this post was submitted on 07 Jun 2026
851 points (98.6% liked)

Technology

85645 readers
3401 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Greyghoster@aussie.zone 114 points 2 weeks ago (20 children)

Never understood the business model for SpaceX and Starlink. Huge capital and operational costs without a clear understanding of who is paying for it.

[–] Juviz@lemmy.zip 69 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (8 children)

For Starlink and SpaceX, I can probably understand the business model, considering the race to getting more satellites to orbit be it for surveying or in case of Starlink stable Internet anywhere. But anything beyond that, like data centers in space I just ridiculous. No way that their valuation is anywhere near what it is realistically.

[–] Greyghoster@aussie.zone 60 points 2 weeks ago (5 children)

I look at Starlink where currently about 6 spacecraft deorbit a week and need replacement as a huge operational cost. Many SpaceX launches are Starlink launches, it raises the question of whether this is a circular or self fulfilling industry.

[–] Juviz@lemmy.zip 9 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

As far as I understood, I always thought that they just used other people’s rockets to piggyback their own satellites to space basically for free

[–] Greyghoster@aussie.zone 13 points 2 weeks ago

Haven’t heard that though you need a lot of other launches with space available….

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[–] panda_abyss@lemmy.ca 44 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

It’s a FOMO play for morons.

The entire valuation is that they say that they can find $28T of businesses on mars and the moon, that that creating these business ideas is something they can do repeatably.

[–] IrateAnteater@sh.itjust.works 22 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

To be fair, you're only a moron if you are considering it a "hold forever" stock. If you get out in time, or even if you miss-time it, that's just gambling, which only makes you a moron if you can't afford the loss.

[–] ryannathans@aussie.zone 8 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

No single stock should be a hold forever play (unless you count ETFs as a single stock)

[–] Greg@lemmy.ca 12 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

A steady dividend stock might be a hold forever stock. Especially if you don't want to realize the capital gains of the stock's appreciation.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] pennomi@lemmy.world 22 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Starlink is massively profitable, look at their balance sheets. It’s very simple, their users pay them a lot of money to access the internet. Far, far more than the launch costs to maintain the constellation.

Their defense launch business is also profitable, though I haven’t checked how much.

The Starship development and stupid acquisitions (xai) have been a money pit though.

[–] Lydon_Feen@lemmy.world 19 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Starlink is the only part of SpaceX operations that turns a profit.

Rocket launches do not, and xAi is a bottomless money pit just like every other AI venture.

[–] pennomi@lemmy.world 15 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

I don’t think that’s quite true. (Happy to be proven wrong if somebody has better numbers than me.)

From what I can see the launch business generated $4.1 billion, but profits in that segment are negative because the $3 billion in Starship development costs are lumped in to that. The overall loss (-$600 million) would instantly turn into great profit if they decided to give up on Starship.

But for sure, xAi is a nightmare. Absolutely Elon trying to bail himself out again.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] toebert@piefed.social 13 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (4 children)

Stsrlink is about the only thing in the company pulling in solid revenue. There's a good analysis on https://newspaceeconomy.ca/2026/05/30/what-is-starlinks-financial-performance

But basically it's a subscription service which they can sell around most of the planet and compete with infrastructure heavy services (as in expensive to replace them). They also have a lot of enterprise customer usecases (like agriculture and construction) as well as cashcow government (army).

Their growth is actually massive compared to last year, and starlink itself is already profitable. Their economy gets better with the investment in the rocket tech. Starship will be able to lift 20x the amount of starlink than falcon 9, apparently also cheaper, while the next gen starlink sats will also be able to serve a lot more customers. That'll drive their operating cost down, while allowing selling more.

(Just to be clear, spacex as a company is still hot garbage because of the bundling of x and xai and also probably the control structure giving musk all the power while not even holding majority stake, the above is just about starlink and the rocket tech.)

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] eleijeep@piefed.social 11 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

And doesn't SpaceX now also own xAI and Xitter? He's trying to offload his terrible investments.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] wewbull@feddit.uk 10 points 2 weeks ago

Starlink is the part of spaceX making money. Selling a low latency global communications capability is a sound business model. The rocketry part is close to break even. I suspect it could do with a few more launches that weren't starlink.

It's xAI that's tanking the whole thing. Without that SpaceX would be profitable. With it, it's a trash stock.

load more comments (14 replies)
[–] anon_8675309@lemmy.world 55 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Why do people like this guy? Tell him to fuck off already.

