This has been done on HN a few times. The heat dissipation argument is a solved problem with known physics, it's just that pointing out the inefficiency of radiative cooling is the correct response to the daft claim that "space is cold" (the solution is "launch lots of additional mass into space every 5 years" which isn't exactly cheap). Though that claim is still better than Elon trying to tell idiots that SpaceX's ODCs are "much simpler than a Starlink satellite"...

Good coverage of the relevant problems are here https://peraspera.us/realities-of-space-based-compute/

Perhaps an understated one is chip obsolence. With a terrestrial datacentre you replace chips when they're uneconomical due to how much faster alternatives are or when they reach end of life; with an orbital datacentre you replace them on fixed cycles depending on how much propellant you launched with.

But nobody doubts you can build them, it's just hard to imagine a scenario in which a terrestrial equivalent isn't cheaper, more flexible and more reliable. Actual good reasons for adding compute capacity in space are, ironically, the latency: for some edge cases like autonomous control systems that matters more than the attractive unit economics of sticking computers in a building.

Still, the economic case for ODCs [eventually] is more compelling than the case for the value of that revenue stream to SpaceX exceeding current US GDP in the not too distant future...

What if you solve the problem of getting there and keeping it cool and structurally stable? Wouldn’t then be practical since it would be modular and robotic processes to expand?

I am not sure if those problems can be solved anytime soon though.

when the billionaires trigger a nuke fest, I assume they want their AI overload safe.

RKLB has jumped 10x in last 18 months largely because of SpaceX hype , their business outlook hasn’t changed that much , so it is natural drops also come with SpaceX.

There is an enormous open short position in SpaceX now https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-07-15/short-sel...

The float is going to triple in several steps with 900M employee stocks getting added to 550M issued in the IPO.

The thesis that larger pool will depress prices even if all other things remain same is quite sound, just like a small float inflates the price .

These events are merely triggers / focal points as would the quarterly results next month and various unlocking dates .

the traders are savvy they are just looking at different things and using company news to focus the price actions on .

Valuations are not based on business models or financial performance for the highly visible public companies, that has always been the case since earliest days of the modern market .

it is just vibes or to put it differently a strong belief/faith discounting every risk . Without that faith TSLA won’t trade at 350 PE with middling growth no new products currently scheduled . SPCX at $2T+, even for an AI company a lot - it is larger than valuations of both market leaders combined while having <5% share/revenue .

Maybe the faith will prove justified , maybe not , either way the price moves by degree of faith I.e. sentiment not any actual business attribute

> Investors clearly aren't familiar with rocket launches.

That is exactly what Musk was counting on. Reality is boring and no fun. People want promises, stars and dreams.

I wonder if some of that can be attributed to automated trading systems that interpreted the news related to SpaceX and performed sentiment analysis and then traded based on that.

Not sure why investors should be familiar with rocket launches when rockets are only representative of like 5% of the market value of SpaceX (per their S-1 filing to go public, 90%+ of their value comes from xAI/Grok).

Investors are clearly not familiar with anything Musk does, because it's all wildly overvalued.

A dip because of a scrubbed launch is a blip on the radar compared to the catastrophically bad ideas Musk is promising to implement. Data centers in space? That's just lunacy. A ridiculous idea from a ridiculous man.

The fact investors think (thought) SpaceX is worth more than $2T is another example of how they aren't familiar with rocket launches.

SpaceX stock price has nothing to do with rockets. The majority of the supposed 'valuation' is associated with AI.

tbf people familiar with how much of a non-event launches being scrubbed are could buy into the stock, if they didn't think it was still overvalued...

SpaceX stock has been tanking since its IPO, I don't think last night's scrubbed launch is the culprit.

Might have something to do with Musk making outlandish promises (AI datacenters in space) and the fact that most of the company's value is tied up in xAI, the shittiest AI provider.

They're being generous.

I can see them as a shared fate for a couple reasons:

* the obvious one is Elon - both valuations are largely propped up on belief in Elon. Whenever he falters, his companies that are speculation-based (all of them) will take a hit

* Elon pitched SpaceX as an AI company. Tesla needs better AI because they keep sending signals that they won't be at L5 anytime soon, and Tesla's valuation is still very speculative[0]at least in part due to the race to L5 autonomy. i.e. Tesla will need better AI , and SpaceX is that natural fit (on paper, at least, I'm not sure SpaceX has any useful AI for any use case, let alone self-driving).

[0] Tesla's PE ratio of is still 30x massively out of line with it's actual earnings and ~30x the American automotive industry.

There are rumors that the next step is a TSLA-SPCX merger. Each company has something that Elon wants but is hard to get: Elon has super-voting controlling shares of SPCX, but TSLA is part of the S&P500.

Once a company is listed, exchange rules prohibit adding super-voting shares, it has to be done prior to listing. In order to qualify for the S&P500 a company has to have a large enough market cap and be net profitable over an entire year in the market. It seems unlikely that SPCX will qualify for that bar in the foreseeable future.

However, a merger can combine both features into one company. TSLA recently rechartered in Texas, which makes it very hard for shareholders to sue. Presumably most of the TSLA shareholders today like Elon Musk, so they would be okay with the merger, and as mentioned above Elon has full control over SPCX. Since they are in totally different markets it is hard to see what sorts of anti-trust arguments even a hostile government (e.g. Europe or Democratic state level AG's) could convince a judge of. But he does kinda need the merger to seem like something of equal companies, not an acquisition of a failing company by a successful one, so that he can keep both of the features that he wants.

Elon likes his companies financially intertwined. He convinced the Tesla board to invest in xAI to help get it off the ground, which converted to SpaceX stock after the merger, so Tesla has about $2B in SpaceX stock on its balance sheet. SpaceX is also a pretty major customer of Tesla's batteries and cyber trucks and they're partners for his terrafab scheme. Plus, Elon is likely to sell some of his personal 15% stake in Tesla if he feels it's necessary to help SpaceX, which is his favorite child. The financial ties are likely to get stronger over time.

Also, the vibe is harshed, which is actually the most important factor for these kinds of wild valuations.

There is speculation about Tesla-SpaceX merger in the future.

Investor sentiment, including talk of a potential acquisition.

Do you think the fact they are both led by the same nazi lunatic is a possible reason?

It's market cap is still closer to 2 trillion than 1.

The market might remain rational longer than Elon Musk can stay solvent.

Not really because it's irrationally valued because of musk. So you'd probably just be getting a fair valuation without him which would mean many more lost billions.

[dead]

We can do more than hope.

$200b seems very low for a company with this level of capital investment. They did 167 launches last year. It's one of the few industries where US is outproducing China. We have both more launches and heavier launches.

Put another way, the US spent $250b~ (inflation adjusted) dollars on the shuttle program, and we get much more output from SpaceX than we did for Shuttle.

How do they come up with these numbers?

Not the biggest but I am sure it is in the top 10. FWIW, I say the top 7 scams occurred in the past 2 years.