A Falcon 9 booster turns five years old—and just set a remarkable reuse record
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
SpaceX is now an AI,Social media company. Rockets are just the facade to sell stock. The final product is that 1.75t IPO on the backs of index funds and retirement funds as exit strategy.
Upvote
12
(48
/
-36)
As the comment above me points out. While it's an exciting milestone, it's hard to feel as excited and revved up as I felt circa 2016 about these kinds of accomplishments. SpaceX used to be about Space and the advancement of space.
Now it's a bloated hodgepodge of hype trains that's a whipping horse for Elon's insatiable need to be loved by his father.
This accomplishment is a massive milestone for humanity as a whole proving that the Clarke-esque future of 2001 isn't out of reach. Which will likely be the long term contribution of a company that is set to be riddled with so many capitalistic parasites that it's going to crumble and veer off course over the next decade.
I'm trying to take the long view that on the significance here, because there's not likely to be a company we recognize in 3 years. There's zero universes where the AI hype train that they've been saddled with will live up to the promises. Which will do terrible ugly things the to company.
But to bring things back to a slightly more positive note, I suspect this booster will continue ridding on plumes of fire until it meets a glorious demise. I'd wager that's somewhere between 40-50 missions, but I also would have bet 20 was a roughly hard limit, so maybe I'll get massively surprised and we'll see 80-100 missions out of the booster that could.
Edit-
The call out at the end about how this one rocket has flown as much or more than all of the ULA fleet combined in the last several years; does point out that the SpaceX experiment, whatever it's ultimate outcome as a company, has been a worthy addition to the annals of space flight history. They've done things thought impossible by the MIC contractors that would still have us begging to pay $1b a year just for the privileged of their existence not counting the costs of the flights themselves.
To see a rocket go up and down from space 35 times was the stuff of Buck Rogers, and now we've proven it's possible in real life. ULA is probably toast, but we can hope the new space contenders like Rocket Lab and BO, as well as the 2nd comers like Firefly can pick up the torch.
Now it's a bloated hodgepodge of hype trains that's a whipping horse for Elon's insatiable need to be loved by his father.
This accomplishment is a massive milestone for humanity as a whole proving that the Clarke-esque future of 2001 isn't out of reach. Which will likely be the long term contribution of a company that is set to be riddled with so many capitalistic parasites that it's going to crumble and veer off course over the next decade.
I'm trying to take the long view that on the significance here, because there's not likely to be a company we recognize in 3 years. There's zero universes where the AI hype train that they've been saddled with will live up to the promises. Which will do terrible ugly things the to company.
But to bring things back to a slightly more positive note, I suspect this booster will continue ridding on plumes of fire until it meets a glorious demise. I'd wager that's somewhere between 40-50 missions, but I also would have bet 20 was a roughly hard limit, so maybe I'll get massively surprised and we'll see 80-100 missions out of the booster that could.
Edit-
The call out at the end about how this one rocket has flown as much or more than all of the ULA fleet combined in the last several years; does point out that the SpaceX experiment, whatever it's ultimate outcome as a company, has been a worthy addition to the annals of space flight history. They've done things thought impossible by the MIC contractors that would still have us begging to pay $1b a year just for the privileged of their existence not counting the costs of the flights themselves.
To see a rocket go up and down from space 35 times was the stuff of Buck Rogers, and now we've proven it's possible in real life. ULA is probably toast, but we can hope the new space contenders like Rocket Lab and BO, as well as the 2nd comers like Firefly can pick up the torch.
Last edited:
Upvote
91
(106
/
-15)
Upvote
72
(72
/
0)
I believe index funds are slow tracking the IPO, so no ones retirement funds will be at risk until mid 2027.
Last I heard the IPO was 2x oversubscribed, meaning it has healthy demand and is likely to be successful.
Valuations don't mean anything anymore, they haven't meant anything for a long time and Tesla was the original meme stock.
