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

Why SpaceX 2040 Revenue FCST $4.3T in highly unlikely

matteast.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 219 posts

Re: Why SpaceX 2040 Revenue FCST $4.3T in highly unlikely

#101

Post by kridsdale1 »

0xbadcafebee wrote: post #79

I don't think some people understand how money works. If you say you're going to have $3.4T in revenue, someone has to have that money, and give it to you. So where is the money? Who has it? Are they spending it somewhere else right now, and will decide to instead spend it on SpaceX later? Or is the money just sitting in savings accounts, strangely not being spent or invested? And why would they put their money into…

The answer to all your questions is that the stock market has been in a mode of price discovery for memes themselves since 2020.

Elon is the meme king.

Re: Why SpaceX 2040 Revenue FCST $4.3T in highly unlikely

#102

Post by bitmasher9 »

mohamedkoubaa wrote: post #55
zuzululu wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

at that inflation rate the US dollar would lose its reserve currency status so I doubt it at some point interest rates should reach double digits like in the 70s following oil crisis the only crazy scenario for spaceX is it does space exploration/mining and finds something extremely exotic or valuable and sought after.

Reserve currency status is already doomed it's a matter of when not if

It’s always been a matter of when.

Re: Why SpaceX 2040 Revenue FCST $4.3T in highly unlikely

#103

Post by vel0city »

wnmurphy wrote: post #89
veqz wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I hear lots of people saying Tesla's "FSD" product can drive by itself already. Yet if the car crashes while in FSD mode, it is still you who are legally the driver and you who will be responsible. You are the driver, regardless of what the name of the car's software is. This can be contrasted with e.g. Mercedes' offering, which is actually self-driving, and where Mercedes is responsible if the car crashes (The…

> Until Tesla (or someone else) actually takes responsibility while the car drives itself Were you aware they're already doing exactly this in Austin and Dallas?

Yeah, there's ~40 of them in Dallas, and they're highly geofenced.

Seems pretty small for a platform they're so confident about.

Re: Why SpaceX 2040 Revenue FCST $4.3T in highly unlikely

#104

Post by iterance »

themgt wrote: post #86

It's funny it concludes "A line is not a law" while the entire page is just lines and charts. If you didn't know anything going in, SpaceX might as well be a company selling toilet paper for all you learned. I've got no idea what a share of SpaceX is worth today or 14 years from now, but fully reusable rockets are going to be one of the most important engineering achievements in human history, and SpaceX appears far…

All things equal I would agree with you. However, all things are not equal.

SpaceX's target 2040 revenue of $4.3T. Let us assume that the US GDP grows at 3% p/a; in 2040 we may project a GDP of around $50T. Naturally, SpaceX would pushing 10% of the total US GDP.

Such a change is possible. It is not out of the question. Companies can and do reach that size, though obviously for mathematical reasons only a small number do. However, the claim that one will reach that size 14 years in advance beggars scrutiny. Simple credulity is not justified and it naturally follows that there will be a large number of people, even people with very bullish outlooks, who do not believe SpaceX will meet target. 30% growth p/a for 14 years would, historically, represent a fantastic rate of return and yet still it falls considerably short of target.

All the same, part of the promise to investors (whether one believes it or not) is that, even if SpaceX were to fall short of target, the long term revenue prospects are so explosive that one can't help but feel it's a good deal. (Is it? Time will tell.)

Re: Why SpaceX 2040 Revenue FCST $4.3T in highly unlikely

#105

Post by nemomarx »

shimman wrote: post #52
square_usual wrote: post #29

[flagged]

eh, am very biased as I design similar sites but I honestly prefer these to what would be likely string of random social media posts. I like having relevant graphics stickied while text is displayed alongside it (assuming by blog post you mean the typical page-like top to bottom approach). edit: damn, if these designs are hated what modern approaches do people like? I feel like scroll based text is a relatively unexp…

I want it to be something you could reproduce in print, though. As close to what I'd get putting it in reader mode as possible.

We've spent a long time optimizing the printed word, including pages with diagrams and illustrations on them. You don't need to reinvent the wheel for every blog

Re: Why SpaceX 2040 Revenue FCST $4.3T in highly unlikely

#106

Post by nemomarx »

themgt wrote: post #86

It's funny it concludes "A line is not a law" while the entire page is just lines and charts. If you didn't know anything going in, SpaceX might as well be a company selling toilet paper for all you learned. I've got no idea what a share of SpaceX is worth today or 14 years from now, but fully reusable rockets are going to be one of the most important engineering achievements in human history, and SpaceX appears far…

They aren't being valued on the rockets, though, they're claiming a large TAM based on the ai portion.

if I could invest in just the rockets that would be cool. much less downside risk

Re: Why SpaceX 2040 Revenue FCST $4.3T in highly unlikely

#107

Post by damnitbuilds »

cycomanic wrote: post #95
MPSimmons wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SpaceX's entire history is full of, "there's no way they'll ever do X", followed by them doing it. They definitely haven't hit all of their goals, but I don't think anything they want to do is impossible, just really difficult.

Like what? Seriously, nobody thought shouting rockets into space was impossible. Landing a rocket again nobody had thought it impossible. Sure they brought down prices, again nobody thought it impossible. The question is actually is it desirable. Rocket launches are pretty much the worst one can do in terms of greenhouse gas emissions, but somehow all technerds are falling all over themselves how great it is.

"Landing a rocket again nobody had thought it impossible."

Erm, ESA thought it was a dream:

"Twenty years ago, before SpaceX had launched a single rocket, Richard Bowles, a sales director of the European Arianespace launch consortium, said SpaceX’s ambition to launch, recover and reuse rockets, cutting the price of launches in half, was a dream.

‘SpaceX primarily sems to be selling a dream. Which is good, we should all dream,’ he said. ‘I think reusability is a dream… How am I going to respond to a dream?… First of all you don’t wake people up. They have to wake up on their own… They’re not supermen. Whatever they can do, we can do.’"

https://spectator.com/article/spacex-has-put-europe-to-shame...

Re: Why SpaceX 2040 Revenue FCST $4.3T in highly unlikely

#109

Post by panzi »

The animated graphics are fancy, but can anyone with a screen reader tell us how that "looks" to them? The graphics are all one SVG mixed together with different parts set to opacity: 0. The accessibility tree in Firefox gives you all the labels randomly mixed together. If that is how people with screen reader "see" it, its unusable.

Maybe make the graphic aria-hidden and add an empty tag with aria-description (or other kind of tag only screen readers see) describing the current graphic to each slide.

Re: Why SpaceX 2040 Revenue FCST $4.3T in highly unlikely

#110

Post by conductr »

It's insane to me that regulators are just letting the forced bid hack unfold with their heads in the sand as if they are unaware of what's happening or the press it's receiving.

Sometimes there are clever ways to hack the system and the regulators can react and blame poor hindsight, that's not the case here.

Post reply on HN