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

521–530 of 631 posts

Re: SpaceX files to go public

#521

Post by danw1979 »

shafyy wrote: post #489
danw1979 wrote: post #472

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who else “played a role” in Falcon 9 reducing the cost of mass to orbit, exactly ? I guess some public money went their way ? Also which jury is still out on starship ? I haven’t read any serious criticism that suggests there are insurmountable technical obstacles to it working. Timelines and the exact final cost-to-orbit are still debatable I guess ? The achievements of the program so far and the infrastructure curr…

Yes the jury is out on this: > Also which jury is still out on starship ? I haven’t read any serious criticism that suggests there are insurmountable technical obstacles to it working. Timelines and the exact final cost-to-orbit are still debatable I guess ? There are also other space companies outside of SpaceX who have innovated and reduced the cost of mass to orbit. Just trying to add the perspective that while ye…

The problem with framing this as hero worship is you conflate SpaceX and Elon.

I hate the guy. I think spacex is revolutionary. Both can be true. It doesn’t mean I am hero worshipping anyone or any company.

Re: SpaceX files to go public

#522

Post by rcxdude »

drzaiusx11 wrote: post #516
rcxdude wrote: post #447

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And density is limited. Starlink cannot more than a tiny fraction of a city.

Limited by the amount of satellite coverage? Or on the ground limitations from ever greater division of bandwidth? I guess those two are directly correlated, but they could in theory add microwave relays into the mix to help offset higher population dense areas from lower density ones with less used bandwidth.

I think it's mainly a limitation of the beam steering: terminals that are close together need to be seperated in bandwidth so that they don't intefere with each other, and there's only so much bandwidth available. Tighter beam steering could help but that is something that tends to bump up against physical limitations.

(and it's an area where it would need orders of magnitude improvements to address the density of cities, it's not really close at the moment)

Re: SpaceX files to go public

#523

Post by drzaiusx11 »

triceratops wrote: post #268
tristanj wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not meant to replace terrestrial networks, it's a space-based alternative that serves areas carriers have no financial incentive to cover. Terrestrial cellular towers cost between $150k to $500k per tower, and are not economically feasible in less populated areas. There are also many dead-zones in mountainous regions, since cell signals are blocked by mountains. Starlink Mobile supplements this, it's simply chea…

> it's a space-based alternative that serves areas carriers have no financial incentive to cover In a nutshell: they're serving a market that has less money to spend using more expensive tech than the current industry leaders. Maybe I'm wrong but it doesn't scream "massive profit".

There's enough vast terrestrial areas that have had no other options, so those areas may have pent up demand at least in the short term. However, I think they'll need to figure out how to further lower costs to target those poorer underserved communities that tend to come up in these discussions. That is, unless some sort of subsidy is put in place by governments that know that internet connected communities boost economic values, etc. Some such programs likely already exist in some form in the US, but are largely regional so may take some effort to integrate into those systems.

AFAICT, popular tech companies owned by cult of personalities tend to get overinflated evaluations. I agree that the promise of returns tends to be rosier than reality, but at least SpaceX makes a tangible product and isn't the average AI shilling company with no hope of returns. Here at least they have first mover advantage along with lower scaling costs than their competitors thanks to the rocketry side of the biz. I have enormous respect for what SpaceX has accomplished (even if I'm not a fan of the company's owner, etc.)

Re: SpaceX files to go public

#524

Post by simondotau »

conception wrote: post #515
drzaiusx11 wrote: post #513

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At some point we'll reach saturation of what we're comfortable putting into LEO, or at least greater pushback from governments leading to regulations in hopes of avoiding that. There's a lot of space junk out there already and they're still pumping out those isp satellites en mass. Luckily these specific spacex LEO sats decay pretty rapidly (unless they've made them more advanced recently, I haven't followed closely…

Yes humanity has a great track record of taking care of the commons.

LEO is like a bad haircut. Just wait a while and the disaster solves itself.

