zlacker

[parent] [thread] 45 comments
1. paxys+(OP)[view] [source] 2026-02-02 22:23:42
Just a neat bit of financial engineering. You can tell because Elon picked SpaceX instead of Tesla – which would have actually made sense at some level (Optimus Robots + AI). But Tesla is public and so he'd need to follow laws and reporting requirements.
replies(3): >>broken+A >>wongar+Qa >>cakeal+Gy
2. broken+A[view] [source] 2026-02-02 22:25:58
>>paxys+(OP)
does he need spacex/xai to prop up tesla or the other way around?
replies(3): >>paxys+o2 >>Silver+N4 >>Ifkalu+d9
◧◩
3. paxys+o2[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-02 22:31:51
>>broken+A
Tesla is still very profitable, as is SpaceX I assume. Twitter/X has been a $44 billion dollar failure, and xAI is a vanity project so Musk can go around saying he is a player in the AI space. Investors in both X and xAI need to be bailed out, hence this announcement.
replies(4): >>verzal+e5 >>kypro+z6 >>__alex+O7 >>spikel+c9
◧◩
4. Silver+N4[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-02 22:39:38
>>broken+A
I suspect SpaceX will acquire Tesla at some point. It’s the most profitable of these companies. So basically SpaceX employees and shareholders are covering up for the failing Tesla business and the already-failed xAI business.

Let’s not forget, xAI is the parent of Twitter/X (the social network). So now, taxpayers are paying to keep Twitter/X alive. After all, it is taxpayer money going to the contracts the government gives SpaceX for launches. Nice way to subsidize what is effectively a one sided campaign machine for the GOP and far right.

replies(4): >>AirMax+46 >>bhoust+B8 >>senko+G8 >>matwoo+KG1
◧◩◪
5. verzal+e5[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-02 22:41:55
>>paxys+o2
I think its an effort to position SpaceX as an AI company in order to justify some ridiculous valuation at IPO.
replies(1): >>Ifkalu+M8
◧◩◪
6. AirMax+46[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-02 22:44:45
>>Silver+N4
This was my immediate thought as well. A great time to ask yourself — why am I literally paying for any of this? At best I literally don't use any of these services, at worst they are actively used against me.
◧◩◪
7. kypro+z6[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-02 22:46:41
>>paxys+o2
Do you genuinely not think that "Elon" (xAI) is player in the AI space?

You don't have to think they have the best models of course, but they are clearly a very significant, and some might argue, leading player in the AI race.

replies(2): >>Crypto+Z7 >>paxys+4a
◧◩◪
8. __alex+O7[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-02 22:51:02
>>paxys+o2
Tesla has a P/E in the hundreds and a ~0.3% market cap to profit ratio. In what world is this "very" profitable?
replies(1): >>paxys+x9
◧◩◪◨
9. Crypto+Z7[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-02 22:51:38
>>kypro+z6
xAI’s models are really not pioneering at all. They weren’t the first to do MoE. Not the first to do open weighting, not the first to have memory or multi-modal vision.

So no, I wouldn’t say Elon is a major player in the AI space. People use his models because they are cheap and are willing to undress people’s photos.

replies(1): >>tacooo+1a
◧◩◪
10. bhoust+B8[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-02 22:53:31
>>Silver+N4
> I suspect SpaceX will acquire Tesla at some point.

I think that is also likely, unless Tesla can stage a major turnaround, it is going to be beaten by Chinese competitors nearly everywhere that they are allowed (which is everywhere but the USA.)

◧◩◪
11. senko+G8[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-02 22:53:54
>>Silver+N4
I get what you're saying, but that taxpayer money is paying for the launch services at a very competitive rate (possibly the cheapest of all available options), not a subsidy scheme.
◧◩◪◨
12. Ifkalu+M8[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-02 22:54:11
>>verzal+e5
I think it's more so that the upcoming new public shareholders of SpaceX bail out his X/xAI misadventure.
◧◩◪
13. spikel+c9[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-02 22:55:26
>>paxys+o2
The $44B Twitter/X buyout was not a failure. For example Fidelity has its $19M investment in the buyout - now xAI common shares - marked at $62M (up over 3X) as of 12/31/25. It was certainly valued even higher on 1/31/26 after xAI had an oversubcribed fund raise in January. All before this merger announcement.
replies(2): >>paxys+ua >>cowsan+Gg
◧◩
14. Ifkalu+d9[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-02 22:55:28
>>broken+A
I guess the difference is Tesla is a public company, so requires more paperwork. SpaceX isn't public yet, but will be soon, meaning it will have a cash infusion.
◧◩◪◨
15. paxys+x9[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-02 22:56:36
>>__alex+O7
In the world where it makes $8-10B in profit on $90-95 billion in revenue every year. Whatever price investors choose to trade the stock at is irrelevant to those numbers.
replies(2): >>mminer+Bd >>__alex+5e
◧◩◪◨⬒
16. tacooo+1a[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-02 22:57:41
>>Crypto+Z7
saying they aren't pioneering is very different than saying they aren't a major player in the space. There're only like 5-7 players with a foundational model that they can serve at scale. xAI is one of them
◧◩◪◨
17. paxys+4a[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-02 22:57:54
>>kypro+z6
> and some might argue, leading player in the AI race

