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

91–100 of 219 posts

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

#91

Post by panzi »

shimman wrote: post #52
square_usual wrote: post #29

[flagged]

eh, am very biased as I design similar sites but I honestly prefer these to what would be likely string of random social media posts. I like having relevant graphics stickied while text is displayed alongside it (assuming by blog post you mean the typical page-like top to bottom approach). edit: damn, if these designs are hated what modern approaches do people like? I feel like scroll based text is a relatively unexp…

While I'm not that against to such a web page (when viewing it on a monitor, not a phone) I'd say follow these points:

• Don't hijack any browser functionality. Scrolling shall scroll the document, the end.

• Don't scale something to the screen size, breaking zoom! Especially don't do it so that when zooming causes a different scroll position and then it all jumps to a different slide. WTF!

• Make it accessible!

If you want to make flashy graphics and animations make a game. That is not meant as to belittle games, I love games.

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

#92

Post by cactusplant7374 »

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.

Next time they should run it by your company before they decide to create a new domain.

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

#93

Post by golem14 »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #37
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

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…

Not a fanboy, but the latest generation Tesla self driving is really quite good. I still don't understand why they still aren't adding lidars now since prices have come down a lot.

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

#94

Post by stephc_int13 »

kilroy123 wrote: post #62
d_silin wrote: post #32

SpaceX already blown through a number of "... but this cannot be!" forecasts. Would not discount them easily.

I was thinking about this lately as well. If you break down their plan of launching a LOT of solar panels into space and strapping a GPU cluster to it. It's not _that_ crazy now. Prices for solar panels have dropped 90% in the last 10 years. Price per kilo to Low Earth Orbit has dropped ~50% in the last 10 years. SpaceX's entire plan is to keep dropping both of these prices down even more with massive solar panel / s…

Not the same solar panels. As with most equipment, the constraints are very different in space/orbit, and the suppliers are not the same.

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

#95

Post by cycomanic »

MPSimmons wrote: post #45
d_silin wrote: post #32

SpaceX already blown through a number of "... but this cannot be!" forecasts. Would not discount them easily.

SpaceX's entire history is full of, "there's no way they'll ever do X", followed by them doing it. They definitely haven't hit all of their goals, but I don't think anything they want to do is impossible, just really difficult.

Like what? Seriously, nobody thought shouting rockets into space was impossible. Landing a rocket again nobody had thought it impossible. Sure they brought down prices, again nobody thought it impossible. The question is actually is it desirable. Rocket launches are pretty much the worst one can do in terms of greenhouse gas emissions, but somehow all technerds are falling all over themselves how great it is.

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

#96

Post by kridsdale1 »

mullingitover wrote: post #72
soperj wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> All spaceX has to do is keep being as innovative and industrious as it is now SpaceX seemed to lose a big step when Musk got involved in DOGE. I don't know if key people left or what, but the pace seem to slow considerably, and the successes also seemed to come to a crashing halt.

Some principled people left when he made his big heel turn into openly promoting ethnonationalist authoritarianism. Pretty sure some other principled people stayed behind and are using the field manual[1]. [1] https://gutenberg.org/ebooks/26184

This kind of thing has happened at Meta.

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

#97

Post by sieabahlpark »

voidfunc wrote: post #9
malfist wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, but I'm not pricing a stock today based on the assumption that this country will turn into a theocratic autocracy with a 70% YoY inflation rate for 15 years. Besides, if I was pricing that in, I'd be buying indexes and not a specific stock. The 70% YoY inflation would rise all tides. Not just SpaceX.

Will? It already has turned into one.

[dead]

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

#98

Post by vel0city »

scottyah wrote: post #76
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…

> murdered by competitors Is just a downright lie. The Tesla Model Y maintained its title as the world's best-selling vehicle in 2025 across all powertrains, marking its third consecutive year at number one. Even the CT is the best selling EV pickup, the last bestseller could not find a way to sell it profitably.

> The Tesla Model Y maintained its title as the world's best-selling vehicle in 2025 across all powertrains

No, the RAV-4 won that title. Its also pretty easy to make that claim when you're only making practically two models of vehicles compared to most other companies with several models. A single car selling well isn't necessarily telling the whole story.

> Even the CT is the best selling EV pickup

Easy to do when 20%+ are being bought by the ownership's other companies.

The CT is a massive failure measured by their own stated expectations. They stated they'd sell somewhere between 250,000-500,000 units a year. They ended up selling only a bit over 20,000 last year.

FWIW, the F-150 Lightning outsold the CT for 2025.

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

#99

Post by imperialdrive »

0xbadcafebee wrote: post #79

I don't think some people understand how money works. If you say you're going to have $3.4T in revenue, someone has to have that money, and give it to you. So where is the money? Who has it? Are they spending it somewhere else right now, and will decide to instead spend it on SpaceX later? Or is the money just sitting in savings accounts, strangely not being spent or invested? And why would they put their money into…

If you build it, they will come.

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

#100

Post by vel0city »

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…

Its so good that's why they've got tons of robotaxis all over the place.

Oh, they only have a tiny fleet in a few cities which are still mostly monitored? Strange.

Post reply on HN