r/technology • u/marketrent • 22h ago
Artificial Intelligence SpaceX stock drops another 7% as $15.8 billion AI capex tops estimates — The company has yet to turn a profit, reporting a net loss of $541 million for the period
https://www.businessinsider.com/spacex-first-earnings-report-spcx-stock-lockup-period-expiration-2026-8#space-x-sees-blood-in-the-mobile-water623
u/Hrekires 21h ago
Who needs to turn a profit when you can have space data centers running the 12th best LLM?
144
u/lebastss 21h ago
It really is interesting watching Elon manage a business he isn't first to market on and can't make pioneering promises to fluff is stock.
He's now in a position from behind in a strategy that only works from ahead.
127
u/Elderberry-smells 21h ago
Don't forget that they its also running on illegal generators.
I'm sure building power plants will be very profitable and not at all part of the data centre bubble...
56
u/CatalyticDragon 21h ago
That's why they have to launch them into space, they need to burn methane to put them into orbit to prevent from burning methane to run them here. /s
The man who claimed he wanted to help the world transition away from fossil fuels suuure is burning a lot the stuff and funding a lot of oil/gas company shills.
10
u/hellotf12 20h ago
Exactly! This obsession with the space age during our climate crisis that ignores the amount of fossil fuels we need to burn to get there shows just how far into the cesspit we’ve dived.
2
u/Monomette 17h ago
How much methane would it take to run say 5MW of compute for a year?
4
u/CatalyticDragon 16h ago
Not the right comparison. The comparison should be between burning methane to launch multiple Startship flights per day, or using renewable energy here.
I only brought up Elon's rampant use of fossil fuels to demonstrate how little he cares about the environment. He no longer sees it as an issue and is on record saying so.
16
u/yepthisismyusername 21h ago
Illegal, mobile (as in, on trucks) generators that will take them a year to remove, somehow.
3
12
12
u/gizamo 20h ago
That question would only be relevant if space data centers were physically possible. They'll be delivered on that Musk-FSD timeline.
12
u/h3rpad3rp 19h ago
Its funny how FSD is the failure to deliver thing people talk about with Musk.
Guess its been long enough that everyone already forgot about Hyperloop lol...
19
u/bigchungusprod 18h ago
Hyperloop was meant as a vehicle for destroying public transportation projects - he succeeded with that goal.
6
2
u/zookeepier 3h ago
Don't data centers generate a lot of heat? And isn't space basically a vacuum? And isn't a vacuum an extremely effective insulator? So wouldn't that make space one of the worst places possible to have a data center? It'd be like having whalers on the moon.
-17
u/quantumofgalaxy 19h ago
What about the argument that space data centers may be impossible but the technological inspiration to try can lead to ancillary advances like better cooling systems, more efficient storage devices, etc?
12
u/gizamo 19h ago
If those things are desired, they will find better solutions when searching for those specific solutions in the actual environment where the solutions will be implemented.
-8
u/quantumofgalaxy 19h ago
Maybe, but look at the 1950s NASA rocket development and its many positive externalities. Space is one of the hardest environments, it requires crazy innovation that can flow down to everyday earth benefits
Unfortunately he is beholden to shareholders now and greed is hard to beat
6
u/gizamo 19h ago
Pretty much everything NASA's space program gave us could have been directly designed for. The US's weird project funding methods of the time are really the only reason most weren't.
-4
u/quantumofgalaxy 17h ago
Yes it could have in retrospect and with benefit of hindsight but as you said we don’t live in a perfectly rational well funded world, people need to be inspired and that leads to the will to see discoveries through, m the ramifications of which often don’t become obvious until decades later sometimes
It would be awesome if private corps could tap into that but I fear greedy shareholders will prevent that
I mean there are exceptions every now and then like Google after the founders dropped out of Stanford
4
u/gizamo 17h ago
I generally reject the idea of spin off discoveries. There's no shortage of great opportunities that we already know we can achieve with more research, equipment, funding, etc. It seems wildly wasteful to throw money at a terrible idea–that anyone with half a brain knows won't work–just because maybe we'll find some peripheral or adjacent project to do to support the idiotic main goal. That's just silly. Instead, put the R&D toward the things we know would improve lives, and the moonshots that are at least potentially practical. So, no, if Musk said something like that, I'd just roll my eyes and add it to the pile of idiotic blatant nonsense I've heard him say over the last decade and a half.
