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

Short sellers notch $8.7B profit as SpaceX shares dip to IPO price

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 201 posts

Re: Short sellers notch $8.7B profit as SpaceX shares dip to IPO price

#71

Post by RIMR »

jacobgold wrote: post #50

I completely understood the idea of Starlink and expected that it would be successful and useful, which it is. I've worked in data centers for decades now, and I am incredibly skeptical of the "data centers in space" sales pitch. It seems like an actual scam. Data centers submerged in the ocean or placed in the desert seem much more promising. But I have only an enthusiast's understanding of rockets and physics, so I…

Let's just put it this way:

The ISS produces about 120 kilowatts of electricity.

An Nvidia Blackwell B200 GPU uses 1.2 kilowatts of electricity.

So, you would need a similar array of solar panels and radiators just to power 100 of them. You probably would need 2-3 launches for a satellite this big, and realistically, you would just make smaller satellites.

That's $4,000,000 worth of GPUs, A couple millon or more of RAM, SSDs, etc., a radiation-proof satellite housing to support all of that hardware, solar arrays, launch costs ($74M per Falcon launch), all for maintenance to be impossible and the hardware to become obsolete in a couple of years.

It's a delusion unless we invent some way to go to space for free.

Re: Short sellers notch $8.7B profit as SpaceX shares dip to IPO price

#72

Post by markasoftware »

onli wrote: post #67
jacobgold wrote: post #50

I completely understood the idea of Starlink and expected that it would be successful and useful, which it is. I've worked in data centers for decades now, and I am incredibly skeptical of the "data centers in space" sales pitch. It seems like an actual scam. Data centers submerged in the ocean or placed in the desert seem much more promising. But I have only an enthusiast's understanding of rockets and physics, so I…

No. It really is a scam. Everyone with understanding of the physics involved wrote so. Heat dissipation + radiation + launch cost make it a no-go.

Heat dissipation isn't as big a concern as it seems: the weight of the solar panels is significantly larger than that of the heatsinks you'd need per typical modern gpu

Re: Short sellers notch $8.7B profit as SpaceX shares dip to IPO price

#73

Post by jacobgold »

doctoboggan wrote: post #70
jacobgold wrote: post #50

I completely understood the idea of Starlink and expected that it would be successful and useful, which it is. I've worked in data centers for decades now, and I am incredibly skeptical of the "data centers in space" sales pitch. It seems like an actual scam. Data centers submerged in the ocean or placed in the desert seem much more promising. But I have only an enthusiast's understanding of rockets and physics, so I…

> Is there anyone credible who thinks this is a plausible pathway for SpaceX to make huge amounts of profit? Scott Manly (who I think is credible) has a video where he goes over the logistics of SpaceX's space based data centers. He seems to think its an idea worth pursuing, but its important to note that his expertise is space tech, and not business strategy.

Yeah, I have no doubt that it's possible to put GPU servers in space. The Starlink satellites are servers in space. The question is whether it's even remotely profitable to do this for AI training/inference servers.

Re: Short sellers notch $8.7B profit as SpaceX shares dip to IPO price

#74

Post by binyu »

compiler-guy wrote: post #44
binyu wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you are completely ignorant about markets, deep pocketed and inclined to risk, chances are you are going to lose it all.

Indeed. But that doesn't invalidate the point that deeper-pockets is not equivalent to a more sophisticated or better investor.

Someone who inherits a fortune and trades it on the stock market is an extremely unlikely circumstance.

Re: Short sellers notch $8.7B profit as SpaceX shares dip to IPO price

#75

Post by Arodex »

dominotw wrote: post #41
londons_explore wrote: post #22

Insiders who have locked up stocks but still want to sell could presumably just short the stock and take out a loan secured on the stock to get the financial effects of selling, without actually selling... I wonder if that's what's happening with ~$1T of stocks currently locked up...

That would be a crime.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_granted_executi...

Re: Short sellers notch $8.7B profit as SpaceX shares dip to IPO price

#76

Post by zugi »

SpaceX has accomplished spectacular things in reusable launch vehicles and space-based networking. It will soon restore the heavy launch capability that the US lost when it retired the Saturn V in the 1970s, but in an affordable and sustainable manner. SpaceX is almost single-handedly keeping the US ahead in space.

I'm bullish on SpaceX as a company in terms of technical accomplishment.

Buying SPCX would make sense at about 1/4 of its IPO price. The IPO price and subsequent rise was inflated via hype and artificial supply restriction, i.e. publicly selling just 4% of the total company ownership.

Re: Short sellers notch $8.7B profit as SpaceX shares dip to IPO price

#78

Post by compiler-guy »

binyu wrote: post #74
compiler-guy wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed. But that doesn't invalidate the point that deeper-pockets is not equivalent to a more sophisticated or better investor.

Someone who inherits a fortune and trades it on the stock market is an extremely unlikely circumstance.

But we aren’t talking probability. Your claim was that deeper pockets means you are more sophisticated. That simply isn’t true. The inheritance argument is just one example to show why it isn’t. People make large amounts of money all the time in one field or another, but that doesn’t make them sophisticated investors.

Re: Short sellers notch $8.7B profit as SpaceX shares dip to IPO price

#79

Post by LorenDB »

RIMR wrote: post #71
jacobgold wrote: post #50

I completely understood the idea of Starlink and expected that it would be successful and useful, which it is. I've worked in data centers for decades now, and I am incredibly skeptical of the "data centers in space" sales pitch. It seems like an actual scam. Data centers submerged in the ocean or placed in the desert seem much more promising. But I have only an enthusiast's understanding of rockets and physics, so I…

Let's just put it this way: The ISS produces about 120 kilowatts of electricity. An Nvidia Blackwell B200 GPU uses 1.2 kilowatts of electricity. So, you would need a similar array of solar panels and radiators just to power 100 of them. You probably would need 2-3 launches for a satellite this big, and realistically, you would just make smaller satellites. That's $4,000,000 worth of GPUs, A couple millon or more of R…

SpaceX would be launching these on Starship, which has a much lower targeted launch cost.

Re: Short sellers notch $8.7B profit as SpaceX shares dip to IPO price

#80

Post by leptons »

jacobgold wrote: post #50

I completely understood the idea of Starlink and expected that it would be successful and useful, which it is. I've worked in data centers for decades now, and I am incredibly skeptical of the "data centers in space" sales pitch. It seems like an actual scam. Data centers submerged in the ocean or placed in the desert seem much more promising. But I have only an enthusiast's understanding of rockets and physics, so I…

The only way it makes sense is if you think the massive job losses due to AI will lead to people burning down datacenters on earth. An older spec'd and unmaintainable datacenter is worth way more than one in ashes.
Post reply on HN