What is this argument exactly? What are they leading?

replies(1): >>johnsm+ld
◧◩◪◨
18. paxys+ua[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-02 22:59:23
>>spikel+c9
The fact that it had to be successively bailed out by xAI (which itself was funded by Tesla) and now SpaceX shareholders is exactly what makes the acquisition a failure.
replies(2): >>torgin+ec >>spikel+of
19. wongar+Qa[view] [source] 2026-02-02 23:01:23
>>paxys+(OP)
You can tell it's just financial engineering because in the entire press release xAI is only mentioned in the first two sentences. Everything after that is Elon talking about space data centers to distract from the actual topic. Which seems to be working
◧◩◪◨⬒
20. torgin+ec[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-02 23:07:23
>>paxys+ua
He spent other people's money (or maybe even imaginary money) he couldn't have used for himself (since selling off major stakes in your company is a big nono)
◧◩◪◨⬒
21. johnsm+ld[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-02 23:12:02
>>paxys+4a
It is a real model, real datacenters, and deployed heavily on their social media platform.

That's the full stack? Only other player that vertically setup is facebook, google and microsoft.

◧◩◪◨⬒
22. mminer+Bd[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-02 23:13:04
>>paxys+x9
It's actually down to $3.8B in profit now, and will be losing money within a year at the rate its been losing profitability.
◧◩◪◨⬒
23. __alex+5e[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-02 23:14:55
>>paxys+x9
2% net return on assets is garbage
◧◩◪◨⬒
24. spikel+of[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-02 23:21:37
>>paxys+ua
A "bailout" is when a company rescued from bankruptcy. Common equity holders take large losses or are wiped out. This did not happen here.

We also know the Twitter buyout debt was sold at near par before the merger with xAI which is inconsistent with being near bankruptcy.

◧◩◪◨
25. cowsan+Gg[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-02 23:27:27
>>spikel+c9
> xAI had an oversubcribed fund raise in January

My understanding is that it was not oversubscribed and would not have closed without Tesla’s investment.

replies(1): >>spikel+8B
26. cakeal+Gy[view] [source] 2026-02-03 01:08:48
>>paxys+(OP)
This is fairly naive, Elon isn't the only investor in SpaceX.

My guess is "that they did the math" and had an engineering study which convinced them that getting AI datacenters into space will make sense.

It's also not hard to imagine why, the process alone once perfected could be reused for asteroid mining for example, then mirogravity manufacturing, either of which alone would be enormous capital intensive projects. Even if AI dataenters in space are break-even it would be a massive win for SpaceX and leave their competition far behind.

replies(1): >>javasc+LK
◧◩◪◨⬒
27. spikel+8B[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-03 01:25:29
>>cowsan+Gg
It was originally for $15B. They raised $20B of which $2B was from Tesla.

Your sources might be shady (Elektrek?).

◧◩
28. javasc+LK[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-03 02:28:09
>>cakeal+Gy
Are you a bot or are you just stupid?
replies(2): >>fooker+6O >>mathis+oc1
◧◩◪
29. fooker+6O[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-03 02:53:49
>>javasc+LK
There are several other companies that have announced efforts to try data centers in space.
replies(1): >>javasc+uQ
◧◩◪◨
30. javasc+uQ[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-03 03:14:36
>>fooker+6O
I know this is hackernews and we like to get hyped up for new technologies, but, like, this just straight up isn't happening.

There is no benefit to putting data centers in space versus the giant cost that you would incur by doing so.

Can people please try and use their fucking brains for a second?

replies(1): >>fooker+WU
◧◩◪◨⬒
31. fooker+WU[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-03 03:53:22
>>javasc+uQ
> Can people please try and use their fucking brains for a second?

Have you considered that people smarter than you think it is plausible?

replies(2): >>javasc+HZ >>youare+N01
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
32. javasc+HZ[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-03 04:34:52
>>fooker+WU
Have you considered that people smarter than you are scamming you?
replies(1): >>fooker+F11
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
33. youare+N01[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-03 04:45:08
>>fooker+WU
> Have you considered that people smarter than you think it is plausible?

I know many people smarter than me, plenty of them who have spent careers building data centers, and not one of them think this is plausible.

