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

341–350 of 631 posts

Re: SpaceX files to go public

#341

Post by ericd »

runako wrote: post #333
ericd wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you link to those serious analyses? The ones I've seen don't portray it as a total impossibility? Scott Manley did a runthrough that seemed reasonably positive on the possibility.

Could you build a data center in space? Yes, absolutely I am sure there are no physical barriers. We have computers in space now, and those computers have telecom links to Earth. Without even going into the numbers, terrestrial data centers have significant cost advantages. They don't have to spend $$$$$$$ to get to orbit. They can upgrade and/or fix components easily (likely safe to assume a hypothetical orbital DC…

I think you're understating the permitting problem - it's a major reason for the very large/rapid price hikes on power in the PJM region, and the populist backlash against data center construction, including moratoriums on DC construction. The difficulty in getting new electrical generation interconnected in many parts of the US is one of the major marks in favor of the plan.

Re: SpaceX files to go public

#342

Post by darth_avocado »

ai_critic wrote: post #209
darth_avocado wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. Tesla has sold ~2.5-3M cars since 2017 in the US. There’s more than 200M cars on the road in the country. Ford has sold more F series trucks in the last 4 years than Teslas have been sold ever. 2. The only reason Model Y is the best selling car in the world is because 3/4 of the sales come from the US and Tesla only sells one model of SUV. Other brands sell many different variants and multiple models in the same c…

Neuralink appears to be working, albeit slowly--as should be expected, because the space is hard . Cybertruck shipped and is commonly seen all over my city, so "failed" seems to be incorrect. Starship...works? Again, the space is hard . The tunnels...are dug? I'm not a Musk fanboy but you're just making a bad case.

If the standard for evaluation is that the tunnels are dug, then I really don’t have anything else to add.

Re: SpaceX files to go public

#343

Post by kQq9oHeAz6wLLS »

7e wrote: post #330
indoordin0saur wrote: post #113

SpaceX has reduced the cost of getting a ton of mass into orbit by a factor of 10 and with their new system (Starship) it's poised further reduce that to 100x. They launch, land and re-use their rockets so often now that what was considered impossible 15 years ago is now routine. They currently put more things into space than the rest of the world combined and by a huge margin. They also have the most advanced intern…

[flagged]

[flagged]

Re: SpaceX files to go public

#344

Post by HWR_14 »

jordanb wrote: post #15

You don't have to believe. If you have a 401k you will be an investor 15 days after launch. The IPO will go great, because the company will float a fairly small issuance. The big shareholders will not immediately sell. They will hold on and maybe even buy to support the price. Then, after 15 days, it will enter the indexes and everyone's 401k will start auto-buying this stock. You might say this is an obvious flaw in…

Why do people keep claiming that every 401k invests in the NASDAQ 100? Few do, and you probably have a choice of a couple of 401k plans, at least one of which will not include SpaceX.

Re: SpaceX files to go public

#345

Post by kraf »

tristanj wrote: post #311
plaidfuji wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> SpaceX's valuation only makes sense if It’s funny, I hear the exact same phrasing used when justifying Tesla’s valuation. “It only makes sense if…” … if you ignore what the actual, physical business does today, and picture it doing something entirely different, beyond its current capabilities (robotaxis, androids, etc) The difference with this pie-in-the-sky ambition (Mars Colony) is that I don’t even understand ho…

My belief is that Mars will be colonized for ideological reasons, not for profit. A Mars colony won't be profitable. But it will be colonized, mostly for prestige, and also because of overcrowding & pollution, which will become bigger issues in the coming decades.

But why did you invest on those grounds? Is profit not your goal here?

Re: SpaceX files to go public

#346

Post by aeternum »

manquer wrote: post #273
xenadu02 wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you have to temper the skepticism a bit though. SpaceX has dramatically lowered the cost of launching things into space. They are still the leader here. They can put a kg into orbit cheaper than anyone, even heavily subsidized state operations (EU and China). Their order book continues to be full. Every single launch vehicle they roll off the line was pre-sold years ago, including its re-use flights. I agree…

As I mentioned at the end, if the pitch was just for the launch (and starlink) it would be an easy sell. The problem is launch market is not worth 1.5+ trillion though, you need much more than just starlink and all the satellites today to justify that . You and other early investors who had the opportunity to get in early may come of well in this and it was a good bet then. However it is hard to see why rest of us sh…

At current launch numbers it may not be worth 1.5+ trillion but valuations aren't about current, they're about discounted future cash flows.

It seems logical that there could/will be far more demand for launch if the price were lower. Prices are quite extreme currently, a standard 3U cubesat (loaf of bread size) is $300k and that's just for orbit.

There could be lots of startups that want to try robotic space mining but launch costs just make that mostly impossible currently so there are only a select few. It's like valuing the Dutch East India company based on the trade volumes in 1603. Of course people are not going to be buying much pepper or nutmeg if it costs them weeks of labor, but build lots of reusable ships, and with each voyage, more people can afford your pepper and nutmeg until it's a common household item.

Re: SpaceX files to go public

#347

Post by applied_heat »

manquer wrote: post #273
xenadu02 wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you have to temper the skepticism a bit though. SpaceX has dramatically lowered the cost of launching things into space. They are still the leader here. They can put a kg into orbit cheaper than anyone, even heavily subsidized state operations (EU and China). Their order book continues to be full. Every single launch vehicle they roll off the line was pre-sold years ago, including its re-use flights. I agree…

As I mentioned at the end, if the pitch was just for the launch (and starlink) it would be an easy sell. The problem is launch market is not worth 1.5+ trillion though, you need much more than just starlink and all the satellites today to justify that . You and other early investors who had the opportunity to get in early may come of well in this and it was a good bet then. However it is hard to see why rest of us sh…

I am sure Elon can launch some type of space based directed energy beam and use it to intercept missiles and drones.

Re: SpaceX files to go public

#349

Post by orbitalmentos »

It's hard to imagine how SpaceX can be making the reported $8 billion a year in profit[1]. We now see roughly two Starlink reentries per day... The replenishment costs are at least $5M/day just to maintain the current constellation, while the entire customer revenue is ~$20M/day. Guess the real money is in Golden Dome.

[1] https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/spacex-generated-ab...

Post reply on HN