zlacker

>>g-mork+(OP)
SpaceX is too big to fail. It's important for national security.

I wonder if Elon wants to tangle all his businesses into SpaceX so they are all kept afloat by SpaceX's importance.

>>Button+C4
Elon can't legally financially entangle Tesla to SpaceX due to Tesla being a public company, so his hands are tied.

Tesla is clearly benefiting from protectionism and its sales would collapse if BYD were allowed to openly sell in the US. Most people just want affordable, maintainable and reliable cars.

>>protas+J7
> Elon can't legally financially entangle Tesla to SpaceX

Bill Ackman has proposed taking SpaceX public by merging it with his Pershing Square SPARC Holdings, distributing 0.5 Special Purpose Acquisition Rights (SPARs) to Tesla shareholders for each share held. Each SPAR would be exercisable for two shares of SpaceX, aimed at enabling a 100% common stock capitalization without traditional underwriting fees or dilutive warrants.

With SpaceX IPO set to be one of the biggest of all time, this could have a pretty gnarly financial engineering impact on both companies -- especially if the short interest (direct or through derivatives) remains large.

>>beambo+Ud
Why would SpaceX go public? They already have a robust enough private market to give liquidity to all of their employees and shareholders who want it. They can get more private investment.

Going public would add a lot of hassle for little to no gain (and probably a negative of having to reveal their finances).

>>jedber+Jg
It has been widely reported for weeks that SpaceX is planning to go public in a few months. The reason is they have big plans to run a vast network of AI servers in orbit and will need to raise a massive amount of funding. xAI merger fits with that plan. I'd assume SpaceX still plans to go public.

Was ignored on HN but here's an article explaining:

https://arstechnica.com/space/2025/12/after-years-of-resisti...

>>spikel+Sl
it wasn't ignored on HN, there were many articles correctly noting that building data centers in space is a stupid stupid idea because cooling things there is infeasible

>>airza+gq
Was doing some back of the envelope math with chatGPT so take it with a grain of salt, but it sounds like in ideal conditions a radiator of 1m square could dissipate 300w. If this is the case, then it seems like you could approach a viable solution if putting stuff in space was free. What i can't figure out is how the cost of launch makes sense and what the benefit over building it on the ground could be

>>woah+IK
What temperature were you assuming?

Because the amount of energy radiated varies with the temperature to the fourth power (P=εσT^4).

Assuming very good emissivity (ε=0.95) and ~75C (~350K) operating temperature I get 808 W/m2.

>>spikel+uT
I was adding some generous padding and rounding up. I assume they'd try to get it to operate as hot as possible