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

411–420 of 631 posts

Re: SpaceX files to go public

#411

Post by Iolaum »

tristanj wrote: post #225

I'm a SpaceX investor, and from reading the comments here, I think most people here are missing why SpaceX has an outrageously high valuation. SpaceX's valuation only makes sense if you buy into their mission of creating a civilization on Mars, and that the Space Exploration Technologies Corporation is the vehicle that creates this future. If SpaceX achieves this, it would be the most valuable company ever created. I…

If SpaceX is on track to achieve those goals, then why does it need special treatment to be included in fund indexes earlier than it would otherwise be?

Re: SpaceX files to go public

#412

Post by [deleted] »

tristanj wrote: post #282
7e wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A civilization on Mars would not create value. It would be a money incinerator. Mars is a shithole with nothing to offer humanity economically or in quality of life. Quite the opposite, in fact.

250 years ago, you could make this exact argument about the British colonization of Australia, and it would be entirely correct. The early colony was a pure fiscal drain on Britain with almost no return. Yet today it's the 13th largest economy on earth. Think on a longer time scale.

[deleted]

Re: SpaceX files to go public

#413

Post by walthamstow »

tristanj wrote: post #282
7e wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A civilization on Mars would not create value. It would be a money incinerator. Mars is a shithole with nothing to offer humanity economically or in quality of life. Quite the opposite, in fact.

250 years ago, you could make this exact argument about the British colonization of Australia, and it would be entirely correct. The early colony was a pure fiscal drain on Britain with almost no return. Yet today it's the 13th largest economy on earth. Think on a longer time scale.

Australia was built by forced and indentured labour.

Re: SpaceX files to go public

#414

Post by sakagami0 »

locallost wrote: post #408
sakagami0 wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used to watch him a lot, but he started talking about AI (I work at a big lab) and it was all wrong, so I'm not sure if I can trust his analysis anymore :(

He packages things to present them as analytical, but it's really just click bait for people to hear something they want to hear. He did a take over a year ago on why the EV revolution crashed with such gems as presenting less growth (but still growth) as lower sales. The comment section was full of never EV crowd who got their fix that everything will be alright and that nothing will change. Of course a year later t…

Yea. It's hard to tell what's true anymore. I thought Russia would be out of resources in 3 months. It's been 4 years. I thought Rafah would survive. It's completely flattened. Thought global markets would crash after tariffs. It has survived.

I'm convinced we're in some kind of propaganda machine right now.

Re: SpaceX files to go public

#415

Post by elil17 »

tristanj wrote: post #282
7e wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A civilization on Mars would not create value. It would be a money incinerator. Mars is a shithole with nothing to offer humanity economically or in quality of life. Quite the opposite, in fact.

250 years ago, you could make this exact argument about the British colonization of Australia, and it would be entirely correct. The early colony was a pure fiscal drain on Britain with almost no return. Yet today it's the 13th largest economy on earth. Think on a longer time scale.

The difference is that Australia is on earth... where we all live.

In fact, Australia already had people living on it.

Re: SpaceX files to go public

#416

Post by [deleted] »

ericd wrote: post #387
runako wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 tha…

One Vera Rubin rack costs $3-7M and eats something like 600 kw, so you’re probably looking at more like 800 racks for that 500 MW DC. $100k launch costs per rack doesn’t seem too terrible if that’s what it works out to. I’m sure there’s a mountain of solar panels that aren’t included, though? And it’s not that simple, building out power generation is very constrained, the interconnection queue is years long in many p…

[deleted]

Re: SpaceX files to go public

#417

Post by keiferski »

sakagami0 wrote: post #361
superjan wrote: post #39

Patrick Boyle (fund manager, professor, youtuber) recently discussed this IPO on his channel. Informative and entertaining. https://youtu.be/8rS3fTbC7TE?is=TGpEdM2Y7sknP-cW

I used to watch him a lot, but he started talking about AI (I work at a big lab) and it was all wrong, so I'm not sure if I can trust his analysis anymore :(

Unfortunately it's kind of impossible for a YouTube to make weekly/bi-weekly videos that are actually in-depth to an expert level. The best thing you can do is interview experts, but even then, everyone has their own biases.

Re: SpaceX files to go public

#418

Post by tmatsuzaki »

In space development, I don’t think there are any competitors at SpaceX’s level at the moment. On top of that, they are trying to do something most people would never even imagine: building data centers in space using SpaceX’s technology. If that becomes a reality, they will almost certainly dominate when it comes to energy.

Re: SpaceX files to go public

#419

Post by zulgin »

marcus_holmes wrote: post #386
kanwisher wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine valuing Google in early 2000s on its revenue and dividends. It would have nearly zero value, but if you bought then you knew it was going to be one of the biggest companies in the world. Only boring stable companies that have no growth like Coca-Cola make sense only valuing without further growth.

Agree, but Coca-Cola has plenty of value despite being "boring" and "stable". The post I was replying to was saying that SpaceX had no growth and therefore little value. That's a mindset that sees companies as speculative assets that are only valuable if their price is set to change in a way that a speculative profit can be made. SpaceX is making money and doing well, the business fundamentals are working out, and it…

Coca Cola indeed has a lot of value its market capitalization is USD 76 billion making it one of the 30 most valuable companies in the world!

The problem with SpaceX is that its valuation is almost entirely driven by its expected future growth. For 2025 SpaceX reported EBITDA of USD 7.5 billion. Other mature aerospace companies (Lockheed, Northman, Airbus, Boeing etc.) are currently valued as ~19x EBITDA (i.e., Market Cap / EBITDA is ~19x). But SpaceX is being valued at 166x EBITDA (USD 1.25 trillion market cap / USD 7.5 billion EBITDA).

What drives this difference in valuation? The answer is quite simple, investors expect the EBITDA to grow and quite rapidly. EBITDA could grow via higher margins (EBITDA margins is EBITDA / Revenue, and for SpaceX it is already a decent 50%), but even at 100% EBITDA margin (i.e., zero operating cost) its valuation multiple would b 83x EBITDA. So the only way to justify SpaceX valuation is if its revenue grows and gorws rapidly.

A quick back of the envelop calculation would shows that investors expect SpaceX revenue to grow at minimum of 65-70% annually for the next 5 years. If the revenue grows at less than that the investors are unlikely to earn a good return on their investment.

Re: SpaceX files to go public

#420

Post by Valakas_ »

mbix77 wrote: post #376
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…

All your comments are about Elon Musk. Weird.

In a world where it's trendy to hate on Musk, it's good there are people that provide some balance.
Post reply on HN