You should consider whether people smarter than the average investor are pulling a fast one.

replies(1): >>fooker+y11
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
34. fooker+y11[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-03 04:52:36
>>youare+N01
Maybe we are talking about different things here?

I don't doubt spacex can fail at this.

I also don't doubt we are fairly close to making this plausible.

> plenty of them who have spent careers building data centers

Famously, plenty of people who have spent careers building rockets would swear that reusable rockets would absolutely never work.

replies(1): >>fluori+R21
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
35. fooker+F11[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-03 04:53:54
>>javasc+HZ
Yep, definitely being scammed by not dismissing things outside my area of expertise out of hand.

I wish I had your confidence about everything!

replies(2): >>javasc+W31 >>youare+V71
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯
36. fluori+R21[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-03 05:06:40
>>fooker+y11
>I also don't doubt we are fairly close to making this plausible.

Maybe you should doubt that. There's literally no reason to think this is plausible besides some hype merchants' say-so.

replies(1): >>fooker+m71
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯
37. javasc+W31[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-03 05:17:31
>>fooker+F11
I am yet to see any actual numbers showing how the economics of this would work or compare to the cost of building traditional data centers.

Please come back to reality.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣
38. fooker+m71[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-03 05:52:16
>>fluori+R21
> some hype merchants

Excluding Spacex:

Nvidia, Google, China, European Commission, Blue Origin

And this being HN, a YC funded company has put a single GPU rack in space and demonstrated training a reasonable sized model on it.

But yeah, it's all hype, sure.

replies(1): >>youare+b91
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯
39. youare+V71[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-03 05:56:28
>>fooker+F11
> Yep, definitely being scammed by not dismissing things outside my area of expertise out of hand. I wish I had your confidence about everything!

Instead you put your confidence in Elon, who has zero expertise in this area?

replies(1): >>fooker+O91
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣▦
40. youare+b91[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-03 06:08:28
>>fooker+m71
On the off chance you're sincere and not just heavily over indexed into Elon stocks:

It's trivial to understand why this is all hype if you pay attention to physics, as another commenter suggested earlier.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law

Assume you're radiating away the heat for a single B200 (~1kW), and the max radiator temp is 100C, you find A = ~3m^2.

So that's 3 square meters per GPU. Now if you take into account that the largest planar structure deployed into space is ~3k m^2 (https://investors.lockheedmartin.com/news-releases/news-rele...), you're looking at 1000 GPUs.

That's a single aisle in a terrestrial data center.

Cost to deploy on earth vs satellite is left as an exercise to the reader.

replies(1): >>fooker+Fa1
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣
41. fooker+O91[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-03 06:12:53
>>youare+V71
> Instead you put your confidence in Elon

No, I put confidence my ability to do a web search, pretty rare skill nowadays ;)

You'll see that none of these are Elon/spacex, hopefully?

https://medium.com/@cognidownunder/google-just-announced-the...

https://www.ycombinator.com/companies/starcloud

https://www.informationweek.com/it-infrastructure/lunar-data...

https://ascend-horizon.eu/

https://www.axiomspace.com/orbital-data-center

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣▦▧
42. fooker+Fa1[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-03 06:20:31
>>youare+b91
You are missing one important thing here.

You do not radiate all the heat away from a GPU, a modern GPU can run pretty hot. Also look up how this is getting better for the next generation of GPUs.

Maybe repeat your calculation with updated assumptions?

But even if you were completely right, your argument is that we can't do this tomorrow, yes I agree. Typical technology development cycles are about 5-10 years.

replies(2): >>youare+La1 >>fluori+Kb1
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣▦▧▨
43. youare+La1[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-03 06:21:40
>>fooker+Fa1
> You do not radiate all the heat away from a GPU, a modern GPU can run pretty hot.

Fascinating. Tell me more.

Where does the heat energy that isn't radiated away go?

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣▦▧▨
44. fluori+Kb1[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-03 06:31:52
>>fooker+Fa1
>You do not radiate all the heat away from a GPU, a modern GPU can run pretty hot.

LOL. If you don't radiate the heat the spacecraft just gets indefinitely hotter (until it glows and the heat is forcibly irradiated). It's space, there's no fluid to provide convection.

◧◩◪
45. mathis+oc1[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-03 06:38:07
>>javasc+LK
I often wonder that same thing about many hn commenters!
◧◩◪
46. matwoo+KG1[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-03 10:38:14
>>Silver+N4
> I suspect SpaceX will acquire Tesla at some point.

Tesla will have to lose its meme status first, otherwise they would be paying real money to make the acquisition close. The other acquisitions are using VC valuations which Musk has a big hand in. Matt Levine did a whole thing on it when xAI acquired X.

[go to top]