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

We Think the SpaceX IPO Is Overvalued

morningstar.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 301 posts

Re: We Think the SpaceX IPO Is Overvalued

#191

Post by christoph »

queenkjuul wrote: post #185
cryptonector wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The Google founders are, lets say, more reliable than Musk when it comes to making sound business decisions. I've no idea about that and I won't opine. But every time I see that sort of statement it seems likely motivated by the whole Twitter acquisition. Perhaps that was just a toy or vanity project for him, one he could afford, so even if you think he's running X terribly it might have nothing to do with how he's…

Space GPUs are stupid, so is hyperloop, so is the Vegas Loop; robotaxis don't work, cybertruck sucks, the humanoid robots don't work, the new roadster is nowhere to be seen. SpaceX blew up an entire launchpad because Musk thought flame diverters are gay, or something. And, yes, Twitter is now a shithole.

This doesn’t even include the whole taking money from people for FSD that was JUST 2 years away…

Re: We Think the SpaceX IPO Is Overvalued

#192

Post by queenkjuul »

laichzeit0 wrote: post #94
dozerly wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s very simple. You should expect he will do whatever benefits himself.

The one thing you can say though, is that “benefits himself” does not mean: buying a super yacht, a casino, an island, etc. So yeah, he’d YOLO and do the Mars trip before any of the above. Which is what most nerds on HN would love, except their blind hatred for Musk would make them despise even that.

I only support a Mars trip if he takes it one-way

There's no way in hell I'd even remotely consider trying to build a Mars base if i had all that money, either. It's a fucking stupid way to waste money.

Re: We Think the SpaceX IPO Is Overvalued

#193

Post by zarzavat »

mayama wrote: post #97
pryce wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like we are going to relive the hyperloop-decline with the specs of proposed orbital datacentres. But the hyperloop was in one regard a success, in that it built temporary hype. Maybe it was even named after that.

After articles on how starship is never getting off launchpad, I'm sceptical of news regarding elon, pro and anti. Sure, things like FSD are hopium or scam, but not everything could be. Haven't seen hard science estimates on their new ai satellites.

The issue with AI datacenters in orbit is not science or engineering but economics. There is no practical reason why it can't be done, but why would anyone want to buy compute from such a datacenter when they could pay substantially less money for better capacity on Earth?

Orbit is a bad place for a datacenter. Your equipment will be hot and bombarded with radiation. You can't do any repairs. Even with reusable rockets you still have to pay for fuel to launch everything into orbit. You get a small benefit of more efficient power generation but it's not worth all the downsides.

If you want to have solar-powered AI datacenter that you can't service, you'd be way better off building the power generation in a coastal desert and building your datacenter underwater.

Re: We Think the SpaceX IPO Is Overvalued

#194

Post by fc417fc802 »

hparadiz wrote: post #183
amluto wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That cooling system is … aggressive. 110m^2 of radiator to dissipate 120kW average heat. That’s about 1.1kW/m^2, which works out to very close to 100C at the radiator under absolutely perfect conditions (absolute zero ambient temperature, emissivity 1, no adverse geometric effects). Radiating into 300K ambient, it’s 134C. (300K ambient is about what you get if the sun is visible or if a large fraction of what the rad…

I assume the radiators will be in the shadow behind the solar panels and never facing the sun. That's seems like the easiest quick win.

Is the equilibrium temperature in orbit not somewhere between freezing and room temperature? If so spreading the heat evenly across the solar panels must necessarily be sufficient. Issues only arise if you try to get away with a smaller radiator or expose the radiator to direct sunlight or commit some other own goal.

Re: We Think the SpaceX IPO Is Overvalued

#195

Post by hparadiz »

queenkjuul wrote: post #189
jmyeet wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't even a theoretical concern and it goes well beyond unfettered control of a single company. Look at the history: 1. One of Elon's companies (Tesla) bought out another of Elon's companies (Solar City) that was going bankrupt because it owed a lot of money to yet another of Elon's companies (SpaceX) [1]; 2. Elon diverted $500M of NVidia H100 GPUs reserved for Tesla to xAI [2]; 3. Elon made a buyout agreement…

I'd like to point out something i learned the other day: Alphabet owns some SpaceX shares, which makes Google's sudden 90-day compute contract with xAI seem a little less than coincidental

It's quite simple. xAI bought a shit ton of GPUs for Grok thinking they would be competitive. When that didn't pan out they found themselves with either giving away Grok for mostly free or renting out the capacity to someone else for a shit ton of money. They chose a shit ton of money.

