50 ms·

The datacenter thing is mostly just a meme that billionaires say because it makes them feel smart and gets them media attention, it doesn't seem to move stock s

The datacenter thing is mostly just a meme that billionaires say because it makes them feel smart and gets them media attention, it doesn't seem to move stock significantly. The actual distortion field is around Starlink. Which is the main product and the only one that's (nominally) profitable. It's the one all the hype centers around. xAI is barely even notable in the AI space. This also makes it possible to judge the size of the distortion field, as Starlink is just an ISP, for which we have accurate valuations. And for what it concerns shareholders, a strictly worse one than a conventional ISP. Space infra is much more expenive than putting some glass in the ground, once. Comcast is a behemoth of a company doing far more than just ISP. Worth a "mere" $90 billion. Charter Communications is a similarly sized "pure" telecom. Worth $20 billion. Both of the above ISP companies have roughly 30 million subscribers. Starlink has 10 million. Yet they want $2 trillion at IPO. A 20x to 100x overvaluation. And what do you get beyond an ISP? * A private aerospace company that's not doing notably better than the space divisions of old aerospace. (Remember: Starlink is already accounted for so doesn't count here) * An AI company that has so little demand it's currently handing a bunch of compute to Anthropic for such a deep discount the latter has claimed to become profitable. * Twitter. Which is worth either $33b if you count Elon's internal buyout valuation, or $10b if you count realistic valuations. While there is some hype around "The future of space!", the reality is that the long term growth for that is fairly dead in the current geopolitical climate. Nobody's saying it out loud yet but US Aerospace is being replaced. Fewer and fewer US launches will be bought. The EU is even building their own Starlink equivalent.

