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

381–390 of 404 posts

Re: SpaceX S-1

#381

Post by bigyabai »

infinitewars wrote: post #368
DarmokJalad1701 wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "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."

If the past 6 months haven't taught you that Trump is a chronic liar, I don't know what will.

Re: SpaceX S-1

#382

Post by tim333 »

LarsDu88 wrote: post #35
Geeek wrote: post #2

Their stated TAM is bonkers. A total of $28.5 trillion: $370B Space, $1.6T Connectivity, $26.5T in AI. With AI becoming more and more commoditized, the AI number is insane.

With these kind of made up numbers, they might as well have simply used the fucking Kardeshev scale. Just compute the energy output of the Sun and claim they'll build a Dyson sphere around it. Can charge a nice hefty subscription fee for using the Sun, just like Netflix.

I calculated if you price energy at 5c per kWh then $28.5 trillion is much less than a pico Kardashev II. Nothing really.

Re: SpaceX S-1

#383

Post by burnerRhodov3 »

Curosinono wrote: post #375
burnerRhodov3 wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

we will see tomorrow, won't we :) But you are right to call out the launch infrastructure as the true bottleneck. They have 3 pads currently under development. So in 6-9 months they'll have 4 operational pads. Also, how do they heat tiles hold up? How fast can they catch, refurbish and relaunch is what remains. I'm confident, and will be putting my money where my mouth is (By investing in the IPO) that they will have…

But for what payload? Before Starlink we only send up like 1k ton of payload. Starlink is the only reason why it jumped to 3k tons. So SpaceX builds all of this to send its own stuff up which is basically only Starlink and in the future its own competition (amazon and leo). For something which is only consumed by 10 million customers right now and they increased the price for starlink which makes it even less competi…

uh.. orbital data centers? Are we on the same page? 1.25B a month for half a gigawatt, with it rising up to 1g is the deal they just made with anthropic (total deal size 2-2.5B a month). Starship cost is probably something like (y = (400m - 20m*(0.85)^t + 20m, where t is times starship is launched. At 30 launches, they are close to their target of $20m. Falcon 9 has launched 649 times, they've resused the same booster 34 times. a single nvidia NVL72 rack's peak performance is around 135w so 1gw (1,000,000 kW /135 kW per rack‚ is 7,407. each rack weighs around 1.47 metric tons. so you have 7407/1.47t = 10,888.29t+ 15,243.606 (plus 15,243.606 is for an additional 140% for foldable radiator and solar panels... so 26,131.9t to orbit for 1gw of compute. each starship can do 100T, so 26,131.9t/100 gives us 261.32 starships. given the cost curve earlier:

Total Cost = ∫₀²⁶¹ (380 * 0.85ᵗ + 20) dt

  Total Cost = F(261) - F(0) 
             ≈ 5,220.00 - (-2,338.19) 
             ≈ 7,558.19
So $7.5B for the required tonnage to space. 3 million to $3.5 for each rack is 7407 * 3.5m = 25,924.5b. + 7,558.19 is 33b. if we can rent 1gw for $2-3b a month we get buyback in 13ish months? Literally best business model ever. if they last 5 years, each gw is worth $160-180B for the cost of $33B. once block 4 comes out with 200t... AGI ;)

Re: SpaceX S-1

#384

Post by electriclove »

Imustaskforhelp wrote: post #334
bombcar wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If SpaceX joins and goes to zero, that is firstly a 2 Trillion dollar wipeout and the whole market would absolutely go completely crazy and the market would be so spooked as @etempleton suggests that instead of it being a 5% drop, it would be more like 50% (don't quote me on it) but still, the markets would absolutely drop substantially more than 5% & it might erode the trust within financial markets altogether for m…

Why do you think it would go to zero?

