Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why SpaceX 2040 Revenue FCST $4.3T in highly unlikely

matteast.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 219 posts

Re: Why SpaceX 2040 Revenue FCST $4.3T in highly unlikely

#81

Post by veqz »

wnmurphy wrote: post #57
TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tesla spent almost years scraping by, almost went bankrupt in 2018, had three years of "exceeds expectation" from 2020 to 2023 and is now being murdered by competitors. A lot of "income" comes from selling regulatory credits, not cars. FSD is up to v14 and there is no sense in which it's "Full", or is likely to be "Full" any time soon. The early computer industry created a good few companies which achieved profitabil…

> FSD is up to v14 and there is no sense in which it's "Full", or is likely to be "Full" any time soon. I think the SpaceX IPO is way overvalued, but have you actually tried FSD v14 yourself? My car has 8-year old hardware running v12, and it handles like 90+% of my driving. When I test drove 14 it blew my mind how good it had gotten in only 8 months of development. In my opinion, there's question that it's "when," n…

Yes, I hear lots of people saying Tesla's "FSD" product can drive by itself already.

Yet if the car crashes while in FSD mode, it is still you who are legally the driver and you who will be responsible. You are the driver, regardless of what the name of the car's software is.

This can be contrasted with e.g. Mercedes' offering, which is actually self-driving, and where Mercedes is responsible if the car crashes (The limitation in that case, of course, is the very limited roads and conditions where that software will actually be enabled.).

So, yes: Until Tesla (or someone else) actually takes responsibility while the car drives itself, and the "driver" is legally just a passenger, it is not a fully self-driving car. If you ever take your attention away from the road while using FSD you are breaking the law, which says that as the driver, you must always pay attention.

Re: Why SpaceX 2040 Revenue FCST $4.3T in highly unlikely

#82

Post by scottyah »

itsgonnabebad wrote: post #30
m3kw9 wrote: post #12

I know this sounds "bad" but early in Tesla's forcasts, I've seen many "highly unlikely" articles, but Tesla ended up blowing past expectations. This one is tough too, but I hate just dismiss it as unlikely especially with Elon at the helm

Blown past? It was only a few years ago people were saying Tesla was going to own the entire car market, and everyone else would go out of business. The Cybertruck was going to be the best selling car of all time, the insurance business was going to be a massive money maker etc. None of these things happened.

It was only a few years ago people were saying Tesla was going to fail spectacularly, that nobody would drive an EV, that no new auto manufacturer could start in USA, that they would blow up into flames at rates way higher than ICE cars, that the CT would never be made, that they'd have to buy their batteries from suppliers that would just crank the prices up.

Re: Why SpaceX 2040 Revenue FCST $4.3T in highly unlikely

#84

Post by samtp »

sleepyguy wrote: post #50

The US consumer cellular subscription service is around 185 billion a year and if you add business/enterprise it is around 225 billion a year. If they were able (highly unlikely) to capture that market in the US alone through Satellite Cellular service, it would be huge revenue stream. Setting up data centers in orbit (easier said than done) would be another huge revenue stream. Setting up facilities to beam down ene…

> Setting up data centers in orbit

Still have yet to hear how data centers in space are actually supposed to be a good thing when cooling them is much harder than on earth because they are in a near vacuum with much less heat dissipation.

> Setting up facilities to beam down energy to earths surface could also be an opportunity

Also interested to learn how this is done without creating a death ray with potentially catastrophic consequences

So if all the current telcos in the US lose all of their customers and SpaceX captures 100% of them without degrading the current margin/pricing at all, they are 5% of their way to the $4.3t goal. And the only way I can see that happening is from government mandate - which if things don't change I guess never say never. But still a very very very long way off

Re: Why SpaceX 2040 Revenue FCST $4.3T in highly unlikely

#85

Post by vel0city »

sleepyguy wrote: post #50

The US consumer cellular subscription service is around 185 billion a year and if you add business/enterprise it is around 225 billion a year. If they were able (highly unlikely) to capture that market in the US alone through Satellite Cellular service, it would be huge revenue stream. Setting up data centers in orbit (easier said than done) would be another huge revenue stream. Setting up facilities to beam down ene…

> If they were able (highly unlikely) to capture that market in the US alone through Satellite Cellular service, it would be huge revenue stream

There's practically no way there's enough RF spectrum to handle that many clients from even LEO. There's a reason why carriers are moving to smaller and smaller and smaller cells, and places like sports venues have highly directional antenna arrays to handle the number of active clients. Will there be customers? Sure. Probably a lot! Will it be an actually massive chunk of the overall subscriber base mostly using their networks? Not a chance.

