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

231–240 of 404 posts

Re: SpaceX S-1

#231

Post by ble »

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.

There are safety regulations that require things roughly like, "to prevent harm to planes in the air and people on the ground, either control where your satellite re-enters so or make your satellite entirely out of components that are almost certain to burn up on re-entry".

As far as I can tell, there is no environmental regulation of how many kilograms of aluminum, silicon, etc. being added to the Earth's atmosphere when a Starlink burns up during re-entry.

cf. https://www.supercluster.com/editorial/forty-year-old-loopho... https://aas.org/about/governance/society-resolutions/atmosph...

Re: SpaceX S-1

#233

Post by satvikpendem »

fooblaster wrote: post #222
theptip wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Plenty of analysis on this point, the inputs are not secret. Check out Semianalysis for example. They have something like 70% margin on inference.

so speculation from a semiconductor website. that's incredibly likely to be wrong

We will see once Anthropic releases their S-1 too this summer.

Re: SpaceX S-1

#234

Post by bottlepalm »

etempleton wrote: post #158
impulser_ wrote: post #15

"in May 2026, we entered into Cloud Services Agreements with Anthropic PBC (“Anthropic”), an AI research and development public benefit corporation, with respect to access to compute capacity across COLOSSUS and COLOSSUS II. Pursuant to these agreements, the customer has agreed to pay us $1.25 billion per month through May 2029, with capacity ramping in May and June 2026 at a reduced fee" Anthropic is paying them 1.2…

The whole AI world really is completely circular spending where every one loses money along the way. The only one really making any money is Nvidia.

There is a lot of money coming in from industry, actually an exponentially increasing amount of money - money that would otherwise go to employees is now going to AI companies. There are more startups than you can shake a stick at that are basically creating virtual workers for xyz task and selling them to companies. All that money is funneling back to AI companies. It's a gold rush and employee salaries are the gold.

Re: SpaceX S-1

#235

Post by aeternum »

etempleton wrote: post #168
kentm wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be honest, it could be one with XAi too. Im no fan of Musk and Grok but the deal with Anthropic pointed out by other contributors isn't nothing. And I don't think SpaceX losing money at this stage isn't quite the problem that people think it is -- as someone who as worked at companies losing money and then going on to make quite a bit. Revenue growth is there. The issue is that none of this is really worth $2T now…

The deal with Anthropic gives me more pause about the whole market. More circular spending. They are all propping each other up making it look like they have more revenue than they really have. I think Open AIs S-1 will be just as crazy. I don't think there is any rationality or plan to all of this. AI doesn't pay for itself. It won't for a very long time.

Have you used Claude Code and you still believe AI doesn't pay for itself?

Re: SpaceX S-1

#236

Post by electriclove »

amluto wrote: post #223
kentm wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be honest, it could be one with XAi too. Im no fan of Musk and Grok but the deal with Anthropic pointed out by other contributors isn't nothing. And I don't think SpaceX losing money at this stage isn't quite the problem that people think it is -- as someone who as worked at companies losing money and then going on to make quite a bit. Revenue growth is there. The issue is that none of this is really worth $2T now…

The deal with Anthropic, even if good, doesn’t seem repeatable. Right now, quite a few companies are discovering that the can turn inference capacity into revenue. Anthropic also can turn inference capacity into happy customers and mindshare, and they can turn lack of inference capacity into sad customers that might jump ship to OpenAI. And Anthropic wants to IPO, and they want to be as close to #1 as possible. And t…

The assumptions are that more compute (energy, chips) is needed to get more capable models AND more capable models will result in more spending by companies. That has been correct so far.

Yes, energy and chips are some of the bottlenecks. SpaceX has a potential solution (solar powered data centers in orbit) where they are uniquely advantaged - no one can launch as much or as cheaply as they can.

Re: SpaceX S-1

#237

Post by bottlepalm »

darkwizard42 wrote: post #69
dmix wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uber had about $11B revenue when it went public SpaceX is at $18.7B

Just to keep things in perspective, Uber IPO-ed for 82.4B. SpaceX is IPOing for over 10x more.

SpaceX easily has 10x the potential of Uber. SpaceX has its hands in so many up and coming industries.

Re: SpaceX S-1

#238

Post by electriclove »

moogly wrote: post #171
electriclove wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Tesla famously never got to use them https://arstechnica.com/cars/2024/06/elon-musk-is-diverting-...

The article says: In December, an internal Nvidia memo seen by CNBC said, “Elon prioritizing X H100 GPU cluster deployment at X versus Tesla by redirecting 12k of shipped H100 GPUs originally slated for Tesla to X instead. In exchange, original X orders of 12k H100 slated for Jan and June to be redirected to Tesla.”

Re: SpaceX S-1

#239

Post by tonfa »

burnerRhodov3 wrote: post #227
lumost wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Napkin math on 5 year depreciation is 5.5 billion per year for 28 billion. However the 28 billion is cash upfront, spacex is probably paying 10-20% interest on the 28 billion for another 2-6 billion per year. So net you are looking at finance expenses of 7-11 billion per year. The electricity costs will be significant on top of that, but harder to get a solid read on. Net of everything, spacex may be getting a 14-28…

5.5 year depreciation is only on the chips. Power, networking, cabling, the actual construction of the building is probably closer to 60% of that number. Also, they are only renting out colosus 1 ($10B), not colosus II ($18B). So, it's 10B, with $4b of that being attributed to a 5 year depreciation. The rest of the facility probably has a depreciation of around 20 years, and you can easily swap out GPU's, TPU's, Trit…

> Also, they are only renting out colosus 1 ($10B), not colosus II ($18B).

The news from the S1 is that they're renting both (see OP).

Re: SpaceX S-1

#240

Post by erulabs »

Feels risky to push the S-1 a day before the latest starship launch. If there is a catastrophic failure OR a perfect success it feels like it would be material here.

Also I’m concerned that if AI “works” (ie: country-of-genuses-in-a-box) that the moat of reusable rockets decreases substantially. What would stop Northrop from vibe coding their own starship?

Post reply on HN