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

211–220 of 301 posts

Re: We Think the SpaceX IPO Is Overvalued

#211

Post by fc417fc802 »

NortySpock wrote: post #109
hparadiz wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's sending the weirdest mixed signals. If we want to hit anywhere near 1 on the Kardashev scale we're gonna need a planet wide high speed rail system. They should just give the major tech companies naming rights to the stations for 35 years for like 2-3 billion a pop and scale up construction 5x. I don't get the slow roll on this thing. The stations in LA and SF are gonna end up sort of like Tokyo station for the S…

Orbital ring would kickstart the space economy like nothing else, and is technically achievable with existing materials.

Would you trust the operators of an orbital ring with your life though? The modern world seems to mostly be able to do sky scrapers at this point but ... ehh. We still struggle a bit even with just airliners.

Re: We Think the SpaceX IPO Is Overvalued

#212

Post by asadotzler »

ianburrell wrote: post #69
hparadiz wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The video they posted today outlines their specs. They are gonna be smaller. About 100T. Based on Starlink architecture but with way larger radiators and solar panels. Apparently the design is simpler than existing Starlinks because it has fewer different parts. Specs: https://x.com/SawyerMerritt/status/2064108916611420273?s=20

150 kW is tiny, that is a single rack. Would have to launch a huge number of them to match the GW data centers being built. There is also a lot of overhead for each one. If Starlink didn't exist, then it could make sense to put edge data centers in orbit. But Starlink means can put edge computing everywhere on the ground.

In 2025, SpaceX put 3,200 Starlink satellites into orbit with 122 Falcon 9 launches. That's about 2,000 tonnes. In about 2 more years, as the Starlink constellation reaches its licensed size limit, it should transition from growth mode to maintenance mode, freeing up over 1,000 tonnes of extremely reliable launch capacity.

What could that 1,000 tonnes per year get your in terms of sell-able data center capacity, and how does that compare to terrestrial build-out time frames?

Re: We Think the SpaceX IPO Is Overvalued

#213

Post by taffydavid »

Why are we considering data centers in space? What problem does it solve? I don't understand this concept at all.

Surely putting server racks in orbit where you can't do basic maintenance without sending someone up there is a terrible idea?

It just always puts me in mind of the story of an IT guy having to travel for two days to go to a premises and turn on a server that three separate people ensure him was already on.

Re: We Think the SpaceX IPO Is Overvalued

#214

Post by dilyevsky »

SwellJoe wrote: post #187
dilyevsky wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you've missed the point - that wasn't the reason at all. In a way he was right too - we'll have fully autonomous buses and private vehicles capable of making the full trip down the I-5 long before they complete even the middle of nowhere section they currently have planned.

Autonomous buses and private vehicles don't solve any of the problems high speed rail solves.

They're basically not building anything, and what they are building will be borderline unusable because of the route they chose so the car will be faster, cleaner and more convenient. If you want fast you can take the plane. So unless the problem is "how do we siphon as much tax dollars as possible banana republic-style?" I really can't agree here.

Re: We Think the SpaceX IPO Is Overvalued

#215

Post by tarsinge »

ink_13 wrote: post #52
ElProlactin wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ...and dangerously untethered the stock market is from reality. "Disconnected from historical valuation norms" is a more sensible statement. The idea that the stock market is "detached from reality" is dangerous too because the stock market is...reality. People make and lose real money in it every day. There are good arguments that the historical valuation norms are reasonable and deviation from them is "dangerous"…

For certain values of "reality". It doesn't take a financial analysis to tell you that it is bananas that Tesla (~1.3T) is worth more than four times as much as Toyota (280B), and yet.

Bitcoin has a 1.5T market cap with 0 revenue. I think Musk really got his eyes opened when he started playing with Dogecoin a few years ago. He applied the lessons successfully with Tesla, making the company an empty shell PR vehicle to support the TSLA "token".

Re: We Think the SpaceX IPO Is Overvalued

#216

Post by Symbiote »

credit_guy wrote: post #77
adgjlsfhk1 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because 50 rocket launches seems hard to make cheaper than a building.

Why? It seems to me to be much cheaper than a building. Musk's aim is for the cost of one Starship launch to be under $10 million in the long run. 50 rocket launches would be less than half a billion dollars. Can you get a datacenter built on the ground for half a billion dollars?

Using easily available numbers, a high quality distribution center building (heavy duty concrete floors, HVAC etc) is $100 per sqft.

A very large 1,000,000 sqft data centre is therefore $100 million.

Re: We Think the SpaceX IPO Is Overvalued

#217

Post by zarzavat »

ericd wrote: post #205
zarzavat wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

>Why not build off-grid? He sort of is. I believe people aren't very happy with his gas turbines powering Colossus near Memphis. There's also currently a >5 year backlog for nat gas turbines for combined cycle plants. Solar takes up an enormous amount of space to get to reasonable base load, because you have to massively overpanel in order to carry it through winter. You need a large multiple of the panels you'd need…

> Geopolitical concerns, infrastructure/power availability, security, since these things are full of incredibly valuable hardware.

The market decides that, not Elon. Do customers want to pay $X for compute in Iceland (or wherever), or do they want to pay $kX for compute in space?

What premium are customers willing to pay for compute in space? I would guess that the premium is actually negative because the quality of computation in space is worse than under the sweet embrace of Earth's atmosphere which provides a natural protection against radiation.

Re: We Think the SpaceX IPO Is Overvalued

#220

Post by karmakurtisaani »

christoph wrote: post #191
queenkjuul wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Just wait until 2022 when SpaceX is ready to launch their first mission to Mars.
Post reply on HN