Upvote
8
(17
/
-9)
I remember tuning in to watch all of SpaceX's launches. I distinctly remember laying in bed on a Sunday morning watching the launch on my iPad when CRS 7 disintegrated during launch (moar struts, right?). Now? I didn't even know the fleet leader was hitting another milestone. It'll probably hit 40.
What the SpaceX IPO is useful for is all the fools who helped Elon invest in Twitter in 2022. When the value of Twitter crashed because Elon wanted to kill the platform's ability to organize left-wing causes (#MeToo, etc.), those investors were underwater on their investment.
Having xAI merge with X, and then SpaceX merge with both of those, it helps Musk unlock the ability of the original Twitter investors get their investments back. Because they're riding the AI/Space hype trains.
The people who can sell early, based on what I've read, are the Twitter investors who can sell and get their original investments back.
So I might get downvoted to hell for this, but to be clear, I've read the articles. Elon cant sell out his stocks (unless he changes the rules again, which is not a zero-chance thing).
What the SpaceX IPO is useful for is all the fools who helped Elon invest in Twitter in 2022. When the value of Twitter crashed because Elon wanted to kill the platform's ability to organize left-wing causes (#MeToo, etc.), those investors were underwater on their investment.
Having xAI merge with X, and then SpaceX merge with both of those, it helps Musk unlock the ability of the original Twitter investors get their investments back. Because they're riding the AI/Space hype trains.
The people who can sell early, based on what I've read, are the Twitter investors who can sell and get their original investments back.
Upvote
25
(28
/
-3)
I suppose the positive spin is that the only way datacenters in space closes from a financial argument is if we are approaching the Clarke-esque future you reference.
Upvote
7
(9
/
-2)
I remember in the early days of Falcon 9 reuse, we used to joke in the comments how we would look forward to SpaceX making launch so frequent and reliable that it gets kind of boring. It is rather weird and very sad to look back on that and realize we got a monkey's paw wish, with today's reality of Elon and his actions obscuring much of the remarkable success that has come since.
Upvote
47
(49
/
-2)
So you think that this notable achievement should be quashed because elsewhere Musk is driving SpaceX in directions many find troubling? I'd argue that's exactly the sort of 'opinion-grounded' journalism that Trump is fighting for, and that alone should give you pause.
Part of balanced, worthwhile journalism, is reporting what is notable without giving in to the binary 'entity is good/bad' opinion filter.
Upvote
63
(68
/
-5)
Any insider can get the economic effect of selling their stocks without actually selling their stocks until later.
This is easily achieved with puts, can be achieved in a more complex strategy with forwards, can be achieved by taking the other side of a equity total return swap, etc. Basically they are entering into financial contracts with institutions in order to "sell" their stocks.
So Elon can absolutely monetize his shares before any lockup period ends.
Upvote
2
(8
/
-6)
Not sure that's what's happening. A lot of people dislike SpaceX/Elon Musk totally. A lot of people can also separate SpaceX, the Falcon 9 and the wonderful engineers who build it from the @#$hat that is Elon Musk. A lot of people still like the Falcon 9.
I also think it's cool when inanimate objects have been given souls by people. For example my fave booster, other than "worm logo" B1058 is B1050 for it's heroic "crash landing". Can't say that about Old Space booster XYZ.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5p1SDaXRaWY
So I'm glad that B1067 is 5 years old and still trucking, literally.
Upvote
21
(23
/
-2)
Presumably, SpaceX is tearing B1067 down every several flights, just to see what's wearing how, what's building up, and using that information to update the design of new boosters. It would be interesting to know what they've been finding, but I'm sure that's about the most tightly held information SpaceX has.
Upvote
9
(9
/
0)
I would have been interested in investing in spacex if it was strictly a rocket company. As long as AI is involved at all it’s a joke. And soon I bet they figure out a way to pile Tesla and the fake human robots into the company.
