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

The SpaceX Sham

dissentmagazine.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 51 posts

Re: The SpaceX Sham

#21

Post by orwin »

caconym_ wrote: post #4
AlexMuir wrote: post #2

> Although SpaceX stock has since fallen far below its IPO price I'm a skeptic on SpaceX but the IPO price was $135, low was $108 and current price is $130. I wouldn't say that's far below.

Worth noting that it actually opened at $150 on public markets. It's kind of funny how we call the $135 figure the "public offering" price when there is really nothing public about it. Maybe it made more sense in some past era when it was more difficult for third parties to make private pre-IPO investments. Not that there's anything particularly unusual about this. High profile tech companies almost universally (actu…

Really? i got out of the crypto/finance bubble a few years ago, but that feels heavily like a crypto scam. You create a coin, you keep a few, sell another few to influencers cheaply, then ICO, then profit.

Re: The SpaceX Sham

#22

Post by ggreer »

sfblah wrote: post #18
midwestfounder wrote: post #5

It's difficult to get past what comes across as an attempt to analytically substantiate moralistic reasoning. The contention that it's scandalous to raise capital to support an "automated future" then a dotted line to transhumanism and then the conclusion "it's a sham" feels shoddy.

To me, the bigger issue with SpaceX is that there's no real argument for how space exploration will benefit humanity in any tangible way. Humans cannot live sustainably on Mars or the moon -- that's just a straight-up lie. Satellites add some value for sure, but it's pretty limited, which helps explain why most of the launches just support StarLink (which itself is probably unsustainable financially). This whole thin…

How is Starlink financially unsustainable? In 2025, Starlink generated $4.42 billion in income from $11.39 billion in revenue. Last quarter Starlink generated $1.6 billion in income from $4.3 billion in revenue.[1] So it's already a profitable enterprise, and their costs will likely go down over time as their launch capabilities improve.

1. https://s21.q4cdn.com/184289198/files/doc_financials/2026/q2...

Re: The SpaceX Sham

#23

Post by Dig1t »

ck2 wrote: post #3

it's worse than a scam, he's doing real, permanent damage to the environment * https://techcrunch.com/2026/07/31/spacex-wont-remove-all-of-... and illegally, not sure how he's allowed to get away with it and each starlink deorbit is putting toxic pollution into the atmosphere without penalty (launches too) * https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2025-space-orbit-satellit...

How many satellites would it take burning up in the atmosphere to raise the aluminum content of the atmosphere by just 1 part per billion (not million)? Each satellite is 300kg, it would take 57 MILLION satellites. The cost to do that at current prices would be $138 trillion.

Airplane exhaust has a real measurable impact on the atmosphere, curious why people choose to target satellite debris instead of plane exhaust as their topic of environmental concern.

Re: The SpaceX Sham

#24

Post by bigbuppo »

Whether it's a good idea don't matter. Fundamentals don't matter. What matters is if enough investors think they can make a lot of money.

The bet is on a government bailout of some sort. SpaceX itself is now critical to national security, as is Starlink. Tossing every other Musk company into SpaceX means that when they fail SpaceX itself has to be bailed out. Probably safer than government bonds at this point if you can HODL.

Re: The SpaceX Sham

#25

Post by ggreer »

ck2 wrote: post #3

it's worse than a scam, he's doing real, permanent damage to the environment * https://techcrunch.com/2026/07/31/spacex-wont-remove-all-of-... and illegally, not sure how he's allowed to get away with it and each starlink deorbit is putting toxic pollution into the atmosphere without penalty (launches too) * https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2025-space-orbit-satellit...

The article about atmospheric pollution from deorbiting satellites leaves out the biggest source of stratospheric aluminum oxide: Solid rocket boosters. A single Ariane 6 launch creates 100-200 tons of aluminum oxide in the atmosphere (depending on whether it uses 2 or 4 boosters). SpaceX doesn't use solid boosters, so it's a rounding error in terms of its contribution. Also SpaceX is switching to Starship, which uses methane instead of kerosene, drastically reducing the amount of soot produced.

