It's quite amazing how this values SpaceX at 10bn, less than 50% of WhatsApp. This makes me think that there's something systemically wrong with the current incarnation of post-oligarchic shareholder-controlled short term interest based capitalism. One can argue that WhatsApp has better money making potential than SpaceX, but that is only because the whole system is warped.
While I see your point, I think there are two important things to remember here. (Note: I understand the long term implications of an interplanetary species, just providing context)
A) whatsapp improves the daily lives of hundreds of millions of people. You don't necessarily need an absurd customer lifetime value to get a $19b valuation with that many people using your product.
B) SpaceX provides almost no current value to anybody. And the people it does provide value to are "free riders" in the sense that they love watching space travel and get to watch SpaceX regardless of whether or not they pay for it.
Just an inexact thought experiment. Let's say we poll the roughly 1b people living in first world, and ask them each to pay $10 to see SpaceX do whatever SpaceX does. How many people even think it's worth $10?
Let's say we poll the roughly 1b people living in first world, and ask them each to pay $10 to see SpaceX do whatever SpaceX does. How many people even think it's worth $10?
I just wan't to add that the problem is not that SpaceX provides less to humanity than WhatsApp.
The problem is that most people are not really far-sighted, but only see things which benefit themselves in a predictable amount of time.
Why companies like SpaceX (or NASA) are important has already been answered with Why Explore Space? A 1970 Letter to a Nun in Africa
>The problem is that most people are not really far-sighted, but only see things which benefit themselves in a predictable amount of time.
Because most people are not upper middle class to wealthy. They are forced to be concerned about paying for food/healthcare/education so their life tends to have different priorities.
The other problem is that your line of 'far-sighted' is completely arbitrary. Someone could easily argue that SpaceX is wasting its time with rockets and we should be spending more time studying theoretical physics to figure out better ways to travel long distances in space.
> Because most people are not upper middle class to wealthy. They are forced to be concerned about paying for food/healthcare/education so their life tends to have different priorities.
Which is a problem because if only they could (not that the system will let them do that easily) stop and think a little further, in a little less selfish way, they'd likely figure a way to improve their living conditions.
But hell, that applies also to the "upper middle class to wealthy", especially in terms of convenience. See NIMBYsm, or people fighting tooth and nail for their right to use cars cheaply in dense urban areas. People tend to defect instead of cooperating, for their own demise (and of everyone else who knows better but can't do much against an uncoordinated mob).
>Which is a problem because if only they could (not that the system will let them do that easily) stop and think a little further, in a little less selfish way, they'd likely figure a way to improve their living conditions.
This is a completely uninformed view of what it's like to be in this position. Everything in life for them is essentially a borderline crisis (I witnessed my parents going through this). Finding new jobs is extremely difficult so you have to make major compromises to keep your current one. This is even more important when you can't build any savings to cushion the impact of unemployment.
What exactly do you think they can do to "stop and think a little further"? This might be an option if you have no family to support, but otherwise it's a ridiculous notion.
Practical experimentation doesn't equate to rocket use at all if someone fundamentally believes that rockets are not the way forward. e.g. We don't try to launch things to other solar systems with sling shots, but that doesn't mean we aren't doing practical experimentation.
People are already chipping in - SpaceX gets a big portion of its income from NASA which is funded by US taxpayers, and also indirectly by all the ISS partners (Russia, Europe, Japan, others?).
While I can see how whatsapp can be valued higher than SpaceX, I don't see how this logic makes sense on any level. You could use the exact same logic to make any B2B company seem worthless when compared to a consumer app.
The advancement of science is of quite significant benefit to humankind in the long run and it affects everybody in a way a brand product implementing a known design does not. In fact, if it staves off extinction, even if it only matters in the far far future, the number of people affected could well be more than the one hundred billion who have lived on earth for the past 40,000 years.
They're definitely advancing engineering. They're also significantly improving space transportation infrastructure, which is crucial to getting more space-related science (and that includes a lot of stuff that is of terrible importance to biotechnology, which is likely to be The Next Big Thing after IT). Apart from that, they're directly working towards making humans interplanetary species and - as we just learned - fixing communication infrastrucutre before that.
Add to that the amount of interest they generate among people - they're beginning to achieve what Star Trek did once, making space cool again. I personally know people who are dreaming (and some moving towards) aerospace career because of SpaceX, and with the amount of hype you see around the Internet, I'm pretty sure we'll soon have a generation of engineers inspired by Elon's companies.
Oh, and they do all that for dirt cheap.
