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

231–240 of 301 posts

Re: We Think the SpaceX IPO Is Overvalued

#231

Post by Ekaros »

Delphiza wrote: post #230
NathanKP wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's easy to see the benefit in DC's in space if you look at a few ingredients: 1. The recent Iran drone attacks on AWS data centers 2. Growing anti-AI and anti data center sentiment at home, plus Larry Fink (ceo of Blackrock) in a recent interview being terrified of dissident groups using consumer drones to attack data centers. 3. Anthropic, Grok, and other AI vendors becoming more and more integrated into defense a…

If the only benefit of space-based datacentres is a hedge against infrastructure attacks in a world war then we are in an awful place. I'm not disagreeing with you but peace is far more prosperous for humanity than blowing the worlds' retirement funds on datacentres-in-space as a military endeavour.

Also. I would not fully trust argument that all possible adversaries are incapable of attacking them. Possibly with cascading effects at least when you get size of satellites planned.

Re: We Think the SpaceX IPO Is Overvalued

#232

Post by T-A »

ksaj wrote: post #221
codechicago277 wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only a matter of time before SpaceX starts selling parcels of land on Mars, surprised they haven’t yet. It has to be good for a few extra billions.

I wonder if the scammers have been doing this already. Remember when you could buy naming rights to a star, or acreage on the moon? Elon selling lots on Mars might not feel far fetched to at least one demographic he already caters to.

https://pieceofmars.com/

Re: We Think the SpaceX IPO Is Overvalued

#233

Post by taffydavid »

martheen wrote: post #224
taffydavid wrote: post #213

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 o…

The only people considering data centers in space are those too out of touch to remember that their vacuum flask retain heat for hours. At any usable capacity we'd be talking about massive field of dissipators, which can't be possibly profitable considering there are far more lucrative payload compared to dumb panels. Some would pretend there's a just around the corner tech to solve the heat waste, but if such tech r…

Great, so I'm not just some idiot who doesn't get it. Why then is anyone entertaining this IPO when it's clearly based on such a dumb plan?

Re: We Think the SpaceX IPO Is Overvalued

#234

Post by partial225 »

oldfuture wrote: post #15

And the prospectus says it plainly: "Mr. Musk will be able to control the outcome of matters requiring shareholder approval." Musk holds over 85% voting power through Class B super-voting shares (10 votes/share). Public investors combined will have 15%. What Musk Controls: - CEO removal = his consent. You can't fire him even if he destroys the company - Take business for himself. SpaceX gets a rocket deal? Musk can s…

- Take business for himself. SpaceX gets a rocket deal? Musk can say "I'll do it at Tesla instead"

In theory (were we talking about any other man, in any other time) that's very strictly illegal with a whole area of law dedicated to it (fiduciary duty).

Re: We Think the SpaceX IPO Is Overvalued

#235

Post by ethbr1 »

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.

And, you know, regular use of ketamine.

Just to add that to the crazy pile.

Re: We Think the SpaceX IPO Is Overvalued

#236

Post by yread »

amluto wrote: post #176
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

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…

Maybe they count them twice? That would work out to 41C if both sides are in shade (or 69C if one is shaded and one on the sunny side)

Re: We Think the SpaceX IPO Is Overvalued

#237

Post by credit_guy »

LearnYouALisp wrote: post #206
credit_guy wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Are you for real ? HN yep

Yes, I am for real. The Colossus datacenter that xAI built cost $7 billion.

[1] https://www.globaldatacenterhub.com/p/can-elon-musks-7b-colo...

Re: We Think the SpaceX IPO Is Overvalued

#238

Post by Grombobulous »

NathanKP wrote: post #228
Grombobulous wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even with this benefit of the doubt, even stretching our suspense of disbelief as far as it can go, we are basically talking about a niche military application that inherently has a limited market value. In other words, we can just assume this concept is possible and makes sense some level of financial sense for military, government, and high sensitivity use cases. Well, find me a military contractor worth $1.5 trill…

> Starlink residential service is about 10x slower than my home fiber connection at the same price. How is this technology going to compete with data center level infrastructure even in an optimistic scenario? Where I live in New Zealand the only good internet provider is Starlink, so all my internet is through Starlink. The latency is about 20ms, so while yes you are technically correct that is 10x slower then 2ms,…

I think that vision you paint of satellite-commanded robots makes reasonable sense. At the very least, we can assume it does.

But then I go back to my original question where I ponder whether that vision results in a gigantic company.

I look at some of the contracts I found some news articles about: Space Force has a $437 million (not billion) contract with ViaSat and SES, the Pentagon is said to be spending $13 billion on LEO satellite programs.

And we can’t forget that SpaceX doesn’t actually make any of the robots. They only make the communications stack.

AT&T has a market capitalization of about $150 billion, for comparison.

Re: We Think the SpaceX IPO Is Overvalued

#239

Post by lenerdenator »

tyre wrote: post #142
lenerdenator wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's because they often don't go far enough, and that's because of limits on things like shareholder class-actions. If you haven't wiped out their corporate savings and sent the stock price tumbling, you haven't really done anything to get the needed recompense and to discourage the behavior in the future. Right now, many companies are effectively sole proprietorships or partnerships with window dressing made to lo…

But that’s the thing. In that case, the shareholders are the ones who were harmed and now they’re winning by…making their investment worth far less? What you really need are lawsuits against individuals to be held accountable, otherwise it’s a lose-lose for shareholders.

Unfortunately, articles of incorporation preclude that sort of thing.

Perhaps after a few high-profile cases, IPOs won't be structured to give absolute control to one person.

That, or you make the ousting of the execs in charge the settlement instead of massive monetary damages.

Re: We Think the SpaceX IPO Is Overvalued

#240

Post by soundwave106 »

epistasis wrote: post #9
nandomrumber wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The market can remain irrational longer than you can stay scared of it.

Let's go check on the cautionary tales of the Tesla shorts.... poor folks, we let them run around in the yard of the asylum without a fence because they have lost the motivation even to run away. They just keep mumbling about PE ratios....

From my perspective it's more of a "stay away" type of stock (short or not). The price is not supported by business finance fundamentals, and seems to be pushed upward via the retail market, driven by Elon's gift for selling futurism to the masses. To me, the value of Musk's companies is dangerously dependent on one single person, in a way that I can't think of for any other current company. It makes "investment" in the company more speculative, and closer to other "retail mass" phenomena like "meme stocks" or cryptocurrency.

As an example here, in the 2022 (relatively mild) stock market downturn, when the S&P 500 gave back about 20%, TSLA dropped from a peak in the low 400s, to a low of 122... roughly a 70% drop peak to peak. It's back to ~400 now, and it could go higher again. But, in the next downturn, it could go a lot lower.

Post reply on HN