Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

SpaceX S-1

sec.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 404 posts

Re: SpaceX S-1

#241

Post by lz400 »

mvkel wrote: post #217
impulser_ wrote: post #15

"in May 2026, we entered into Cloud Services Agreements with Anthropic PBC (“Anthropic”), an AI research and development public benefit corporation, with respect to access to compute capacity across COLOSSUS and COLOSSUS II. Pursuant to these agreements, the customer has agreed to pay us $1.25 billion per month through May 2029, with capacity ramping in May and June 2026 at a reduced fee" Anthropic is paying them 1.2…

If this doesn't completely destroy any benefit of doubt that people have in Dario, I don't know what to say. The guy has been speaking out of both sides of his mouth since the foundation of Anth. Over and over he repeated that Anth's investment in compute would not be reckless; it would represent sanity and be proportional to growth. Over and over Anth told users that the models weren't nerfed overnight, we were just…

Even if we consider what they pay for colossus high (I've no idea, I haven't looked at the numbers), wouldn't this a bit be different from "investing in infrastructure"? They're not building the DC themselves, they're just renting, they can scale down to 0 anytime and not have pressure to recover costs, they don't have debt on the HW, etc.

Re: SpaceX S-1

#242

Post by jaccola »

JeremyNT wrote: post #73
Eldodi wrote: post #3

Crazy this company will IPO for >1B with such bad financials! That said, Starlink seems to be a real cash machine, not as good as ads but enough to support AI bets. 2025: - Revenue: $18.7B, up from $14.0B in 2024 - Operating loss: -$2.6B - Net loss: -$4.9B - Adjusted EBITDA: $6.6B - Operating cash flow: $6.8B - Capex: $20.7B Segment breakdown: - Starlink / Connectivity: $11.4B revenue, $4.4B operating income, $7.2B a…

What is the best way to hedge against this turkey being included in my index funds?

Mistiming is equivalent to being wrong. And Musk is good at keeping valuations high! So who knows when it will tank.

Re: SpaceX S-1

#243

Post by seydor »

electriclove wrote: post #77
datadrivenangel wrote: post #11

So this confirms that SpaceX was making a lot of cash and plowing it back into R&D, and that the X/Twitter/xAI merger is concrete shoes on the good parts.

Did you read that Anthropic is paying them $15B/year for use of xAI's data centers? That changes things quite a bit

They are paying per month in a quickly shifting world.

Re: SpaceX S-1

#244

Post by thephyber »

thephyber wrote: post #117
moralestapia wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The collateral damage would be mind boggling. Nah. Nothing critical is running on top of any of SpaceXAI's offerings.

Arguably Ukraine is still alive because of StarLink. Granted, Russia is trying hard to make every mistake in the book, but StarLink’s benefits for UA and cutting off RU units from StarLink was very advantageous this year.

For those who don’t know, for a ~$400 terminal, UA can C&C a medium-long range drone/ plane or cruise missile which has low latency, massive global coverage, and which is resilient against EM jamming (apparently the terminal handoffs from one satellite to another make it ideal for resisting an enemy’s jamming efforts). Also the obvious: it maintains MUCH better resilient comms between front lines and HQ (RU depended on this, but they were cut off a few months ago, causing coordination chaos).

There is discussion that if Taiwan gets a similar deal to Ukraine for StarLink access, it makes the porcupine strategy much more viable.

Conversely, any country which can’t get access to it loses a massive tool in the tool chest.

And sadly, it means that if the US continues to be fickle with allies, those allies may not be able to rely on such a valuable tool.