I don't know how good they're on an absolute scale, or compared to the next best alternative, but they're definitely very cost-effective in terms of current and potential benefits to humanity.
If SpaceX succeeds in significantly reducing launch costs, then they will enable a tremendous increase in all sorts of science (and industry, but you're talking about science.) There's tons of stuff to learn outside of Earth's gravity well, but right now we're restricted by the absurdly high cost of getting there. Most of the money now spent in all areas of activity that take place off-Earth is spent on or because of the high cost of getting there: launch services, making the machines light enough to launch affordably; making them robust enough to survive without maintenance; making them super-fancy to justify the cost; doing lots of simulations because you can't afford to test in the real environment.
For one small example: Space is by far the best place to put observatories. Yet only a few special--and small ones--are there. What if observatories were routinely space-based?
SpaceX may not be doing the science themselves, but have the capability to act as a huge multiplier to those who are doing it. A much higher multiplier than any feasible amount of money shovelled into the existing system would create.
I totally agree. WhatsApp right now affects a lot of people a little. SpaceX right now affects small amount of people a lot, but if that satellite project pans out this will turn into affecting a lot of people greatly. SpaceX has a much, much bigger prospect for benefiting humanity than WhatsApp can dream of.
I am not so sure that is the reason for WhatsApp crazy validation. I feel that the reason for that was that it represented a danger for Facebook and Mark wisely acquired at any cost.
WhatsApp is big outside of the US because (at least in Panama, were I was born) text messages are not included in the mobile phone plan; however, you can get a data plan for a monthly fee and keep in contact without additional charges. In the US most people use text messages to communicate.
C) SpaceX also has considerable risk of failure so you have to factor this into a valuation and investment. Whatsapp has eliminated much of this risk and is already a developed and implemented product.
I am not saying Whatsapp has anywhere near the potential value of SpaceX but it is important to factor the amount of risk given the stage a project is at.
.. by a small amount, yes. Communication is valuable to people. Having a better alternative to SMS is evidently something people prefer, however slightly.
Agreed communication is valuable, but there are many options available. Just when I see "improving lives" I think of say clean drinking water in parts of Africa that don't have it.
Yeah I am being pedantic, but sometimes I get annoyed at how much these tech companies big themselves up when in the big scheme of human things they are largely irrelevant.
WhatsApp is a consumer product. It lives as it breathes. As long as people/consumer keeps pumping in money & time to it, its value will stay or rise from its current value. Once that stops and people/consumer stop using it, its value will eventually fall.
SpaceX on the other hand is not a consumer product yet, but is aiming to become one. Consider it just like Boeing or AirBus, nobody would have valued them as a multi-billionaire company ( back in 1900s when they were founded). Their technological advancements and the development phase would have been same as SpaceX right now.
But eventually it became a very integral part of human life. They have become a consumer product, their value is now because of people using it daily. And unlike WhatsApp people won't stop using air-travel.
Everyday people do not invest directly into it like they do(?) for WhatsApp, but indirectly by using airline services they are paying for it. Similarly for SpaceX everyday people aren't investing in it right now but eventually ( as per SpaceX's ambition ) people would just like they are doing for air-travel.
I think comparison is ok, but people are missing an important distinction - yes, the system works exactly as one would expect it to. There are good reasons for the system to value WhatsApp higher than SpaceX. The algorithm's implementation is correct. The problem is, we're using a wrong algorithm - a system that begins to increasingly value wrong things.
Capitalism as a system has many impersonal qualities, but capitalism per se does not value anything. It just provides mechanism (market prices, investment dollars, and so on) by which the value that people attribute to things can be known.
If "capitalism" values the "wrong" things it's because people at large have the "wrong" values. If that is a problem, it's probably not an economic one, but something deeper.
Nope, capitalism as a system very much values particular outcomes. It's not a machine that perfecly translates human values into economic output; it's a system that actively prefers one type of values over other. The powerful feedback loops of markets that - I very much acknowledge this fact - led us to prosperity we enjoy today have a side effect that is increasingly becoming apparent: they slowly throw away any human value that stands in a way of being more competetive.
Anyway, that's a long topic. The TL;DR of my point is: it's not our values that control the system, it's the system that controls our values.
> And a serious question: How do these people have money and especially free time for this [clever hack involving suspending a jaccuzzi under a bridge]?
That this is actually a serious question shows that there is a strong mismatch between our values and the system we live in.
> Capitalism as a system has many impersonal qualities, but capitalism per se does not value anything.