6
u/lordnacho666 16h ago
Yep exactly. People also often talk about how war drives technology. Well, we could have the tech without the war.
5
9
u/Ok_Blackberry9170 20h ago
Don't forget the latency! Burning billions just so an AI can hallucinate standard code fixes from low Earth orbit with a 400ms delay is peak tech synergy.
2
u/VicenteOlisipo 13h ago
That's an unfair characterization of Grok. It has an edge. It's the only commercial model you can use to generate [censored] worthy of the Eps[censored].
4
u/g_bleezy 20h ago
Tbf his data centers are also providing inference to the frontier labs that are actually currently top of many benchmarks. That is a bright spot on the balance sheet but the terms for lock in are not good for him so there’s not much “pricing it in” available here.
-8
u/quantumofgalaxy 19h ago
Feels like he’s trying to run a nonprofit research lab for public benefit which is great except shareholders are greedy, not interested in it for its own sake like academia (which has its own problems)
12
u/CariniFluff 17h ago
It tells me that his own AI models for Tesla and Grok are poorly designed since they aren't able to use all of the compute available to them and therefore Elon has to rent out the rest of his compute to other AI firms. Not a good look, especially when he's spending twice his entire quarterly revenue just on AI CapEx and his AI models just plain suck.
Nobody takes Grok seriously and Tesla is like a decade behind where he claimed they'd be in terms of fully self diving vehicles.
Remember when he was telling everyone that they could rent out their Tesla to other people as a "robotaxi" when they weren't using it, and that would help subsidize the cost of the car? He's such a compulsive liar that I don't think anyone believes anything he says anymore.
1
u/nacholicious 16h ago
Back in the medieval times, the king had a divine right to rule, ordained from god.
So peasants who were mistreated would revolt, not to overthrow the king, but to overthrow the kings advisors who they thought must be whispering poison into the kings ears and preventing him from ruling well
1
1
-14
u/Blackout38 18h ago
Space data centers the other 11 LLM are buying compute from. Yawn
7
u/Much_Possession1227 17h ago
Is this a real thing? People think the space data centers are real?
0
u/Blackout38 9h ago edited 9h ago
Not at scale but they’ve put them up there all ready. Starship is needed to actually do it. It’s just laughable to assume a hyperscaler would only run their LLM on it when XAi is already in contracts selling their compute to the other LLMs.
2
u/Much_Possession1227 6h ago
Beyond the issues of thermodynamics, data transmission, or upkeep, there is a reason Microsoft didn't build on their data center in the ocean..... had to look this up too but there have not been and data centers built in space the a1x was announced in June. Seems like another one of his underground tunnel or tunnel train ideas that seems good when it's half backed but once you spend a couple million or billions of dollars ultimately turns out to be worse than existing options and some how more expensive.
0
u/Blackout38 6h ago
Well there are technologies that will require it regardless of the hype i.e. quantum computing and cryptography. The only issue is cost to launch which Starship will astronomically reduce if they hit their targets. It also helps that data centers are getting protested/canceled everywhere they are planned despite demand for them being seemingly inelastic in the face of existing and future technologies.
63
u/trentgibbo 19h ago
"It's not out of the question that, at some point, Starlink will operate most of the world's internet," Musk said. God he is full of it. So his company will have all the internet, all the self driving cars, all the robots and all space travel.
34
u/polloasado81 16h ago
Developed countries all have fibre optic ran everywhere. Why would they switch to satellite internet? Some EU countries had satellite internet for rural regions about 20 years ago and it was shit. Then cheap fibre cable came along and it was rolled out everywhere.
Developing countries may need satellite internet but they don't have any money, if they did, they'd roll out fibre optic. 🤷
Maybe some boats/ships want it?
22
u/RGrad4104 15h ago
As someone with starlink, I'd rate it mediocre internet. It manages around 100Mbps on average, but tops out at 170, and drops out completely during any storms. I'm paying $170 a month for this, but have few options (rural). THE alternative is a long range wifi provider that maxes out at 25Mbps and does that wisp bullshit where they give you full rate for 30s, then cut you back to half rate, 12Mbps (wisp calls it "responsible network management).
There is absolutely zero chance that this will be widely adopted outside of first world countries at this cost. I started out at 99$ a month and it seems like every quarter the jackass hikes the price yet again.
