Live data from Hacker News

SpaceX files to go public

nytimes.com

351–360 of 631 posts

Re: SpaceX files to go public

#351

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...

[deleted]

Re: SpaceX files to go public

#352
post #336
post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

would you choose a flight that's $200 more expensive because it has starlink?

Maybe not $200, but $20-$50 for a cross country flight for sure.

I wouldn’t. I have literally never bought WiFi on a flight in the course of probably hundreds of flights. Good opportunity to unplug.

Re: SpaceX files to go public

#353

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...

That article claiming $8b profit is mislabeling EBITDA as profit. EBITDA removes any recurring replenishment costs, the cost of building the satellite, launching the satellite, the user equipment manufacturing and returns, all ground infrastructure build and replacement, all employee stock compensation (not counted!), no advertising costs (and they've actually had to do a lot of that lately to scrounge customers that are remote enough that their network isn't too congested to serve), no taxes are counted (though they get out of that because they have no profit!). Not to mention payments servicing all their debt and Starship development.

*they actually use "Adjusted EBITDA" which is even more nonstandard and means they define the accounting however they want!

Re: SpaceX files to go public

#354
post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've got plenty of downvotes here on HN for critiquing him on Stage 1, herd mentality is relevant for HN community just as well.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I remember stage 1 being maybe 2011. There were plenty of Musk critics back then, as there are now, but they seemed to have been completely wrong on pretty much everything. I remember people saying he was a charlatan whose technology would never work and even if it did it would never get mainstream market penetration. I feel like you would have smugly chuckled if anyone told you the follo…

I talked about Musk the person.

Tesla was founded by different guys, Musk just forced them out.

SpaceX is indeed very cool, but not because of Musk. He just put his name on everything that might have been cool, even if dumb (remember Hyperloop? I always wondered on what grounds PR teams associated Hyperloop with Musk, as the idea was very old, and he didn't give it any money -- what relation he even had?)

I've heard from SpaceX insiders that they don't like the guy very much. SpaceXers do cool stuff, and then Mr. Musk comes in and makes everyone believe it's he himself done all that.

Or probably I'm just allergic to narcissism.

Re: SpaceX files to go public

#356

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…

$16B is the top line gross revenue number. You don't count R&D as an expense per GAAP, so... They have claimed $8B in EBITDA, also leaving out the amortization of R&D costs. Those aren't audited numbers, as far as I know.

That article claiming $8b profit is indeed mislabeling EBITDA as profit. EBITDA removes any recurring replenishment costs, the cost of building the satellite, launching the satellite, the user equipment manufacturing and returns, all ground infrastructure build and replacement, all employee stock compensation (not counted!), no advertising costs (and they've actually had to do a lot of that lately to scrounge customers that are remote enough that their network isn't too congested to serve), no taxes are counted (though they get out of that because they have no profit!). Not to mention payments servicing all their debt and Starship development.

*they actually use "Adjusted EBITDA" which is even more nonstandard and means they define the accounting however they want!

Re: SpaceX files to go public

#357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see how replacing mobile carriers with space based infrastructure is physically possible.

It's not meant to replace terrestrial networks, it's a space-based alternative that serves areas carriers have no financial incentive to cover. Terrestrial cellular towers cost between $150k to $500k per tower, and are not economically feasible in less populated areas. There are also many dead-zones in mountainous regions, since cell signals are blocked by mountains. Starlink Mobile supplements this, it's simply chea…

> Terrestrial cellular towers cost between $150k to $500k per tower

I'd be interested to find out exactly where this cost exists. I would expect the majority of the cost (especially in rural/mountainous areas) to be more with power and backhaul, rather than the physical radio gear. Because it's rural, you should be able to easily just use coverage bands (ie 850 MHz or 900 MHz) with relatively high transmission power. This would easily be able to cover 300 km2.

Because of the higher transmission power, and the fact that the tower would be in the middle of nowhere, wouldn't the OPEX be higher, with smaller numbers for CAPEX?

Re: SpaceX files to go public

#359
post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Starlink becomes common enough on flights, I absolutely believe it will be a competitive disadvantage.

would you choose a flight that's $200 more expensive because it has starlink?

No but the airline might choose starlink. I think a gogo business install is on the hundreds of thousands and annual costs in the tens of thousand for their Eutelesat based system.

Re: SpaceX files to go public

#360
post #341
post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm not understating it. But I'm not buying the line that suddenly it's impossible to build industrial buildings in the US. I am realizing that there are thousands of jurisdictions in the US with wildly different permitting regimes, and then hundreds of other countries in the world that might be more welcoming.

But let's say they need to stay in the US. Are DC operators offering to buy down utility capex costs so that existing residents don't see a spike in rates? If not, obviously that is going to create opposition as nobody wants their utility bills to rise rapidly. It would probably be cheaper & easier to e.g. write a check to Southern Company to prevent rate hikes directly tied to their DC than to put a DC in space.

The math also barely pencils? IF Starship hits its $100/kg, getting a single rack of servers to orbit will cost ~$100k. A 500MW data center might have ~5k racks, so ~$500m to orbit. SpaceX estimates $100/kg - $300/kg so it could be $1.5B - $2B just to put the racks in orbit, plus the cost of the servers, plus the cost of the actual orbital data center itself, plus the cost of getting the orbital data center to orbit. That's getting into the "hand every resident a check for $100k in exchange for their county approving the permit" territory.

Post reply on HN