[–] brachiosaurus@mander.xyz 12 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Because he has a massive public presence. Why do people like mcdonald and not burgermeister? Because they have never hear of the latest. The proper way to give this guy the middle finger is to stop giving him any exposure if not for serious stuff that show he's scum.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] formergijoe@lemmy.world 50 points 2 weeks ago (11 children)

I can't wait for my 401k to lose a significant chunk of its value within the next 5 years because some chud at Fidelity needed to ride Elon to the moon. And also the AI crash.

[–] galbraith@lemmy.world 31 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

The S&P 500 rejected adding SpaceX though. So no worries from them but when AI crashes and burns so will your 401k.

[–] dhork@lemmy.world 12 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

They didn't reject adding SpaceX, they simply said they would not change the rules to add it early, like the other indexes are. Those rules include a minimum time listed as a public company, a certain percentage of shares being floated to the public, and some profitability. I doubt SpaceX ever gets there.

Some of those other AI companies might make it through the gauntlet, though, and be listed eventually.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
[–] panda_abyss@lemmy.ca 46 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

That’s 59% growth annually, every year, for 10 years straight.

Any miss or early miss throws the schedule off significantly.

[–] eleijeep@piefed.social 16 points 2 weeks ago

Pretty close to Moore's Law, a doubling approximately every 18 months.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 34 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (12 children)

Now that even main Indices (which were supposed to be much safer to invest in - via things like ETFs - than individual stock picking) are being shamelessly rigged to feed Retail and Fund money to the IPO pires, you should literally not be invested in any US Stock Market by the time this and other AI IPOs happen.

Literally even having money under your matress (even with the current inflation) is safer than being in any way form or shape invested in the Nasdaq 100 and if this shit is the straw that breaks the camel's back, matress savings storage is safer that being invested anywhere in a US stock market.

I was in none other than Lehman Brothers in the 2008 Crash and saw that shit from the front row and all of this crap (the ever more articles about how AI is not delivering returns for companies using it, the steep increases in AI usage fees - which stink of desperate attempts at monetising it, which in turn mean that either the companies selling AI services have run out of runway or believe AI cannot improve further hence their investment must start producing returns NOW - these 3 AI IPOs pretty much at the same time all with insane valuations and the shameless rigging of Indices) are making alarm bells ring in my head like crazy.

Think of it as alarmism if you want.

I can tell you one thing for sure from my own experience in 2008 Crash: there were but a few obscure signs that shit was about to hit the fan back then (for example, there was an article in The Economist about how the Credit Derivative positions of both Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers were 2x higher than the 3rd largest and the rest of the Industry, plus some wispers of Goldman Sachs reducing their exposure to Credit Derivatives) and between that and the first big crack - Bear Stearns collapsing and being sold the JPMorgan for peanuts - it was but a few weeks and between that and Lehman Brothers going bankrupt and the markets going into an uncrontrolled crash, it was about a week, so expect the same kind of time scale in the transition from "this all looks kinda suspicious" to the first "oh shit" (maybe OpenAI's IPO?!) to an out of control fall of the markets that no matter what they try Central Banks are unable to stop until it hits a stable new and much lower level, and meanwhile all that shit will be throwing shrapnel into the rest of the Economy, not just via retraction in Financial Markets such as the Money Markets but via the complete collapse of everything proped up by the current data center projects (most of which not even yet started yet already propping up things like land acquisition and long term equipment purchasing contracts).

Judging by how P/Es in the Nasdaq 100 are now literally TWICE as much as in 2022, in the least bad scenario the Nasdaq market will collapse to half its value right now as P/E levels go back to 2022 (which was much closer to historic average), though judging by my experience in 2008 Crash plus there being other massive asset price bubbles in other markets (such as realestate), IMHO as the the bursting of the bubbles feed each other and impact the broader Economy which in turn impacts back all kinds of markets - via retractions in Consumption and Investment as well as spiking Loan Default rates in turn feeding into retractions in credit from traditional Banks and Money Markets - this shit will go much further than a mere 50% fall in the Nasdaq).

[–] megopie@lemmy.blahaj.zone 11 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

I think a lot of people will brush it off what ever happens with SpaceX because Xai is the weakest of the big model providers. I don’t think we’ll even get to the openAI IPO. I think the S1 or IPO from anthropic will be the real kicker, because they’re the darling at the moment. The one that seems to have the most momentum and business customers.

