Live data from Hacker News

SpaceX S-1

sec.gov

301–310 of 404 posts

Re: SpaceX S-1

#301

Feels risky to push the S-1 a day before the latest starship launch. If there is a catastrophic failure OR a perfect success it feels like it would be material here. Also I’m concerned that if AI “works” (ie: country-of-genuses-in-a-box) that the moat of reusable rockets decreases substantially. What would stop Northrop from vibe coding their own starship?

Rockets are mostly proprietary knowledge so you won't be able to vibecode a starship no matter how smart the AI is.

Re: SpaceX S-1

#302
post #152
post #51

If any company can put profitable data centers in space, it will be SpaceX. But I doubt that any company can. The difficulties of the physics and engineering of cooling seem like they will always outweigh the advantages of keeping your data center on Earth. I am annoyed by the insistence that the value of this company comes from something that no one has been able to show is possible yet without multiplying it by the…

The unit economics of orbital DC just doesn't work with today's technology. Assuming 0 ongoing OpEx(free energy), the launch cost of the satellite itself, along with solar panels, radiators as well as the chip themselves just doesn't make sense given the ~5 year operational lifespan of both the chips and the satellites.

Chips yea, but sats can last much longer. Chips are relatively lightweight, so replacing them in a new mission absolutely makes sense.

Re: SpaceX S-1

#303
post #294

"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 my napkin math is right, Anthropic will make SpaceX/Xai whole on the initial investment for Colossus 2 + operating costs + a small profit by the end of the contract. No massive profits, although they may be able to fudge accounting to make it seem that way.

You're ignoring all the depreciation costs.

Re: SpaceX S-1

#304
post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know 'space' is a vacuum, right?

I don't see how that would lessen their concerns? Exactly because space is a vacuum, cooling is harder since you can't do convection. The math still checks out though. Scott Manley did a video on it, and the top comment has some corrections: https://youtu.be/FlQYU3m1e80

30% of terrestrial datacenter power use is cooling. Space cooling is easier!

Re: SpaceX S-1

#305
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…

I can't believe that my index funds are going to be looted to pay for this turd.

Time to invest in some value-stocks index funds then :)

Re: SpaceX S-1

#306
post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Sun subscription.

I know you are just being cynical, but tbf earth already has too much sun exposure.

Re: SpaceX S-1

#307
We heard for years that other companies in the launch business (ULA, Arianespace) were just incompetent, ossified businesses, and that SpaceX was revolutionizing the field; and now we discover that SpaceX, after all their effort, is barely profitable and has to run the clock by diversifying and seeking an IPO...

How much do reusable launchers really bring down costs? Were the companies that elected not to go this way (almost all of them) incompetent or did they correctly assess the profitability problem of such a strategy? And how much does SpaceX market share is the result of actual efficiency vs. dumping the price with investor money to try to bankrupt competitors and corner the market?

TL:DR: where would Arianespace be today if they had elected to try reusable rockets and ended up at the same point as SpaceX? Would it be seen as a good gamble or a waste of taxpayer money?

(Note that SpaceX is where it is today also thanks to taxpayer money in military contracts and decades of R&D paid for by NASA and given away for free) .)

Re: SpaceX S-1

#308
post #307

We heard for years that other companies in the launch business (ULA, Arianespace) were just incompetent, ossified businesses, and that SpaceX was revolutionizing the field; and now we discover that SpaceX, after all their effort, is barely profitable and has to run the clock by diversifying and seeking an IPO... How much do reusable launchers really bring down costs? Were the companies that elected not to go this way…

Also really how many satellites we actually need globally? There must be some sensible limit.

And I do not believe any other crap at all. No space mining, manufacturing, moon/mars/venus/mercury/europa bases...

Re: SpaceX S-1

#309

"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 :)

Can't wait for the next model to be called "torment nexus" /s

Re: SpaceX S-1

#310
post #308
post #307

We heard for years that other companies in the launch business (ULA, Arianespace) were just incompetent, ossified businesses, and that SpaceX was revolutionizing the field; and now we discover that SpaceX, after all their effort, is barely profitable and has to run the clock by diversifying and seeking an IPO... How much do reusable launchers really bring down costs? Were the companies that elected not to go this way…

Also really how many satellites we actually need globally? There must be some sensible limit. And I do not believe any other crap at all. No space mining, manufacturing, moon/mars/venus/mercury/europa bases...

They also have contracts with NASA that could be cancelled the same way the lunar gateway was, like in-space refueling. Which is:

- completely unproven

- could affect other parts of their business: if they try it and mess up, the debris field of two Starships breaking up in medium orbit could wipe out significant parts of the starlink constellation (and other satellite operations too)...

Post reply on HN