upvote

points

by BurningFrog18 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby Alpha303115 hours ago|
next
[-]
Not according to their prospectus (which was what was asked about), where it accounted for slightly under 2% of SpaceX's market.
reply
upvoteby Lomlioto12 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
No its not.

The payload we send to space is very limited and the 300% increase in the few last years was ONLY starlink itself.

Thats the issue Musk has to sell it to the investors and his idea is datacenter payload.

Just that he would need to send 300 Starships up there to even install a smallish datacenter like his own colossus 1.

Starship is not done yet, we have not seen it fly up there and return for 300 times at all.

reply
upvoteby BurningFrog5 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
"No it's not" replies and silent downvotes instead of arguments didn't use to be how HN worked.

Sad to see this place becoming a normal web forum.

reply
upvoteby rsynnott5 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
I mean, it was a response to a claim, without evidence, that it was valuable.

Is your position that _you_ can make assertions without evidence but that lesser mortals may not contradict you without writing a paper on the subject?

I’m convinced that a large part of the user base of this site is genuinely, literally, solipsistic.

reply
upvoteby BurningFrog2 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
My position is more that it's OK to mention a well known and easily verifiable fact without digging out authoritative sources.
reply
upvoteby rsynnott2 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
… No, I mean, on the face of it it’s a surprising claim. Why do you think it is valuable? What is the market?
reply
upvoteby Lomlioto1 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
I don't downvote.

And i brought an argument. You said it makes space-x very valuable and i explain that the amount of payload we even send up is very limited which contracditcs 'very valuable'.

I then explain further what Elon Musks plan is to sell us his trillion dollar company or how you frame it 'very valuable' and explain why it doesn't work

reply