Last edited:
Upvote
8
(12
/
-4)
SpaceX valuation is sadly 10x what the rockets and Starlink/shield would be worth, driven by FOMO and an AI bubble that will last until the Next Big Thing squirrels the markets away.
Upvote
3
(8
/
-5)
I can't figure out why Elon would pile xAI into SpaceX. My closest guess is that its losses help shield SpaceX profits from being taxed.
Upvote
-2
(4
/
-6)
Quick question. How much of the original rocket is still in service?
I don't mean this to diminish the astounding nature of that feat, considering we used to throw them away EVERY DAMN TIME.
I'm just curious which parts require constant replacement. Is it just the skin, various connective assemblies underneath, etc...
I don't mean this to diminish the astounding nature of that feat, considering we used to throw them away EVERY DAMN TIME.
I'm just curious which parts require constant replacement. Is it just the skin, various connective assemblies underneath, etc...
Upvote
29
(30
/
-1)
You're absolutely right, but we should note - this is an opinion piece that is providing a specific narrative around the facts of this booster's launch. That's OK, and I generally enjoy the mix of reporting and opinion in the space articles here, but you're arguing for something I don't think this article is totally a part of.
I also think that's why, at least so far, the comments that are raising the issues of Musk and the IPO aren't as downvoted here as they often are in space articles. This article is an opinion piece, and opinions about the context it's happening in matter.
Upvote
-11
(3
/
-14)
Global internet access revenue is about $500 billion/year. Let's say the gross margin is 50% for SpaceX.
That's approximately $250 billion/year of profit valued at a conservative $2.5 to $5 trillion.
Satellite internet is good in rural areas, or about 20% of the population. So at 100% penetration in rural areas SpaceX is really looking at a $1 trillion valuation.
Folding in xAI lets the bankers represent the sum total of human efforts for their TAM which is how they say their revenue will eventually hit 100% of US GDP. Absolutely ridiculous, but they need to sell hopes and dreams in their slides to pull off this valuation.
Upvote
4
(10
/
-6)
Let's see if that can be divined from the launch patterns. For the flight leaders, since flight 20 ...
B1078, 28 flights total, 21 to 64 days, mean 43 days turnaround
B1063, 32 flights total, 28 to 74, mean 47
B1071, 34 flights total, 18 to 66, mean 38
B1067, 35 flights total, 23 to 75, mean 46
... Nope, nothing jumps out. Do we have any official comment about the inspection and refurbishment schedule the F9 team is following? They can evidently turn a booster around in under three weeks, but rarely need to: Demand is limited by Starlink (80% of F9 launches), and supply is limited by the fabrication of upper stages. If they want to pull a booster from the fleet for a leisurely inspection, it won't impair the schedule much.
Upvote
12
(12
/
0)
Upvote
3
(7
/
-4)
I had to groan at this, because it absolutely SHOULD NOT be $1.75 trillion, but you are correct that the IPO pricing target is based on that amount.
AI hype bubble has to keep on truckin'
Upvote
3
(5
/
-2)
The first person to state that fact (with a context quote) got no downvotes, and (as I'm writing this) 47 upvotes. I find that telling: people in this forum appreciate corrections.
I guess you're saying the downvotes on the second person is because they were 26 minutes late and didn't bother to provide context? I would agree with you there; there's a general dislike of people who jump into the conversation with stuff that's already been said earlier.
(I didn't downvote the example you're quoting, and I don't generally downvote just for being "late to the party", but sometimes it really feels like people are so eager to share, they can't be bothered to even scan through the comments)
(sadly, I'm breaking the cardinal rule of downvotes and talking about downvotes)
Last edited:
Upvote
16
(16
/
0)
That tracks. Considering that most of the money came from the same people who murdered a journalist in their embassy in Turkey, I'd expect that if their investment didn't return a healthy sum, Musk might find himself in the same kind of boat.