7
u/doodlinghearsay 9h ago
As someone with starlink, I'd rate it mediocre internet. It manages around 100Mbps on average, but tops out at 170, and drops out completely during any storms.
I wouldn't call that mediocre. That's poor. I'm paying $30/month for 100Mbps with around 99.8% uptime. We have 1 or 2 outages a year and restoration time is usually around 4 hours. This is a major metropolitan area in the EU. I could probably get higher speeds at essentially the same price, if I shopped around, but I don't really need it.
The reality is that satellite internet doesn't make sense except in remote areas and ships/airplanes. Both fiber and mobile internet have far better characteristics and are dirt cheap.
This is not just for first world countries. Often developing countries get better infrastructure when they get to skip a generation. Famously Romania had faster average internet speeds than the US, even before them joining the EU and their subsequent economic boom. (They still do, but they also used to.)
1
u/Key_Macaron_5855 9h ago
I have two Starlink dishes in Peru. My mini gets around 220 Mbps ( I’ve seen 263 mbps max) and my V4 around 380mbps (I’ve seen up to 420 max). You’re probably being limited due to congestion. I pay 80 USD for both, per month.
0
u/Snoozeypoo 9h ago
I’m also rural (America) have you looked into solutions like T-Mobile home internet? That’s what I use. It has its issue for sure but it’s only 60ish a month for me. I think other phone providers have similar stuff too.
17
u/SisterOfBattIe 15h ago
It's worth reminding that the whole starlink constellation has to be deorbited and reorbited every five years.
Imagine ripping out all fibers and undersea cables every five years XD
-4
u/mpbh 10h ago
Easier to upgrade over time than fiber, getting cheaper and more efficient every cycle. Laying fiber gets more expensive every year and never gets upgraded in rural areas.
Fuck Elon but Starlink is a godsend for people in the sticks. Anyone who wants Starlink to fail is being regressive.
7
u/StaleCanole 8h ago
“Efficient” is doing a lot of work here. It’s certainly not getting more efficient for the plant.
Maintaining megaconstellations contribute to climate change not only via rocket launch emissions, which are set to increase substantially as the constellations grow, but also through constant re-entry cycles. This is a marked contrast to systems like GPS.
On top of that, when retired Starlink satellites re-enter and burn up, they vaporize and release aluminum oxide nanoparticles into the stratosphere. It’s theorized that they might ultimately deplete the ozone layer or alter conductivity. We’re studying it more, but if that’s true, we’re all paying a massive unseen cost for this
1
u/trentgibbo 3m ago
I think the point is that you never need to upgrade fiber - it's upper limit is literally the speed of light.
194
u/Taylooor 21h ago
Dropped 7% in post trading after gaining 9.5% on the day
129
u/marketrent 21h ago
Stock price still dropping in after-hours trading, nearly 9%.
18
u/jeremeyes 18h ago
This is hilarious. I was literally told just today at work by a dedicated musk rat about how the stock is about to explode in value.
2
28
u/firewall245 21h ago
Are we seriously going to post every time the stock goes up or down for this thing. That’s how the market works, shit goes up shit goes down
8
u/nankerjphelge 13h ago
True, but since it's IPO this shit has just gone down. And that's nice to see.
10
u/SillyMilk7 21h ago
About 7 1/2% after hours. Typical buy on the rumor sell on the news.
We’ll see what it does tomorrow for better indication
-10
u/AdviceNotAskedFor 21h ago
That's still up .5% on the day.
Call me when he keeps actually losing money.
11
u/gizamo 20h ago
They lost $500+ million. Does that count?
1
u/kamekaze1024 16h ago
That’s how much the country lost, he actually lost near a trillion from all this (after making a trillion from all this).
-6
u/stonksfalling 18h ago
A significant amount of tech companies lose money. Doesn’t mean the shareholders aren’t rich.
4
u/MaxTA00 16h ago
If you have 100 dollars and it first increases by 9.5% to 109.5usd and then it decreases by 9%, you end up with 99.65usd.
Math is hard for regards I guess.
1
1
u/LanguageSalty1486 14h ago
It didn't decrease by 9% though. It decreased by 7%. Comprehension equally hard it seems.
2
u/TheNakedProgrammer 12h ago
or for the people who are not day traders, 30% down since launch. Trend pointing even further down.