They can't even get capacity up enough to support their rural customers on practically idealized antenna array hardware.

> Setting up data centers in orbit (easier said than done) would be another huge revenue stream.

What applications demand that kind of premium on cost of running? Why choose that instead of terrestrial datacenters? What's the overall use-case for why one should bother deploying their applications into a space datacenter? I'm genuinely asking. Aside from needing to ensure low-ish latency to the most remote parts of the world and being willing to pay whatever to have that, I don't get it.

Re: Why SpaceX 2040 Revenue FCST $4.3T in highly unlikely

#86

Post by themgt »

It's funny it concludes "A line is not a law" while the entire page is just lines and charts. If you didn't know anything going in, SpaceX might as well be a company selling toilet paper for all you learned.

I've got no idea what a share of SpaceX is worth today or 14 years from now, but fully reusable rockets are going to be one of the most important engineering achievements in human history, and SpaceX appears far in the lead to getting there first. Ignoring everything else they're at the cutting edge of.

It's really just sad to me how upset how many people are about an IPO. "Imagine what a waste, if the stock market were to overvalue the company dedicated to solving the challenges required to make humanity a multi-planetary species, when this graph clearly shows we could've wisely allocated more of civilization's resources to Saudi Aramco."

Re: Why SpaceX 2040 Revenue FCST $4.3T in highly unlikely

#87

Post by wnmurphy »

giancarlostoro wrote: post #53
square_usual wrote: post #29

[flagged]

My corporate firewall blocked this due to it being a newly registered domain. So I can't even see it, I care less about "vibe coding" but it sounds like someone registered a domain just to get attention on their amazing take about why they think they're qualified to tell the world the future.

[flagged]

Re: Why SpaceX 2040 Revenue FCST $4.3T in highly unlikely

#88

Post by samtp »

scottyah wrote: post #71
danielovichdk wrote: post #19

I think the US is in such a fucked up place economically, that the stock market is so overheated and will cause grave inflation, but it's the only lever left to pull for the government, that it will cause havoc within the next 10 years. SpaceX or any of AI companies for that matter is absolutely not worth their money, but they will be carried through by government legislation, because otherwise the economy will be fu…

I mean, the entire predicted value that the company will be worth is like 6mo of the US budget (>$7 Trillion per year). I don't think that's all that much, even if they accomplish half of what they're all trying to do. The economy is already F'd because so few people are actually working productively- it's been a laptop-class driven economy since the 80s.

You don't think one company being worth half a year of the biggest country in the world's budget is all that much?

Hard to know how to where to go from there because I find that quite insane.

Re: Why SpaceX 2040 Revenue FCST $4.3T in highly unlikely

#89

Post by wnmurphy »

veqz wrote: post #81
wnmurphy wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> FSD is up to v14 and there is no sense in which it's "Full", or is likely to be "Full" any time soon. I think the SpaceX IPO is way overvalued, but have you actually tried FSD v14 yourself? My car has 8-year old hardware running v12, and it handles like 90+% of my driving. When I test drove 14 it blew my mind how good it had gotten in only 8 months of development. In my opinion, there's question that it's "when," n…

Yes, I hear lots of people saying Tesla's "FSD" product can drive by itself already. Yet if the car crashes while in FSD mode, it is still you who are legally the driver and you who will be responsible. You are the driver, regardless of what the name of the car's software is. This can be contrasted with e.g. Mercedes' offering, which is actually self-driving, and where Mercedes is responsible if the car crashes (The…

> Until Tesla (or someone else) actually takes responsibility while the car drives itself

Were you aware they're already doing exactly this in Austin and Dallas?

Post reply on HN