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

SpaceX S-1

sec.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 404 posts

Re: SpaceX S-1

#91

Post by electriclove »

darkwizard42 wrote: post #75
fragmede wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you price regulatory restrictions? The laws governing space are more lax than those governing how much chromium Tesla can dump into their waste water. By building in space, they get to completely sidestep any regulatory issues on Earth, like not being allowed to build what they want, wherever they want, how they want. It's annoying getting permits to do whatever on my house, but for businesses, it's a real pro…

The biggest regulation of building in space is... where do the debris go. You are tightly monitored for how much trash reenters into the atmosphere, so there is still SOME level of regulation.

SpaceX is doing the monitoring and is making their system available to others for free: https://starlink.com/updates/stargaze

Re: SpaceX S-1

#92

Post by stainablesteel »

jfengel wrote: post #24
Eldodi wrote: post #3

Crazy this company will IPO for >1B with such bad financials! That said, Starlink seems to be a real cash machine, not as good as ads but enough to support AI bets. 2025: - Revenue: $18.7B, up from $14.0B in 2024 - Operating loss: -$2.6B - Net loss: -$4.9B - Adjusted EBITDA: $6.6B - Operating cash flow: $6.8B - Capex: $20.7B Segment breakdown: - Starlink / Connectivity: $11.4B revenue, $4.4B operating income, $7.2B a…

That's kind of the whole point of a stock market. If you already had a solid revenue stream, you wouldn't need investment. These numbers would be kind of typical for a software play, since the great thing about software is that you write it once and then sell it many times. They're making a similar assertion for hardware: "fund rocket ship design, and sell it many times (i.e. lots of launches)". The weird looking par…

putting tesla robots on the moon ran by LLMs seems to be a pretty coherent overall plan, I don't think it's different

Re: SpaceX S-1

#93

Post by electriclove »

moogly wrote: post #78
thetrb wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

how much did SpaceX / xAI pay for these GPUs? After 3 years they'll probably be mostly deprecated.

And how many of them were diverted from Tesla?

Pretty sure that Tesla didn't use Colossus. Tesla used Cortex 1 and Cortex 2 which are at the Gigafactory in Austin.

Re: SpaceX S-1

#95

Post by aaronbrethorst »

kube-system wrote: post #85
nickff wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reason people laugh at Allbirds is that they don't have the money or expertise to build a competitive offering.

They certainly have some big shoes to fill. But I'm glad they didn't die with their boots on, and got their foot in the door at this new opportunity. It certainly didn't help that they were running on a shoestring budget.

I see what you did there.

Re: SpaceX S-1

#96

Post by doener »

"XAI, the artificial intelligence company Elon Musk created and recently merged into SpaceX, is not helping on that front. The filing shows SpaceX directed around 60% of its capital spending in 2025 to its AI division, or around $20 billion. And yet that division — which houses the chatbot Grok — lost billions last year, and only grew revenue by about 22%. That’s far below the reported revenue growth rates at frontier AI labs."

https://techcrunch.com/2026/05/20/the-spacex-ipo-filing-has-...

Re: SpaceX S-1

#97

Post by lubos »

redox99 wrote: post #84
Spartan-S63 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they cleaved off xAI and let it die, they'd be in much better shape!

xAI is by far their most profitable segment, receiving 1.25B a month from Anthropic.

That 1.25B per month is not profit

Re: SpaceX S-1

#98

Post by well_ackshually »

oskarkk wrote: post #31
moralestapia wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The collateral damage would be mind boggling. Nah. Nothing critical is running on top of any of SpaceXAI's offerings.

NASA mostly runs on SpaceX, so it depends if you consider ISS to be critical. But I wouldn't say it would be mind boggling.

Cool, nationalise SpaceX, reintegrate its costs into NASA, done.

The US would never let its access to space be cut off.

Re: SpaceX S-1

#99

Post by stainablesteel »

Jabbles wrote: post #51

If any company can put profitable data centers in space, it will be SpaceX. But I doubt that any company can. The difficulties of the physics and engineering of cooling seem like they will always outweigh the advantages of keeping your data center on Earth. I am annoyed by the insistence that the value of this company comes from something that no one has been able to show is possible yet without multiplying it by the…

elon has a great wall of china's worth of plaques with comments exactly like this, and his companies are still worth more than their combined weight in gold

Re: SpaceX S-1

#100

Post by LanceJones »

TheAlchemist wrote: post #8
vardump wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I just can't, can't wait until this whole Musk fugazzi finally blows up. Be careful what you wish for. The collateral damage would be mind boggling.

So be it. What's the alternative ? Continue a bubble ? Ride on the 'FSD by the end of the year' or 'thousands of Optimus next year' for the next 10 years ? The guys is openly lying and clearly a drug addict at this point and people think he's not cooking the books ? Musk empire will end up being a much bigger scandal than Enron ever was. It's just a matter of time until it unfolds.

The idea that 100s of global pension funds don't do their due diligence when investing 100s of millions or billions of their members' future retirement funds is extremely naive. With sincerity, I hope you can find a way not to be so emotional about what Musk says and be more grounded in what his companies and their employees are doing.
Post reply on HN