15 ms·

SpaceX files to go public

• chasd00 7mo ago
  The thing i'm not looking forward to is SpaceX will now be beholden to Wall Street. With Startship testing being so public, there's a whole cottage industry of youtubers watching their every move, there's going to be lots of ups and downs on the stock price.
  • Diederich 7mo ago
    > SpaceX will now be beholden to Wall Street I get and appreciate that sentiment. Musk currently has a controlling interest in SpaceX. Do you expect that to change after the IPO? Thanks!
    • ACCount37 7mo ago
      I expect that the amount of "good influence" institutional shareholders can exert on SpaceX leadership and operations is about zero, and the amount of "bad influence" is more than that. Thus, the only way this can affect SpaceX's leadership is negative. A big part of how SpaceX did what they did is that they weren't beholden to institutional pressures. They could afford to take major risks. This may change when a pool of investors who don't care about space and just want the line to go up end up being stakeholders.
    • chasd00 7mo ago
      I get the feeling investors are going to watch Starship explode and explode while it's being developed without understanding the trial/error, hardware rich, approach SpaceX takes and not like it. That's going to hurt the stock price and therefore hurt the company. Before, when Starship exploded people just pointed and laughed at Musk but SpaceX kept going. For better or for worse it doesn't really bother him, don't forget he got literally laughed out of the room when he proposed a re-usable orbital booster. Now those people actually matter because they'll sell/short and kill the stock price and therefore materially hurt the company. I replied to a sibling about Tesla, remember the shorts nearly killed Tesla before it even had a chance. The technology was there and the concept proven but the shorters almost killed the whole thing. IMO Tesla went public way too early and it almost cost them everything. idk what SpaceX has to gain by going public, are they hurting for cash? Based on the pace of development in Boca Chica it doesn't appear so. /not a finance or investment expert just my observations and feelings
      • JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
        > get the feeling investors are going to watch Starship explode and explode while it's being developed without understanding the trial/error, hardware rich, approach SpaceX takes Investors have been doing this since SpaceX first raised outside funding. American capital markets are not that risk averse.
        • notahacker 7mo ago
          tbf those investments weren't traded on a liquid market, and I suspect Founders Fund are less worried about short term setbacks than your average mutual fund or mug punter. But of course we also know that Musk-run public companies are immune to normal dynamics of worrying about next quarter's returns (or even worrying about the CEO publicly torching his brand equity) so the very last thing I'd imagine happening is SpaceX becoming risk averse and profitability focused
          • JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
            > Founders Fund are less worried about short term setbacks than your average mutual fund Fidelity has been an investor since 2014. The only new money flows will be index and retail; everyone else has had access for years.
            • notahacker 7mo ago
              Those funds have more capital to allocate to profitable publicly traded companies than they did to speculative bets on unicorns, and more importantly now have an easy offramp if their investment thesis isn't as aligned with the Kardashev scale as the true believers. The risks they care about will be more "Starlink growth slows" or "orbital datacentre has horrible operating economics" than "Starship launch anomaly" though, and I agree it'll make zero difference to how SpaceX operates both because Elon isn't afraid to tank valuations and because retail loves him unconditionally. And the bull case for SpaceX is still stronger than the bull case for Tesla which happily trades at valuations north of $1b.
      • 7mo ago
  • moogly 7mo ago
    What makes you think this will be different from Tesla?
    • chasd00 7mo ago
      None and that's the problem, the shorts almost killed Tesla for no other reason than being short. I think watching Starship after Starship blow up while being tested when investors don't really understand what they're looking at is going to be bad for the stock price. In a public traded company so goes the stock price so goes the business.
    • nxm 7mo ago
      [flagged]
      • pstuart 7mo ago
        blah blah irrational blah blah solvent It's still obscenely overpriced. edit: to nxm -- the blah blah was about it being a default response, not to trivialize your comment.
• jordanb 7mo ago
  You don't have to believe. If you have a 401k you will be an investor 15 days after launch. The IPO will go great, because the company will float a fairly small issuance. The big shareholders will not immediately sell. They will hold on and maybe even buy to support the price. Then, after 15 days, it will enter the indexes and everyone's 401k will start auto-buying this stock. You might say this is an obvious flaw in how the indexes work if they start immediately accept a brand new IPOed stock with limited float. You'd be right, which is why they won't list for a year. At least they wouldn't until Elon got them to change their rules: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-03-30/nasdaq-clears-way-for-spacex-big-ipos-to-gain-fast-index-entry https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-03-30/nasdaq-cl...