Re: SpaceX S-1

#385

Post by mvkel »

chilmers wrote: post #293
mvkel wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If this doesn't completely destroy any benefit of doubt that people have in Dario, I don't know what to say. The guy has been speaking out of both sides of his mouth since the foundation of Anth. Over and over he repeated that Anth's investment in compute would not be reckless; it would represent sanity and be proportional to growth. Over and over Anth told users that the models weren't nerfed overnight, we were just…

So you're complaining that his actions matched his words? He didn't make compute deals until he saw the growth necessary to justify them. As a result, they're paying over-the-odds compared to if they'd have make deals earlier. Maybe that was a poor business decision, but I'm not sure how it represents speaking out of "both sides of his mouth"? Sounds like he was honest.

That's one of the things he said. He also said the exact opposite.

He repeatedly says: if we’re off by a year, we go bankrupt.

In nearly the same breath, he said AGI is 2 years away.

He's operating like AGI is imminent but not saying it. And he's operating like AGI is a decade away, yet buying tons of compute at gouged prices.

Someone expecting imminent AGI would fear being outscaled, because if they don't win on energy/compute, they lose.

So his revealed beliefs are more like: ~10% chance AGI in 1–3 years ~40 chance 4–8 years

Re: SpaceX S-1

#387

Post by Curosinono »

burnerRhodov3 wrote: post #383
Curosinono wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But for what payload? Before Starlink we only send up like 1k ton of payload. Starlink is the only reason why it jumped to 3k tons. So SpaceX builds all of this to send its own stuff up which is basically only Starlink and in the future its own competition (amazon and leo). For something which is only consumed by 10 million customers right now and they increased the price for starlink which makes it even less competi…

uh.. orbital data centers? Are we on the same page? 1.25B a month for half a gigawatt, with it rising up to 1g is the deal they just made with anthropic (total deal size 2-2.5B a month). Starship cost is probably something like (y = (400m - 20m*(0.85)^t + 20m, where t is times starship is launched. At 30 launches, they are close to their target of $20m. Falcon 9 has launched 649 times, they've resused the same booste…

Starship has launched today and hasn't finished everything it needs to even proof that it works reliable. For a Datacenter you need to put it higher than low orbit.

After that, you will need to start to even develoop server racks full of GPUs for space. You literlay need to engineere from scratch a cooling system which will be a few hundred square feed big. You need to be able to transfer massive amount of energy reliable from a small GPU rack to all of this area.

Than you need to send a few thousand of these constalations up there. Every single micrometeroid, sun storm, broken component means loosing a whole rack immediadlty.

Then you need to actually verify that you can send up all of that infrastructure in space and keep it alive there.

Then you have to assume a certain amount of lifetime which will be a lot shorter than on earth and you can't sell it of. These resources are gone.

To all of this cost, you will have to add latency, data syncronisation between racks has to be complelty engineered from scratch too. We talk about 100 of gigabits between these small constelations.

In the same timespan with a lot less money, you could already build a normal datacenter somewhere on the aquator or just as south in texas as possible. You can service it, you can upgrade it, no issues.

Re: SpaceX S-1

#388

Post by danny_codes »

bottlepalm wrote: post #237
darkwizard42 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just to keep things in perspective, Uber IPO-ed for 82.4B. SpaceX is IPOing for over 10x more.

SpaceX easily has 10x the potential of Uber. SpaceX has its hands in so many up and coming industries.

Aside from satellite internet, I can't think of anything realistic.

Re: SpaceX S-1

#389

Post by danny_codes »

electriclove wrote: post #77
datadrivenangel wrote: post #11

So this confirms that SpaceX was making a lot of cash and plowing it back into R&D, and that the X/Twitter/xAI merger is concrete shoes on the good parts.

Did you read that Anthropic is paying them $15B/year for use of xAI's data centers? That changes things quite a bit

They had to buy the data-center first.

Re: SpaceX S-1

#390

Post by danny_codes »

gigatexal wrote: post #89

Who is gonna buy at the IPO and why or why not? (Assumes you read the S1). I did. I’m not buying. lol I won’t get an allocation but I also want to see where this shakes out. So in 6 months time if starlink is the gem that people say then sure. I think he finds a way to trade inflated SpaceX stock to o buy Tesla and call it a day.

Your 401k will be forced to buy it for you, not to worry. You don't get a choice! And apparently no shareholder voting power either.
Post reply on HN