Re: We Think the SpaceX IPO Is Overvalued

#196

Post by queenkjuul »

fc417fc802 wrote: post #188
kldavis4 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The orbital data center thing is really strange. Without some kind of massive technological breakthrough the physics of an orbital data center make no sense. Napkin math for a single data center including solar panels, radiators, compute and structure is somewhere on the order of ~6500 tonnes. Let's say Starship can put 100-150 tonnes into orbit per launch, that is somewhere between 40-65 launches for just one single…

I think that's looking at it the wrong way. Just view it as a fleet of satellites with computers in them that exist for the purpose of selling capacity. I don't see any issues with the physical fundamentals but the economics in terms of dollars either per flop or per bit transferred is where I don't understand how it's supposed to work. Satellites are really expensive and electricity on the surface is relatively chea…

The physical fundamentals don't work. Radiating exhaust heat is exponentially harder in space than in the atmosphere.

Re: We Think the SpaceX IPO Is Overvalued

#197

Post by flomo »

SwellJoe wrote: post #157
dilyevsky wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pinning CAHSR jobs program as hyperloop's fault is pretty funny. Maybe he did intend to upset it but since both turned out to be massive boondoggles doesn't seem like it worked - they managed to delay it themselves just fine.

Sure, California is a failed state on a lot of fronts, but Musk literally said he was pushing hyperloop for that reason. https://www.fresnobee.com/opinion/editorials/article26445107... Whether he was the only reason for high speed rail being derailed and delayed isn't really the point. He intentionally worked against mass transit, and lied repeatedly about hyperloop as part of that.

Certainly not a Musk fan, but IMO the real point of hyperloop was more that it's on a route that could be constructed within our lifetimes. (Unlike CAHSR, check their website.) Of course, California knows this because that's where they built Interstate 5.

Re: We Think the SpaceX IPO Is Overvalued

#198

Post by fauchletenerum »

kurthr wrote: post #172
tyre wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah you can’t go into this with any expectations or later complaints. Everyone knows at this point that he’s going to do whatever the fuck he wants. If you give him money, that’s what it’s for. I say this entirely neutrally. Some people want to invest in that—and he’s made a boatload of money for those who have thus far!—while others find it insane. But you don’t get to buy into this and complain.

If you have ETFs or index tracking funds in your 401k you're going to buy it. In fact, you'll buy more of it than is going on sale. Since they only need to issue 5% of the stock for it to show up as a 20% market cap in the QQQ index and tracking funds own over 20% of the market, they pretty much have to buy all the shares. Welcome to market manipulation 101.

It's only being added to the Nasdaq 100, not the SP500, and only a very small number of people have their 401K tied to the Nasdaq

Edit: Actually, I didn't realize that it's being added to MSCI, so I was wrong: https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/msci-confirms...

Re: We Think the SpaceX IPO Is Overvalued

#199

Post by zarzavat »

ericd wrote: post #161
naet wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think starlink made intuitive sense; we already use satellites to transfer data for phone service and TV channels, a satellite can "see" a large area to service, the technology was there already, etc. Starlink provides a service you can't really get without going to space (coverage in remote areas). The space data center doesn't make intuitive sense to me. Why put it in space? Wouldn't it be better just... on the g…

The US power grid is not able to keep up with demand, it's mired in red tape. There's also a populist revolt against DCs and the infra upgrade costs being dumped on ratepayers. That's the main benefit I see of their plan, from a US perspective. I think China probably will have a significantly easier time.

> The US power grid is not able to keep up with demand, it's mired in red tape

Why not build off-grid?

> There's also a populist revolt against DCs and the infra upgrade costs being dumped on ratepayers.

What about the other 94% of the Earth's landmass?

Re: We Think the SpaceX IPO Is Overvalued

#200

Post by queenkjuul »

hparadiz wrote: post #156
SwellJoe wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What kinds of things he's delivered do you have in mind?

Let's see. If Paypal was his only legacy he would have already done 99% more than most people but then he went on to build a car company that was the best selling electric car brand in the world for a decade and in the process standardized not just electric charging but the plug we're all using today. Then they released a home battery with a sub 10 ms ATS which is necessary for seamless in-house grid/off grid transit…

His company was bought by PayPal and he was fired shortly thereafter. giving him credit for that is a stretch.
Post reply on HN