So in other words, the net present value of each Starlink launch must be >= $20 million in order for Starlink to be a sustainable business.

Seems within the realm of possibility at this point in the company’s growth cycle?

Starlink is already showing net income and has shown net income for at least 3 years.

There's always people out there to minimize success of others.

It's not first. It's nothing new. It's not innovative.

There's an old article in WSJ that claimed SpaceX told investors that starlink was profitable if you excluded certain costs. We found out from the IPO that that was nonsense. SpaceX was charging starlink the internal cost of launch. Not the public pricing that everyone else charges.

That makes sense if you're not trying to split the company.

The question of whether Starlink can pay for its own launches is absolutely valid, whether or not you are planning to split the company.

The imagination is that they are paying retail pricing instead of internal cost.

Something that makes no sense.

You are wrong. The current, publicly filed financials for SpaceX show Starlink as paying nothing for launch.

The launch costs for Starlink DO NOT show up as costs that Starlink pays. They show up as depreciation on the satellites themselves.

> profitable if you excluded certain costs

So is everything, it's an empty statement.

> Starlink is already showing net income and has shown net income for at least 3 years.

This is just BS since they don't break it out as a separate business. There are accounting rules for this and they don't follow them because they are not treating it as a seperate business.

> There's always people out there to minimize success of others.

Oh poor Musk, everyone is always trying to put him down. If only people would leave him alone he only want to save the world from everything. He's a saint.

It's broken out clearly as a business unit.

Nothing hidden

All hail Saint Nutjob