tristanj 5mo ago
I find it amusing to read comments like these, because they remind me of the massive awareness gap between people who understand SpaceX's product line, and those who don't. In your world, you only see and interpret SpaceX's existing products. You then see SpaceX's eye-watering valuation, and then are confused where this comes from. Meanwhile, people who understand SpaceX's product line, and the implications these products in five or ten years, can analyze the situation more accurately. I can tell you are in the unaware group, since you don't mention nor analyze two of SpaceX's world-changing products (Starship and Starlink Mobile).
- emj 5mo ago
  Isn't Spaceship an requirement to make starlink profitable?
  - tristanj 5mo ago
    You mean Starship. And not it's not, Starlink is already extremely profitable, currently running at a 60% profit margin.
- chinathrow 5mo ago
  Enlighten us then, please. What are we missing?
- aurareturn 5mo ago
  I'd love to know what your analysis. This is a genuine request. No snark. I'm genuinely curious of other view points.
  - tristanj 5mo ago
    I'll mention the ones no one else is talking about. The Golden Dome buildout will deliver $200-300 billion in revenue to SpaceX through 2040 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Dome_(missile_defense_system) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Dome_(missile_defense_s... . Golden Dome is only viable with low-cost Starship, and SpaceX will build the satellites housing the radars, IR detectors, interceptors, and backbone communications network. The interceptors themselves will likely be built by existing players i.e. Lockheed Martin and Raytheon. SpaceX revenue here is astronomical, potentially $500+ billion if a full buildout occurs. Starlink Mobile is atrociously underestimated, with Starlink V3/V4 satellites and the $17 billion Echostar spectrum, Starlink will deliver 4G speeds direct to cellphone for thousands of customers per cell across the globe. It will never match the bandwidth throughput of terrestrial towers but will be extremely cost competitive in rural areas. A single cellular tower costs ~$250k to build and tens of thousands per year to maintain. It will be far cheaper for mobile operators to partner with SpaceX than do their own costly buildout. Assuming quick adoption, revenue will be $50-100 billion per year by 2040, with high margins. Not to mention Starship, which in its incomplete form of V3 already has the lowest cost-to-orbit of any launch vehicle ever, will usher in a wave of space exploration. The moat is huge, Starship is 15 years ahead of the competition.
kortilla 5mo ago
> The datacenter thing is mostly just a meme that billionaires say because it makes them feel smart and gets them media attention, it doesn't seem to move stock significantly. A significant portion of their valuation is based on this. The spacex private stock price moved significantly based on this data center narrative. > And for what it concerns shareholders, a strictly worse one than a conventional ISP. This is ignorance. There is absolutely zero meaningful competition to Starlink in the maritime, aviation, and remote internet markets. 150mbps down with <80ms latency isn’t impressive in a city but it’s mind blowing on an airplane 1000 miles from land. > The EU is even building their own Starlink equivalent. No they aren’t. The only somewhat credible competitor so far is Amazon Kuiper(Leo) and they are still nascent. You also forgot starshield.
- Topfi 5mo ago
  >> The EU is even building their own Starlink equivalent. > No they aren’t. That’s exactly what IRIS [0] is though… [0] https://defence-industry-space.ec.europa.eu/eu-space/iris2-secure-connectivity_en https://defence-industry-space.ec.europa.eu/eu-space/iris2-s...
  - kortilla 5mo ago
    IRIS is a 290 sat constellation that doesn’t have any proven sats in orbit or a user terminal. The capacity even if they deliver what they claim on paper is not a Starlink equivalent. The tyranny of being in MEO/LEO is that your sats are not overhead at least half of the time. Lower capacity, higher latency, and worse coverage makes it more of a viasat improvement than anything like a starlink equivalent. They fumbled by not trying to provide global coverage.
- SlinkyOnStairs 5mo ago
  > There is absolutely zero meaningful competition to Starlink in the maritime, aviation, and remote internet markets. There are roughly 100,000 ships at sea. There are roughly 15,000 planes in the sky. The remote internet markets are remote because either A) exceedingly few people live there, or B) exceedingly poor people live there. (And usually, both at the same time) This just isn't a big market. That's why the telecom giants haven't bothered. To justify a trillion dollar valuation you're gonna need a billion users. SpaceX would be better off putting fiber into the ground in Africa.
narrator 5mo ago
Starship is going to make whole entire industries viable that were not viable previously. It might even take a significant chunk of air freight which is going to be a big deal with rising oil prices.
- thg 5mo ago
  > Starship is going to make whole entire industries viable that were not viable previously. Starship is a complete and utter failure, as you can read about here, among other places: https://www.planetearthandbeyond.co/p/starship-is-going-nowhere https://www.planetearthandbeyond.co/p/starship-is-going-nowh... > It might even take a significant chunk of air freight which is going to be a big deal with rising oil prices. By being several magnitudes more expensive than an airplane would ever be?
  - tristanj 5mo ago
    Starship in its current incomplete form (v3 fully expendable ship and booster) already has the lowest cost to orbit in $/kg of any launch vehicle ever. It's around $400/kg to orbit fully expendable. Add in booster reuse, which SpaceX has already demonstrated on test flight 9, and the cost to orbit drops to $200/kg.
    - thg 5mo ago
      A fully reusable Starship has a launch cost of around $75m - $90m and the last V3 launch managed 44 tonnes of payload on a sub-orbital flight of not even 200km (Starlink satellites have an orbit of around 550km). That's an optimistic launch cost of $1.700/kg for a rather meaningless altitude and assuming a fully reusable Starship that doesn't keep blowing up. I have no idea where you pulled your $400/kg number from, but it's complete and utter nonsense. To be economical at all, Starship needs to reach its target capacity of 100 tonnes to orbit, which is simply never going to happen. But even if it somehow does, it's physically impossible for Starship to ever make it further than the moon, at extreme costs, due to the refuelling requirements and fuel boil-off in orbit.

tristanj 5mo ago

I find it amusing to read comments like these, because they remind me of the massive awareness gap between people who understand SpaceX's product line, and those who don't. In your world, you only see and interpret SpaceX's existing products. You then see SpaceX's eye-watering valuation, and then are confused where this comes from. Meanwhile, people who understand SpaceX's product line, and the implications these products in five or ten years, can analyze the situation more accurately. I can tell you are in the unaware group, since you don't mention nor analyze two of SpaceX's world-changing products (Starship and Starlink Mobile).

emj 5mo ago
Isn't Spaceship an requirement to make starlink profitable?
- tristanj 5mo ago
  You mean Starship. And not it's not, Starlink is already extremely profitable, currently running at a 60% profit margin.
chinathrow 5mo ago
Enlighten us then, please. What are we missing?
aurareturn 5mo ago
I'd love to know what your analysis. This is a genuine request. No snark. I'm genuinely curious of other view points.
- tristanj 5mo ago
  I'll mention the ones no one else is talking about. The Golden Dome buildout will deliver $200-300 billion in revenue to SpaceX through 2040 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Dome_(missile_defense_system) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Dome_(missile_defense_s... . Golden Dome is only viable with low-cost Starship, and SpaceX will build the satellites housing the radars, IR detectors, interceptors, and backbone communications network. The interceptors themselves will likely be built by existing players i.e. Lockheed Martin and Raytheon. SpaceX revenue here is astronomical, potentially $500+ billion if a full buildout occurs. Starlink Mobile is atrociously underestimated, with Starlink V3/V4 satellites and the $17 billion Echostar spectrum, Starlink will deliver 4G speeds direct to cellphone for thousands of customers per cell across the globe. It will never match the bandwidth throughput of terrestrial towers but will be extremely cost competitive in rural areas. A single cellular tower costs ~$250k to build and tens of thousands per year to maintain. It will be far cheaper for mobile operators to partner with SpaceX than do their own costly buildout. Assuming quick adoption, revenue will be $50-100 billion per year by 2040, with high margins. Not to mention Starship, which in its incomplete form of V3 already has the lowest cost-to-orbit of any launch vehicle ever, will usher in a wave of space exploration. The moat is huge, Starship is 15 years ahead of the competition.