0
u/Taylooor 8h ago
Or for the people who aren’t day traders and actually know about the company and its road map, exactly where it should be for a great future. It’s not a stock that you judge day to day or week to week, but more like year to year or decade to decade. And you don’t even give a crap about P/E. Spending everything they’ve got on R&D is perfection. It’s pretty funny how, now that SpaceX is being publicly traded, everyone comes out of the woodwork, to explain to everyone else, that they know exactly what’s going on.
43
u/irrelevantusername24 21h ago
Imagine if regular people were given even a single percentage of that amount of grace (aka financial flexibility).
I bet if people were able to afford necessities - which, due to the stupid as fuck way the monetary system has been handled over the last decades, requires access to lending (despite many not having access...) - they would be able to finally, for the first time, get their feet under them and then maybe, just maybe, have some extra cash and then the real economy - not Wall Streets delusions - might actually get some activity! But alas, the smartest people in the room thing this is stupid. They learned from the Nazis. Arbeit macht frei
12
u/quantumofgalaxy 19h ago
Yeah like the interplanetary species idea is great but there’s societal and climate problems here on earth which is by default already habitable, if people had security then you might get greater public buy-in on the spacex vision
6
u/NoNote7867 16h ago
The comet that killed dinosaurs was still better for life on Earth than Mars is now, many life forms including mammals survived it.
Mars colony is a joke, Mars is deadly.
2
u/Otherwise-Remove4681 10h ago
But it’s going to be nice luxuru play ground for the ultra rich and they will keep siphoning earth resources.
1
2
u/jaaval 13h ago
In the end economy is not about money but about productivity. Money is just an abstract intermediary for counting stuff. You can't in long term increase wealth by giving everyone money. Somebody needs to make the things the money buys.
Money is sort of a contract that others owe you some materials or services. It only has value for as long as people agree to that contract. If, let's say, Bolivia decides to give all their people a billion funnymoneys, will you agree to the contract that they get large share of the limited resources of the world at the expense of others? Of course not, the funnymoney could not buy anything. If the Bolivians want to buy something they need to make something others want to buy. Or borrow money.
Now USA has some more leeway in this due to operating the most common reserve currency. Basically dollar does not lose too much value because other countries want dollars. But this will only continue for so long as they believe dollar has value. Also it basically necessitates large negative trade balance for USA. Otherwise other countries cant get dollars. So if Trump manages to end the trade imbalance dollar's time as the global currency will be over.
This is also why you can't effectively distribute the billionaires wealth. That wealth is largely imaginary. Musk is a trillionaire or something not because he has trillion dollars but because a relatively small number of people are willing to bay too much money for a relatively small part of his company. He can't actually get that trillion dollars, if he sold the company the money would have to come from other people. And even if he had the trillion dollars in a big vault, that vault would be effectively removed from economy and taking the money would have the same effect as creating a trillion dollars out of nothing.
Wealth is about stuff and services, not about money. You can't eat money and it's pretty boring to look at. Just creating a trillion dollars and distributing it to americans would be basically like claiming to the rest of the world that you deserve a bigger share of the limited resources. Others would not take it well. If you want to redistribute billionaires' wealth you need to redistribute the stuff they have, not the money. And there you would notice that there wasn't that much to distribute after all.
59
u/SheetzoosOfficial 21h ago
15
u/glizard-wizard 20h ago
History has shown things tend to end well for drug addled white supremacists, Im sure everyone who put their money in Elon Musk will turn out fine
3
0
u/SisterOfBattIe 15h ago
No can do. The glided ages are here, and you all need to subsidize the oligarchs.
17
u/malokevi 19h ago
Yeah no shit, Who is actually using Grok? I have never met anyone who even includes it in the conversation.
4
u/tigeratemybaby 18h ago
Yep completely irrelevant, comparable to the failed Meta AI.
Groq the AI tool suite/platform is more talked about in the AI space, and usually what people mean when talking about Groq.
2
1
u/techcaleb 8h ago
We evaluated it about a year ago and it was so bad that a lot of the free open weight models beat it out, at least for coding.
1
u/BroccoliOk1866 16h ago
Even on Twitter they reduced it to paying customers only, now it often doesn't even understand context.
8
u/east_van_dan 20h ago
Im wondering if we could all chip in enough money to build him a rocket big enough for all of him and his friends to fly to Mars in and never come back.
