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

SpaceX files to go public

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 631 posts

Re: SpaceX files to go public

#301

Post by themafia »

tristanj wrote: post #225

I'm a SpaceX investor, and from reading the comments here, I think most people here are missing why SpaceX has an outrageously high valuation. SpaceX's valuation only makes sense if you buy into their mission of creating a civilization on Mars, and that the Space Exploration Technologies Corporation is the vehicle that creates this future. If SpaceX achieves this, it would be the most valuable company ever created. I…

"If everything goes perfectly according to plan over the next 30 years and they don't literally kill anyone through an accident it has huge value."

I wish I had the guts to just lie to investors with a bald face. I personally think Musk is an underachiver.

Re: SpaceX files to go public

#302

Post by erulabs »

hattmall wrote: post #288
pilgrim0 wrote: post #218

> Money raised from a public offering would most likely help SpaceX finance its long-term goals of launching artificial intelligence data centers into orbit, creating a colony on the moon and getting humans to Mars. These are expensive and unproven endeavors that may take years and billions of dollars to achieve. Oh my god. When a journalist writes like any of this is remotely plausible within “years” and “billions”…

What possible reasonable benefit would there be to datacenters in space? Why would that even be a concept at all?

Genuinely: regulation. Every other benefit is conceptual at best. If SpaceX controls the entire heavy launch market _and_ they control data-centers in space, then absolutely no one on earth is in a position to control or regulate such a data-center except SpaceX themselves.

I'm not arguing that it's a good idea, but that is the idea.

Re: SpaceX files to go public

#303

Post by raw_anon_1111 »

hattmall wrote: post #284
triceratops wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it's a space-based alternative that serves areas carriers have no financial incentive to cover In a nutshell: they're serving a market that has less money to spend using more expensive tech than the current industry leaders. Maybe I'm wrong but it doesn't scream "massive profit".

I think Airplanes are going to be pretty profitable. They are sort of running a market cornering operation there. But, there will be competition eventually. Starlink is way faster than the alternatives so most airlines have switched and Starlink has rapidly increased their prices for aviation. Idk if it's enough though, they are definitely running lots of promos for home customers.

Delta’s ViaSat based Wireless is fine. The latency is hire. But it really isn’t a competitive disadvantage.

Re: SpaceX files to go public

#304

Post by raw_anon_1111 »

pnw wrote: post #188
panick21_ wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great, but the overwhelming majority of money is made from the place people actually live. Those places are called cities. Only about a few % of earth are built on, and even among those the top 1% is where most people live. Don't get me wrong, that fucking great business, but its not 'replacing terrestrial ISP' level great.

They said the same thing about cell phones vs landlines back in the day. Based on Starlink's revenue doubling year on year, and a six fold increase since 2022, I don't think anyone really knows what the upper bounds for global access is yet. And traditional telcos are usually limited to a region whereas Starlink is global. Just the top 20 global telcos alone are almost $2 trillion in market cap and $1.35 trillion in…

Absolutely no one said that.

Re: SpaceX files to go public

#305

Post by mandevil »

therealdrag0 wrote: post #294
saalweachter wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only NASDAQ so far; S&P 500 is apparently "reviewing its rules" but hasn't changed them yet. So you've got a full year to wait on that index fund, assuming they don't cave.

Didn’t Sp500 drag their feet for a long time before adding Tesla?

S&P500 held fast to their rules on consecutive quarters of profitability and forced TSLA to meet them (must be profitable in qX + sum to net profit over the past year). If they hold to them this time, SpaceX would need to be profitable over a year while public to enter the index.

They have instituted rules and gone back on them eventually (most notably for several years they had a "no going public with different classes of voting shares designed to allow control forever, if IPO is after today" rule that they eventually dropped) but they are generally pretty good about following rules.

Re: SpaceX files to go public

#306

Post by throwawaypath »

throwaway85825 wrote: post #6
dang wrote: post #136

[stub for offtopicness] [All: please don't post unsubstantive comments to HN. You don't have to like $Company or $Person, but when the banned accounts are posting more thoughtfully than the rest, that's... bad.]

