@TaoRay: The only truly profitable business for SpaceX is satellite communications, and there's still room for growth in that area. But what's the profit point in colonizing Mars? It could only be some government contracts, and they won't even get orders from China. In my view, this is a money-burning project driven by a dream. Are there resources to mine on Mars? How does it make money? How does it turn into shareholder value? Btw, humans…
Summary
This post questions the profitability of SpaceX's Mars colonization, arguing that only satellite communications is profitable and that the Mars project is a money-burning dream, concluding that humans cannot become a multi-planetary species.
Similar Articles
@TaoRay: Bo Bo, you are a person of great wisdom! I said months ago that X allows so many scam posts just to pump up performance for SpaceX's IPO. Many brainless fans don't even look at the prospectus or roadshow. So Musk needs these retail investors because the numbers can't withstand close scrutiny. The stars-and-seas ideal is great, but performance must include the dimension of time. The biggest support for the current valuation is...
User criticizes Musk for counting X's Blue subscription fees into xAI's revenue, and predicts that SpaceX's IPO may open high and then decline.
@FinanceYF5: 1/ SpaceX is not a rocket company. a16z just published a deep-dive essay that reads like science fiction, but the core is an industry judgment: SpaceX is turning 'going to space' into an AI infrastructure problem. If the biggest bottleneck for AI is energy, then orbit, the Moon, and Mars are not distant places, but the next layer of server rooms.
a16z published an in-depth article arguing that SpaceX is turning space into a key part of AI infrastructure, because the bottleneck for AI is energy, and orbit, the Moon, and Mars will become future data centers.
@FinanceYF5: The story of SpaceX is not about a rocket company, but an industrial plan that integrates AI, energy, and space 1/ Not a rocket company The most striking part of Marc Andreessen's long article is rewriting SpaceX from a 'launch company' to a 'civilization infrastructure company.' Its endgame is not to sell more launches...
Marc Andreessen redefines SpaceX as a civilization infrastructure company that integrates AI, energy, and space, rather than a pure rocket launch company.
@FinanceYF5: 2/ The market isn't in launch. In SpaceX's S-1 estimates, AI-related TAM accounts for 90%+; enterprise applications alone are $22.7T. So this company is not talking about "how profitable launch services are," but about where the ceiling is for AI infrastructure.
This tweet points out that the market has not factored in AI-related opportunities in SpaceX's S-1 estimates, with enterprise applications TAM reaching $22.7 trillion, emphasizing the huge potential of AI infrastructure.
@xizhe_chan: Yesterday a friend asked me: why did he follow my bearish view and lose money? I said: I clearly wrote short-term bullish. The reason is simple— First, there is a guaranteed $20 billion in index fund forced buying within two weeks. (Detailed analysis in the article, Nasdaq and FTSE Russell) But the float is only about $80 billion (...
The author analyzes reasons for being bullish on SpaceX IPO stock price, including index fund forced buying and insider incentives, predicting the stock price may rise to $240.