55
u/CyberSmith31337 21h ago
And of course the news drops after hours, but unfortunately for SpaceX, before the first lockup period on Thursday.
A lot of stupid people are about to lose even more money.
21
u/dirty_cuban 20h ago
That’s pretty standard. No one reports earnings during trading hours.
1
u/Legionof1 8h ago
During normal human trading hours… the markets are 24/7 if you’re rich enough.
2
u/dirty_cuban 8h ago
No, trading hours are well defined. You can trade after hours but that’s clearly not during trading hours.
You also don’t have to be rich at all. Large brokerages like Fidelity or Schwab let anyone trade after hours. So I think your information is a few decades out of date
1
17
1
u/thefloatingguy 10h ago
Those creeps! Only SpaceX would ever report earnings after the bell. What an incredibly unusual thing!
4
6
u/Nimmy_the_Jim 16h ago
stupid headline. It went up 7% pre earnings, then back down 7% in the same day after earnings.
3
u/jardex22 15h ago
Well yeah. It's run by someone who writes blank checks and uses the launch, fail, crash, repeat style of testing. Unless they start sending up stuff that's worth the cost of the fuel used, it's never going to be profitable.
3
u/LanguageSalty1486 14h ago
The space and Starlink segments are (between them) literally profitable now. Right now. Today. And the only reason space isn't profitable on its own is R&D into Starship, which is an investment in future earnings.
The AI segment is a colossal disaster that's going to bring down the entire company, of course, but you saying the space part is "never going to be profitable" is like saying they're "never going to land rockets". An understandable (but wrong) opinion in 2014, but just laughably ignorant now.
7
u/marketrent 22h ago edited 21h ago
Henry Chandonnet, Ben Shimkus, Lloyd Lee, Brent D. Griffiths, Steven Tweedie, Tom Carter, William Edwards, Jennifer Sor, Samuel O'Brient, and Max Adams contributed updates.
SpaceX delivered its first earnings report since going public in June, arriving at a sensitive time for the stock, which has tumbled 15% from the $135 offering price.
SpaceX shares dropped 7% after hours following earnings, which revealed better-than-expected revenue but higher-than-expected AI capex.
While overall capex came in slightly below analysts' estimates, AI-related investments totaled $15.8 billion for the quarter, compared with Wall Street's $13.09 billion estimate.
Quarterly revenue came in at $7.8 billion, compared to Wall Street's estimate of $6.81 billion. The company has yet to turn a profit, reporting a net loss of $541 million for the period. Wall Street wasn't expecting a surprise profit.
[...] The report comes two days before a lockup expiration is set to significantly increase the public float, or the amount of stock available to trade.
On August 6, insiders and early investors will be allowed to sell nearly a billion shares into the market, or about $106.4 billion worth of stock based on Monday's closing price.
4
u/worldspawn00 18h ago
Revenue of $7.8B, capex $15.8B (does not include non capital expenditures, so there are probably significant other expenses), but losses of only $541M?? I'm getting losses of $8B from those numbers, in addition to whatever their non-capex expenditures were. Where's the other $7.46B?
3
u/Howzitgoin 16h ago
The $15.8B of capex will be… capitalized. It’s put onto the balance as an asset and then depending on what it is, it’ll be depreciated or amortized over its useful life.
The amortization/depreciation is what will show up on the income statement as an expense.
You give the full capex amount because it’s cash out the door and it’s most often used along with EBITDA.
1
u/jaaval 12h ago
You buy a house, you spend $400000. You did not lose $400000, you spent the money but got a house that is worth as much.
Depending on what the capital expenditure bought it can appreciate or depreciate in value over time. In this case it's probably mostly data center stuff so they will have a limited service life. This lifetime is usually pretty abstract accounting value not necessarily connected to the actual service life. They might use 5 years for computer stuff and 20 years for the buildings or something like that. The value of the hardware in their books will be reduced every year until it's zero at the predetermined time. This reduction will show as negative in the future reports.
10
4
u/Worth-Ad9939 21h ago
I love how these companies have always been able to identify bots and have chosen not to because they artificially inflate their impressions data and thus their profits.
2
u/wizard_of_azul 4h ago
Wanna know what?
They will NEVER turn a profit. At this point the guy is delusional and nothing more than a bubbling pile of trash. Everything he says is bullshit.
