So that's where all of my money is going.

At the time of the announcement IIRC the deal was only for Colossus 1. Is Anthropic also leasing Colossus 2 new?

At the time the consensus narrative was that SpaceX no longer needed Colossus 1 for Grok and that was why it could be leased to Anthropic while Colossus 2 would handle Grok training and inference. Does Anthropic also leasing Colossus 2 change this?

has anyone done the math on: 1. cost to build out and run the data centers 2. cost of compute (hardware and energy) 3. depreciation of legacy GPU and thus value at the end of 3 years.

And then compare the $45B revenue from Anthropic to see if it's mostly break even or if one of Anthropic/SpaceX came out ahead on the contract.

Whoa. I've said before, but I think Dario severely underestimated the coming demand and ensuing need for compute, and would need to pay through the nose when the crunch hit. I suspect that Google deal also worked out better for Google. This data point supports that view.

While Altman got laughed out of the room as a "podcasting bro" asking for trillions in investment in compute, Dario was going on about how difficult it is to forecast capacity on the Dwarkesh podcast. Seems like a major unforced error on Dario's part. What I cannot understand is how they both came to such different perspectives; my best guess is that ChatGPT has so much more traffic that OpenAI could gauge the trends much better.

This won't hurt Anthropic long-term of course, but this won't look great on that balance sheet, that too right around the time they plan to IPO.

Wow! 3 years is an eternity at this level.

Everyone laughed at Allbirds getting into the business of selling compute.

$45 billion for a 3 year rental.

Wouldn't your pension be buying shares at $2T?

How do you price regulatory restrictions? The laws governing space are more lax than those governing how much chromium Tesla can dump into their waste water. By building in space, they get to completely sidestep any regulatory issues on Earth, like not being allowed to build what they want, wherever they want, how they want. It's annoying getting permits to do whatever on my house, but for businesses, it's a real problem.

elon has a great wall of china's worth of plaques with comments exactly like this, and his companies are still worth more than their combined weight in gold

I'm surprised launch is only -$0.65B, given just how much were they sinking into launch infrastructure and R&D for Starship.

Guess Falcon 9 the old reliable is still printing cash in the meanwhile.

The numbers overall are worse than I expected. I can't believe Serious People are talking about putting this in the market at a trilly.

> Starlink seems to be a real cash machine

It has been said more than once that Starlink financials cannot be analyzed apart from SpaceX financials. Very easy to move the launch costs from one entity to the other depending on whether it is more beneficial to show more revenue for SpaceX or more profit for Starlink.

That's kind of the whole point of a stock market. If you already had a solid revenue stream, you wouldn't need investment.

These numbers would be kind of typical for a software play, since the great thing about software is that you write it once and then sell it many times. They're making a similar assertion for hardware: "fund rocket ship design, and sell it many times (i.e. lots of launches)".

The weird looking part to he is cramming xAI into it. It's a completely different business with little overlap that I can see, in a crowded market that they are far from leading.

What is the best way to hedge against this turkey being included in my index funds?

Starlink is a cash machine because the costs are externalised to the rest of the company, all in it's a money pit.

It's pretty much expected that a rapidly growing high tech company is gonna have a lot of losses and debt right? They're just spending huge amounts of money on capex. Not doing so would be like floating minerals in Starcraft: symptomatic of bad macro.

If they cleaved off xAI and let it die, they'd be in much better shape!

Depreciation should be quite substantial - I recall reading that the starlink sats have a 5 year life expectancy?

Typo: I'm sure you meant >1T.

>ARPU: $99/month in 2023, $81 in 2025, $66 in Q1 2026

Oof, are they already on diminishing returns phase?

While I don't think the financials are bad, I agree, this is definitely not a 1T company (but the market can stay irrational ...).

Uber had about $11B revenue when it went public

SpaceX is at $18.7B

You'll get a piece regardless if you're in index funds, as they're being strong-armed into buying at this awful price

Hopefully their competitors will keep advancing but that just reinforces that how hard space is and that SpaceX is doing things no one else currently can.

> I just can't, can't wait until this whole Musk fugazzi finally blows up.

Be careful what you wish for. The collateral damage would be mind boggling.

With these kind of made up numbers, they might as well have simply used the fucking Kardeshev scale.

Just compute the energy output of the Sun and claim they'll build a Dyson sphere around it.

Can charge a nice hefty subscription fee for using the Sun, just like Netflix.

That number is grossly inflated for every S-1. It's about as close to meaningless as you could possibly get.

For example, I used to work for an insurance-related tech company. They claimed their TAM was $9T-- the value of the entire global insurance market.

well if they talking future when US gov print money at unbelievable rate then this is very plausible (especially if they can work on space mining)

That's because they use other terms like "Falcon 9/Heavy", "Starship", "Super Heavy", "launch vehicle/system", "booster", "upper/lower stage", and "spacecraft".