Read first A public model for public facts. Not financial advice. Privacy Notice
doesthemathwork.com Model

SpaceX Pre-IPO

An honest comparison between Prof. Damodaran's story-to-DCF workbook and the active Scenario Lab case.

Two useful models, two different jobs

Prof. Damodaran values the destination. Scenario Lab tests the climb.

Prof. Aswath Damodaran's SpaceX workbook translates a long-term story into target revenues, target margins, reinvestment, ROIC, cost of capital, and terminal free cash flow. Scenario Lab makes execution, capex, IPO proceeds, Starship timing, and AI compute risk visible year by year.

Read Prof. Damodaran
Prof. Damodaran Equity $1.30T Story-to-DCF value after cash, IPO proceeds, and debt.
Scenario Equity $0B Active Scenario Lab total-capex lens.
Value / Share $0 vs $98 Scenario Lab vs. Prof. Damodaran workbook output.
End-State Revenue $0B gap Scenario 2036 revenue vs. Prof. Damodaran 2036 target.
Prof. Damodaran workbook

Strengths and blind spots

  • Strong: classic DCF discipline; target revenue, margin, reinvestment, ROIC, WACC fade, and terminal value all speak the same valuation language.
  • Strong: R&D capitalization treats growth investment more thoughtfully than plain accounting EBIT.
  • Weak spot: the output depends on very large end-state revenue and unusually high implied capital productivity.
  • Weak spot: near-term AI capex funding stress is less visible than it is in a direct capex model.
Scenario Lab

Strengths and blind spots

  • Strong: makes Starship execution, AI contract confidence, risk overlays, IPO proceeds, and capex intensity directly testable.
  • Strong: shows three DCF lenses so users can see how much value depends on treating growth capex generously.
  • Weak spot: terminal EBITDA multiples are less theoretically pure than a ROIC/reinvestment-driven terminal DCF.
  • Weak spot: operating sliders are useful stress tools, but they are not a replacement for a full multi-statement forecast.
Revenue Path

Prof. Damodaran vs. Active Scenario

Total revenue, 2025-2036. Both models now use 2036 as the terminal comparison year.

Segment End State

Where The Gap Comes From

Scenario Lab 2036 segment revenue compared with Prof. Damodaran's 2036 segment target.

Valuation Output

Equity Value By Lens

Prof. Damodaran equity value beside Scenario Lab total-capex, maintenance-capex, and growth-adjusted DCF outputs.

Capital Burden

Reinvestment vs. Capex

Prof. Damodaran uses reinvestment from sales-to-capital. Scenario Lab uses explicit capex intensity. They are related, but not identical.

Model Mechanics Base case
Question Prof. Damodaran Scenario Lab
What is being valued? Operating assets using FCFF, then equity after cash, IPO proceeds, debt, and options. Active operating scenario using forecast FCF plus a 2036 terminal EBITDA multiple, then equity bridge.
How is growth modeled? Revenue converges to explicit 2036 segment targets. Preset revenue paths adjusted by user controls for subscribers, launch cadence, AI utilization, contract confidence, Starship, and risk.
How is reinvestment handled? Sales-to-capital ratios translate incremental revenue into reinvestment. Direct capex intensity, taper, Starship modifiers, and risk-case capex multipliers.
What is the most sensitive assumption? End-state revenue, target margins, and implied ROIC/capital productivity. Terminal multiple, capex intensity, Starship/risk overlay, and AI monetization confidence.