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

SpaceX S-1

sec.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 404 posts

Re: SpaceX S-1

#361

Post by dzonga »

throwaway85825 wrote: post #357
dzonga wrote: post #325

if & when the market corrects - the crash will be one of the ages. there's 3 businesses rolled into 1 entity as a cover to take money from gullible retail investors. SpaceX the launch business is legit. the other 2 are r fake n losing money n yet will be money will be stolen the retail investors. anyone with half a brain knows the TAM in the S1 is like 350Bn of the space launch business - the 28TN is just fake.

The assumption retail investors have 30B to invest or are willing to move 30B is quite a load bearing assumption.

401Ks, & other instruments etc. all financed by the public.

Re: SpaceX S-1

#363

Post by dgellow »

dzhiurgis wrote: post #360
dgellow wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What makes cooling easier in space? Isn’t it harder due to the lack of atmosphere?

Just need radiators, no fans, no piping, no ac compressors, no moving parts.

How? There is no heat dissipation without an atmosphere. I mean, you have dissipation via radiation but that’s very slow

Re: SpaceX S-1

#364

Post by bwfan123 »

nemothekid wrote: post #48

Am I reading this right? SpaceX TAM - "Enterprise AI Applications" is 6T. The other 22T enterprise AI. This is a rocket company pretending it's a frontier AI lab.

> This is a rocket company pretending it's a frontier AI lab

A frontier AI lab that rents out its GPUs to other frontier labs.

Re: SpaceX S-1

#365

Post by dzhiurgis »

yibg wrote: post #339
dzhiurgis wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

LEO satellite orbits decay. e.g. starlink sats are ~5 year lifespan. But assuming a higher, more stable orbit, how do you replace them? There will be tens of thousands of these orbital DCs, so not really feasible to go to each one to replace some chips. 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.

We already re-supply ISS. IDK how much of it can be done autonomously, but no doubt we'll do hella lot more in future if space economy grows.

For orbits, those can and will be raised if it makes economical sense.

Re: SpaceX S-1

#366

Post by quickthrowman »

rapsey wrote: post #281
quickthrowman wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The S&P 500 index criteria didn’t allow this sort of nonsense starting in 2017, but they relaxed the rule again to allow dual class listings to be included in the index in 2023. Not looking forward to SpaceX.AI.Twitter’s eventual inclusion, I do not like founder controlled publicly traded companies.

> I do not like founder controlled publicly traded companies. These companies outperform the market though.

I can’t deny the effects that Google and Meta have had on my own index fund performance, and it looks like 8% of S&P 500 companies have that structure.

I do understand it provides stability for longer term leadership which is good, ideally there would be a sunset provision which converted the supervoting shares to normal shares after a certain amount of time.

Re: SpaceX S-1

#368

Post by infinitewars »

DarmokJalad1701 wrote: post #359
infinitewars wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SpaceX has a Golden Dome contract, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Dome_(missile_defense_s... That's basically exactly this ^

> "Thinking this will prevent war, the US government gives an impenetrable supercomputer total control over launching nuclear missiles" That's not even close to what the Golden Dome is. > The Golden Dome is a planned multi-layer missile defense system for the United States, intended to detect and destroy ballistic, hypersonic, and cruise missiles before they launch or during their flight. Source: https://en.wikipedia…

"In 2019, Donald Trump said the satellites would also carry offensive weapons."

Re: SpaceX S-1

#369

Post by yibg »

dzhiurgis wrote: post #365
yibg wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

LEO satellite orbits decay. e.g. starlink sats are ~5 year lifespan. But assuming a higher, more stable orbit, how do you replace them? There will be tens of thousands of these orbital DCs, so not really feasible to go to each one to replace some chips. 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.

We already re-supply ISS. IDK how much of it can be done autonomously, but no doubt we'll do hella lot more in future if space economy grows. For orbits, those can and will be raised if it makes economical sense.

We re-supply a single ISS. If all of this compute is in a single DC the solar panels and radiator fins will be the size of a small state.

Re: SpaceX S-1

#370

Post by mooreds »

Analemma_ wrote: post #20
runako wrote: 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.

I thought the same darn thing. Too bad there's not a ex-Space-X index fund.
Post reply on HN