Re: SpaceX files to go public

#525

Post by drzaiusx11 »

dotancohen wrote: post #363
hattmall wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think Airplanes are going to be pretty profitable. They are sort of running a market cornering operation there. But, there will be competition eventually. Starlink is way faster than the alternatives so most airlines have switched and Starlink has rapidly increased their prices for aviation. Idk if it's enough though, they are definitely running lots of promos for home customers.

> I think Airplanes are going to be pretty profitable. Anything at sea, too. Going on a cruise? The cruise ship can offer you Wifi backed by Starlink for another few bucks. Or even your cell provider could get you hooked right up to Starlink for some phones. Container ships, military vessels, even fishing expeditions could enjoy an internet connection and cell service.

It's big in the recreational boating community, as those folks generally have the disposable income to support a SpaceX ISP subscription.

Worldwide there's roughly 30 million recreational boats, whereas for commercial aircraft carrying people (not cargo) is more like 30k, so different orders if magnitude. It's highly likely boating would be a more profitable industry to satisfy demand for than airlines in the long term. That is unless they're charging exorbitantly more for airline contracts than personal boat use, which is totally possible.

Re: SpaceX files to go public

#526

Post by ac29 »

kalleboo wrote: post #391
koolba wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe not $200, but $20-$50 for a cross country flight for sure.

If a flight had in-flight Wi-Fi that cost $50 you'd pay for it? Most people I know balk at $10 even on an intercontinental flight

$10/hr for high speed internet on a flight doesn't seem that bad if you have a good use for it. A single drink can be more

Re: SpaceX files to go public

#527

Post by drzaiusx11 »

rcxdude wrote: post #522
drzaiusx11 wrote: post #516

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Limited by the amount of satellite coverage? Or on the ground limitations from ever greater division of bandwidth? I guess those two are directly correlated, but they could in theory add microwave relays into the mix to help offset higher population dense areas from lower density ones with less used bandwidth.

I think it's mainly a limitation of the beam steering: terminals that are close together need to be seperated in bandwidth so that they don't intefere with each other, and there's only so much bandwidth available. Tighter beam steering could help but that is something that tends to bump up against physical limitations. (and it's an area where it would need orders of magnitude improvements to address the density of ci…

Really interesting insight, thanks!

In the past I've worked on consensus based protocols like the ones used in modern cellular systems; basically edge devices register with a controller system that then coordinates time slots for distribution/use of bandwidth for the limited spectrum. Adds a lot of complexity and requires highly accurate time synchronization mechanisms to have any hope of working, but they certainly could leverage something like that to further increase support at higher densities. That is, if they're not doing that already.

Re: SpaceX files to go public

#528

Post by drzaiusx11 »

damnitbuilds wrote: post #441
marcus_holmes wrote: post #386

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

"SpaceX is making money and doing well, the business fundamentals are working out, and it is valuable because of that." Spacex is making $10 billion. That does not give it a value of $1.75 trillion. The $1.75 trillion value is wholly based on speculation about its future growth.

But they made up a bunch of forecasts with rosy future prospects! Think of how profitable they'll be if literally the world model matched their simple growth equations!

From my perspective, it's all just collective gambling when it comes down to it for tech IPOs these days. The market trends are just as much a popularity game as they are anything else.

Re: SpaceX files to go public

#529

Post by drzaiusx11 »

danw1979 wrote: post #479
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…

People have been speculating on future returns since forever. The East India company (an example of capitalism gone very very wrong) was speculatively founded with £4m (in today’s money) and went on to corner half of global trade. This rose-tinted past of honest capitalism did not exist.

I like your term "honest capitalism". I'm putting that in my back pocket for later.

Capitalism breeds monopolies by rewarding first movers with economic advantages via feedback loop. This is how the system is designed to work, always has been, always will be.

Re: SpaceX files to go public

#530

Post by enopod_ »

johnbarron wrote: post #505
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…

This comment reads like an S-1 pitch deck and almost every claim is false or misleading. The $16B is not profit its revenue , and I strongly suggest to learn the difference before investing. The $8B figure is EBITDA, also known as, earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, AND amortization. For a company running around 9500 LEO satellites with a less than 5 year lifespan, depreciation is the business. Their FCC…

Best comment I read on SpaceX in a long time
Post reply on HN