  • throwaway290 7mo ago
    > If you have a 401k you will be an investor 15 days after launch You will be an investor in spacex and xai which it bought. Fun fact, Xai net loss 6 billion dollars per year and SpaceX net profit 8 billion on a good year (https://www.reuters.com/technology/musks-xai-posts-net-quarterly-loss-146-billion-bloomberg-news-reports-2026-01-09/ https://www.reuters.com/technology/musks-xai-posts-net-quart... https://www.globalbankingandfinance.com/spacex-registers-take-rocket-maker-public-blockbuster-ipo/ https://www.globalbankingandfinance.com/spacex-registers-tak...) If you remember xai, it's that company currently being sued for the undressing kids feature (https://www.theverge.com/ai-artificial-intelligence/895639/xai-grok-teens-lawsuit-grok-ai-elon-musk https://www.theverge.com/ai-artificial-intelligence/895639/x... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grok_sexual_deepfake_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grok_sexual_deepfake_scandal) in its flagship product. By the way the feature is still enabled apparently Is there something about why spacex wants to go public ? if not then this is definitely about xai... to hide unprofitability and offload it on general public ASAP.
    • lokar 7mo ago
      The SpaceX profit is EBITDA, not real. And presumably includes massive starlink depreciation and stock based comp.
  • saalweachter 7mo ago
• slowmovintarget 7mo ago
  Rabble rabble... debt... rabble rabble... xAI burning revenue... > In the United States, SpaceX accounts for five of every six launches into space, according to Georgetown University’s Center for Security and Emerging Technology. That's why.
  • indoordin0saur 7mo ago
    And likely soon to be the world's biggest ISP, (they probably already are by some metrics)
    • ctoa 7mo ago
      They are nowhere near the world's biggest ISP by any metrics, what are you talking about?
      • lokar 7mo ago
        Biggest by capital depreciation, no?
      • jjordan 7mo ago
        Well in terms of landmass covered it's not even a contest.
  • panick21_ 7mo ago
    Maybe go look up how large the space launch market is ... you might learn something.
• wg0 7mo ago
  Is it a scandal? https://youtu.be/8rS3fTbC7TE https://youtu.be/8rS3fTbC7TE
  • belter 7mo ago
    [dead]
  • catlikesshrimp 7mo ago
    The speaker seems to be generated by AI. Edit: I not pro musk, but the run of the mill pictures aren't needed.
    • Imustaskforhelp 7mo ago
      > The speaker seems to be generated by AI This is Patrick Boyle, he's not AI generated? Why did you feel like the speaker is AI generated?
      • bubbi 7mo ago
        [dead]
      • lokar 7mo ago
        And Boyle, IMO, is a great presenter, in part because he is so deadpan
      • amoss 7mo ago
        I've watched Patrick's videos for enough years that I know he is not, but I still wonder from time to time. His voice is incredibly flat and uniform, he always uses fake backgrounds and there is extremely high use of jump cuts in his edits.
        • richbell 7mo ago
          I suspect that he at least uses AI for scripts. He tends to repeat the same thing worded slightly differently a few times.
• superjan 7mo ago
  Patrick Boyle (fund manager, professor, youtuber) recently discussed this IPO on his channel. Informative and entertaining. https://youtu.be/8rS3fTbC7TE?is=TGpEdM2Y7sknP-cW https://youtu.be/8rS3fTbC7TE?is=TGpEdM2Y7sknP-cW
  • lokar 7mo ago
    And despite popular opinion, he is not an AI :)
  • deleted 7mo ago
    [deleted]
  • sakagami0 7mo ago
    I used to watch him a lot, but he started talking about AI (I work at a big lab) and it was all wrong, so I'm not sure if I can trust his analysis anymore :(
    • porridgeraisin 7mo ago
      Gell man amnesia
      • sakagami0 7mo ago
        yea
    • locallost 7mo ago
      He packages things to present them as analytical, but it's really just click bait for people to hear something they want to hear. He did a take over a year ago on why the EV revolution crashed with such gems as presenting less growth (but still growth) as lower sales. The comment section was full of never EV crowd who got their fix that everything will be alright and that nothing will change. Of course a year later there were booming sales worldwide. The sad reality I'm coming to realize is that there is very little real and quality analysis, critical but with open eyes on the future. Most of it is just pandering to crowds. The war in Iran is the latest example - you have one side saying Iran is almost done, and the other that they're winning. Who's right? Doesn't matter, being correct is not the point.
