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

141–150 of 219 posts

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

#141

Post by amluto »

kilroy123 wrote: post #62
d_silin wrote: post #32

SpaceX 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…

Here's the thing. Land is cheap in many parts of the world. Solar panels work okay on the ground (not as well as in space). GPUs work better on the ground (MUCH easier to cool). Connectivity is cheaper on the ground (sure, Starlink is amazing, but it doesn't hold a candle to fiber). Maintenance is possible on the ground. Reuse of old equipment is possible on the ground. Batteries are heavy, and they smooth out solar power pretty well on the ground. Oh, and natural gas, which xAI/SpaceX uses in their big datacenters, is cheap on the ground.

So, given that you're bought the GPUs, you could launch them into space, but you have the alternative option of ... not launching them into space.

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

#142

Post by Geee »

SXX wrote: post #2

You never know what inflation gonna be in futute. In some countries that turned into autocracies with strong and long standing leaders who love traditional values and religion inflation can easily be 30-70% a year. Then not only 4.3T reachable, but even 43T.

If all the AI / robotics dreams come true and productivity increases a lot, it'll cause deflationary pressure, which must be balanced with money printing to keep inflation up at 2%. Increased productivity is never allowed to result in cheaper products. For example, CPI deflation 20% -> money printing 22% equals 2% total CPI inflation. Asset prices track the real inflation i.e. they rise by 22%.

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

#143

Post by overtone1000 »

threetonesun wrote: post #64
bluGill wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If inflation is really that high I'm buying hard assets that won't depreciate. Sure I will need some cash, but gold bars in my personal safe suddenly are a great investment (gold is generally a terrible investment, but when inflation is the main concern is is really good)

Until SpaceX finds that golden asteroid.

True believers will leverage themselves all the way to the moon by selling gold calls so they can buy more SpaceX calls.

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

#144

Post by HWR_14 »

mlyle wrote: post #121
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…

I am upset that I am forced to either rebalance out of NASDAQ and incur significant tax consequences, or bet that SpaceX is about to become nearly 10 percent of GDP and keep exceptional margins while doing it. I would not voluntarily take that bet, but we have regulatory and financial engineering nearly forcing me to do so.

You could maintain a short SpaceX portion in the approximately same percentage as your NASDAQ ETF. You'd have more slight tax events as you increased or closed out that short position to maintain the percentage, but significantly less than your NASDAQ position's taxes. Then when you sell your ETF you could close out the short to effectively remove SpaceX from the equation.

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

#145

Post by xmprt »

root_axis wrote: post #132
square_usual wrote: post #29

[flagged]

These types of pages have been common long before vibe coding.

But now with vibecoding it feels like the default for articles to have fancy animation, rather than the exception. I guess that by having a fancier presentation it subconsciously legitimizes the content more so you're less likely to critique it as compared to a simple blog post where you pay more attention to the words and can realize that it's very surface level.

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

#146

Post by jfengel »

thatmf wrote: post #26
SXX wrote: post #2

You never know what inflation gonna be in futute. In some countries that turned into autocracies with strong and long standing leaders who love traditional values and religion inflation can easily be 30-70% a year. Then not only 4.3T reachable, but even 43T.

> Donald Trump said “I love the inflation” after new data showed that inflation jumped to an annual rate of 4.2% in May, the third consecutive monthly increase since the start of the Iran war and a three-year high. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2026/jun/10/inflation-r... You may be on to something...

I try to be skeptical about quotes, especially when they affirm my preconceptions. So here's the surrounding material:

“You know what I really love? I love the inflation. You know why? Because as soon as this war is over, you know I can say it now ... you know we’ve been taking out millions of barrels of oil. Nobody knows it. You know who doesn’t know about it? Iran, until right now.”

OK then.

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

#147

Post by CamperBob2 »

Mikhail_Edoshin wrote: post #135
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…

Space based data centers is a cover for space weaponry.

s/cover/target

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

#149

Post by themgt »

mlyle wrote: post #121
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…

I am upset that I am forced to either rebalance out of NASDAQ and incur significant tax consequences, or bet that SpaceX is about to become nearly 10 percent of GDP and keep exceptional margins while doing it. I would not voluntarily take that bet, but we have regulatory and financial engineering nearly forcing me to do so.

I am upset that I am forced to either rebalance out of NASDAQ and incur significant tax consequences

Just to quantify, "The projected SpaceX weighting is around 0.6% of QQQ."

So if you have $100,000 invested in QQQ and SpaceX winds up say 4x overvalued, it may eventually wind up costing you as much as $450 (i.e. 1/5th as large a loss you experienced today in QQQ).

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

#150

Post by expedition32 »

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.

Yeah but with Starlink I can watch YouTube on a remote Pacific island! (I never visit remote Pacific islands).
Post reply on HN