Re: SpaceX S-1

#245

Post by kgwgk »

burnerRhodov3 wrote: post #227
lumost wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Napkin math on 5 year depreciation is 5.5 billion per year for 28 billion. However the 28 billion is cash upfront, spacex is probably paying 10-20% interest on the 28 billion for another 2-6 billion per year. So net you are looking at finance expenses of 7-11 billion per year. The electricity costs will be significant on top of that, but harder to get a solid read on. Net of everything, spacex may be getting a 14-28…

5.5 year depreciation is only on the chips. Power, networking, cabling, the actual construction of the building is probably closer to 60% of that number. Also, they are only renting out colosus 1 ($10B), not colosus II ($18B). So, it's 10B, with $4b of that being attributed to a 5 year depreciation. The rest of the facility probably has a depreciation of around 20 years, and you can easily swap out GPU's, TPU's, Trit…

> There is no interest, as he was venture funded not debt funded.

Who is "he"? SpaceX has $20bn of debt and $9bn in "other financing" corresponding to "obligations related to certain AI infrastructure assets recorded as failed sale-leaseback transactions."

Re: SpaceX S-1

#246

Post by nl »

mvkel wrote: post #217
impulser_ wrote: post #15

"in May 2026, we entered into Cloud Services Agreements with Anthropic PBC (“Anthropic”), an AI research and development public benefit corporation, with respect to access to compute capacity across COLOSSUS and COLOSSUS II. Pursuant to these agreements, the customer has agreed to pay us $1.25 billion per month through May 2029, with capacity ramping in May and June 2026 at a reduced fee" Anthropic is paying them 1.2…

If this doesn't completely destroy any benefit of doubt that people have in Dario, I don't know what to say. The guy has been speaking out of both sides of his mouth since the foundation of Anth. Over and over he repeated that Anth's investment in compute would not be reckless; it would represent sanity and be proportional to growth. Over and over Anth told users that the models weren't nerfed overnight, we were just…

I don't see how this follows at all?

It's true that Anthropic didn't buy as much compute as OpenAI. But OpenAI's compute purchases are one of the largest investments in human history.

It's also true that they are now scrambling for compute, and might be paying more than OpenAI paid. But now they have the revenue to justify it!

To me it is the opposite of "speaking out of both sides of his mouth" - he's been consistent in his "we won't be reckless in buying compute too far ahead of demand" message.

Re: SpaceX S-1

#248

Post by nl »

lumost wrote: post #187
gekoxyz wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

can you elaborate?

Napkin math on 5 year depreciation is 5.5 billion per year for 28 billion. However the 28 billion is cash upfront, spacex is probably paying 10-20% interest on the 28 billion for another 2-6 billion per year. So net you are looking at finance expenses of 7-11 billion per year. The electricity costs will be significant on top of that, but harder to get a solid read on. Net of everything, spacex may be getting a 14-28…

That depreciation it too high in practice.

5 year old H100s are now completed depreciated but are being rented out at higher rates than when they were new.

> Who is going to rent the GPUs then?

I'd LOVE a way to be on the other side of that bet.

If only there was another way outside of buying into all the other Elon risks associated with SpaceX.

Re: SpaceX S-1

#249

Post by kortilla »

TheAlchemist wrote: post #28
aipatselarom wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SpaceX and Tesla are different companies, fyi.

I know. They are very closely collaborating and are part of the same 'empire'. They will also go down together.

They are not closely collaborating. They share essentially nothing beyond Musk.

Re: SpaceX S-1

#250

Post by riffraff »

keeda wrote: post #202
stingraycharles wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being drowned in demand and scrambling for compute because you’re more successful than anticipated is a better problem than the other way around.

Oh, for sure it could be much worse -- they could have been in xAI's place! ;-) But while this is a "good problem to have" it would have been an even better problem to avoid in the first place, because it seemed avoidable. Now, I'm totally armchair billionaire-CEO-ing here, but anybody with any compute has been so obviously capacity constrained for so many quarters all the while scrambling like mad and spending obsce…

> Worst case, they could have rented any extra capacity out, like Elon is doing!

Worst case there wouldn't be anyone interested in renting it either, they would have tens of billions of useless data centers fastly losing value.

Post reply on HN