• jacquesm 7mo ago
  Now or never. If the stock market goes bust because of the war then most IPO windows will close or will result in a much lower subscription rate. You can expect a flurry of these in the next few weeks.
• churchill 7mo ago
  With $1.75t valuation & ~$16b in revenues, that's just over 100* revenues. SpaceX recently announced $8b in EBITDA, but I don't think it's a healthy metric for such a hardware-heavy business. Or, like Charlie Munger calls it, BS earnings. Even if you give SpaceX the benefit of the doubt and assume they'll eventually settle at the profit rates Apple, Google, etc. have (~25%, check it), it'll be $4b in annual profits holding up $1.8t in market cap or roughly 450 PE ratio. And that's if we give them the same great odds for profitability as America's most successful and profitable firms. In summary, in the short-term the stock might very likely shoot up to $3t, but in the long-term, it doesn't look very healthy.
• indoordin0saur 7mo ago
  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 internet infrastructure in the world and are poised to replace legacy ISPs and even mobile carriers in the coming decade. Oh, and they're doing all this while making a profit ($16B last year) despite their massive R&D spending and even with the money sink that is xAI their profits will be higher this year. It's hard to say that this isn't one of the most innovative and fast moving companies in the world. $1.75T maybe seems excessive, but less so than a lot of other companies out there.
  • luke5441 7mo ago
    I don't see how replacing mobile carriers with space based infrastructure is physically possible.
    • deleted 7mo ago
      [deleted]
    • tristanj 7mo ago
      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 cheaper for mobile providers to partner with them than do their own buildout. Currently only 5% of the earth's surface is covered by cellular signals. Starlink will push that up to 85+%, and is backward compatible with existing cellphones.
      • panick21_ 7mo ago
        Well if you make the argument that it will replace terrestrial networks and that's why its worth X trillion $ then yes, you do actually need to cover the 1% of earth surface where the waste majority of people actually spend most of their time. The question is not if its a good business, the question if its a 2 trillion $ business, and if you only cover the 95% of earth without coverage. That more like a couple 100 billion $ business at best.
• b3ing 7mo ago
  How will they make money? From governments? With Elon's beliefs, few will be able to afford the vacation trips to space, except a few and they can already do this if they wanted, but haven't in droves. If anything this just proves that the Overview Effect (traveling to space changes you) is just BS, Bezos and the others never changed.
  • polski-g 7mo ago
    Providing Internet to the entire world that's faster than fiber. Providing space launch capability that's 1/10th what NASA charges. Providing quite good AI at 100 tokens/sec.
    • johneth 7mo ago
      > Providing Internet to the entire world that's faster than fiber. Bullshit. You're not going to be faster than fiber from orbit, with congested bandwidth. > Providing space launch capability that's 1/10th what NASA charges. NASA isn't in the commercial launch space. > Providing quite good AI at 100 tokens/sec. It's the weakest of the slop machines.
    • danny_codes 7mo ago
      Yeah.. they aren’t going to provide internet to the world faster than fiber. There are a few use-cases that make sense. Almost everyone who has money already has faster internet than LEO internet can provide. And yet, who will use it? You need something to put on the rocket. Seems the vast majority of stuff they’re putting on rockets is their own assets. What is groks market share? 1%?
    • dimator 7mo ago
      I know we're supposed to assume good faith comments here on HN, but god damn...
• convexly 7mo ago
  I'm genuinely waiting to see at what the valuation lands at. The gap between what SpaceX charges per launch and what everyone else charges is so wide that the moat basically is the rocket. Hard to compare against anything even now.
  • bmau5 7mo ago
    Valuations are always more of an art than a science but in what world is SpaceX worth more than Meta today? Maybe the $1.75T is to find that world.
    • convexly 7mo ago
      The valuation only makes sense if you price in Starlink becoming a top 3 telecom and Starship opening up entirely new markets. Possible, sure, but the launch business alone doesn't get you anywhere near 1.75T. They're betting the multiple on revenue lines that don't fully exist yet.
      • kranke155 7mo ago
        Yep the only way it makes sense is a combo of Starlink + AI data centers in space in 10 years.