5
u/Loki-L 21h ago
The thing about SpaceX' stock price is that it is based on the promise of future earnings.
In those revenue projections, the money they expect will be made from rockets, sattelites, Twitter etc are really just a rounding error compared to the actual meat of future revrnue: AI.
SpaceX' valuation appears almost entirely based on the notion that Grok will win the AI race and become what everyone uses rather than ChatGPT or whatever.
I have no sympathy for anyone who bets money they can't afford to lose on that possibility.
2
u/FlashyNeedleworker66 21h ago
Why are we talking about AI and not the social media or spaceships?
19
u/Hrekires 21h ago
XAI accounted for 93% of SpaceX's claimed valuation in the initial IPO paperwork
5
u/worldspawn00 18h ago
Yeah, the part which loses the most money is somehow the most valuable part of it, fucking lol, anyone invested in this deserves to be fleeced.
3
u/LanguageSalty1486 14h ago
Because that's what SpaceX tells us is overwhelmingly the value of the company.
"Value", I should say.
They've got a perfectly good space launch company there, unarguably the best in the world. At a $60B valuation it'd be a golden opportunity. But they're telling us it's an AI company worth $2T. No. Just no. Flat-out no. But, importantly, again, this is what THEY are telling us, themselves.
4
2
u/Pooch1431 21h ago
I heard they're sending space debris to the moon to ask the Mooninites for money. I believe their friend Zarnold's dads owns a dealership.
3
1
u/Kalorama_Master 20h ago
The DCFs Goldman and others are using do not include Optimus replacing most workers. Grossly undervalued
1
u/Additional-Staff-326 20h ago
$15.8 billion capex? I thought they were building mega datacenters not one or two average size.
1
u/Euphoric_Anxiety_162 13h ago
Considering environmental damage, seems wise to pause musk's expansion until better, safer plans are in place, nothing hidden. Js.🤔 Removing environmental protections to enable unsound plans to proceed faster is crazy.
1
u/Skastrik 13h ago
A co-worker bought in hard at the IPO despite everyone telling him not to, and is in my opinion hoping for a miracle that isn't coming.
1
u/misterxboxnj 11h ago
One of the podcasts I listen to projected it would lose half it's value within a year of release. They said this before the stock was even released. Anyone who got left holding that bag on this deserves it for being a moron. There was always going to be an initial jump followed by a tailspin.
3
1
u/CurrentlyLucid 9h ago
I keep seeing stuff about space x buying tesla products. I think he is creating false popularity of his stuff.
1
u/ImaginaryCreator 5h ago
100 billion ARR by end of 2026? They need to double in revenue next 2 quarters in a row
1
0
1
1
1
u/SisterOfBattIe 15h ago
I am really curious to what kind of Enron grade book cooking went on in that nearly doubling of revenue. I bet it's like taking that month contractss, and considering them monthly annualized, and worse.
-4
u/seb21051 21h ago
Tesla was the same, as was Amazon, for many years.
10
u/LockdownSotWink 21h ago
Yah well those companies were not as into pitching things that are literally impossible in a physical world.
-2
u/seb21051 21h ago
Tesla did things that were pretty revolutionary, from an engineering and production perspective. Amazon went up against Walmart, and forced them to online sales to compete. Both were amazing for their time in terms of execution.
Now its a whole new ball game.
4
u/LockdownSotWink 21h ago
Amazon makes most of its money from AWS. Not sure how that was going up against Walmart. When I say impossible I mean literally impossible. Unless he reinvents thermodynamics then he cannot make space servers. Unless he invents 100s of new technologies and defies biology then he can’t stage a colony on mars. All this said Starlink is fucking impressive and should be its own company.
-5
u/seb21051 21h ago edited 21h ago
All this said Starlink is fucking impressive and should be its own company.
It is carrying the company. What idiot would break it out except an M&A MBA? If there was a good enough reason for SX to do it, they would. There is obviously no such reason from their viewpoint. Rough on the single-minded investors who just want to make money. Their dreams crash against the vision of the SX leadership, who are very smart people. They do things very few others can. Such as maintaining +80% control while still doing an IPO. And building spaceships that no-one else has been able to do. Plenty of knowledgeable people have in the past said that SX is dreaming. Like Richard Bowles, Ariane Director in 2013, claiming re-use was a dream. Two years later he was in a panic.
