SpaceX stock drops to a new low and loses $1T in value in a month

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...

Two things about your line of thinking stand out to me:

The first is a subtle implication that the share price of SpaceX is dependent on the short term feasibility of data centers in space. I don't think it is. Its more dependent on public sentiment and hype, which is detached from the truth and can have its focus directed elsewhere as the company engaged in many activities. I would also argue that the company's culture matters more than any engineering specifics, especially with how diverse their assets, competencies and offerings are. Maybe you didn't mean to infer this though.

Second, if intelligence is something like electricity, in that it's fungible and translates fairly universally into value, then it's safe to assume civilization will pursue expanding it endlessly (and will never have that demand satiated) like a force of nature. If this is true, would we rather have 1000x or 1,000,000x the data centers we have today within earths atmosphere or out in space somewhere? Personally, at that scale I would prefer them far away. (Not even in LEO)

There is no core physics reason why AI data centers in space can't work. It's just really hard engineering. Kind of like what reusable rockets looked like 10 years ago... All the experts were nay-sayers.

Short term, who knows, SpaceX could struggle financially and be a terrible investment today. I have no idea. It seems overpriced to me now and it did at IPO. But on a 10 or 20 year investment horizon, it looks a lot more interesting. I don't own shares but maybe dollar cost averaging in at some point isn't a bad idea especially if the price comes down further and as part of a diversified portfolio.

> Are there any reasonable analyses of the practicality of data centers in space?

The purpose of "datacenters -- in space!" isn't to actually lift server racks into orbit, one piece at a time.

It serves the same purpose as every Tesla serving extra as autonomous taxis, as people travelling by hyperloop instead of a functional train service, and as humanoid robots doing your dishes instead of the normal robots called dish washing machines.

None of these things are meant to be taken literally. Yet they all seems to have worked out just fine.

For these arguments to carry pathos they all need have a grain of truth to them. There will be local AI in satellites, for "special" applications. Think image processing for birds that have a very nice high resolution view of your back yard, and whose decisions must be low latency or when bandwith is an issue. The trick to the argument to to blur the issue by conflating it with the datacenter AI that anyone can use.

No need for any technical analysis. Space-based DC's claim solve one problem: backlash and resistance against construction from local communities.

Yet, the DCs here on earth have other problems such as high energy consumption needing on-prem gas turbines and requiring large quantities of water for cooling requirements.

I'm looking forward to a terrestrial DC that solves all these issues: it's completely self contained and self sustaining requiring very little maintenance, no external power and self contained waterless cooling. Once we have that then we can ask how we can package up this building and put it in the sea. And then when we've had enough of that, we can put them in space.

> Are there any reasonable analyses of the practicality of data centers in space?

This video points out that even if you take the most unrealistically optimistic value of every variable, it still doesn't make sense:

"The Space Data Centers Situation is Insane" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qpdUNMt2yg

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

Tesla will fall once they start going more into the red when:

* their products are recalled (just as for "legacy" manufacturers, because making cars is hard)

* Chinese brands take over every market where they're not outright banned

* FSD doesn't materialize because it's a decades long project that requires more types of hardware than just simple cameras

* robotaxis can't be rolled out because of no FSD and no approvals

* the robots go nowhere for decades

Basically, it turns out that despite the desperation, Tesla will slowly turn into a boring car manufacturer with just 2 car models for sale.

It's not an estimated effect - it's pretty evident as any long index position is automatically long $SPCX and yes, it would have been even lower without these forced buys.

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).

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.

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 or maybe not, either way the price moves by sentiment alone not any actual business logic

> 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.

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

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.

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.

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

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...

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.

They're being generous.

$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.

We can do more than hope.