It's amazingly disappointing an investment writer can't understand a simple topic in an S1. The launch cost for Starlink is in the satellite business not Launch and is billed at cost
SpaceX and the current space polity dreamt up under Reagan and Bush and delivered by Obama is a complete bipartisan win. Things are cheaper, faster and more abundant in the sector.
Launch, Human Spaceflight, Satellites and Satellite Internet are now (and for most of a decade) been primarily American. Even the foreign competition is largely American (See Telesat)
Paired contracts (openly bid from a larger pool of qualified companies mind), a fixed cost for delivering ends/products etc have meant lower costs to the government, redundancy in case of failure, less time between having an idea and having it implemented (HASTE, LUCAS and Starshield).
Of course there's the risk that this means companies exit the market if they can't deliver in the old environment (SDA, Starshield) but there's still the option for old companies to compete in truly novel projects (F-47) with the old contracting system. And pairing also allows the government to bring in new companies to the fold to compete with the old guard.
As for corporate taxes, those articles are standard fare to direct misplaced anger at companies that aren't doing well on the whole (because they've never turned a profit or are in a low margin business) or are reinvesting all their money(something that's supposed to be a good thing). We aren't talking about transfer pricing and similar shenanigans. Accountants just roll their eyes. But it breeds unnecessary anger (See the "BlackRock is buying single family homes"; "SpaceX has got ~$30B of government subsidies" nonsense too)
>It's well-understood that a ton of companies operate in a mode that doesn't chase profitability
In the end these articles insinuate that said company isn't paying their fair share/ is freeloading on the polity.
The responses to the articles clearly show that it's not well understood.
It's the best and worst of times, but we should at least have clarity on what's better and what's worse.
I'm not talking about Musk, or culture war stuff. The rest is fine.
The government has Starshield. And several other non SpaceX satellite systems. They famously sent four (4) recievers of that sort to Ukraine.
There's this idea out there that SpaceX is somehow stealing from NASA. Paired with the notion/assumption that the government builds its space vehicles. Completely incomprehensible.
Paired means at least two companies get the contract. SpaceX to my memory has always been paid less when that happens.
Examples are
CCrew - Boeing
CCargo - Sierra, SpaceX is now a sub for another company bc their engines are made in Ukraine.
HLS - Blue Origin
NSSL - ULA, Blue Origin (Maybe RKLB)
NRO Starshield GMTI - Northrop Grumman
SDA - York Space
SEA-2 - OneWeb
>Can't speak to the world as a whole but the US has we spent 50 years gutting most government functions that aren't part of the police/military/surveillance apparatus (and many of those as well).
It's the likes of Boeing and Lockheed vs SpaceX not Government vs Private Sector. That's how it's worked since Apollo.
>SpaceX itself is an example of the primary mechanism of this: Diverting funding to private, no-bid contracts that remove both market forces and democratic oversight from those services while also ballooning their costs
This is the core of the disinformation. SpaceX has always been cheaper, see Europa Clipper for one of the most egregious examples. The post SpaceX era is also cheaper for the government because of the shift in contract types. That's how you hear Boeing is losing money on Starliner and Air Force 1, because companies now eat the losses they used to pass on. Raytheon (and SpaceX mind) dropped out of SDA because of this.
The contracts are also openly bid. And if they aren't classified you can bid too. Lots of these contracts don't even have pré-qualification.
This stuff is known to anyone that follows the industry. In fact, the fact other companies are involved makes it more expensive because they charge more than SpaceX per unit of work. But government keeps its leverage and industrial base.
The person you read from who claimed (I can tell they aren't original thoughts) these things is lying to you and any cursory check (sometimes just reading articles instead of just headlines is enough).
It's like the X company isn't paying taxes, "this is a bad thing" stories, then you look at the balance sheet and not only is the company paying taxes, it's lifetime and operationally unprofitable, so it has no corp tax incidence (like anyone doing part time work at minimum wage or below (at a charity))
The launch cost for Starlink is in the connectivity segment. It has to go somewhere on your balance sheet and you can't magic it away.
If you manufacture cement and you also sell premixed concrete in another division it's a similar thing. Or any other company that sells both raw material and finished product.
Here they are saying it's in the connectivity segment costs instead of them buying it at retail. That's all there is.
That's how analysts can estimate launch costs ~$20MM and $600k for satellites as opposed to the idea that launch is $0 for Starlink and the cost is hidden in the space segment.