>>12952304So by the end of life of Starlink v1.0 satellites in orbit, SpaceX has generated ~$5Bn in usable revenue; with $1.12Bn carved out for replacing Starlink satellites and launching them up into their respective shells.
At $5Bn in cash on hand, and say an average launch cost of $200M per Starship fully fueled to the Moon or Mars, that gives them: 25 launches. At 100T dry mass capacity, that's 2500T to lunar surface or 2500T to martian surface. Let's pretend, in the interest of national prestige, maintaining good graces of NASA's admin, and keeping in tradition of America Fuck Yeah! They yeet all 25 ships to the Moon. So by 2027 then (5 years from next year), we have THREE options:
Dynetics launched on SLS or Vulcan every year, that's 5 flights in total at $2bn a piece to throw ~15-18 tons in total onto the moon.
National Team launched on SLS or Vulcan every year (because by 2025, I fully expect that New Glenn will not have left the hanger let alone made it to the test stand; what a fucking joke), that's 5 flights in total at $2bn a piece to throw ~30 tons in total onto the moon
or
SpaceX Starship HLS with 25 flights in total to throw 2500 tons in total onto the moon. For reference, the entirety of the ISS is 175 tons. You can throw 14.2x the mass and volume of the ISS to the Moon with 5 years of Starlink revenue to the Moon. Probably another 400T if NASA pays the $2.1Bn that SpaceX bid for Lunar Starship, putting the grand total to 2900 tons--bringing total mass/volume to 16.5x ISS'
>>12952335SpaceX is in the black despite the Starlink costs. Because F9 Block5 is so god damn good, they have been able to use it for recurring Starlink launches; which have kept their overall overhead very low. On top of that, NASA and other partners have agreed to fly their payloads on preflown boosters, which means that ~70% of total "cost" is profit to SpaceX. Finally, they have an unlimited runway for raising money--everyone wants in. EVERYONE.
