331–340 of 404 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
how much did SpaceX / xAI pay for these GPUs? After 3 years they'll probably be mostly deprecated.
Are GPUs from 3 years ago being deprecated today?
Definitely not silicon waste the second something faster arrives. There's still a world beyond cutting edge LLM slop after all.
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…
That's kind of the whole point of a stock market. If you already had a solid revenue stream, you wouldn't need investment. These numbers would be kind of typical for a software play, since the great thing about software is that you write it once and then sell it many times. They're making a similar assertion for hardware: "fund rocket ship design, and sell it many times (i.e. lots of launches)". The weird looking par…
Remove Grok and it's a great business. Remove AI and it's a good business.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes but only if its added before the index funds. Let's just hope that the nasdaq and the other markets just don't take spacex (Nasdaq is literally bending its rules to accodomate SpaceX) The worst thing is that we don't even have a say in all of this and chances are most likely that its gonna IPO and get listed on the index funds soon and once it gets into Index funds, a lot of collateral damage might happen. I must…
Total market cap of NASDAQ 100 (QQQ) is $40 trillion, SpaceX joining that and immediately going to zero would be a 5% drop, big but not the worst we've seen.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You'll get a piece regardless if you're in index funds, as they're being strong-armed into buying at this awful price
I think this only applies currently for the Nasdaq index, and the only Nasdaq index fund that comes to mind is QQQ. I think fewer people are currently being hit than are worried about it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think this only applies currently for the Nasdaq index, and the only Nasdaq index fund that comes to mind is QQQ. I think fewer people are currently being hit than are worried about it.
Total market funds like VTSAX (the largest mutual fund in the world) will have to buy it as well.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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)...
NASA had a pretty consistent budget for 30+ years, and even if one contract gets canceled. SpaceX is by far best and most important NASA supplier, whatever NASA does with its budget, SpaceX would likely be involved. And Starship primary mission is next generation Starlink, not NASA. > the debris field of two Starships breaking up in medium orbit could wipe out significant parts of the starlink constellation Do you ha…
Evidence of what? That a space ship that breaks down releases debris? Or that "spaceship" is one of the biggest space vehicle right now?
>NASA wouldn't allow operations that could potentially destroy most sats around the world in any plan it signs.
How much does that hold when Elon has the ear of a know-nothing president who is absolutely unconcerned by any evidence?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Or alternatively I guess a few massive ones, but those would need to be truly massive to accommodate the solar panels and radiator fins required.
Am I stupid for not knowing SpaceX's official name is Space Exploration Technologies Corp.?