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

271–280 of 404 posts

Re: SpaceX S-1

#271

Post by electriclove »

amluto wrote: post #255
electriclove wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The assumptions are that more compute (energy, chips) is needed to get more capable models AND more capable models will result in more spending by companies. That has been correct so far. Yes, energy and chips are some of the bottlenecks. SpaceX has a potential solution (solar powered data centers in orbit) where they are uniquely advantaged - no one can launch as much or as cheaply as they can.

Datacenters in space might help with energy (that’s a big if, but let’s suppose it works out). How does it help with chips? The chips are still made on Earth, but once you launch them, you add some radiation exposure and you also add a dramatic demise in five years or so. Meanwhile an RTX 3090 still sells for $500 or so.

In addition to working with Intel and others, there is the Terafan initiative: https://terafab.ai/

Re: SpaceX S-1

#272

Post by TheAlchemist »

kortilla wrote: post #249
TheAlchemist wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Did you actually read the S-1 ?

Tesla is mentionned 87 times. And even they explicitly state that they have strategic collaboration. They supposedly biggest projects are developped together (Macrohard, Terafab - all fugazzi, but still).

Related party transactions are close to a $1 Billion in 2025.

Re: SpaceX S-1

#273

Post by [deleted] »

kennethrc wrote: post #149
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…

> COLOSSUS and COLOSSUS II https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0064177 It may be sick, but someone's got a sense of humor over there :)

[deleted]

Re: SpaceX S-1

#274

Post by ryzvonusef »

TheAlchemist wrote: post #4

Finally ! Can we end the debate about how mind blowingly profitable this company is ? Mind you, those numbers don't take into account YET the Twitter debt / xAI merger burden - which will run into tens of billions per year. I just can't, can't wait until this whole Musk fugazzi finally blows up.

Would you be willing stake some money on your claim and short the stock?

Re: SpaceX S-1

#275

Post by LarsDu88 »

kentm wrote: post #64
LarsDu88 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With these kind of made up numbers, they might as well have simply used the fucking Kardeshev scale. Just compute the energy output of the Sun and claim they'll build a Dyson sphere around it. Can charge a nice hefty subscription fee for using the Sun, just like Netflix.

Kardashev Type II is mentioned three times in the doc. > We believe the next paradigm shift for humanity is the creation of a resilient, perpetually expanding spacefaring civilization that drives continuous innovation across new frontiers, ultimately propelling us to Kardashev Type II status—a civilization that harnesses the full energy output of our Sun. To be fair, he's not claiming here that SpaceX will accomplish…

Sometimes reality is stranger than fiction. I guess I'll have to buy shares in case I need to pay for my Sun subscription.

Perhaps the plan all along was to build enough rockets to blot out the sun over large parts of the Earth so only the space Chads can grow crops.

Re: SpaceX S-1

#276

Post by burnerRhodov3 »

This is going to make so many smart people working in hardware soooo fkin rich. We are about to witness an absolute flood of Ex-SpaceX employees start and invest in companies targeted at space and general manufacturing and hardware. This is how we win.

Re: SpaceX S-1

#277

Post by jcattle »

amluto wrote: post #139
runako wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The numbers overall are worse than I expected. I can't believe Serious People are talking about putting this in the market at a trilly. > Starlink seems to be a real cash machine It has been said more than once that Starlink financials cannot be analyzed apart from SpaceX financials. Very easy to move the launch costs from one entity to the other depending on whether it is more beneficial to show more revenue for Spa…

The use of EBITDA for Starlink is also interesting. For something like terrestrial fiber, I can imagine thinking that there’s a lot of depreciation on the books, but that most of the equipment keeps working after the depreciation period or is cheaper to replace than it was to buy, and that the right of ways and attachments don’t really depreciate. But Starlink satellites are actually gone at the end of their useful l…

I mean, the SpaceX bet is that what you mention for terrestrial fiber

> or is cheaper to replace than it was to buy

will also hold true for cost of mass to orbit. There's a lot riding on making that prediction come true for SpaceX, hence all the CapEx going into Starship.

Re: SpaceX S-1

#278

Post by infinitewars »

kennethrc wrote: post #149
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…

> COLOSSUS and COLOSSUS II https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0064177 It may be sick, but someone's got a sense of humor over there :)

SpaceX has a Golden Dome contract,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Dome_(missile_defense_s...

That's basically exactly this ^

Re: SpaceX S-1

#279

Post by jcattle »

takinola wrote: post #184
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…

Can someone ELI5 Starlink revenue sources? At the core, it's an ISP (but served from space). What does Starlink have that differentiates from any other ISP? Is it because the TAM is global? That may be true at the margin, but I am sure most eligible subscribers would prefer a land-based system (eg no one in SF is cancelling their Xfinity to use Starlink) so how much is really left for them?

There's a huge number of people in developing countries (think Indonesia, Brazil, Nigeria, Kenya, Mexico) where the country just lagged on internet build out. Now in these countries the price of a subscription will be a lot lower, than the >100$ you pay in the US, but since (simplified) the only additional cost per customer is the cost of the end terminal, it's still worth it for the ARR. The break-even point per customer will just be further in the future.

Also I wouldn't underestimate the amount of people living in rural areas of the US, Canada, Australia or Germany.

Re: SpaceX S-1

#280

Post by oliv5900 »

sroussey wrote: post #224
electriclove wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe it is a win/win. Anthropic gets desperately needed compute at a fair price. SpaceXAI sells compute at a fair price and gets desperately needed revenues.

Tesla loses out on that revenue since it was their chips to begin with, right?

XAi purchased Teslas allocation of GPUs, in exchange for Tesla purchasing XAis allocation of GPUs at a later date. This they claim was done because Tesla didnt have their datacentre ready to receive those gpus at that time. I dont see how or who was robbed here.
Post reply on HN