SpaceX files to go public

Post by ctchocula » Thu, Apr 02, 2026, 9:39 AM UTC

xenadu02 wrote: post #195

manquer wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>float a fairly small issuance SpaceX are widely reported to be planning to raise $75Billion in new capital. It may seem small a % for the valuation target. However that is about 3 times previous highest raise of $29B when Saudi Aramco went public few years back. The market simply may not be that deep[1] There is a good chance this one becomes the Wework of this decade. The valuation, amount being raised, cooling int…

I think you have to temper the skepticism a bit though. SpaceX has dramatically lowered the cost of launching things into space. They are still the leader here. They can put a kg into orbit cheaper than anyone, even heavily subsidized state operations (EU and China). Their order book continues to be full. Every single launch vehicle they roll off the line was pre-sold years ago, including its re-use flights. I agree…

Post by cowboy_henk » Thu, Apr 02, 2026, 9:51 AM UTC

hibikir wrote: post #369

marcus_holmes wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personally, I think that valuing businesses by their expected growth is doing really bad things to our society. We used to value businesses by their current returns, usually dividends paid to shareholders. And we treated any statements about their future plans as interesting but not something anyone should trust. Now we value stocks on what their price will do in the near future, because the primary return to shareho…

Valuing anything by its expected, long term value is just accurate. You'd consider the longevity of, say, a garment when you purchase it. The fact that a car has a lot of miles in it, and therefore will need replacing earlier, is something that any reasonable person will consider with its valuation. We spend money educating children not because of the value of the knowledge that second, but the expected value in the…

Post by Marazan » Thu, Apr 02, 2026, 9:54 AM UTC

sublinear wrote: post #309

irishcoffee wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They absolutely succeeded because they had a better search engine. Without a doubt. I imagine there’s more than a few folks around here who used shit like askjeeves, altavista, et. al. Google was heads and shoulders better than those, and continued to get better over time. No, I’m no Google fan, but it’s revisionist history to say they didn’t have the best search engine.

Hah. I didn't expect to get downvoted this much. I'm not trying to rewrite history either, but this makes me wonder how deeply the Google lore really affected some people. I'm in my late 30s, so fair enough. I was there, but not really "there" to see what happened. My understanding and memory was that there was good word-of-mouth in the 90s because it was marginally better. By around 2000, the media was strongly push…

Post by heraldgeezer » Thu, Apr 02, 2026, 9:54 AM UTC

4ggr0 wrote: post #448

heraldgeezer wrote: post #439

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

What's your issue with the Rafah comment? Rafah is probably not 100% gone, but it is basically gone. Majority of the people are gone and it's mostly a pile of rubble. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rafah#/media/File:An_aerial_vi... https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/05/15/world/middlee...

Post by e-topy » Thu, Apr 02, 2026, 9:59 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.