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

611–620 of 631 posts

Re: SpaceX files to go public

#611

Post by nutjob2 »

maxnevermind wrote: post #381

I wonder if this ends up like Tesla - China copies it and makes it cheaper - GG if not protected by huge tariffs/bans. It seems like US these days is just a testing ground for new tech that later scaled further and optimized in China. Are there any hard moats protecting SpaceX from that?

> I wonder if this ends up like Tesla

Tesla ended up here because Musk got bored with it and was distracted by his shiny new toy: Twitter. And running a large car manufacturer requires skill, competence and careful attention, all of which Musk lacks.

Also on any given day Musk in deep in the K hole.

Re: SpaceX files to go public

#612

Post by nutjob2 »

sroussey wrote: post #151

SpaceX does internal sales of stock twice a year, so there will not be pressure from existing stockholders to sell. But there will be buyers. SpaceX is/was a great brand (before it became SpaceTwitter).

> so there will not be pressure from existing stockholders to sell

The IPO is structured as a massive overvaluation event specially for the insiders to unload their holdings. They're never going to get a better opportunity and they know it.

Long term SpaceX is all gravity.

Re: SpaceX files to go public

#613

Post by nutjob2 »

tmatsuzaki wrote: post #418

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.

> If that becomes a reality

Oh boy. Even the smallest amount of logic applied to this concept reveals that it is pure nonsense.

Even if you leave out the massive cost of lifting the equipment into space, the maintenance problem (there isn't any, you just de-orbit), the effects of various radiation on CPUs and RAM, there is of course the most intractable problem of all: space is a vacuum and there is no efficient way to dissipate heat.

It's more Musk BS, a limp fig leaf to cover up his self-dealing buying Twitter and xAI with SpaceX stock.

Re: SpaceX files to go public

#614

Post by panick21_ »

le-mark wrote: post #600
zemvpferreira wrote: post #569

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Standard Oil is a ready counter point. The advent of the automobile greatly effected its success. And if one considers the value of children (Exxon, chevron, mobile,etc) after the supreme dissolved it in 1911, it was a tremendous value. One can easily imagine a similar scenario for cheap kg to orbit.

Not really, because Standard Oil controlled pipelines, had deals with railroads and owned the overwhelming amount of refining capability and owned the supply as well.

SpaceX is ahead, but its only technology, and nothing in Falcon 9 or even Starship suggest that nobody else can replicated it.

SpaceX themselves realized that launch itself isn't a big enough business, so they went themselves after space based comms. For SpaceX to stay ahead they would need to be technologically ahead on every single technological advanced.

But with companies like Amazon and so on involved, SpaceX is nothing like Standard Oil that was already the biggest company. SpaceX can not defend its monopoly on launch or space comms.

Comparing them to standard oil is silly.

Re: SpaceX files to go public

#615

Post by tt24 »

Betelbuddy wrote: post #531
niklasd wrote: post #517

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I found his take on the space data center a bit negative. No idea if it is feasible right now, but you could have made the same jokes and ridicule about the feasibility of electric cars (batteries too weak!) before Elon build Tesla. And Patrick just lists some reasons why it is currently hard to do. I'm by no means a Elon fan, but if anyone could pull it of it's him, and attempting these hard challenges is a good thi…

A space data center is a technical impossibility. And your hero is an idiot, as you can see here when he explains cooling, at the end of the video: https://youtu.be/trgn7s5-YHc >> before Elon build Tesla. He bought the company, they already had electric cars.

He bought the company when it was basically nothing lol

Re: SpaceX files to go public

#616

Post by projektfu »

scuff3d wrote: post #598
projektfu wrote: post #500

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's such common language in business that I didn't even realize I was writing so much jargon. I hope you inspired some people to look up the terms. It's really not that hard to understand.... Even CEOs can do it.

With the way I've seen some companies run, I'm not so sure CEOs can lol. It's been interesting so far. The tough part for me is a the literature is all wrapped in "make your company more successful and profitable", and to be honest I couldn't give a shit about it that. I'm doing this for me, and because (especially on the age of AI) understanding this stuff is more important than ever.

They can, but they might not. Richard Branson famously said he didn't know the difference between gross and net even though he was at the head of Virgin Records.

Re: SpaceX files to go public

#617

Post by leosanchez »

scuff3d wrote: post #596
leosanchez wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any recommendations ?

I'm just stating out on this, so I haven't gotten through everything I want to read yet. Right now I'm reading Financial Intelligence by Karen Berman and and Joe Knight. There's different versions, but I choose the one "for managers". So far it's done a good job making the material understandable for someone who doesn't have a degree in finance. This the one that's more relevant to the post and will help you start un…

Thank you.

Re: SpaceX files to go public

#618

Post by MikePlacid »

jijijijij wrote: post #581
johnbarron wrote: post #505

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

How to do you factor in the military demand for Starlink? If you follow the war in Ukraine, there is absolutely no denying that Starlink is a total gamechanger. Mostly because it's inherently hard to jam, but also got acceptable latency allowing for unrestricted FPV strikes. Because of this, Ukraine seems to have achieved Russian air-defense degradation to the point of limited "free hunting" in the deep. In that use…

> there is absolutely no denying that

Famous last words. https://t.me/kcpn2014/3890 The [Russian] Analytical Center of KCPN has conducted a large-scale study of the [Ukrainian] hidden military infrastructure, which provides Ukrainian forces with stable communications along the entire line of contact. The focus is on the “BakhmutTelecom” project — a military mobile network operator (3G and 4G) that was deployed practically under our noses back in 2023. We often attribute many of the enemy’s successes to Starlink, although in reality these are the result of organizational, not technological, advantages.

The civilian cover for “BakhmutTelecom” is J&Y LLC, which in fact serves as infrastructure for purely military tasks. The network comprises around 2,500 towers, 36 or 50 meters tall, arranged in three tiers. They are interconnected via underground fiber-optic cables and microwave relay links.

Re: SpaceX files to go public

#619

Post by le-mark »

panick21_ wrote: post #614
le-mark wrote: post #600

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Standard Oil is a ready counter point. The advent of the automobile greatly effected its success. And if one considers the value of children (Exxon, chevron, mobile,etc) after the supreme dissolved it in 1911, it was a tremendous value. One can easily imagine a similar scenario for cheap kg to orbit.

Not really, because Standard Oil controlled pipelines, had deals with railroads and owned the overwhelming amount of refining capability and owned the supply as well. SpaceX is ahead, but its only technology, and nothing in Falcon 9 or even Starship suggest that nobody else can replicated it. SpaceX themselves realized that launch itself isn't a big enough business, so they went themselves after space based comms. Fo…

Time will tell.

Re: SpaceX files to go public

#620

Post by Spooky23 »

golem14 wrote: post #446
Spooky23 wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you have $100k, you can do it with direct indexing at Schwab. The management fee is 0.40%. I looked into it, but there are gotchas with wash sale rules and taxes. You really need $500k-$1M to avoid tracking errors. End of the day, the overhead seemed more problematic than the problem, so I ended up increasing my global allocation instead.

Could you emulate this by instead shorting thr stock in question? I suppose it would be hard to limit the risk of a short squeeze?

Not for this kind of investment. If I was going to actively manage, I’d tilt the portfolio differently than S&P500.
Post reply on HN