Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A forecast of the fair market value of SpaceX's businesses

futuresearch.ai

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 214 posts

Re: A forecast of the fair market value of SpaceX's businesses

#81

Post by daedrdev »

fastball wrote: post #52
kibwen wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The question is not even whether or not Starship works. Starship is, in theory, designed with the idea of getting many, many payloads to Mars. However, getting payloads to Mars is not currently something that anyone is paying for; even NASA isn't going to focus on Mars for at least another decade (likely more). And in the meantime, it's not like we don't have rockets capable of getting payloads to Mars (the Saturn V…

> because there exists a useful upper to the size of payloads that companies actually want to ship to LEO in practice This is only true because we are so completely beholden to the tyranny of the rocket equation with the current status quo. With the $/kg (and payload volume) that Starship would unlock, the entire ELO/GEO/Interplanetary/Deep Space market looks very different. Labs in space. Hotels in space. Weapons in…

Like imagine how much better the James web could have been with such a large and cheap launch vehicle.

Re: A forecast of the fair market value of SpaceX's businesses

#82

Post by dmurray »

charcircuit wrote: post #15
malfist wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Legally, any fund that tracks the NASDAQ 100 must follow the rules set by NASDAQ, so you'd want something that is neither a total market index, nor tracks the NASDAQ. Something like an S&P500 index would work

What law prevents someone from choosing to buy stocks from the NASDAQ 100 however they want for a fund?

Actively managed funds like that charge around 0.5% to 1% a year. E.g. [0] The most prominent Nasdaq ETF, QQQ, charges 0.2% [1]

Spacex will be around 4.5% of the index [2].

If you believe the thesis of the article that Spacex is about 30% overvalued, and if the only advantage your fund manager has over the rest of the market is that they will avoid Spacex, they will save you 1% of your money over the lifetime of your investment. Assuming you're saving for retirement in 30 years time, the fees will cost you 15% or more.

Maybe your fund manager finds a Spacex-level mispricing every two years. In that case, they're worth the fees. Some people will tell you nobody can beat the market. My employer among others believes very strongly in the idea that some people do make better investment decisions than average. What is certainly true is that not everyone does.

[0] https://helpcenter.ark-funds.com/what-is-the-fee-structure-e...

[1] https://www.invesco.com/qqq-etf/en/home.html

[2] https://www.fool.com/investing/2026/04/01/how-the-spacex-cou...

Re: A forecast of the fair market value of SpaceX's businesses

#83

Post by kibwen »

bpodgursky wrote: post #59
kibwen wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The question is not even whether or not Starship works. Starship is, in theory, designed with the idea of getting many, many payloads to Mars. However, getting payloads to Mars is not currently something that anyone is paying for; even NASA isn't going to focus on Mars for at least another decade (likely more). And in the meantime, it's not like we don't have rockets capable of getting payloads to Mars (the Saturn V…

> there exists a useful upper to the size of payloads that companies actually want to ship to LEO in practice Well, they are going to live with multi-customer payloads if Starship can do it for a tenth of the price. There's already a large market for ride-sharing and it's only going to get bigger.

> There's already a large market for ride-sharing and it's only going to get bigger.

Except that at some point this stops being true. Induced demand is not infinite. There's no telling when we'll reach that point, or indeed if we've already reached it.

Re: A forecast of the fair market value of SpaceX's businesses

#84

Post by nutjob2 »

gruez wrote: post #67
taurath wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When index funds became such a default I knew they’d change the rules. They’re taking everything thats not nailed down. A wealth tax is the only way, it cannot continue like this.

Who's "they"? Billionaires? Wall st? SpaceX insiders and investors?

Yes.

Re: A forecast of the fair market value of SpaceX's businesses

#85

Post by kibwen »

daedrdev wrote: post #81
fastball wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> because there exists a useful upper to the size of payloads that companies actually want to ship to LEO in practice This is only true because we are so completely beholden to the tyranny of the rocket equation with the current status quo. With the $/kg (and payload volume) that Starship would unlock, the entire ELO/GEO/Interplanetary/Deep Space market looks very different. Labs in space. Hotels in space. Weapons in…

Like imagine how much better the James web could have been with such a large and cheap launch vehicle.