        • pilgrim0 7mo ago
          Which is a synonym for impossible. As far as the latest serious analyses have shown, data centers in space are a pipe dream. Starlink’s total addressable market was also shown to be way smaller than expected. The IPO in this case just signals they’re desperate for liquidity and with no clear path to profitability, if you discount unlikely, major breakthroughs happening very soon. They’re changing the rules of stock indexes just to shove SpaceX in. It goes to show how far the establishment is willing to go to save face. Elon’s company going under would poke an unpatchable hole in the US entrepreneurial mythology. They can’t afford that right now and they rather crash the whole economy.
• dang 7mo ago
  [stub for offtopicness] [All: please don't post unsubstantive comments to HN. You don't have to like $Company or $Person, but when the banned accounts are posting more thoughtfully than the rest, that's... bad.]
  • deleted 7mo ago
    [deleted]
  • mtharrison 7mo ago
    What's in the SpaceX Files and why aren't they already public?
    • throwaway85825 7mo ago
      The big numbers are the cost to train a frontier LLM and the GPU cost per hour.
    • charcircuit 7mo ago
      Sensitive financial information. It is normal for companies to file confidentiality to avoid leaking information early.
      • wavemode 7mo ago
        Parent commenter is making a joke about the fact that, in the title "SpaceX Files to Go Public", the word "Files" could be read as either a noun or a verb.
        • mtharrison 7mo ago
          :)
    • riffraff 7mo ago
      the truth social is out there
    • MisterTea 7mo ago
• mrinterweb 7mo ago
  I feel the global instability could easily be very disruptive to SpaceX. Just imagine if Russia gets vindictive and starts destroying these satellites or blowing up their satellites to create orbital debris that could knock satellites out of orbit. A really bad solar storm could be devastating. Just saying there are some decent risks, and pricing it at 1.75T IPO seems risky enough. I would not take that gamble.
  • intrasight 7mo ago
    > very disruptive to SpaceX And to most everything else
  • JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
    > imagine if Russia gets vindictive and starts destroying these satellites Sounds like lots of demand for new launches from the military-industrial complex. > imagine if Russia gets vindictive and starts destroying these satellites Space is big. It’s almost always cheaper to individually target satellites than to try and blanket orbits. And with Starship vs ASAT, the cheap drones are the satellites. Russia would bankrupt itself trying to sink Starlink and Starshield. (They would also set a precedent that would let the U.S. deny China a LEO constellation.)
    • plqbfbv 7mo ago
      > It’s almost always cheaper to individually target satellites than to try and blanket orbits. The problem is that even one satellite could start the Kessler syndrome due to how many are currently in orbit, and the numbers are expected to keep increasing rapidly - everyone wants their "sovereign" Starlink now that it has been shown to be feasible and performant.
      • JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
        > problem is that even one satellite could start the Kessler syndrome No, it can’t. Not in LEO. Militaries have searched for these one-shot solutions; there is no known orbital system for which it works. (In LEO.) The only fuck-you orbits are in GEO.
• nutjob2 7mo ago
  Bloomberg link if you can't read the NYT: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-04-01/spacex-is-said-to-file-confidentially-for-ipo-ahead-of-ai-rivals https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-04-01/spacex-is...
• sroussey 7mo ago
  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).
  • nutjob2 7mo ago
    > 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.
• panick21_ 7mo ago
  I love space and they are an amazing company that I have been following for almost 2 decades, but I wouldn't touch that IPO with a 10 foot pool. But the auto inclusion in Fortune 500 is basically cheating.
• beej71 7mo ago
  Man, did I parse that badly. "Space(X files) to go public." I'm a little disappointed now.
• jrmg 7mo ago
  I wonder how many here are aware that SpaceX (not Musk) now owns X Corp. (nee Twitter), via its ownership of xAI. Smells like great fiduciary responsibility!
  • NelsonMinar 7mo ago
    You should see Tesla's rooftop solar business!
  • nojvek 7mo ago
    Let’s not forget the Republican govt + DOGE fired anyone with a spine at SEC. So SpaceX will be listed and soon on the index. He learned how getting into S&P500 index was a rocket ship for Tesla. So he bent the rules for SpaceX. So when the market crashes. It’s gonna be fast because of a couple of tech companies. Let’s see if OpenAI has enough clout and billions to bribe SEC to bend rules for them. Every year US becomes more of a Banana republic.