kortilla 5mo ago

> The datacenter thing is mostly just a meme that billionaires say because it makes them feel smart and gets them media attention, it doesn't seem to move stock significantly. A significant portion of their valuation is based on this. The spacex private stock price moved significantly based on this data center narrative. > And for what it concerns shareholders, a strictly worse one than a conventional ISP. This is ignorance. There is absolutely zero meaningful competition to Starlink in the maritime, aviation, and remote internet markets. 150mbps down with <80ms latency isn’t impressive in a city but it’s mind blowing on an airplane 1000 miles from land. > The EU is even building their own Starlink equivalent. No they aren’t. The only somewhat credible competitor so far is Amazon Kuiper(Leo) and they are still nascent. You also forgot starshield.

Topfi 5mo ago
>> The EU is even building their own Starlink equivalent. > No they aren’t. That’s exactly what IRIS [0] is though… [0] https://defence-industry-space.ec.europa.eu/eu-space/iris2-secure-connectivity_en https://defence-industry-space.ec.europa.eu/eu-space/iris2-s...
- kortilla 5mo ago
  IRIS is a 290 sat constellation that doesn’t have any proven sats in orbit or a user terminal. The capacity even if they deliver what they claim on paper is not a Starlink equivalent. The tyranny of being in MEO/LEO is that your sats are not overhead at least half of the time. Lower capacity, higher latency, and worse coverage makes it more of a viasat improvement than anything like a starlink equivalent. They fumbled by not trying to provide global coverage.
SlinkyOnStairs 5mo ago
> There is absolutely zero meaningful competition to Starlink in the maritime, aviation, and remote internet markets. There are roughly 100,000 ships at sea. There are roughly 15,000 planes in the sky. The remote internet markets are remote because either A) exceedingly few people live there, or B) exceedingly poor people live there. (And usually, both at the same time) This just isn't a big market. That's why the telecom giants haven't bothered. To justify a trillion dollar valuation you're gonna need a billion users. SpaceX would be better off putting fiber into the ground in Africa.

narrator 5mo ago

Starship is going to make whole entire industries viable that were not viable previously. It might even take a significant chunk of air freight which is going to be a big deal with rising oil prices.

thg 5mo ago
> Starship is going to make whole entire industries viable that were not viable previously. Starship is a complete and utter failure, as you can read about here, among other places: https://www.planetearthandbeyond.co/p/starship-is-going-nowhere https://www.planetearthandbeyond.co/p/starship-is-going-nowh... > It might even take a significant chunk of air freight which is going to be a big deal with rising oil prices. By being several magnitudes more expensive than an airplane would ever be?
- tristanj 5mo ago
  Starship in its current incomplete form (v3 fully expendable ship and booster) already has the lowest cost to orbit in $/kg of any launch vehicle ever. It's around $400/kg to orbit fully expendable. Add in booster reuse, which SpaceX has already demonstrated on test flight 9, and the cost to orbit drops to $200/kg.
  - thg 5mo ago
    A fully reusable Starship has a launch cost of around $75m - $90m and the last V3 launch managed 44 tonnes of payload on a sub-orbital flight of not even 200km (Starlink satellites have an orbit of around 550km). That's an optimistic launch cost of $1.700/kg for a rather meaningless altitude and assuming a fully reusable Starship that doesn't keep blowing up. I have no idea where you pulled your $400/kg number from, but it's complete and utter nonsense. To be economical at all, Starship needs to reach its target capacity of 100 tonnes to orbit, which is simply never going to happen. But even if it somehow does, it's physically impossible for Starship to ever make it further than the moon, at extreme costs, due to the refuelling requirements and fuel boil-off in orbit.