Trying to dump on the market before the bubble pops.

I netted six figures selling options to doomers like you last year. Please keep this energy up.

Re: SpaceX files to go public

#307

Post by lotsofpulp »

Saline9515 wrote: post #277
lotsofpulp wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The investment thesis for Tesla is absurd. They built the market cap on hype and it got big enough that it remains a force. It’s a flailing company, kept afloat by bullshit. Maybe, or maybe they are one of the few businesses people want to bet on to be able to create new streams of revenue. Intel used to be big, and now it isn’t. It being big didn’t help stop its demise. > The investors cashed out their shares to t…

The fact that founders still own 50% of the shares doesn't mean that they didn't sold some of ones they had. Also Snap gives very generous stock options to their C-team, meaning that they can sell overtime while keeping their large stash.

In your previous post, you complained

> so they harvest the vslue and spit out the company late in the value cycle.

So SNAP executives IPO’d at $27B, and over the next 4 years, the market cap increased to $131B, which anyone in the public could have benefited from.

Yet now you are saying SNAP execs are wrong for selling their equity over time?

It doesn’t seem like there is any winning here for SNAP’s executives, even though they gave the public the ability to quadruple their money in 4 years. What more can you ask for?

Re: SpaceX files to go public

#308

Post by tristanj »

themafia wrote: post #301
tristanj wrote: post #225

I'm a SpaceX investor, and from reading the comments here, I think most people here are missing why SpaceX has an outrageously high valuation. SpaceX's valuation only makes sense if you buy into their mission of creating a civilization on Mars, and that the Space Exploration Technologies Corporation is the vehicle that creates this future. If SpaceX achieves this, it would be the most valuable company ever created. I…

"If everything goes perfectly according to plan over the next 30 years and they don't literally kill anyone through an accident it has huge value." I wish I had the guts to just lie to investors with a bald face. I personally think Musk is an underachiver.

that's a fake quote and not at all related to anything I wrote.

Re: SpaceX files to go public

#309

Post by sublinear »

irishcoffee wrote: post #192
sublinear wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I kinda disagree because while most search engines failed and Google succeeded, they did not succeed by simply being a better search engine. This is only further demonstrated by their excellent leverage of Gemini. Google continues to succeed at being Google.

They absolutely succeeded because they had a better search engine. Without a doubt. I imagine there’s more than a few folks around here who used shit like askjeeves, altavista, et. al. Google was heads and shoulders better than those, and continued to get better over time. No, I’m no Google fan, but it’s revisionist history to say they didn’t have the best search engine.

Hah. I didn't expect to get downvoted this much.

I'm not trying to rewrite history either, but this makes me wonder how deeply the Google lore really affected some people.

I'm in my late 30s, so fair enough. I was there, but not really "there" to see what happened. My understanding and memory was that there was good word-of-mouth in the 90s because it was marginally better. By around 2000, the media was strongly pushing this narrative about Google being this great technological triumph with their PageRank algorithm. This coincided with AdWords being rolled out, dotcom hype, and people generally taking SEO more seriously while Google was best positioned to take advantage.

Now, I'm not saying I know much but I'd be very surprised to hear that nobody else ever thought about setting up a scheme with Markov chains to measure "link juice". That seems like low-hanging fruit for just about any students excited about the topic, but again what do I know. To me, the Google story was always more of a business success than anything else. They got so much praise and so effectively leveraged their nerd cred that people optimized for their results and it all snowballed from there.

This time around with LLMs, they can't claim to have the best. The space is way too volatile. What they can say is everyone uses it because everyone eventually searches on Google, if not by default. Google just has to be good enough and the easiest to use.

Re: SpaceX files to go public

#310

Post by xbmcuser »

Tesla valuation is about to crater and take most of Musk wealth with it so he needs the over valuation of SpaceX before the other rocket competitors can show that they can replicate what SpaceX is doing at cheaper prices.
Post reply on HN