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

151–160 of 219 posts

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

#151

Post by kilroy123 »

amluto wrote: post #141
kilroy123 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

But now there's massive opposition to building on land.

If you just build in space no one will be able to hold up those permits.

For what it's worth I don't disagree with you.

This depends on ridiculously low costs to orbit. But there truly is unlimited power up there from the sun.

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

#152

Post by soperj »

wnmurphy wrote: post #57
TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tesla spent almost years scraping by, almost went bankrupt in 2018, had three years of "exceeds expectation" from 2020 to 2023 and is now being murdered by competitors. A lot of "income" comes from selling regulatory credits, not cars. FSD is up to v14 and there is no sense in which it's "Full", or is likely to be "Full" any time soon. The early computer industry created a good few companies which achieved profitabil…

> FSD is up to v14 and there is no sense in which it's "Full", or is likely to be "Full" any time soon. I think the SpaceX IPO is way overvalued, but have you actually tried FSD v14 yourself? My car has 8-year old hardware running v12, and it handles like 90+% of my driving. When I test drove 14 it blew my mind how good it had gotten in only 8 months of development. In my opinion, there's question that it's "when," n…

I hope you've filled out your will.

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

#153

Post by soperj »

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?

They've also had multiple crashes in very few miles driven.

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

#154

Post by soperj »

criddell wrote: post #69
TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tesla spent almost years scraping by, almost went bankrupt in 2018, had three years of "exceeds expectation" from 2020 to 2023 and is now being murdered by competitors. A lot of "income" comes from selling regulatory credits, not cars. FSD is up to v14 and there is no sense in which it's "Full", or is likely to be "Full" any time soon. The early computer industry created a good few companies which achieved profitabil…

Do you think full self-driving (level 5) is near? Driving a car is something we teach children to do. Surely FSD has to be getting close, no? Is this something Anthropic, Google, OpenAI, Meta, or any of the other big AI investors are close to solving?

Google is the farthest down the line.

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

#155

Post by ai-x »

mlyle wrote: post #124
ai-x wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are you comparing SpaceX revenues to US GDP? (when it's main customers will all have a global footprint) GDP rates should be nominal (5-6%) not 3% Also, go back in time and do the same analysis for Anthropic in 2023 or Nvidia in 2021, would you have predicted their current Annual revenue for them?

Outgrowing GDP for awhile— especially from a smaller base— is certainly possible. It is much less likely to do it from a long time from already large revenue.

If you looked at Google, Amazon, Apple, Microsoft valuation around 2007 (before the crash), you'd asked the same question about the large base. But here we are.

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

#156

Post by square_usual »

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

[flagged]

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

Vibe coding has made them a lot more common. Before, you'd need to put a lot more effort into making a website that worked like this, and it wasn't worth it for a random post. Now this person's entire website is posts like this, and I've seen many more in the past few months.

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

#157

Post by damnitbuilds »

damnitbuilds wrote: post #107
cycomanic wrote: post #95

Earlier 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…

[flagged]

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

#158

Post by axus »

downrightmike wrote: post #10
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.

China launched a direct competitor on June 2nd "China launches debut mission of Falcon 9-like rocket with no advance notice" https://www.space.com/space-exploration/launches-spacecraft/... Spacex is going to get rekt, China has all the materials and workforce

Who's going to buy launch services from CASC besides Chinese companies? Serious question, I don't have an answer in mind.

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

#160

Post by wat10000 »

golem14 wrote: post #93
TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tesla spent almost years scraping by, almost went bankrupt in 2018, had three years of "exceeds expectation" from 2020 to 2023 and is now being murdered by competitors. A lot of "income" comes from selling regulatory credits, not cars. FSD is up to v14 and there is no sense in which it's "Full", or is likely to be "Full" any time soon. The early computer industry created a good few companies which achieved profitabil…

Not a fanboy, but the latest generation Tesla self driving is really quite good. I still don't understand why they still aren't adding lidars now since prices have come down a lot.

You’re talking about a company that removed the rain sensor and made their automatic wipers use neural nets and cameras instead.
Post reply on HN