It values capital and the capitalist class, which is why it was named "capitalism" by its critics (specifically, its socialist critics.)
The free market justifications in terms of Econ 101 simplifications that, in addition to applying to a simplified version of reality in operational terms, also apply to a system different than capitalism as ever actually implemented, came later.
In this case I think the valuations are justifiable.
Imagine that all the people that sent a Whatsapp message in the last year were charged SMS rates for the messages they had sent. How much would that cost them? Well, that's a reasonable rough measure of the value they have derived from Whatsapp. It's an important service that has real immediate benefits for the people using it right now.
SpaceX is a fantsastic venture, I'm very excited by it, but right now it's providing limited economic benefit. The Space Station is an expensive waste of money. A few comms satelites is great, but there haven't been all that many of them. Now, if SpaceX does manage to recover and re-utilise it's boosters that willbe a game changer. Their value will skyrocket (appropriately) and Google will make a killing on their investment. But that hasn't happened yet.
Yeah, imagine investing in things like... the first electricity service provider, or the first telephone, or the first TV. All of those things are multi-billion dollar industries. I'm sure this entire exchange has been played out before for other emergent industries!
The issue is picking a winner. As Warren Buffett points out, there are thousands of bankrupt airlines and car companies. If you pick a loser, you wipe out no matter how well the industry does, as consolidation is inevitable particularly in high barrier to entry industries. This keeps early valuations low.
And well rockets is really a very broad term which not just includes spacecrafts but also missiles.
SpaceX is unique not for sending 'rockets' but it for being the first privately funded company to successfully launch, orbit and recover a spacecraft also the first private company to send spacecraft to ISS.
So yes, Space transport/travel is a luxurious and emerging market.
> SpaceX is unique not for sending 'rockets' but it for being the first privately funded company to successfully launch, orbit and recover a spacecraft also the first private company to send spacecraft to ISS.
In what sense? The SpaceX launches were under NASA contract. Neither STS nor Apollo before it was built purely in-house by NASA; most of the parts were built by Rockwell, Lockheed and others. What's the big distinction here? Just that SpaceX was taking a bigger chunk of the failure risk?
SpaceX retains ownership of the rockets, they sell flights on the rockets rather than the rockets themselves. My understanding is that this is a recent development in the industry. For example, the Shuttles were built by Rockwell but, as I understand it, owned by NASA.
You are confusing two things, NASA outsourcing the parts built by other companies is a contract based project for which NASA was funded by the government. This means if any losses, are faced by NASA/government not the companies which made the parts.
SpaceX is more like a privately funded Space Exploration Company. NASA awarded them the contact not to outsource parts like in earlier projects but for SpaceX's design and technology.
Also the NASA contract to send cargo to ISS was one thing of the many SpaceX is doing. So in a lot of sense it is unique. Not sure why you think the ISS contract is the only thing what SpaceX is living on.
SpaceX comes with, well, an astronomical (snicker) level of risk attached to it. So I suppose the idea is that SpaceX might well end up being worth a lot more than WhatsApp, but WhatsApp and its user base are worth a lot now. It is also unlikely that they will end up not being worth anything in the future (if we hit a second dotcom bubble WhatsApp might end up being worth a lot less than their current valuation, but like AOL, it won't be literally worth nothing). SpaceX might.
There is also some level of tragedy of the commons problem going on, in which SpaceX benefits all of us every time they successfully test a new design, but it only benefits their investors when they manage to get mining rights to the moon or set up martian tourism or the like. Goals which are possible - which is the impressive thing - but still very risky bets.
>>We are many, many decades away from this being even close to a reality.
If there aren't companies like SpaceX (or governments doing similar work) we'll never be any closer to that reality. Mines on the moon and O'Neill cylinders in space aren't going to pop into existence in 2098 or something, they're going to be built on top of the foundations being laid by SpaceX (and others) today.
Maybe SpaceX will last long enough to profit from it, maybe they won't. It's still a better use of $1 billion of Google's money than another social network or whatever.
No, we're not decades away, we're dollars away. A base on Mars in feasible with today's technology, see for example the Mars Direct plan by Zubrin. The only thing we need are about 30 billion dollars, that's like eight aircraft carriers or 1/3 ISS.
The Beagle landed on Mars and was unresponsive. The last SpaceX test rocket failed to land. If all we need is money then there would be no failures that would result in masses of tourists dying or billions of dollars in mining equipment being destroyed.
