zlacker

[parent] [thread] 1 comments
1. osigur+(OP)[view] [source] 2026-02-04 21:26:16
I had a look at SpaceX career page. There are 128 software related roles available. Perhaps half of those could be filled by big tech type companies, the others are more specialized (like antenna software engineer). I don't think that 64 open positions would move the needle really. And, if it were that easy to get around the security clearance by having another company, he could have created a new / separate company years ago.

Wouldn't a simpler explanation be that SpaceX is making a lot of money while xAI is losing a lot. If funds have to flow through Elon personally it is likely complicated and costly. Also, if the "space data center" idea is actually workable (I have no idea if it is) then it does make some logical sense as well. Of course, Twitter just seems like kind of a write off to me at this point.

replies(1): >>torgin+xd1
2. torgin+xd1[view] [source] 2026-02-05 07:20:05
>>osigur+(OP)
I was talking about technical talent in general, and using big tech as a yardstick. I think it's even more likely there are a lot more capable antenna engineers outside the world than in the US, since the US didn't spend the past decades vacuuming up talent (then again, it it did, most of those would not be able to get a security clearance).

> Wouldn't a simpler explanation be that SpaceX is making a lot of money while xAI is losing a lot.

Just checked, and SpaceX made $15B last year (with $8B in profit). Afaik xAI spent $12B last year, meaning it would make the whole company operate at a loss, with no clue as to why it would make it profitable (none of the revenue came from AI).

Even if datacenters in space make sense, wouldn't OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, etc. want those? By merging with a competitor, SpaceX loses all that business, and possibly invites govt scrutiny.

[go to top]