    • bpodgursky 7mo ago
      On what grounds would the SEC actually block the merger? It's not anticompetitive, it's not even vertical integration. They can't stop things just for being dumb.
  • HerbManic 7mo ago
    I have long suspected that the next major move will be to roll Tesla into Space X, thus completing the Musk consolidation. After that is when it gets interesting as the whole staggeringly massive business has to be profitable long term. It could be a good thing as it is very diversified but it can also open the whole thing up to a lot of risk factors.
  • deleted 7mo ago
    [deleted]
• ktokw 7mo ago
  It's going to have a big impact on short-term volatility, but it's going to take a big drop in prices in a month. But I think it's a company that needs to be invested in the long run.
• pilgrim0 7mo ago
  > Money raised from a public offering would most likely help SpaceX finance its long-term goals of launching artificial intelligence data centers into orbit, creating a colony on the moon and getting humans to Mars. These are expensive and unproven endeavors that may take years and billions of dollars to achieve. Oh my god. When a journalist writes like any of this is remotely plausible within “years” and “billions” of dollars it really downplays the near impossibility of these events happening.
  • hattmall 7mo ago
    What possible reasonable benefit would there be to datacenters in space? Why would that even be a concept at all?
    • thrance 7mo ago
      It's a convenient way to merge AI and spacetech, two hot topics to the retared investor class that rules our world. The reality and feasibility of it doesn't matter.
    • erulabs 7mo ago
      Genuinely: regulation. Every other benefit is conceptual at best. If SpaceX controls the entire heavy launch market _and_ they control data-centers in space, then absolutely no one on earth is in a position to control or regulate such a data-center except SpaceX themselves. I'm not arguing that it's a good idea, but that is the idea.
      • tehlike 7mo ago
        you can build datacenters on international waters, and that'd likely be cheaper no?
        • Nemrod67 7mo ago
          a boat + demolition material are way cheaper than a rocket + demolition material, but that's not counting micrometeorites and such. still seems like a daft idea all in all, or a very distant one at least.
• tristanj 7mo ago
  I'm a SpaceX investor, and from reading the comments here, I think most people here are missing why SpaceX has an outrageously high valuation. SpaceX's valuation only makes sense if you buy into their mission of creating a civilization on Mars, and that the Space Exploration Technologies Corporation is the vehicle that creates this future. If SpaceX achieves this, it would be the most valuable company ever created. It would be worth $10s of trillions. I personally believe SpaceX has a 70% chance of achieving its Mars ambitions. So I find the current $1.75 trillion valuation very logical, if not a little underpriced. If you believe there's a SpaceX won't achieve these ambitions, which I'd assume most people in this thread belong to, then you'd assign a <1% chance of this happening. Then you'd value the company based on it's financials, at a more realistic $200B. You'd explain the 8x valuation gap though a mixture of financial engineering and Elon grifting, both of which I agree are happening. The current $1.75 trillion valuation comes from the ratio of people in camp A to camp B.
  • ensen 7mo ago
    is there an article or document covering the value proposition and realistic timeline of Mars colonization available to read somewhere ? i certainly think it's good for humanity to do it but as a casual observer i imagine it will cost a lot of money over the next ~20 years as opposed to making any.
    • tristanj 7mo ago
      I don't know one off the top of my head, I learned most of my information about space and SpaceX from youtube, mainly from Scott Manley and Noise In Space. This video gives an overview https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3hPH_bc0Ww https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3hPH_bc0Ww but it strongly underrepresents the role of robotics.
  • paxys 7mo ago
    I believe there's a 0% chance SpaceX will achieve any of this, at least in my lifetime. I however also believe that enough people will be lining up to buy whatever fantasy Musk sells (look at the Tesla stock as a shining example). So I think SpaceX is still going to be a great investment if you can manage to get it at or below IPO price.
• paxys 7mo ago
  It is insane to think that this year multiple "startups" are going to IPO at valuations greater than that of the largest company in the world in ~2018. We have printed so much money in that period that these numbers have completely lost touch with reality.
