The Moon Shot Project Pitch Deck Teardown

The Moon Shot Project: A 2019 Construction Tech Blueprint

The Moon Shot Project deck, dated September 1, 2019, is a 38-slide business plan that attempts to bridge the gap between experimental 3D printing and large-scale residential real estate development. The deck is structured more like a formal business plan than a modern venture capital pitch, utilizing dense text and detailed financial tables to make its case.

Slide 1: Title and Positioning

The cover slide introduces the company as a 'Revolutionary 3d printing company.' The branding is minimal, featuring a simple brown filigree logo against a blue and white gradient background. The date, September 1, 2019, places this deck at a time when 3D construction printing was beginning to gain significant media attention but had few commercial success stories.

Slide 4: Competition, Team, and Philosophy

This slide serves as a combined 'Why Us' and 'Competition' section. The company identifies Icon as a main competitor, claiming Icon's printers are limited to 2,000 square feet. Moonshot states its goal is to print structures on a 'grander scale' with assistance from Apis Cor . Omission: The deck does not clarify if a formal partnership exists with Apis Cor or if they are simply using their technology.

The 'Why Us?' section introduces a 'worker cooperative system.' The goal is to create 'self-driven leaders' who are 'core-owners' of their sections. The team list is extensive but lacks names, citing roles such as graphics artists, engineer/physicist, informational technologist, and seed investor. Omission: The lack of specific names or bios for these roles makes it impossible for an investor to verify the team's expertise.

Slide 8: Industry Context and Public Comparables

Moonshot provides a detailed look at the broader 3D printing market by listing established public companies. They cite 3D Systems (NYSE:DDD) with a market cap of $2.17 billion, Stratasys (NASDAQ:SSYS) at $1.26 billion, and Materialise (NASDAQ:MTLS) at $646.47 million. This slide functions to validate the sector's financial viability, though these companies primarily focus on industrial prototyping and medical applications rather than large-scale construction.

Slide 12: Operational Plan

The operational plan is a list of immediate next steps. The company is currently 'securing external funding sources' including grants and government funding. Key activities include scouting land for small communities, forming joint ventures, and using Fiverr to hire virtual assistants for paperwork. The mention of Fiverr suggests a lean, early-stage operation despite the high-capital nature of the industry.

Slide 16: Key Metrics and Cost Analysis

This slide provides specific figures for the hardware and construction costs. The 'upfront cost of 3d printers' is cited at $500,000 for industrial plastic printers. Alternatively, they suggest 100 'repraps' could be assembled for $20,000 to produce concrete molds. Metric: They estimate the cost of cast concrete at $15/sq ft (expensive end) down to $7/sq ft (optimistic end). Shipping a 1,200 sq ft home's worth of concrete casts is estimated at $2,000-$5,000.

Slide 20: Efficiency Formula

Moonshot attempts to quantify their technological advantage with a mathematical formula. They set a '3D printing constant' (Y) at 30%. The formula Z = X - (Y X) defines the final cost of their enhanced building process. This 30% reduction is applied to insulation, painting, and interior trims. For example, total costs for these items are projected to drop from $38,500 to $26,950.

Slide 24: Financial Assumptions

The financial plan for the first three years rests on several key assumptions. A 1,200 square foot home is expected to cost between $55,000 and $90,000 . Buyers are expected to pay an upfront cost for labor and materials set at $25,000 to $47,500 . This indicates a business model that relies heavily on customer deposits to fund the construction process.

Slide 28: Year 2 Sales Forecast

The sales forecast for Year 2 is highly aggressive. The company projects selling 10 units per month of 'Cast concrete 3d printed homes' and 10 units per month of 'Large 3d printed homes.' Figures: Total sales for the year are projected at $17,400,000 with a total margin of $8,700,000 . This assumes the company can scale from zero to 240 homes per year in just 24 months.

Slide 32: Startup Budget

The startup budget totals $510,000 . The vast majority of this—$500,000—is allocated to 'Start-up assets to fund,' which corresponds to the 3D printer mentioned earlier. Omission: The budget only allocates $1,000 for 'Start-up expenses to fund,' which is remarkably low for a company planning to manage large-scale construction projects and a 'highly knowledgeable workforce.'

Slide 36: Financing and SWOT

The final slide in this selection outlines the sources of funds: investor financing, term loans, personal seed investment, and upfront payments from buyers. The 'Use of funds' is reiterated as R&D and the procurement of the 3D printer. The slide ends with a header for a 'SWOT Analysis' that is not populated in this view.

What The Moon Shot Project Does Well

The deck provides a granular look at the costs associated with 3D construction. By breaking down concrete casting, shipping, and assembly time (1-2 days for an 800 sq ft structure), the founders show they have researched the logistics of the job site. The inclusion of public market comparables (Slide 8) helps frame the company within a larger, multi-billion dollar industry, providing a sense of scale for the potential exit or growth trajectory.

What Is Missing From The Deck

The most glaring omission is the lack of a named, experienced team. While the roles are listed, construction tech is a field that requires deep expertise in engineering, local zoning, and supply chain management. Without names or bios, the 'worker cooperative' model feels more like a theoretical organizational chart than a functional business. Furthermore, the deck lacks any photographic evidence of a prototype or a 'Minimum Viable Product.' In hardware and construction, investors typically look for proof of concept before funding a $500,000 equipment purchase. Finally, the Year 2 sales forecast of 240 units (Slide 28) lacks a 'Go-to-Market' strategy that explains how a startup will acquire 20 customers per month and manage 20 active construction sites simultaneously.

Founder Takeaways: What to Copy and What to Avoid

Copy the cost breakdown: Slide 16 and Slide 20 are excellent examples of showing your work. Instead of just saying 'we are cheaper,' the founders provide specific dollar-per-square-foot estimates and a formula for their efficiency gains. This level of detail invites a technical discussion with an investor.

Avoid the 'Role-Only' team slide: Never list a team by their job titles alone. Investors invest in people, not just positions. If you have an 'engineer/physicist' on the team, their name and previous accomplishments are your most valuable assets. If the team hasn't been hired yet, be honest about it being a hiring plan rather than an existing team.

Avoid unrealistic scaling: Projecting $17 million in revenue by Year 2 for a company that currently has $0 in assets and is planning to hire virtual assistants via Fiverr creates a credibility gap. Ensure your financial forecasts align with the operational reality of your startup budget.