The Saudi's aren't happy when they get ripped off. And their money was a substantial part of what allowed Musk to buy Twitter in the first place. They must have been looking at the trends (not expecting the fuckwit in the white house to pick a fight with Iraq again) in their returns and sent Musk a message that they'd like to see some money made on Twitter, or else.
This, more than anything, I think is why Must threw everything into a pot and started turning up the heat on it. He's the kind who also drinks his own kook-aid, so he's looking to get wealthier, too.
Upvote
0
(3
/
-3)
I'm considering downvoting you just to follow the cardinal rule about downvotes, but I don't want to downvote your correct comment about downvotes, so I will help the people in the same conundrum by providing this very comment to downvote instead.
Upvote
17
(18
/
-1)
Depending on who you do ask, it's something like $600-700 billion, oddly enough there's quite a big spread from 400-ish to 1T.
20% share is fantasy, Starlink is limited in how many receivers you can have in a given area. I think 5-10% would be realistic max satellite internet share of global ISPs and with Amazon Leo coming to the market in a few years, plus CCP mandating their own monitored constellation, SpaceX is not going to hold all of it.
So we could guesstimate potential satellite internet is on $50B ballpark, for all operators combined.
Okay, possibly the share of revenues will be higher than 5-10% because satellite internet is premium price, kinda like Apple pulls in an oversized portion of mobile profits.
SpaceX may be looking for $1T valuation, no doubt about it, but it's about as based in reality as TSLA valuation.
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
If this is a reference to the Saudi PIF investment in Twitter, then you have it completely wrong. The Saudi PIF already had an investment in Twitter and they merely continued that investment. Of course every investor at that time helped with the purchase, but the Saudi's were not special in this regard. They rolled their existing $1.89 billion investment into the private company, which was $44 billion at the time of Musk's acquisition. That's less than 5% of the total amount, so your characterization of "substantial part" is simply not true.
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
The bigger factor over the course of things will be less the service for rural people and more the B2B segments. Providing a service that's the same price as Hughes Net or the like but 100Xs of times faster means happeir customers on planes and cruises etc.
It means better services for the guys out on the ocean trawling up fish etc.
We're also not counting the Military aspect which it seems like the DOD is absolutely rock hard for. The realtime access to high speed data the world over is a huge win for them and that's an expanded market not encompassed in the current revenue estimates.
SpaceX's proposed TAM is utterly bullshit, but I think your $50B cap is a bit low maybe not much but I'd wager about 50% when you include growth of undeserved or new markets. There's also things like the ability to bring a plug and play solution for internet even to the most remote corners of the world opening up very smart people that would otherwise never have had such access to the whole world. Which could bring quite a bit of unexpected growth.
But again still not worth of a $1T valuation. much less nearly $2T. The AI hype machine horseshit is the smoke and mirrors they are hoping will magically gin up that additional $1T in value.
Upvote
8
(8
/
0)
Downvoting on Ars, could be its own Ars investigative report. Like who is that "Downvote Fairy" who ensures that everyone is granted at least one downvote on certain articles?
Upvote
2
(3
/
-1)
The Saudi PIF investments in sports recently don’t exactly scream financial prudence. How much money did they splurge on LIV Golf? They at least have a chance of getting their money back from the Newcastle United purchase.
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)
On the other hand, much of what Starlink is (and will be sold as) is higher value connections than just people who can't get fibre.
Ship, planes, military etc etc.
They all pay more than the base consumer.
For example - a lot of companies have a Starlink connection now as a backup. And that connection is a very highly spec'd and at a special service level.
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
Falcon 9 is about 120 launches behind the record of Soyuz-U as the most launched orbital rocket.
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)
20% is 100% of all rural areas, and rural areas don’t have a problem with number of receivers - that’s what rural means.
Upvote
6
(6
/
0)
I'm wondering what the effect on Starlink's value will be if Russia and China continue to cut undersea fiberoptic cables.
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)