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

191–200 of 219 posts

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

#191

Post by donavanm »

BLKNSLVR wrote: post #188
greycol wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. Look…

Ive been out of the authoritative dns game for a while, but asi recall…

Larger providers can also get bulk zone access for TLD’s and whois/registrar data. For this use case it’s relatively easy to create a time based filter on that. Anything that’s “new” will be de facto absent from your “allow” check and create an implicit deny.

Then your large IT provider or recursive DNS system will probably layer in RPZ where they can insert explicit denies at resolution time. Either based on QNAME, RDATA, zone, etc.

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

#193

Post by SXX »

SecretDreams wrote: post #78
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.

This is true. We just need to bank on a total economic collapse and all of our SpaceX valuation fantasies can come true.

You'll be surprised how not total economic collapse it is. Population will become poor, but it only good for the strong leader since they wont have time to bother about all this politics stuff.

And country can still run like that for decades. Also get rids you from all the debt since you can easily just pay it all by printing more money.

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

#194

Post by moezd »

Tesla grew from two dudes making a sports car in their garage to being a decent EV company, despite many controversies. SpaceX is already propped up with government contracts to ship payloads to ISS. What could potentially justify 40% or so sustained growth of SpaceX? Will they create the asteroid mining industry from scratch (and make every precious metal on Earth worthless... hold on), or will they carry people to multiple planets in Solar System (so what, Mars will stay less habitable than Antarctica until the Sun blows up... hold on), or will they cover the whole world with Starlink satellites, data centers etc (which they are already doing a decent job... hold on)?

What's the secret sauce? What can Musk possibly promise this time around? More memes? He already smoked crack on YouTube, what comes next and why is this worthy of pension funds to invest into?

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

#195

Post by lolc »

olyjohn wrote: post #190
kilroy123 wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm under the assumption that Starlink will never provide more than one percent of the mobile bandwidth in a developed country. Because they can't match dense antenna webs in cities. Am I wrong?

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

#196

Post by [deleted] »

olyjohn wrote: post #190
kilroy123 wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

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

#197

Post by 0xbadcafebee »

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.

If that ends up being true, at minimum that's securities fraud. Not really something worth risking with a trillion dollar company

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

#198

Post by golem14 »

wat10000 wrote: post #160
golem14 wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Well, it it works well enough, I don't care too deeply. But it's clear to me that the self driving on the older hardware changes it's personalty depending on something I cannot figure out (software updates? Light conditions?). From confident formula-1 driver to nervous granny. This unpredictability is very unnerving to me. Like having a teenager drive my car.

I rented a tesla with the new hardware for a week and it was awesome. But they could just update the model overnight and give me a nasty surprise. That's ... not a very happy thought.

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

#199

Post by Mikhail_Edoshin »

seattle_spring wrote: post #172
Mikhail_Edoshin wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Space based data centers is a cover for space weaponry.

Can you elaborate on what you mean?

If they ever start actually hurling massive objects to the orbit then these will be weapons. The data center functionality will be imitated remotely, if necessary.

See "Starlink is a way to give internet to whales" and "Pokémon is a fun little game" maybe "to train delivery robots as a surprise by-product nobody foresaw" and other such stories.

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

#200

Post by orwin »

samtp wrote: post #84
sleepyguy wrote: post #50

The US consumer cellular subscription service is around 185 billion a year and if you add business/enterprise it is around 225 billion a year. If they were able (highly unlikely) to capture that market in the US alone through Satellite Cellular service, it would be huge revenue stream. Setting up data centers in orbit (easier said than done) would be another huge revenue stream. Setting up facilities to beam down ene…

> Setting up data centers in orbit Still have yet to hear how data centers in space are actually supposed to be a good thing when cooling them is much harder than on earth because they are in a near vacuum with much less heat dissipation. > Setting up facilities to beam down energy to earths surface could also be an opportunity Also interested to learn how this is done without creating a death ray with potentially ca…

SpaceX published their datacenter satellite plans, I think they assumed that if they hid their radiators from the sun, they can consider space temperature to be 3-5K. Which is a fairly good assumption if:

- you have a perfect shadow on all side (no light is reflected from a nearby celestial body)

- and nothing is radiating nearby. Earth radiate a lot, I space temperature around the iss is fairly high.

I'm fairly sure the current design either need high temp chips or needs to be far from LEO. Or they will have to make the radiators bigger.

Post reply on HN