zlacker

>>g-mork+(OP)
> "The only logical solution therefore is to transport these resource-intensive efforts to a location with vast power and space. I mean, space is called 'space' for a reason. [crying laughing emoji]"

This is all the reasoning provided. It is quite sad how a company I admired so much has become embroiled in financial doohickery.

>>mmoust+q6
It’s not SpaceX’s fault. It’s still a company to admire, it’s just that nobody appears to be able to stop Musk.

I wonder why SpaceX investors aren’t revolting.

>>stingr+c01
> I wonder why SpaceX investors aren’t revolting.

Because if SpaceX were valued like a normal company, they would lose their money.

SpaceX, as technologically awesome as it is, simply cannot be that big of a company because the market for space launches is relatively small.

SpaceX is targeting an IPO at a valuation 500x earnings. They need to jump on the "AI" / datacenter bandwagon to even hope to sell that kind of valuation.

The whole "datacenters in space" thing is an answer to the question "what could require 1000x the satellite launches that we have now?"

It has nothing to do with what makes sense economically for datacenters!