That's not how this works. The JWST was limited by the size of its faring, but increasing the size of the faring doesn't mean they'd ship a less complex telescope with the same functionality; they'd ship an equally-complex telescope with more functionality. Better for science, yes, but that doesn't translate to more expenditure that could be captured by the launch company. And that still relies on a government that gives a damn about funding science, which is not not the direction that the US is heading in.

Re: A forecast of the fair market value of SpaceX's businesses

#86

Post by kibwen »

multiplegeorges wrote: post #72
fastball wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> because there exists a useful upper to the size of payloads that companies actually want to ship to LEO in practice This is only true because we are so completely beholden to the tyranny of the rocket equation with the current status quo. With the $/kg (and payload volume) that Starship would unlock, the entire ELO/GEO/Interplanetary/Deep Space market looks very different. Labs in space. Hotels in space. Weapons in…

How many space telescopes better than anything we currently have can we put up when launch costs are A huge synthetic telescope in orbit with an aperture the size of the planet? How many private earth observation satellites? The market is huge when weight constraints largely go away and $/kg drops so hard.

The question is whether those markets are not already adequately served by Falcon 9. Once again, just because you have a jumbo jet that can fly 500 people from New York to London does not mean that everyone flying out of New York wants to go to London, and it doesn't mean that it's worth flying that jumbo jet from New York to Pierre, South Dakota with only one passenger on board.

Re: A forecast of the fair market value of SpaceX's businesses

#87

Post by cr125rider »

malfist wrote: post #3

An passive investors are going to get hosed by this thanks to NASDAQ cooking the rules to favor Elon and his band of misfits. No longer will there be a year of price discovery for index funds, 15 days. Meaning index funds have to buy it at the peak of the hype cycle. Will be a huge wealth transfer from mom and pop retirement accounts to the ultra wealthy.

Does the hype cycle even last 15 days in 2026? It seems like they stabilize after a day or two. Happy to be proven wrong here…

Re: A forecast of the fair market value of SpaceX's businesses

#88

Post by motbus3 »

gruez wrote: post #67
taurath wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When index funds became such a default I knew they’d change the rules. They’re taking everything thats not nailed down. A wealth tax is the only way, it cannot continue like this.

Who's "they"? Billionaires? Wall st? SpaceX insiders and investors?

[flagged]

Re: A forecast of the fair market value of SpaceX's businesses

#89

Post by kibwen »

mikkupikku wrote: post #79
fastball wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> because there exists a useful upper to the size of payloads that companies actually want to ship to LEO in practice This is only true because we are so completely beholden to the tyranny of the rocket equation with the current status quo. With the $/kg (and payload volume) that Starship would unlock, the entire ELO/GEO/Interplanetary/Deep Space market looks very different. Labs in space. Hotels in space. Weapons in…

Weapons in space, yes. Government constellations are SpaceX's best opportunity. As for anything else, the market for anything bigger than Falcon 9 is very small. Elon Musk didn't even want to proceed with Falcon Heavy because there isn't much market for even that, but Shotwell managed to convince him that having Falcon Heavy would actually help sales of Falcon 9, by inducing the government to take SpaceX more serious…

Agreed. The real bull case for SpaceX is that the US government will use it to aggressively militarize LEO.

Re: A forecast of the fair market value of SpaceX's businesses

#90

Post by whattheheckheck »

gruez wrote: post #67
taurath wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When index funds became such a default I knew they’d change the rules. They’re taking everything thats not nailed down. A wealth tax is the only way, it cannot continue like this.

Who's "they"? Billionaires? Wall st? SpaceX insiders and investors?

Open your eyes? Everyone on the top 1000 Forbes and at trumps inauguration?
Post reply on HN