SpaceX files to go public

Post by damnitbuilds » Thu, Apr 02, 2026, 8:56 AM UTC

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…

Post by Rover222 » Thu, Apr 02, 2026, 8:59 AM UTC

maest wrote: post #178

lacy_tinpot wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In order to be incredulous at xAI, you'd have to be incredulous of the AI business in general, which is fair. But then you'd also be basically betting against the entire tech sector, and really the entire US economy and against the value add of AI. That kind of bet is much more difficult to swallow.

xAI's value is irrelevant here. This is about Elon throwing his weight around and rigging the game to create an artificial squeeze so him and his early investors can make bank by transferring wealth from everyone's retirement fund. The company is irrelevant. The focus should be on the money making scheme

Post by damnitbuilds » Thu, Apr 02, 2026, 9:04 AM UTC

laughing_man wrote: post #406

keeda wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their technical accomplishments are doubtlessly notable, but does the expected business growth justify this valuation? Honest question, how many things do we really need to send up there that reducing the cost to orbit by 100x will trigger Jevon's paradox and lead to 100x more launches? I suppose "data centers in space" is the current answer but again, I'm suspicious about its feasibility. Barring that, until we have…

Starlink seems like a no-brainer at this late date, but I remember thinking "He'll never be able to make money from internet satellites. This has to be some kind of scam. Look what happened to Irridium." Data centers in orbit certainly seem like a pipe dream, but SpaceX certainly has the technology it needs to put them there, and that's a huge competitive advantage (like it was for Starlink) if they do turn out to be…

Post by rcxdude » Thu, Apr 02, 2026, 9:13 AM UTC

dawnerd wrote: post #196

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…

Hey are absolutely not replacing “legacy” isps and certainly not mobile. Even if they had perfect coverage, sat signals are way too sensitive to obstructions.

Post by mr_toad » Thu, Apr 02, 2026, 9:36 AM UTC

instagraham wrote: post #368

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good for you! It’s fun when you realize it’s a constructed language that also tends towards precision. While accounting is not my favorite, financial models as a whole are incredibly powerful reasoning tools. On par, for me, with engineering or physics based first-principles reasoning.

Which financial models best describe reality in your opinion? I'd always wanted to view affairs from a different lens, though I often feel the people who think everything revolves around bond rates or inflation numbers can miss the social picture of why things happen.