https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1181412/000162828026...

It’s only to boost the IPO price. The agreement will last only a few months on paper. I doubt it is a real transaction.

I'd be interested in how large the range is here across company and region and specific data center and how it relates to companies like Hetzner if at all.

Does this mean that SpaceX are the only company that really did build some datacenters to put all the million of GPU/TPU/whatever they all talk about everyday?

I mean, Google, Amazon, Meta and Microsoft told investors they spent more than $1B per day last year in CapEx... why on Earth do they (well, Google and Anthropic at least) need to rent compute to SpaceX, of all companies?

1. Building datacenters takes time. Months, if not years. They take billions of investment.

2. AI revenue is highly unpredictable. Sure, you can make predictions, but maybe your competitor releases a better model 2 weeks after your release, maybe the new model you built isn't as much better, maybe the chinese models steal your show, etc.

3. AI revenue grows a lot. Anthropic's case is 10x per year.

4. So if you are off by just a year in terms of how much GPU you actually need, then that means a 90% of your compute capacity is wasted, and you go bankrupt.

As a solution, companies buy compute from each other! If one company's model did well, they can buy compute from the company whose model didn't do well (like in the case of grok). It's beneficial for both sides, so positive sum game. So deals like this aren't something bad in itself.

It's nothing new either. In SAAS deals, you often commit to a certain revenue and then pay extra if your revenue exceeds that amount. And power market is cut in two as well: longer term deals plus spot markets. Spot prices are way higher than the longer term deal prices.

Given it's SpaceX of course there is financial engineering involved: the GPUs aren't actually owned by SpaceX but a daughter company, and it's been financed via loans that are backed by pension funds. So it's already the case that pension funds back bear the risks associated with SpaceX's operations.

Right now, the bulk of the AI bubble sits in such debt statements and not in public markets.

Google purchased 10% of SpaceX over a decade ago. After dilution they probably own around 5%.

SpaceX is valued at a whopping 94x revenue. This deal increases SpaceX's revenue by $11 billion per year. If SpaceX maintains this revenue multiplier, then this single deal boosts SpaceX's valuation by 94 x 11 billion = $1 trillion dollars. Google owns 5% of SpaceX, so they make 50 billion dollars. Google spends 10 billion and makes 50 billion, $40 billion profit.

The even better part is that because of this deal, SpaceX is now profitable. The S&P requires companies to demonstrate 12 months of profits before they can enter the S&P 500 index. SpaceX lobbied to have this profitability requirement removed, but S&P said no and refused to rewrite the rules.

Now with this incredible deal, SpaceX is now GAAP profitable under the existing rules, and they get to join the index next year without a rule change.

Truly a brilliant deal for everyone involved.

Great work by Musk and his companies to be in a position to sell billions to cloud vendors. I'd have probably missed that opportunity while trying to build great rockets or AI models.

I’ll be switching off the Gemini model at work (Composer’s been off since their xAI deal). This is the final straw for me to move completely off Google services.

This is a datacenter REIT bolted onto a social media company bolted onto launch business bolted onto a niche ISP. The expected price to sales is ~100x. The best datacenter REITs trade at ~10x and pay a dividend, which SpaceX does not. Meta trades at ~7x sales. Comcast is one of the best-run ISPs, and it pays a 5.5% dividend on a stock trading at < 1x sales.

To say SpaceX is overvalued is to even beginning to convey the magnitude of the situation. It's going to be very painful when the valuation normalizes.

Fellowship of the Ring.

That's about $8,400/month per "component" is that in the ballpark at all with what a month of dedicated/exclusive access to an NVIDIA GPU would go for?

Did Musk blindly order humongous amounts of GPUs years ago before any of us had any sense of the scale this was going to reach?

1. AI demand continues to grow. 2. SpaceX's orbital data centers are profitable.

If both of those are true, then their current valuation is absolutely justified. I'm confident #1 will happen.

#2 is the big bet, and IMHO this is just an engineering/execution problem. All they need is (a) Starship to work reliably, and (b) a manufacturing line that can build a data center satellite at low cost.[1]

(a) is the harder of the two, IMHO, but they are well on their way. Once they successfully recover and refly a Starship upper-stage, they will iterate step-by-step until launch costs drop to the level they need.

Now assume that SpaceX succeeds. What if AI demand continues to grow and SpaceX orbital data centers are profitable? Think of their moat: they spent 10 years and billions of dollars developing a fully reusable rocket that happens to also be the largest rocket in the world, and that costs 1/10th of what other rockets cost (per kilo to orbit). Plus, they have an assembly line that can build data center satellites cheaply, and they start fabbing their own AI chips.

How is anyone going to compete with that? There are a bunch of data-center-in-space startups, but none have their own rocket--they're going to have to pay SpaceX to launch them. Blue Origin is developing a rocket as large as Starship, but it's not fully reusable--they will never get the cost down to Starship levels.

What's interesting is that all the AI companies, OpenAI, Anthropic, and even Microsoft and Google, are mostly leasing their data centers from someone else. They think compute is a commodity and the value is the trained model. But if SpaceX has the cheapest data center with the most capacity, they will be able to extract profits from the AI companies or (why not) compete against them with their own model (Grok).

In 10 years we'll see whether SpaceX succeeds or fails. If they fail at this, they will retrench back to a launch company (assuming they are still in business). But if they succeed, they will be a massive company, and the synergy between their businesses will be so obvious that everyone will say, "of course they succeeded!"

----------------

[1] Don't be distracted by claims that "cooling in space is hard" or "radiation is a deal-breaker". Neither of those are insurmountable problems--they are just engineering problems. Crucially, they are problems that are easily solved by getting mass to space. If you can get mass to space cheap enough, those two problems are trivial to solve.