Re: Because it would be a waste of time
Perhaps you would like Starlink to be spun off but I have not seen evidence of it. There was talk about it years ago but it was just talk with no timeline and it has faded away. I agree Starlink separate from SpaceX would see different launch costs but in this reality it hasn't happened. An IPO would raise a hefty chunk of one-off capital but would not be the cash cow providing regular funds for Starship development. I did not include failure rate of satellites, the ground stations or other rounding errors. I would love GAAP accounting figures too but we are not going to get them any time soon. The $250k satellite manufacturing cost was aspirational. The links I provided gave that as a figure from current external financial estimates - not from SpaceX. As far as we can tell (not as far as either of us would like), SpaceX has achieved their aspirational price. I talked about revenue and how Starlink launch cost was approximately matched by commercial launch income. I was unaware that SpaceX was touting "Profit independent of launch cost". Got a link for that? The links I gave were independent estimates, not from SpaceX. It looks like you think I am parroting SpaceX financial statements then attributing my statements to them. I look for data that does not come from SpaceX because as Musk's lawyers have put in court filings: "No reasonable person would consider a Musk Tweet to be a source of factual information".
Yes, lets see if SpaceX is going to deliver on HLS*. I am lucky you said "if" and not "when" because no-one with a clue ever believed NASA's dates for any part of Artemis. Space suits, Orion and HLS will all be late. At this time it is difficult to guess which will cause the longest delay. Your assertion that the HLS demo contract did not get a thorough vetting is completely ridiculous. I am talking Frenchman on a castle wall taunting a bunch of Monty Python grail hunting English K-nigguts level ridicule. Take a look at the proposals NASA received for HLS:
*) Dynetics had brilliant solutions for some problems but limited resources meant that other problems had not even been addressed. Their initial design assumed Gateway. Re-shaping the design to work without Gateway took the mass margin negative - even with just two astronauts. Adding functionality while reducing mass is jumping on the fast train to cost and schedule overruns. Dynetics would have died before delivery if they had won this firm fixed price HLS contract.
*) Blue's Integrated Lander Vehicle was beyond NASA's budget. NASA would have had to go to congress and ask for more money (double). In hindsight they would have got it: Jeff offered to pay half to match SpaceX's bid and congress decided to fund a second HLS. Blue's lander required astronauts to unbolt bits of the vehicle to make the ascent stage light enough to return. The payload capacity limited missions to flags and footprints and preparing the ascent stage would take away time from doing anything else. The demo would not include testing ascent because there would be no astronauts present to reconfigure the ascent vehicle. This proposal also suffered from having to be modified to work without Gateway. The second (better) lander contract is for Artemis V using SLS 1B and Gateway in 2030. At this very early stage it is hard to guess whether the lander, SLS 1B or Gateway will create the longest delay beyond 2030. At a stretch I will accept New Sheppard as evidence that Blue have reached SpaceX's grasshopper stage of development. They have a long way to go and need long term cryogenic storage of hydrogen to succeed - a tougher problem than storing methane.
*) SpaceX matched their proposal to NASA's budget, with payments only after achieving milestones that could not happen before NASA had the money. NASA are getting three HLS missions for less money than one SLS launch. SpaceX are paying for the the booster, tanker and depot development and taking all the risk with a firm fixed price contract. Financial issues have broken firm fixed price contracts before. SpaceX have been finding the money (we certainly disagree about where they get it from but we do seem to agree that so far HLS is not short of money). Starship HLS has a huge positive mass margin, making it a valuable component in a return to the Moon to stay - not just flags and footprints 2. The uncrewed demo flight includes a return to NRHO. I think there is a significant chance HLS demo 1 will fail and NASA will require an HLS demo 2 at SpaceX expense - which will happen because SpaceX is not short of money.
On technical grounds it is obvious why NASA's HLS team selected SpaceX. The swift political retribution against Kathy Leuders (head of the team) for not selecting Blue Origin's group of oldspace contractors was not a surprise. Leuders was shunted sideways within NASA to a position where she could not block funding to the self licking ice cream cone again. It is hardly surprising she left NASA and took a job with SpaceX.
* Lets see if Jeff can deliver Blue Moon. Blue Origin has a firm fixed price contract but subcontracts parts out to Lockheed Martin, Draper, Boeing, Astrobotic, and Honeybee Robotic. Any and all of those contractors could say "Your deadline approaches and we are the only supplier available now. We are putting up our prices. I am sure Jeff will find the money somewhere". There will be a game of schedule chicken between the contractors even with the launch date so far in the future. That could cause Blue Moon to follow in the footsteps of Blue's biconic re-entry capsule contract.
How about a bet: I bet a grovelling apology that SpaceX gets people off the Moon before Blue or Dynetics.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
