Google to pay SpaceX $920M a month for compute capacity at xAI data centers

Post by laughing_man » Sat, Jun 06, 2026, 5:39 PM UTC

mock-possum wrote: post #332

tristanj wrote: post #205

This is a masterful piece of financial engineering by Google and SpaceX. Google purchased 10% of SpaceX over a decade ago. After dilution they probably own around 5%. SpaceX is valued at a whopping 94x revenue. This deal increases SpaceX's revenue by $11 billion per year. If SpaceX maintains this revenue multiplier, then this single deal boosts SpaceX's valuation by 94 x 11 billion = $1 trillion dollars. Google owns…

Utterly nauseating. Why would google help prop up this company and its figurehead? Maybe this is finally the straw that breaks the camel’s back for me and google.

Post by missedthecue » Sat, Jun 06, 2026, 5:41 PM UTC

ozgrakkurt wrote: post #404

missedthecue wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The value of the stock is your share in the underlying business. Because underlying business changes over time (hopefully for the better) you are not simply hoping another shmuck pays you more, like with tulips, whose underlying value does not change with time. You own a portion of a concern that is improving its own fortunes. Furthermore, dividends are approved by the board once per quarter or once per year. A divid…

This makes no sense. Why doesn’t the “underlying value” of tulips change? “Underlying value” is a meaningless word btw

Post by Lplololopo » Sat, Jun 06, 2026, 5:42 PM UTC

coke12 wrote: post #342

amluto wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I sincerely hope the market is not willing to value this sort of deal at a P/E ratio anywhere near 94. Off the top of my head, there is a very well established business involving buying expensive things and leasing them to the companies that intend to operate them so they can sell services: aircraft leasing. AER is the biggest player and they have a P/E ratio of, drumroll please, 6. And I expect that GPUs, despite cu…

Comparing SpaceX to an aircraft leasing company seems more foolish to me than a 94x multiple. I understand the gist here, but come on. This is a generational company. It’s the only relevant space launch business, and has its tentacles deep in AI infrastructure as well. Maybe the AI bet is foolish — I don’t know — you should short it!

Post by brainwad » Sat, Jun 06, 2026, 5:43 PM UTC

trollbridge wrote: post #290

ajross wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Google renting infra from xAI, I did not see that coming. Actually that seems to be fairly logical? Hardware is what xAI has , and it's in great demand. So sell what makes you money. The real story here is that that xAI hardware is going to be running Gemini and not Grok. Which is to say: Grok basically failed as a frontier AI and they need to pivot to a business model which makes money. Obviously not everything Mu…

Could you please describe the other satellite launch services whose prices are competitive with SpaceX?

Post by XorNot » Sat, Jun 06, 2026, 5:43 PM UTC

fc417fc802 wrote: post #209

Drakim wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are asteroids with concentrations of precious metals more valuable than earth's entire economy. Why don't we just send up spaceships to mine them and send the haul back to earth? What country would say no to free money? After all, it's just an engineering challenge, not impossible.

The numbers on that are at least somewhat questionable. Even ignoring that you'd crash the market (thus it's not actually worth what it first appears to be) what is the total fuel cost to adjust the orbit of the target asteroid to land the entire thing back on the earth? Because that's what you're doing bit by bit as you shuttle loads of ore back. Now if you have space based manufacturing or fuel production on the ot…