If the public and government are no longer willing to put up with the disruption that Starship causes to flights, the environment etc, because they believe it's a waste of time, then SpaceX won't be able to just go again

Actually it's more probable that public perceptions will sour before there's any likelihood of the money running out. And those perceptions are critical for all of Musk's ventures, eg they effect the willingness of the government help out SpaceX both financially and by bending rules

And if "some planned launches of SpaceX’s Starlink satellites on Falcon 9 rockets would potentially be pushed from the end of this year to early 2026 because of the surge of Falcon engineers working on Starship" good luck to external F9 buyers wanting launch flexibility...

The last thing that SpaceX needs is skepticism on revenue growth *plus* a public backlash to continued disruptive Starship testing that isn't showing visible signs of progress techcrunch.com/2025/08/20/s...

But that's conflating one-time lower margin contracts to build satellites with high incremental margin service revs. People have ignored the 2023 $7.4B rev total that's way lower than SpaceX suggested in Nov 2023. Let's see if the 2024 total is also disappointing when it emerges

One thing that's not so visible externally is that recent investor reports have moved satellite development (e.g. NRO) into the reported Starlink revenue total to show increased growth there & de-emphasize the rocket division (which is now projected to be ~flat with 2023)

All the objectives for the upcoming launch could be met without even matching the visible achievements in prior tests (booster catch & soft splashdown) so it almost seems like the plan is that "it's better to fail prematurely and often". But will the public agree?

(One slight editing error in that my discussion of streaming video from Netflix going over Starlink was used to describe satellite TV)

My assumption is the 2024 revenue was held back for a future story. But the stuff about not paying tax doesn't consider the differences between pre and post 2017 losses (those later ones don't allow corporations to pay zero tax)

Overall I find it a very disappointing piece. There's a story to be told about revenue growth being below the company's forecasts (like the WSJ did) and instead it's all about tax losses

bsky.app/profile/tmfa...

The one concrete piece of information on total revs is a very low $7.4B in 2023 when as late as Nov 2023 "sources" in the company were pushing the narrative that revs would be closer to $9B than the original $8B target due to "Starlink strength" www.bloomberg.com/news/article...

Actually says Starlink was more than half of $7.4B in 2023 then more than doubled to roughly $8B in 2024. That's a tight bracket around ~$3.8B. What's more surprising is the article didn't state the total rev for SpaceX in 2024 when they must have that

However, its worth noting since the company repeatedly stated that the launches would be "every 45 to 60 days" that 45 days x 13 launches from the date of the call takes us to mid-March 2027

The company's current forecast now aligns with what I suggested was the best case launch schedule in my D2D report two weeks ago tmfassociates.com/blog/wp-cont...

Let me know if it's fixed now