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

351–360 of 404 posts

Re: SpaceX S-1

#351

Post by throwaway85825 »

huevosabio wrote: post #140
runako wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The numbers overall are worse than I expected. I can't believe Serious People are talking about putting this in the market at a trilly. > Starlink seems to be a real cash machine It has been said more than once that Starlink financials cannot be analyzed apart from SpaceX financials. Very easy to move the launch costs from one entity to the other depending on whether it is more beneficial to show more revenue for Spa…

The space launch operating loss is like 10% of the Starlink operating income. So Starlink is a cash cow!

The launch market is just very small and always has been.

Re: SpaceX S-1

#352

Post by throwaway85825 »

rchaud wrote: post #332
jfengel wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

xAI "acquired" Twitter, so rolling it into SpaceX is a way to hide a badly distressed asset inside a potential moneymaker and hope nobody notices. Like mortgage backed securities.

Then keep rolling in more money losers. Like Nortel.

Re: SpaceX S-1

#353

Post by throwaway85825 »

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…

Space data centers are a bad idea. Every DC has a non zero number of employees that do maintenance. Going from 99% to 99.9repeating% reliability is extremely expensive. That's why satellites cost billions and take 10 years to build.

Re: SpaceX S-1

#354

Post by maerF0x0 »

3eb7988a1663 wrote: post #229
aeternum wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Looks like it's gonna be closer to 2 trilly

What is a realistic scenario for how this plays out? After index funds mechanically buy SpaceX, the insider lock out expires and they all sell - how low does SpaceX go? Will reality hit and a $2T valuation instantly drops to a more "reasonable" value for an unprofitable company? Will it stay in the clouds? Tesla seems in a world of hurt unless robots start making space centers from moon rocks, yet that is also defyin…

Why are index funds going to buy it? Market cap is not the only inclusion metric for S&P500, for example.

Re: SpaceX S-1

#355

Post by throwaway85825 »

electriclove wrote: post #77
datadrivenangel wrote: post #11

So this confirms that SpaceX was making a lot of cash and plowing it back into R&D, and that the X/Twitter/xAI merger is concrete shoes on the good parts.

Did you read that Anthropic is paying them $15B/year for use of xAI's data centers? That changes things quite a bit

If the anthropoc deal is profitable for spacex eventually anthropic will just build their own DC and cut out the middle man.

A DC full of the same chips everyone else has is no moat at all.

Re: SpaceX S-1

#357

Post by throwaway85825 »

dzonga wrote: post #325

if & when the market corrects - the crash will be one of the ages. there's 3 businesses rolled into 1 entity as a cover to take money from gullible retail investors. SpaceX the launch business is legit. the other 2 are r fake n losing money n yet will be money will be stolen the retail investors. anyone with half a brain knows the TAM in the S1 is like 350Bn of the space launch business - the 28TN is just fake.

The assumption retail investors have 30B to invest or are willing to move 30B is quite a load bearing assumption.

Re: SpaceX S-1

#358

Post by zippothrowaway »

maerF0x0 wrote: post #354
3eb7988a1663 wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is a realistic scenario for how this plays out? After index funds mechanically buy SpaceX, the insider lock out expires and they all sell - how low does SpaceX go? Will reality hit and a $2T valuation instantly drops to a more "reasonable" value for an unprofitable company? Will it stay in the clouds? Tesla seems in a world of hurt unless robots start making space centers from moon rocks, yet that is also defyin…

Why are index funds going to buy it? Market cap is not the only inclusion metric for S&P500, for example.

They just changed the rules for NASDAQ and they are changing the rules for S&P500.

The game is rigged. Our pensions and 401Ks are being forced to buy this slop. They can't resist taking all of the money off the table.

Re: SpaceX S-1

#359

Post by DarmokJalad1701 »

infinitewars wrote: post #278
kennethrc wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> COLOSSUS and COLOSSUS II https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0064177 It may be sick, but someone's got a sense of humor over there :)

SpaceX has a Golden Dome contract, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Dome_(missile_defense_s... That's basically exactly this ^

> "Thinking this will prevent war, the US government gives an impenetrable supercomputer total control over launching nuclear missiles"

That's not even close to what the Golden Dome is.

> The Golden Dome is a planned multi-layer missile defense system for the United States, intended to detect and destroy ballistic, hypersonic, and cruise missiles before they launch or during their flight.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Dome_(missile_defense_s...

Re: SpaceX S-1

#360

Post by dzhiurgis »

dgellow wrote: post #344
dzhiurgis wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

30% of terrestrial datacenter power use is cooling. Space cooling is easier!

What makes cooling easier in space? Isn’t it harder due to the lack of atmosphere?

Just need radiators, no fans, no piping, no ac compressors, no moving parts.
Post reply on HN