[trimbo]

I don't think companies expanding their business should be the only reason to sell. Apple was a desktop and laptop computer company when they released the iPod. Nokia was a company making rubber products when they started making cellular equipment in the 1970s. Amazon was a ecomm company when they released AWS. Etc.

Sure, I'm cherrypicking the success stories but I don't think it's the only signal people should use.

[paulryanrogers]

Companies laundering their CEO's other failing companies is certainly a reason to sell.

[elif]

$8.7B in losses over the last 5 quarters sounds bad, but that is also with $20.4B capital expenditure in the period and double digit percent increases per quarter in user metrics.

By traditional business metrics it looks toxic but compared to a typical tech unicorn it's not really outstanding.

Considering it's a tech unicorn with strategic and financial leverage like no other (their own global Internet infrastructure, access to arbitrary billions in capital, ability to build the biggest chip fab in the world), it's certainly fair to call it a gamble, but to call it failing is a stretch imo.

[cinntaile]

Did I miss something? When did Spacex get into the fab business?

[stevenjgarner]

The project was first teased by Musk in early 2026 and officially announced on March 21, 2026 during a special event at the defunct Seaholm Power Plant in Austin, Texas [1][2]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terafab

[2] https://terafab.ai/

[mindslight]

So part of the extended cinematic universe then.

(man, I wish I could get people to throw money at me for all of my outstanding projects that I buy some parts for and would be nice to do "some time")

[hnbad]

I'm sure they'll get around to building that electric VTOL Elon Musk has been "recently thinking about" for the past decade eventually, too.

[ballon_monkey]

What failing companies?

[matwood]

I wouldn't really say SpaceX expanded its business. It was merged with a social network and AI firm to juice its IPO valuation. The SpaceX part of the business is interesting, but the value is generously only about 20% of the value of the company. Anyone who wants to invest in AI isn't going to want a near last place model company. And who wants to put money into Twitter?

[TurdF3rguson]

I don't think what place you're in matters anymore when a small lab like Moonshot can come in and take the top spot out of nowhere.

[disgruntledphd2]

Sure, but that's more of an indictment of SpaceXAI. All those resources, and they get upstaged by a bunch of much more compute constrained Chinese startups.

[TurdF3rguson]

I disagree. They're renting out GPUs to other providers because they realize it's a long game that they're in a better position to win because they control infrastructure as well as hardware.

We'll have to wait and see I guess.

[matwood]

Long game - lol. xAI lost/never gained traction. The talent all left, so Musk is trying to recoup some of the enormous investment in hardware.

[disgruntledphd2]

> Long game - lol. xAI lost/never gained traction. The talent all left, so Musk is trying to recoup some of the enormous investment in hardware.

This seems more likely to me, but we'll see I guess.

[TurdF3rguson]

They're waiting for OpenAI and Anthropic's bubble to burst most likely and then they can acquire that talent for a song.

[wildzzz]

The iPod was a peripheral to use alongside your MacBook, it was meant to drive Apple computer sales initially and it's not like it was Apple's first attempt at a portable device (Newton). Nokia was building telecom equipment (stemming from their telephone cable experience, the insulation being a product of their original rubber business) and military equipment along with a bunch of other consumer electronics before they got into mobile phones. Amazon released AWS because that was their infrastructure they had built for themselves to handle their massive e-commerce business.

Companies generally don't just jump into a totally new market unless they've already got some experience.

The SpaceX acquisitions of xAI and X have absolutely nothing to do with space. While I'm sure SpaceX software engineers benefit greatly from cheap access to Grok, it and X have no relevance to the core business of SpaceX. It's the same level as "huh?" if Boeing decided to buy up an AI company and social media platform. The only reason xAI and X are even part of SpaceX is because Musk fucked himself with being forced to buy Twitter and he decided to bundle them with an actually profitable company.

[rabf]

Spacex has no existing customer to satisfy their future launch ambitions with Starship, hence data centers in space, just like they did with starlink to provide the necessary demand for Falcon 9. The launch business is not profitable without a regular cadence, too many fixed costs - ground infrastructure and personnel.

X can supply training data to to Xai and Grok is heavily integrated into X so there is some synergy there.

[xnickb]

I didn't expect to read "Datacenters in space" on HN.

[browningstreet]

SpaceX had adult leadership for a long time. I suspect there was a tacit agreement with Musk about a bit of separation.

He broke through that professional firewall when he merged xAI with SpaceX and then pushed it to go public as he did. I also posit that Gwynne Shotwell is weirdly undervalued for what she's accomplished and what she's put up with, and I think that will show up some time in the future.

There was enough technical analysis to show that even Musk's cult feed can't overcome the significant financial hardships he laid on SpaceX. I personally think it was his jump the shark move. He can't really go up again after this. He no longer has any untainted assets for mega-exploits.

[AustinDev]

>'Gwynne Shotwell is weirdly undervalued for what she's accomplished and what she's put up with, and I think that will show up some time in the future.'

Gwynne is fiercely loyal to Elon. I don't expect to see significant strife between them.

[Mountain_Skies]

There are a small single digit number of 'new space' company president opportunities in the world and one of them requires dealing with Musk. Makes sense to be loyal when there's so few other equal opportunities. No doubt many companies would love to have her at the helm but very few offer the ability to build reusable rockets.

[laughing_man]

I wouldn't say Shotwell is "undervalued, weirdly or not. She's a household name among space enthusiasts.

Without looking, can you tell me who the COO of ULA is?

[sdenton4]

"succeeding despite Elon musk" is, however, a skill set applicable at only a (strike)small number of companies (/strike) single company.

[ambicapter]

I'm sure her skill here translates to other difficult CEO personalities.

[sdenton4]

... But are those CEOs ready to admit that those skills are needed?

[consensus1]

Have you got any evidence for these claims?

[miohtama]

Nvidia was a company making PC gamer hardware, not high-performance computing.