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

281–290 of 404 posts

Re: SpaceX S-1

#281

Post by rapsey »

quickthrowman wrote: post #90
tristanj wrote: post #88

Elon Musk owns 12.3% of Class A shares and 93.6% of Class B shares. Class B shares have 10x the voting power of class A shares. Overall Elon controls 85.1% of the voting power in the company. If Elon sells any of his Class B shares, they automatically convert into Class A shares. Retail and institutional investors will have practically no say in the direction of the SpaceX. > Each share of Class A common stock will e…

The S&P 500 index criteria didn’t allow this sort of nonsense starting in 2017, but they relaxed the rule again to allow dual class listings to be included in the index in 2023. Not looking forward to SpaceX.AI.Twitter’s eventual inclusion, I do not like founder controlled publicly traded companies.

> I do not like founder controlled publicly traded companies.

These companies outperform the market though.

Re: SpaceX S-1

#282

Post by epolanski »

chvid wrote: post #143
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…

As far as I can Google the colossus data centers did cost about 7-10 and 18 B respectively. Renting them out in part at 1.25 B pr month sounds like a very good deal for spacex.

We all know very little of that is gonna materialize long term.

Reality is that this is all to show some more (theorical) revenue and will be scrapped 6 months from now.

Re: SpaceX S-1

#283

Post by bluecalm »

tredre3 wrote: post #193
bluecalm wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That assumes they are renting out the whole capacity. Have you seen anything suggesting that's the case?

Anthropic is renting the whole capacity (of one of the colossus), it was a big part of the announcement. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/anthropic-to-rent-all-ai-capa... I don't know about Cursor.

Yeah one of them but the costs in the calculation are for two of them.

Re: SpaceX S-1

#284

Post by inglor_cz »

rafram wrote: post #198
ACCount37 wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> "Environmental activists" are scum of the earth, as a rule > Tactics like this are a part of why US is a lousy place to build infrastructure in. I suspect your definition of a lousy place to build infrastructure in might overlap with my definition of a relatively good place to live.

"I suspect your definition of a lousy place to build infrastructure in might overlap with my definition of a relatively good place to live."

Which is quite close to the standard NIMBY attitude: "I want good grid, cheap electricity and other infrastructure, but not in my backyard. Either someone else's, or somewhere where no one lives at all."

Can't you see the fundamental problem with that attitude? We mostly live in densely populated regions. We do need roads, rail and power plants to sustain our way of living, you too.

Re: SpaceX S-1

#285

Post by stefan_ »

takinola wrote: post #184
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…

Can someone ELI5 Starlink revenue sources? At the core, it's an ISP (but served from space). What does Starlink have that differentiates from any other ISP? Is it because the TAM is global? That may be true at the margin, but I am sure most eligible subscribers would prefer a land-based system (eg no one in SF is cancelling their Xfinity to use Starlink) so how much is really left for them?

I think the ISP story is a bit shitty outside some niche markets (mobile internet on airplanes and the like), but the military applications are massive. Everything is moving into drones and Starlink terminals are small enough to fit on them all, while being essentially unjammable, giving you a coarse location signal on top and plenty of bandwidth.

Re: SpaceX S-1

#286

Post by Traster »

mvkel wrote: post #217
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…

If this doesn't completely destroy any benefit of doubt that people have in Dario, I don't know what to say. The guy has been speaking out of both sides of his mouth since the foundation of Anth. Over and over he repeated that Anth's investment in compute would not be reckless; it would represent sanity and be proportional to growth. Over and over Anth told users that the models weren't nerfed overnight, we were just…

I don't think this is right. Anthropic's growth in the last 6 months went hockey stick in quite an unexpected way (eclipsing OpenAI), so they've done what is sensible - they've increased their compute spend. I don't know if what they're buying from SpaceX is good value, I think there's plenty of reasons to think they got a fine deal. X AI failed. Everyone left. So SpaceX is sitting with a bunch of empty server farms. Yes, Anthropic are desparate for compute, but SpaceX are desparate to IPO a company with double digit billion dollar revenue for $2T so I think there's good reason that this deal represents reasonable value.

Re: SpaceX S-1

#287

Post by hvb2 »

burnerRhodov3 wrote: post #268
kgwgk wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We can never know what the exact details If only there was some SEC filing available disclosing additional information about the 6-months $20bn bridge loan which was on the news four weeks ago…

oh, nice! thanks for this. This confirms spaceX has $20B at a SOFR + 0.75%. So around 5%-5.5%. Found on page 122 of the S-1. I assume they will retire all debt with the $50B raised from the IPO, plus have $30B to... dominate with starship. If starship is around $100m per launch right now, they can launch 300 ships with the IPO. or 30,000T in orbit.

> If starship is around $100m per launch right now, they can launch 300 ships with the IPO. or 30,000T in orbit.

Uh, starship is still a development program. There's 1 launch pad right now able to launch V3. No starship has flown with an actual live payload. The starlinks going out the PEZ dispenser are probably the only thing launching on it anytime soon.

Basically, Starship launching thousands of tons to orbit isn't constrained by money but by time.

Re: SpaceX S-1

#288

Post by Traster »

tristanj wrote: post #88

Elon Musk owns 12.3% of Class A shares and 93.6% of Class B shares. Class B shares have 10x the voting power of class A shares. Overall Elon controls 85.1% of the voting power in the company. If Elon sells any of his Class B shares, they automatically convert into Class A shares. Retail and institutional investors will have practically no say in the direction of the SpaceX. > Each share of Class A common stock will e…

I guarantee the reason that number is so high is so that SpaceX can offer to merge with Tesla and the end results will be Musk having over 50% control in the combined entity. He's been very clear that's what he's been attempting to do with via his compensation packages at Tesla and now he's found a different way of acheiving the same thing.

Re: SpaceX S-1

#289

Post by inemesitaffia »

TheAlchemist wrote: post #194
inemesitaffia wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>those numbers don't take into account YET the Twitter debt / xAI merger burden Clearly untrue. Given that's the source of the reported steep losses

How so ? xAI / Twitter were merged in this year - they don't show up anywhere in the financials.

They definitely show up.

You don't even have to read the document yourself.

Plenty of people are summarising it themselves and using AI.

The loss from Xai is over 7B

Re: SpaceX S-1

#290

Post by Traster »

Seeing both OpenAI and SpaceX trying to yeet themselves into public markets as fast as possible I've got to wonder if the music is slowing. There's a neat rocket company with a satellite business in here somewhere, but it's massively over-shadowed by totally underwater social media site and a failed AI experiment, both of which have been bailed out. I think the best thing you can say is that atleast we aren't aware of any other massively unprofitable bad bets Musk has made that he's going to need to bail out soon.

In some ways this looks like Meta. Meta throws off a tonne of money with it's ad business, but you have to discount it because Zuck has control and an attitude that it's his toy. So you have to discount the ad revenue business because there's a good chance that Zuck just pisses it up the wall. The difference here is you've got a speculative idea that SpaceX might eventually become a massive revenue driver, but Musk is already pissing the money up the wall.

I get why this makes sense for Musk - get SpaceX public, use the stock to merge with Tesla, it gets all his companies under 1 roof and gives him enough voting rights to do whatever the hell he likes. It makes sense for SpaceX early shareholers - they need liquidity.

I do not know what sense it makes for any investor. The absolute best you can argue is it's going to be a meme stock.

Post reply on HN