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

201–210 of 219 posts

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

#201

Post by orwin »

olyjohn wrote: post #189
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…

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 rac…

It won't work btw, unless they don't put the satellites in LEO. Earth radiate away big time (it's like 200K in earth shadow in LEO

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

#202

Post by criddell »

soperj wrote: post #154
criddell wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It seems crazy that AIs are doing all these impressive things yet struggles with something we teach children to do.

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

#203

Post by panzi »

shimman wrote: post #118
panzi wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I'm not that against to such a web page (when viewing it on a monitor, not a phone) I'd say follow these points: • Don't hijack any browser functionality. Scrolling shall scroll the document, the end. • Don't scale something to the screen size, breaking zoom! Especially don't do it so that when zooming causes a different scroll position and then it all jumps to a different slide. WTF! • Make it accessible! If y…

I don't disagree with those, and I'm able to do them myself but what do you mean by this? "• Don't hijack any browser functionality. Scrolling shall scroll the document, the end." How would you consider the page hijacking scroll functionality? You can scroll down normally. There are animations based on scroll position, maybe that's what you meant?

I mean the animated graphics and some other hackery going on when you try to zoom. It thinks to detect a different scroll position and jumps to a different slide. Also means you can't convert it to a PDF or print it, if you want to (though I wouldn't want to do that).

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

#205

Post by andruby »

conductr wrote: post #110

It'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.

The administration has given their orders to the regulators, whether explicit or implicit, and this is playing out exactly as they want it to. This is not "by accident" or "by negligence". This is by design.

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

#206

Post by andruby »

mentalfist wrote: post #7

It's amazing we're in a timeline were people let stuff like this happen, against any sane logic.

> against any sane logic

The logic is super sane: rich people get richer. rich people in power let other rich people get richer.

The insane part is the population that falls for the lies and votes for this

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

#207

Post by andruby »

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.

* GOOG's revenue grew from 16.6B in 2007 to 402B in 2025 for a Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of 20.4%

* AMZN: 11.7B to 717B = 24.8%

* AAPL: 24B to 416B = 18.6%

* MSFT: 49.7B to 245B = 10.2%

SpaceX is claiming they will grow by 41.5% !! That's double GOOG's growth and 4x MSFT's growth.

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

#208

Post by andruby »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #169
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…

Falcon 9 was in a quasi-monopoly position in 2025, and had $4 billion in revenue. That's revenue, not profit. Starship will expand the market, but it would have to expand it by ~1000x to justify the valuation.

Exactly the TAM for rockets just isn't there, and probably never will be.

That's why SpaceX is "betting" so hard on datacenters in space (just build them on earth with solar and batteries), and AI.

I think they know they are pumping the stock and that's a pity because I do think Tesla and SpaceX are really good at scaling industrial production (car factories, rocket factories) and I think they could be really good (the best) at building earth-based datacenters at scale. But it's probably hard to value that at $1.7T

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

#210

Post by shimman »

panzi wrote: post #203
shimman wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't disagree with those, and I'm able to do them myself but what do you mean by this? "• Don't hijack any browser functionality. Scrolling shall scroll the document, the end." How would you consider the page hijacking scroll functionality? You can scroll down normally. There are animations based on scroll position, maybe that's what you meant?

I mean the animated graphics and some other hackery going on when you try to zoom. It thinks to detect a different scroll position and jumps to a different slide. Also means you can't convert it to a PDF or print it, if you want to (though I wouldn't want to do that).

Gotcha, interesting user flow. I've never manually tested that before. Adding it to the list.

I do think the site is a very poor vibed implementation of this FWIW, another hour of manually tweaking some css/js would solve this issues.

Post reply on HN