If their S1 turns out to be utter dog water and/or their IPO flops, that’s when the real panic comes. When people say “oh crap, these GPU data centers don’t have customers that can make money”, and that narrative will hit all the people building data center and all the people selling hardware to them. Amazon, Google, Microsoft, Nvidia, that’s like… what, 25% of the S&P 500? That seems like a big enough hit to catch a lot of other stuff in the blast radius.

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] applebusch@lemmy.blahaj.zone 33 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

in order to achieve that they'd have to hire pretty much the entire aerospace industry. everyone in the usa with any expertise in rockets or satellites. im doing my part by never working for that fucking fascist piece of shit.

[–] nullify3112@lemmy.world 13 points 2 weeks ago

I’m sorry to i form you that they plan to have a majority of their business revenue come from their AI division, not their satellite division and definitely not their rocket division

[–] aeronmelon@lemmy.world 29 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] jobbies@lemmy.zip 28 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

This is nuts. Can someone explain this cos I just don't get it. Why would you invest in a company if its well established that its unlikely you'll ever make a profit or even get that money back??

[–] ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net 39 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (3 children)
  1. Buy stock when it's valued at $1.75 trillion
  2. Elon says on twitter he thinks it will be worth $3 trillion soon
  3. Some idiots buy stock, price goes up
  4. You sell
  5. Profit

You can keep doing this as long as there's a bigger idiot down the line. If you're still holding the stock when it collapses you're the biggest idiot and you lose.

[–] Triasha@lemmy.world 26 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (3 children)

SpaceXs initial valuation is so large it will distort the market, and they changed the rules so the index funds will all buy shares automatically to balance their portfolios, which will shoot the price up and balloon the valuation even further, then Elon and the investors that helped him buy twitter can sell at ludicrous prices at the expense of American 401ks and and passive managed pension funds.

It's a trillion dollar rug pull in broad daylight.

Edit- Nasdaq changed their rule, S&P has not.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] DupaCycki@lemmy.world 14 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Tl;dr - Not a single person would be investing in SpaceX. Americans' retirement funds would be invested into it, without their knowledge or consent, regardless of how obvious the outcome is.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] laurenceOfSuburbia@lemmy.world 9 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (4 children)

they are forcing us to invest by stealing from our 401k.
because nasdaw and russel rigged inclusion rules

check your 401k people, you might need to move into other ETF to avoid AI companies and bubble

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] reksas@sopuli.xyz 26 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

why people invest in this? they will just lose their money

[–] SkunkWorkz@lemmy.world 27 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

As long as there is a sucker willing to pay more they will gain money. And unfortunately there are millions of suckers on the planet. Fundamentals don’t mean anything with this IPO. It’s basically all hype based like Pokemon cards.

[–] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 18 points 2 weeks ago (5 children)

One of the big problems with investing is that the average investor thinks they're smarter than the average investor.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] brachiosaurus@mander.xyz 21 points 2 weeks ago (7 children)

All they have to do is to start putting ads on space and none of us will be able to do anything about it because we are a bunch of peasants.

[–] 7101334@lemmy.world 11 points 2 weeks ago

We can burn the hypothetical companies which obstruct our heavens.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] Sludgehammer@lemmy.world 21 points 2 weeks ago

Right, but hear me out: I know that SpaceX is impossibly overvalued and that makes me smart. So what if I bought some SpaceX stock, waited for some rubes to buy the stock from me at higher price and then I cashed out? Since I'm so smart, I'm sure I could get in and get out before the whole thing falls apart. /s

[–] nosuchanon@lemmy.world 16 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Inflation will be 60x soon enough.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Sanctus@anarchist.nexus 13 points 2 weeks ago (7 children)

Doesn't matter, at this rate, what will even be here in a decade?

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] thisbenzingring@lemmy.today 12 points 2 weeks ago (5 children)

If they can get to an astroid with some titanium or other rare minerals, they can probably be worth it. But I don't see that happening in my lifetime

[–] CmdrShepard49@sh.itjust.works 13 points 2 weeks ago

Getting there isn't a problem. The problem is what you do once you're there. There's no way to mine an asteroid and bring those minerals back to earth and I don't see any way for that to change for quite a long time.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] SirBucksworth@lemmy.world 11 points 2 weeks ago

Well… with the help of a lot of naive investors, some pedophile politicians and the amount of drugs he’s taking, everything is in the realm of possibilities

[–] DupaCycki@lemmy.world 8 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Here's the twist. SpaceX doesn't have to do anything at all. It can go bankrupt tomorrow and its valuation will only go up.

The stock market never made any sense whatsoever, and this is just peak stock market behaviour.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›