Last year when this topic came up, I did the math for how long it would take before aluminum oxide from satellites was worth worrying about. If you assume the entire satellite is made from aluminum, and that aluminum oxide is as bad as the most potent ozone-destroying CFC, and that the particles stay in the atmosphere forever, it would take 5,000 years before atmospheric levels of aluminum oxide reached the same concentration as R-12.[1] So basically, it's not worth worrying about.

1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45493143#45494364

Re: The SpaceX Sham

#26

Post by nh23423fefe »

bigbuppo wrote: post #24

Whether it's a good idea don't matter. Fundamentals don't matter. What matters is if enough investors think they can make a lot of money. The bet is on a government bailout of some sort. SpaceX itself is now critical to national security, as is Starlink. Tossing every other Musk company into SpaceX means that when they fail SpaceX itself has to be bailed out. Probably safer than government bonds at this point if you…

Clearly logic doesn't matter if you'll say Treasuries are less safe than SpaceX because reasons.

Re: The SpaceX Sham

#27

Post by MarkusQ »

jotux wrote: post #20
MarkusQ wrote: post #9

> Negative coverage of the IPO was limited due to the participation of so many major banks in the IPO process; they don’t want to poison the cash cow they’re milking for underwriting fees. WTF? Anyone willing to read this far knows that this is flat out false. The negative coverage was unrelenting, and largely driven by big players peeved by the unconventional process. Anyone who bothers to continue past that point i…

It's funny how our perceptions are driven by the source of our news. I generally perceived the positive coverage in regular news as unrelenting. I know the tech news sources I read were constantly complaining about rule changes and manipulations on the part of Spacex, but run-of-the-mill national news outlets seem to be endlessly hyping the stock to the point that a few of my non tech-savvy family members were asking…

https://www.morningstar.com/stocks/why-we-think-spacex-ipo-i...

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/01/technology/spacex-ipo-elo...

https://montanaskeptic.substack.com/p/the-spacex-ipo-will-be...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rS3fTbC7TE

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/2026/06/03/heavily-in-de...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-X6YzlY_8tM

https://jamesthomason.com/spacex-ipo-bagship-carries-full-pa...

https://www.theverge.com/ai-artificial-intelligence/940001/e...

It all seems pretty negative to me.

Re: The SpaceX Sham

#28

Post by chollida1 »

bigbuppo wrote: post #24

Whether it's a good idea don't matter. Fundamentals don't matter. What matters is if enough investors think they can make a lot of money. The bet is on a government bailout of some sort. SpaceX itself is now critical to national security, as is Starlink. Tossing every other Musk company into SpaceX means that when they fail SpaceX itself has to be bailed out. Probably safer than government bonds at this point if you…

> Probably safer than government bonds at this point if you can HODL.

Not sure how you came to the conclusion that SPCX is safe because of the government backstop/bailout, but government bonds are less safe.

I'll take the other side of your claim here and say SPCX goes bankrupt before the US government does

Re: The SpaceX Sham

#29

Post by bigbuppo »

nh23423fefe wrote: post #26
bigbuppo wrote: post #24

Whether it's a good idea don't matter. Fundamentals don't matter. What matters is if enough investors think they can make a lot of money. The bet is on a government bailout of some sort. SpaceX itself is now critical to national security, as is Starlink. Tossing every other Musk company into SpaceX means that when they fail SpaceX itself has to be bailed out. Probably safer than government bonds at this point if you…

Clearly logic doesn't matter if you'll say Treasuries are less safe than SpaceX because reasons.

Among people with a certain world view, the US government has been days away from defaulting on its obligations for decades on end. These sorts of people tend to like Elon Musk for some reason.

Re: The SpaceX Sham

#30

Post by atmavatar »

ck2 wrote: post #3

it's worse than a scam, he's doing real, permanent damage to the environment * https://techcrunch.com/2026/07/31/spacex-wont-remove-all-of-... and illegally, not sure how he's allowed to get away with it and each starlink deorbit is putting toxic pollution into the atmosphere without penalty (launches too) * https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2025-space-orbit-satellit...

> and illegally, not sure how he's allowed to get away with it

The law's hold over you is inversely proportional to your net worth in the US.

Post reply on HN