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

181–190 of 219 posts

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

#181

Post by laughing_man »

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

In the sense that all things end, sure. But for the forseeable future the dollar will be the world's reserve currency because 1) the US economy is still the biggest, and furthermore we have a big trade deficit and 2) the dollar is still the least worst currency out there.

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

#182

Post by zero_shift »

themgt wrote: post #149
mlyle wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

You are arguing I should be fine losing $500 so Elon can cash out? Because - and I hope this doesn't seem uncharitable - some sci-fi fantasy about space colonies?

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

#183

Post by mlyle »

ai-x wrote: post #155
mlyle wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But none of any of those has grown at the pace from that large base necessary to justify this kind of valuation.

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

#184

Post by [deleted] »

mohamedkoubaa wrote: post #170
strictnein wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

People have been right for decades

[deleted]

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

#185

Post by cousinbryce »

KoolKat23 wrote: post #139
square_usual wrote: post #29

[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.

Here’s a very short list of visual essays I like:

https://thenoisyroom.com/ https://www.terrygodier.com/the-last-quiet-thing

This one is good but the content doesn’t speak to me like the above. Would have been nice if OP had added a writing style suggestion to the prompt. Vanilla LLM text is sad

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

#188

Post by BLKNSLVR »

greycol wrote: post #178
BLKNSLVR wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you know by which mechanism they recognize newly registered domains in order to block them?

It's a whois lookup, registrars provide that information.

So a realtime whois lookup is performed when the request to the DNS server is made, and if the domain was only registered within X days/weeks, then return 0.0.0.0 (or other such blocking method).

See, I've outbuilding tried compiling lists of newly registered domains to use as block lists, bit they're very large lists that my under-spec systems struggle to deal with. As such, I scaled back / shelved the project.

Looks like Adguard DNS and NextDNS offer blocking NRDs as an option in their paid services. I shall be looking into this further.

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

#189

Post by olyjohn »

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…

It's still going to be what, $100,000 per ton to launch on Starship?

The AI1 Satellite that SpaceX has shown, is basically one rack. Something like 72 GPUs. Elon himself said it was a "rack in space" more than a datacenter in space. Sure I guess you could launch 100,000 of them and call it a datacenter. But their own graphic shows this thing to be 2 to 2 1/2 tons. So who is gonna spend $200,000 to launch a single rack into space? Get the panels as cheap as you want, the launch cost is still pretty massive just to get 150kw of free power.

I mean maybe my napkin math is way wrong here, but I don't see what the cost savings is.

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

#190

Post by olyjohn »

kilroy123 wrote: post #151
amluto wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is exactly why Starlink is successful. If we had decent regulations, and had actual good internet on the ground, why would we bother going to outer space? The truth is that it's cheaper to build an ISP in space to work around the corruption that has kept all these monopolies in power.
Post reply on HN