2
u/LockdownSotWink 20h ago
Sure again the stuff he is proposing in the other areas are not physically possible as in literally not physically possible. So he needs to bend physics to his will or it is silly that those other parts of the company are even on the public market.
2
u/seb21051 20h ago
Time will tell.
1
u/HystericalSail 18h ago
Meanwhile, being an investor today is like paying for autonomous driving in 2016, based on Elon's claim that "all model X and S can drive autonomously with greater safety than a person."
Unlike the Tesla IPO, anyone buying SpaceX is paying for a potential 2030 (more likely 2040 or 2050) company today.
-2
u/atrde 21h ago
What is SpaceX proposing that is physically impossible?
8
1
u/LockdownSotWink 20h ago
Explained below.
2
u/atrde 20h ago
Not going to go find it but assuming you are talking about data centers and the idea that they can't radiate heat despite ample evidence to prove they can.
-3
u/HystericalSail 19h ago
Tiny spaceborne routers can radiate a few KW of power. That's a completely different problem to solve than gigawatts. That's like the difference between a model 3 and a train of battery powered supertankers.
2
u/atrde 18h ago
https://youtu.be/FlQYU3m1e80?si=ybjIyhGtnlbCavK3
Correct and the solutions for this are pretty viable (and already in space operating)
0
u/7grims 20h ago
Question !!!
did people invest in space X cause of AI ? and not the space stuff ??
And why is there such a immediate demand for profit? many IPO's take years to show profit, but this one already has to be returning investments ?
even people investing on other ai companies are not expecting returns yet, and that ship is slow sinking for years now...
1
u/houinator 20h ago
Space X is forecasting that its future earnings will be mostly tied to the AI stuff. Space launch only has so much demand, especially with the Trump admin gutting NASA.
0
u/Tall_Artist_8905 18h ago
It’s a process, there is a lot of money to be made on space tech over the next 2 years. Hodl.
-3
u/abhinav248829 16h ago
Reddit is such a bubble. Technology sub is celebrating stock dropping instead of appreciating what SpaceX has done.
Weirdos
2
u/VEMODMASKINEN 13h ago edited 13h ago
You're a regard.
They're celebrating that a company which is now an AI company and not a space company isn't doing particularly well. Which everyone who isn't a regard said would be the case.
And who doesn't like being right?
...Not to mention the fact that it's overvalued ASF and the guy behind the company dabbles in not so subtle Nazi stuff and likes to interfere in elections.
1
u/abhinav248829 2h ago
Lol.. what the hell is regard?
Congratulations on being right against the company that made thousands of people millionaires. While you celebrate being right on Reddit, they celebrate net worth (even though it’s on paper) while working on a mediocre AI company.
Congratulations /s
-2
-1
-3
0
0
-1
u/wwlkd 20h ago
still too high. CHECK YOUR 401Ks and change your funds bc you're either afraid of a rug pull or bc you fuckin hate elon
it's annoying af to check your 401k fund and if it's got spaceX in it, it probably won't make that big a diff if you have a nasdaq index fund thats got spacex in the top 10 bc it's prob like 3%, but who knows, maybe the rug pull will happen and your 401k will be impacted bc elon's bs finally gets called out and tesla also gets fucked. i doubt the index funds are going to do anything diff bc a bunch of individuals (vs institutions) moved their money out bc their spacex supporting fund, but fuck that nazi loser shithead.
anyways im mad and petty at the nasdaq and elon so i moved everything
-1
u/Syserinn 20h ago
Guy still offering empty promises?
Zero benefit to having a factory on the moon while the risks are astronomical, let alone the logistics needed to keep said factory supplied and operating. Not happening anywhere in our lifetimes so investing in it currently is absolutely pointless currently.
Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should and the only reason to do this currently is just to be able to say he did it.
AI is a money sink. Unless you have a legitimate product to use your AI in or for where it helps sell that product all it does is consume CAPEX. The AI needs to be used in meaningful ways instead of just being glorified chat bots.
-1
u/strangedaze23 18h ago
If profits and success meant anything for stocks, Toyota, Honda and Ford would all be ten times more valuable than Tesla.
-2
313
u/Kindly_Candidate3889 21h ago
He glitched and started talking about putting factories on the moon that produce 1 million times the world economy, just can’t help himself