• bengt_trustpay 7mo ago
  [flagged]
• asgh1287 7mo ago
  In June? That is why Trump is talking about an Iran ceasefire. Replenish the weapons, flip some companies to the public, then start the war again. Bonus points for disrupting EU energy supplies for longer. Donald Trump Jr., who already profited from groq, is invested via 1789 capital: https://www.reuters.com/investigations/trump-linked-venture-fund-1789-capital-tops-1-billion-assets-2025-09-08/ https://www.reuters.com/investigations/trump-linked-venture-... Not to mention that the PayPal mafia is now playing ball with respect to Epstein (Tracey was on all-in downplaying the whole thing), so Musk himself will be in good graces again.
• xbmcuser 7mo ago
  Tesla valuation is about to crater and take most of Musk wealth with it so he needs the over valuation of SpaceX before the other rocket competitors can show that they can replicate what SpaceX is doing at cheaper prices.
  • a538058b 7mo ago
    I would like to have what you're having please
• orbitalmentos 7mo ago
  It's hard to imagine how SpaceX can be making the reported $8 billion a year in profit[1]. We now see roughly two Starlink reentries per day... The replenishment costs are at least $5M/day just to maintain the current constellation, while the entire customer revenue is ~$20M/day. Guess the real money is in Golden Dome. [1] https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/spacex-generated-about-8-billion-profit-last-year-ahead-ipo-sources-say-2026-01-30/ https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/spacex-generated-ab...
  • deleted 7mo ago
    [deleted]
  • infinitewars 7mo ago
    That article claiming $8b profit is mislabeling EBITDA as profit. EBITDA removes any recurring replenishment costs, the cost of building the satellite, launching the satellite, the user equipment manufacturing and returns, all ground infrastructure build and replacement, all employee stock compensation (not counted!), no advertising costs (and they've actually had to do a lot of that lately to scrounge customers that are remote enough that their network isn't too congested to serve), no taxes are counted (though they get out of that because they have no profit!). Not to mention payments servicing all their debt and Starship development. *they actually use "Adjusted EBITDA" which is even more nonstandard and means they define the accounting however they want!
• Nick_Finney 7mo ago
  [flagged]
• alsetmusic 7mo ago
  Great idea to let the guy who was just found guilty of manipulating markets to have another public company. That's gonna be great.
• maxnevermind 7mo ago
  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?
  • ashot 7mo ago
    maybe the rocket science?
  • nutjob2 7mo ago
    > 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.
• seydor 7mo ago
  Twitter going public again .... that will change the tone
• simonebrunozzi 7mo ago
  The Artemis II launch, despite the heat shield risk, is clearly a way to hype up the general retail investor before the SpaceX IPO. I really hope that nothing bad happens to the astronauts up there... but if it does, shame on NASA, and shame on everyone else involved. Big money, unfortunately, always wins.
• tmatsuzaki 7mo ago
  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.
  • deleted 7mo ago
    [deleted]
  • Sammi 7mo ago
    Nobody's trying to build data centers in space because it makes no sense. It's a pure grift. Data centers generate enormous heat that needs to be disposed off. In space you have nowhere to conduct heat to, because there's nothing there. You are basically sitting in insulation. Your only option is to radiate the heat away, which is comparatively super slow. Space stations have a real problem getting rid of heat.
  • nutjob2 7mo ago
    > 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.
• pfannkuchen 7mo ago
  But I’m not done reading the Epstein files yet, I can’t take any more files going public!
• dev1ycan 7mo ago
  Starship is the biggest scam in the history of spaceflight, it was never about getting to the moon or mars or even towards other points on Earth (or space tourism) but lowering the cost of sending military and other dual use technologies to Low Earth Orbit. Starlink is close to causing the kessler syndrome. https://conference.sdo.esoc.esa.int/proceedings/sdc9/paper/305/SDC9-paper305.pdf https://conference.sdo.esoc.esa.int/proceedings/sdc9/paper/3... When I was young and naive I believed Elon, at least I've figured out his shtick now, plus his connections with that man. Regulate them.
• deafpolygon 7mo ago
  Elon is itching to cash out.
• wormius 7mo ago
  Can't wait til the precious minerals market crash from asteroid mining goes kaboom, and just like that old tale about the king who left a wake of gold in his hajj, which ended up destroying the economy. In Cairo specifically. Will mankinds's mouth be larger than its stomach? Found the Emperor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mansa_Musa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mansa_Musa
  • ausbah 7mo ago
    maybe? if the LLM craze for the past cpl years has biased my thinking in anyway it’s that making a previously expensive technology more accessible will just drive demand for it up