just impractical.

Puro 956 cuh!

>Falcon Heavy will be human rated if their is a customer to pay for it.

Elon said that will never happen, SpaceX is betting on starship.

>SLS is years away from being ready to carry humans.

SLS is ready to carry humans right now, of course it needs to be tested first. But it is already human rated.

>Falcon Heavy could easily be ready to carry humans before SLS is ready to carry humans.

Again, Elon said that will never happen.. and regardless, it doesn't have enough power (remember the 80% mention before).

Falcón heavy is not human rated, and will never be. Also, SLS is 80% more powerful.. so no, it doesn't work.