@VirginOrbit#SPAC filings reveal the most insane market assessment ever. IDK who these 'Prophesy' guys are, but in 2019 the total launch market was 8B$ in value. The launch market for satellites <500kg (up to 'Mini') was <1B$/year in the past 5 years. 1/ sec.gov/Archives/edgar…
I don't know if anybody will be held accountable for such a blatant overestimate of the small satellite launch market value, but luring investors in believing this business is 8B$/year is incredibly dishonest IMHO, particularly in light of the usual mantra of 'reduced costs'. 2/
If that market value was correct, the average price of launching 42t of mini satellites (<500kg) in 2019 would have been close to 200k$/kg. A preposterous value: we know that small launch is expensive, but not THAT expensive! 3/
If the management of @VirginOrbit really believes it is operating in a small launch market segment worth 8B$ in 2019 I think we should really worry for the company. If management knows this value is #bullshit then we can wonder why it is found in the SEC filings for the SPAC. 4/
Of course if 1B$ can be "approximated" to 8B$ all this is fine. Similarly if by "small satellite" @VirginOrbit management consider any satellite under 15 tons, the statement is also correct. But let us recall that @VirginOrbit can only launch satellites (way) below 500kg. 5/
In view of this I think that $NGCA Shareholders should think twice before approving the merger, and at least raise a few concerns on management ability to estimate the current market, and/or to proof read an important document. 6/
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I was sifting through @VirginOrbit investor deck (because I am a masochist obviously) and I came across the 25B$ market projection for "Small-Satellite launch" by 2030. The reference source is "Prophesy Market Insights". So I looked it up on Google. 1/ virginorbit.com/wp-content/upl…
When I first saw the reference in the SEC filing for the merger I thought it was a typo. But when I see it spelt the same way in the investor deck I don't know what to think. Because the term "prophesy market insights" only yields 3 results on Google. 2/ google.com/search?q=%22pr…
So let's assume that it is indeed a typo (if so, it is repeated twice, in two similarly important documents), and let's correct it to "Prophecy Market Insights". This name actually yields a positive result. 3/ prophecymarketinsights.com
What's the cost of a #OneWeb satellite? A thread.
Yesterday at a round table, one of my co-panelists, Chris McLaughlin of @OneWeb reacted to my talk on constellation economics with a statement: "a OneWeb satellite cost 1,2M$". Now, what do the financial statements say?
1/
In order to double check the statement I have pulled down @OneWeb's financial statements and have looked at the value of property (as from March 2021). oneweb.net/assets/news/me… 2/
The "space component under construction" is worth 1046M$. We also learn that the satellites already in orbit are considered under construction and will not be depreciated 'until sufficient coverage has been created to offer a commercial service'. 3/
@MorganStanley recently issued a report that puts the value of #SpaceX at $100B. Let me start by saying that @MorganStanley disclaims that it may have "conflicts of interests" affecting its "objectivity". It is my opinion that it also affects @MorganStanley's common sense. 1/
The @MorganStanley valuation of SpaceX is based on a series of very peculiar assumptions that are incredibly optimistic (tu put it nicely) from the perspectives of technology evolution, industrial costs and market uptake. Let's review them.
2/
80% of #SpaceX value, is based on #starlink. @MorganStanley assumes that the Starlink system performance will improve by at least two orders of magnitude in 20 years, enabling it to attract 300M subscribers at 20$/month in 2040, and generate billions of free cash after 2030.
3/
What about some constellation economics for a change? I've been playing around with the data made available by @erikkulu on constellations and completed it with my own information on top. So let's have a look at the current status of commercial constellations. 1/
According to @Erikkulu there are >200 active commercial satellite constellations, in various stages of elaboration and deployment. Many only exist on paper, but quite a few (156) have secured some funding and/or have deployed prototypes, and/or initial capability. 2/
The total funding secured by the 156 constellations amounts to 17B$ approximately. Noting that the Top 10 gather 85% of the total funding, and the Top 5 are worth 70% of the total (they are: OneWeb, Iridium Next, Starlink, Globalstar 2G and SES O3b/mPOWER).
3/
According to this video, there are historic shareholders in #SpaceX that are monetising their investment in SpaceX by peddling it in small bits to small cheque investors.
1/9
The youtuber shares his story, how he was approached by a "buddy" from a Tesla investors group to partake in the opportunity to buy SpaceX shares, "this is the opportunity of a lifetime", but it is not "official" and comes with unusual conditions attached. Let's have a look.
2/9
Condition 1) invest at the blink of an eye without any information "you have to wire the money in 2 days" without "any documentation" attached to the investment "no powerpoint from SpaceX", nothing, "i didn't even see the numbers"
3/9
We have modelized the economic equation of @SpaceX as a launch service provider (leaving aside Dragon, Starship and Starlink) with a view to uncover its cost and profit drivers. The idea was to use Falcon 9 as a benchmark for testing the economics of launcher Reusability. 1/18
The full research paper is available at linkedin, please read it to understand the assumptions and limitations. The key findings and highlights are posted in this thread. 2/18 linkedin.com/posts/eurospac…
We find that there is a very strong correlation between gross profit and launch cadence in launcher economics, in other words: without a sufficient volume of launch the launcher cannot be profitable, reusable or not. 3/18