Is it just me or is does the large US companies stock-trade-based supposed "value" is floating in outer space with little relation to people's lives in reality? This SpaceX valuation is perhaps an outlier even among other multi-Trillion-USD companies, but aren't a lot of the "non-outliers" kind of in a bubble state?
Why SpaceX 2040 Revenue FCST $4.3T in highly unlikely
131–140 of 219 posts
Re: Why SpaceX 2040 Revenue FCST $4.3T in highly unlikely
#132[flagged]
These types of pages have been common long before vibe coding.
Re: Why SpaceX 2040 Revenue FCST $4.3T in highly unlikely
#133It'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.
Not that surprising. Reining in regulators is one of the main pillars of the party in power.
Yeah I say that knowing the why, but it doesn’t make the slow motion train wrecks around me any less painful to watch. Makes it more painful actually
Re: Why SpaceX 2040 Revenue FCST $4.3T in highly unlikely
#134It'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 numbe…
Also we crashed 2000-2002 2008-2009 2020. Although specific causes vary we haven't had 14 good years in a row so even the size of economy may be optimistic.
SpaceX will never be 10% based on rockets.
Rockets will get shit canned in the next crash because it's less important and spacex not having saved sufficiently will get wrecked.
Their 10% basically depends on them getting to super intelligent ai first despite others obviously being more successful.
An actually wildly successful projection would be asking us to imagine they weathered the next crash ok and were very successful at rockets after exiting AI.
Re: Why SpaceX 2040 Revenue FCST $4.3T in highly unlikely
#135I 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…
Space based data centers is a cover for space weaponry.
Re: Why SpaceX 2040 Revenue FCST $4.3T in highly unlikely
#136SpaceX already blown through a number of "... but this cannot be!" forecasts. Would not discount them easily.
I was thinking about this lately as well. If you break down their plan of launching a LOT of solar panels into space and strapping a GPU cluster to it. It's not _that_ crazy now. Prices for solar panels have dropped 90% in the last 10 years. Price per kilo to Low Earth Orbit has dropped ~50% in the last 10 years. SpaceX's entire plan is to keep dropping both of these prices down even more with massive solar panel / s…
"solar panel / starship factories"
Oh, sure, both kinds of factories are legitimately slashable as they are totally the same thing. Pretty much. Right? :-(
Re: Why SpaceX 2040 Revenue FCST $4.3T in highly unlikely
#137[flagged]
My corporate firewall blocked this due to it being a newly registered domain. So I can't even see it, I care less about "vibe coding" but it sounds like someone registered a domain just to get attention on their amazing take about why they think they're qualified to tell the world the future.
> My corporate firewall blocked this due to it being a newly registered domain.
Was surprised mine did not - usually a toss up with HN links. I don't get reasoning just "NONCOMPLIANT ACTION". It is interesting to have a flag telling you the domain is new, though
Re: Why SpaceX 2040 Revenue FCST $4.3T in highly unlikely
#138Earlier 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
People have been saying this for decades now. In 1999 the dollar was ~55% of the global foreign exchange reserves. In Q4 of 2025 it was at ~56%.
https://en.macromicro.me/collections/23654/dedollarization/1...
Re: Why SpaceX 2040 Revenue FCST $4.3T in highly unlikely
#139[flagged]
Completely disagree.
I appreciate this website. This format is intentional and serves a purpose.
It's great to see the small web in action.
Re: Why SpaceX 2040 Revenue FCST $4.3T in highly unlikely
#140Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 a…
[deleted]