Live data from Hacker News

SpaceX files to go public

nytimes.com

431–440 of 631 posts

Re: SpaceX files to go public

#431

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But why? We’ve not colonised either of the poles of our own planet in any real way out of a sense of prestige. Heck there’s huge areas in Canada and Russia uninhabited and these are all a dream to live in compared to Mars. Turns out the real overpopulation is in places people want to live.

Because I don't believe our species should be trapped this planet forever. If we don't become multiplanetary now, then when? And there is an incredibly short window for us to become multiplanetary. We currently live in a golden era of abundance that will not last, and we must make the most of this time period. I think most people don't realize how inherently unstable our society is, and how quickly civilization can d…

> Nuclear war is a huge issue. We've had three conflicts this decade that could have led to a nuclear war. All of which are still unresolved.

I'm kicking myself for engaging with this at all, but that's poor reasoning if you're worried about nuclear war. The risk of MAD forces a detente, if there were a (perceived) hedge against it, that increases the likelihood of MAD happening.

If nuclear war happens, Mars colonies depend on expensive, technical supply chains on Earth that will be destroyed.

We take for granted a whole damn planet where water falls from the sky, food and fuel come out of the ground and there's abundant amount of replenishing atmospheric O2 available for ubiquitous reaction and combustion.

Without resupply from a nuked Earth, you're left with the fact that food, manufacturing, construction, etc all depend on, at the very least, atmospheric oxygen, and Mars will never hold a meaningful atmosphere. Without atmospheric oxygen, and thus combustion, when it comes to supply chains required for existing anywhere, you aren't building infrastructure, you aren't growing food without nutrient supplies, and you aren't manufacturing sustainably, efficiently, or at all.

And that ignores that Martian dust and soil is toxic[1] to life, which requires even more resources to mitigate, remove, keep out/off of people and living things, and even more resources to treat and maintain the soil if you ever want to use it to grow food.

Earth is the one shot people have, and a nuked Earth is infinitely more habitable than Mars. Even the bottom of the ocean is more habitable than Mars. It just does not make sense as a backup option to Earth. And if Mars is a pipe dream, life isn't leaving this solar system and surviving independently as anything resembling humans.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martian_regolith#Toxicity

Re: SpaceX files to go public

#432

I'm a SpaceX investor, and from reading the comments here, I think most people here are missing why SpaceX has an outrageously high valuation. SpaceX's valuation only makes sense if you buy into their mission of creating a civilization on Mars, and that the Space Exploration Technologies Corporation is the vehicle that creates this future. If SpaceX achieves this, it would be the most valuable company ever created. I…

How does a mars colony justify such a valuation? You have a gap in your explanation, that’s taken for granted, but why?

Re: SpaceX files to go public

#433

Earlier quoted context omitted.

tbf those investments weren't traded on a liquid market, and I suspect Founders Fund are less worried about short term setbacks than your average mutual fund or mug punter. But of course we also know that Musk-run public companies are immune to normal dynamics of worrying about next quarter's returns (or even worrying about the CEO publicly torching his brand equity) so the very last thing I'd imagine happening is Sp…

> Founders Fund are less worried about short term setbacks than your average mutual fund Fidelity has been an investor since 2014. The only new money flows will be index and retail; everyone else has had access for years.

Those funds have more capital to allocate to profitable publicly traded companies than they did to speculative bets on unicorns, and more importantly now have an easy offramp if their investment thesis isn't as aligned with the Kardashev scale as the true believers.

The risks they care about will be more "Starlink growth slows" or "orbital datacentre has horrible operating economics" than "Starship launch anomaly" though, and I agree it'll make zero difference to how SpaceX operates both because Elon isn't afraid to tank valuations and because retail loves him unconditionally. And the bull case for SpaceX is still stronger than the bull case for Tesla which happily trades at valuations north of $1b.

