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

561–570 of 631 posts

Re: SpaceX files to go public

#561

Post by tristanj »

kraf wrote: post #345
tristanj wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My belief is that Mars will be colonized for ideological reasons, not for profit. A Mars colony won't be profitable. But it will be colonized, mostly for prestige, and also because of overcrowding & pollution, which will become bigger issues in the coming decades.

But why did you invest on those grounds? Is profit not your goal here?

I did not invest on those grounds. I was looking at the stock a few years back and realized SpaceX was underpriced.

My rationale is, when SpaceX actually launches the first Mars mission, the price will go hyperbolic. It will be the stock pump of the century. I estimated what valuation it would hit (~$5 trillion at the time), then looked at the current valuation, realized this will 50x in the next two decades, and concluded it would make a great investment.

Re: SpaceX files to go public

#562

Post by sfeng »

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…

The only thing I can argue with is the thoughts on Starship. Each ship failing in a new way is exactly what you'd expect to see from a research project fixing one issue at a time and progressing a bit further until the next issue crops up. I would be much more concerned to see _the same_ failure happen over and over with no clear plan to resolve the issue.

Re: SpaceX files to go public

#563

Post by robocat »

delecti wrote: post #105
stickfigure wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Serious question: Is there some ETF that is "Index of S&P500 minus anything that smells like Musk"?

Yes, kinda. Goldman Sachs launched that under the symbol SPXXAI last month. I'm not totally sure how to actually invest in it yet though. https://www.axios.com/2026/02/20/ai-goldman-sachs-stocks-ind...

  SPXXAI, which lets you invest in the S&P 500 benchmark index minus all things AI
That isn't non-Musk. I also wonder where Google and Microsoft and Facebook fit in to the index (each isn't AI but have AI correlated exposure?)

Re: SpaceX files to go public

#564

Post by EthanHeilman »

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…

> See a pattern here? Each failure from a different root cause. So multiple unsolved failure modes, not iteration. It has never reached orbit, never caught a ship, never demonstrated orbital refueling.

Wouldn't it be worse if it was all from the same root cause. That would suggest they can't figure out how to fix the problem. Multiple failures with different root causes provide almost optimal experimental data. I'm not saying the failures are necessarily good for SpaceX, but we are seeing progress and a willingness to push the envelope.

This IPO makes me more worried about the future of SpaceX then experimental rockets blowing up. That said, I can see why some people will invest in SpaceX, SpaceX has a significant lead in the space race and may end up gaining a near monopoly on access to space.

Re: SpaceX files to go public

#565

Post by eekjj »

eekjj wrote: post #495
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Which financial models best describe reality in your opinion? The most-powerful ones for individuals are the micreconomic mechanisms. Understanding how leverage, tranching and moving risk (and reward) across stakeholders and time, work, for instance. The necessary mechanisms and tradeoffs one must make, as well as the ones one should . If you're looking for a formal model, it's the balance sheet. But not the accoun…

That’s such an overly complicated answer. I’ve noticed people from a financial background often do this. Why? Does it make you feel special? Lmao. It’s all basic stuff, often wrapped in jargon to throw people off. If the fella wants to be properly informed, he needs a very strong understanding of fundamental microeconomic principles, along with macroeconomics. On top of that an understanding of financial accounting.…

@crisscross Lmao down voted my post you panzy? Be a man and accept I’m right - your post is full of so much hot air that it deserved popping.

Re: SpaceX files to go public

#566

Post by imtringued »

tristanj wrote: post #311
plaidfuji wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> SpaceX's valuation only makes sense if It’s funny, I hear the exact same phrasing used when justifying Tesla’s valuation. “It only makes sense if…” … if you ignore what the actual, physical business does today, and picture it doing something entirely different, beyond its current capabilities (robotaxis, androids, etc) The difference with this pie-in-the-sky ambition (Mars Colony) is that I don’t even understand ho…

My belief is that Mars will be colonized for ideological reasons, not for profit. A Mars colony won't be profitable. But it will be colonized, mostly for prestige, and also because of overcrowding & pollution, which will become bigger issues in the coming decades.

That's the same as saying SpaceX will be worth 200 billion USD at a $1.75 trillion IPO.

You have to pick one side, not both.

Re: SpaceX files to go public

#567

Post by imtringued »

tristanj wrote: post #318
vjvjvjvjghv wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I personally believe SpaceX has a 70% chance of achieving its Mars ambitions." When will that be? There are so many unsolved problems with Mars that creating a civilization on Mars will probably be decades or centuries away. Creating an autonomous station on Antarctica or the moon is child's play compared to Mars. And we are far away from that too.

In the 2040s. The upcoming wave of robotics will push the cost of goods down enormously low, robotics + need for compute + cheap goods will cause a huge increase in demand for raw resources; mining on earth will not be able to keep pace & environmentalists will get generally upset about environmental destruction caused by resource extraction. People's attention will shift to obtaining resources from outer space, whic…

We are in the 2020s and the wave of AI has mostly raised the cost of energy and silicon chips without meaningfully increasing productivity.

Re: SpaceX files to go public

#568

Post by wwweston »

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…

Personally I just don’t believe “data centers in space” is a sincere goal. There’s no way any of the cooling benefits or whatever offsets the additional layers of significant construction and maintenance challenges, collision and other environmental risks, and unknown risks.

There’s no way. Every proposal is either a bid for capital via moonshot enthusiasm or a stalking horse for something else, and these days I wouldn’t be surprised if it was orbital weapons platforms in disguise.

Re: SpaceX files to go public

#569

Post by zemvpferreira »

le-mark wrote: post #520
panick21_ wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but factor of 10 cheaper in a market that is tiny still isn't that much. Even if you assume a 10x market size increase, its still tiny. > They also have the most advanced internet infrastructure in the world and are poised to replace legacy ISPs and even mobile carriers in the coming decade. That's quite the claim. I believe Starlink is a great business, the largest sat business for a long while to come (unlike…

I fully expect Jevons paradox to hold for cheap kg to orbit. Spacex could be the monopoly transportation provider of the Solar Alliance. Yes that’s fanciful, but it illustrates the potential.

So we are now hypothesising fully-developed multi-planetary civilisations to justify an IPO price in 2026? By the same leap of logic Coca-Cola is worth 1 trillion times its current price since it's poised to be the galaxy's drink of choice. And I'm being reasonable with my estimate here, how many galaxies could we actually be talking about in potential?

Re: SpaceX files to go public

#570

Post by lopsotronic »

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…

Where the heck is the mild-mannered retail investor going to go if they bork up all the indices?
Post reply on HN