Re: SpaceX files to go public

#434

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Genuinely: regulation. Every other benefit is conceptual at best. If SpaceX controls the entire heavy launch market _and_ they control data-centers in space, then absolutely no one on earth is in a position to control or regulate such a data-center except SpaceX themselves. I'm not arguing that it's a good idea, but that is the idea.

you can build datacenters on international waters, and that'd likely be cheaper no?

a boat + demolition material are way cheaper than a rocket + demolition material, but that's not counting micrometeorites and such.

still seems like a daft idea all in all, or a very distant one at least.

Re: SpaceX files to go public

#435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Overall it's worse than the other frontier models, but it's decent for queries about breaking news, due to being trained on twitter data. It's also better for queries about controversial topics, and topics that the other labs have deemed to be "unsafe". Politically, it differs quite a bit from other models.[0] It's right leaning, although it's closer neutral than other models, defining what neutral is a challenge tho…

The stated goal for Grok is to be as truthful as possible. Maybe that shows up as being more right leaning than the competition.

Grok and Elon's ventures in general should really get the Purpose of a System treatement in public discourse. For all we know the purpose of Grok is to make nude edits of people. You can assign this to left or right leaning as you please.

Re: SpaceX files to go public

#436
post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A civilization on Mars would not create value. It would be a money incinerator. Mars is a shithole with nothing to offer humanity economically or in quality of life. Quite the opposite, in fact.

250 years ago, you could make this exact argument about the British colonization of Australia, and it would be entirely correct. The early colony was a pure fiscal drain on Britain with almost no return. Yet today it's the 13th largest economy on earth. Think on a longer time scale.

So you’re investing with a 250y time horizon? Do you even expect profits from your investment? Or is it purely ideological?

Re: SpaceX files to go public

#437

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hey are absolutely not replacing “legacy” isps and certainly not mobile. Even if they had perfect coverage, sat signals are way too sensitive to obstructions.

If anything they'll go for the lucrative customers that _need_ a signal to go faster through vacuum than through glass. Maybe some decent revenue offering sat to cell for the traditional carriers.

There is no workload that latency sensitive is there? If it is you just move the server where it's needed. I.e. you do HFT next to the stock exchange.

Re: SpaceX files to go public

#438
post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their technical accomplishments are doubtlessly notable, but does the expected business growth justify this valuation? Honest question, how many things do we really need to send up there that reducing the cost to orbit by 100x will trigger Jevon's paradox and lead to 100x more launches? I suppose "data centers in space" is the current answer but again, I'm suspicious about its feasibility. Barring that, until we have…

Personally, I think that valuing businesses by their expected growth is doing really bad things to our society. We used to value businesses by their current returns, usually dividends paid to shareholders. And we treated any statements about their future plans as interesting but not something anyone should trust. Now we value stocks on what their price will do in the near future, because the primary return to shareho…

You’re free to invest that way if you want. You might one day wake up and wonder why your Blockbuster Video shares did so badly. But Netflix seemed way overpriced.

Investing in future prospects encourages companies to plan for the future, rather than extract what they can from the present. The stock price is a big motivation for execs, so they can only invest in R&D if the market understands why it makes sense to spend money now in expectation of future profits.

Re: SpaceX files to go public

#439

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He packages things to present them as analytical, but it's really just click bait for people to hear something they want to hear. He did a take over a year ago on why the EV revolution crashed with such gems as presenting less growth (but still growth) as lower sales. The comment section was full of never EV crowd who got their fix that everything will be alright and that nothing will change. Of course a year later t…

Yea. It's hard to tell what's true anymore. I thought Russia would be out of resources in 3 months. It's been 4 years. I thought Rafah would survive. It's completely flattened. Thought global markets would crash after tariffs. It has survived. I'm convinced we're in some kind of propaganda machine right now.

[flagged]

Re: SpaceX files to go public

#440

Earlier quoted context omitted.

250 years ago, you could make this exact argument about the British colonization of Australia, and it would be entirely correct. The early colony was a pure fiscal drain on Britain with almost no return. Yet today it's the 13th largest economy on earth. Think on a longer time scale.

We also have a lot of easily accessible resources via agriculture and mining, things Mars does not have. And even if it did having mining potential, the cost of returning the goods to Earth would be wild.

The cost of agriculture and mining at all, without combustion, would be astronomical
Post reply on HN