But alas the world doesn't work like that. It takes time to repeat the design, build, test process until you get it right. And no throwing money at the problem doesn't result in a quicker solution:
Beagle 2 hitched a ride on Mars Express which was and still is a very successful low cost mission. It’s still orbiting Mars and being used for scientific research more than a decade into its mission.
The total cost including that decade of operations is about €300M (until 2013) – and less than 20 percent of that was spent on Beagle.
But that’s not even the whole story. Venus Express was heavily borrowing from Mars Express and did consequently cost substantially less (€85M vs €150M for launch and spacecraft, excluding subsequent operations and in the case of Mars Express also Beagle 2; total mission cost until its end in 2014 €220M).
Beagle 2 and the whole Mars Express mission was really put together on a shoestring budget. It’s more a demonstration that you can do a lot with a little, really, than anything else …
Other then that SpaceX has shown incredible process in their re-usability quest, the latest failed landing included. They have been on a steady march towards re-usability, without any major roadblocks (except the usual delays). There is nothing there that shows them hitting any kind of wall, actually.
The Apollo program is a remarkably direct and relevant example of throwing money at a problem resulting in a quicker solution. There is of course a limit, but we're well below that point now. And with our current rate of experimental launches, many employees won't even remain in the job long enough to experience more than one of them. Speeding the rate up could have exponential increases in productivity.
This is disingenous. The last SpaceX rocket successfully returned from suborbital flight onto the target landing site. They just underestimated the amount of hydraulic fluid needed to make a proper landing (but then again, they hit the barge anyway!). It's basicaly a 99% success with a minor error that was found and will be corrected.
Stupid failures always happen, but at this point we can definitely assume that yes, they have a reusable stage.
The last SpaceX didn't just return from a suborbital flight, it returned after successfully completing its mission to boost the upper stages on their way to the ISS (where they eventually arrived without issue). As long at the booster was going to come crashing down into the ocean anyway, they decided to use it to test their experimental landing capabilities, and came remarkably close to an unexpected success.
The Beagle was the cheapest Mars mission ever (~50 million), and the investigation attributed the failure directly to not having enough money to do things properly. Again, dollars, not decades.
> The last SpaceX test rocket failed to land.
It was a test, an experiment; Musk was describing it as "50/50" beforehand. The mission achieved exactly what it was meant to do.
Sure, I guess the assumption is that those "dollars away" also include the money to run a whole lot of unmanned flights, a bunch of manned-but-risky flights and have some failures (hopefully of the unmanned kind) in the process of making the whole thing repeatable.
SpaceX is in an industry with better financed/politically connected companies and an unpredictable revenue stream. It's a risky business by every definition. WhatsApp by comparison is a stable, very popular, growing and strategically important messaging platform.
And if you think that human-human communication is less valuable than putting a few satellites in space (NASA/ESA/ISRO/etc are the real keys to future space exploration) then I would argue your priorities are a bit warped.
WhatsApp by comparison is a stable, very popular, growing and strategically important messaging platform.
I'd rather phrase that as "WhatsApp by comparison is a currently stable, currently popular and growing generic platform implementable and implemented by thousands of companies and hobbyyists worldwide with nothing unique about the company except the current user-base, a (mostly free-loading) user-base which has shown great willingness to flock to the next great thing should this service ever do the wrong moves".
You know... The sort of statement you don't make about 20 billion dollar companies. They should have a more solid footing than being trendy right now. To put it in the dryset terms possible: They have no unique value-proposition.
SpaceX is doing real shit which might make an impact on the future of mankind. To me just comparing them in the same context seems offensive.
Have you never heard of network effect ? Having one the size of WhatsApp is absolutely a unique value proposition since it is impossible to replicate due to acquisition costs.
SpaceX is making something physical no doubt. But they aren't the only one and their competitors aren't cute little garage startups.
> Have you never heard of network effect ? Having one the size of WhatsApp is absolutely a unique value proposition since it is impossible to replicate due to acquisition costs.
In 2005, one could have made the same argument about Myspace.
Yup. It's totally possible to replicate the "value proposition" of a network-effect-exploiting service - the easiest way is to just wait a single generation. Younger people tend to avoid things their parents use; it's a problem that Facebook is starting to have right now.
WhatsApp (and similar) will never make any of the invested money back though. Its value is purely in chance that it will grow and someone else will buy you out in a few months or years. Its only valuable asset are users, and they will be gone. So someone at the end of long chain on of rich people will weep.
With SpaceX, there is enormous value in the company as it is, even if it went bankrupt tomorrow.
> (NASA/ESA/ISRO/etc are the real keys to future space exploration)
Now are they? NASA itself now outsourcing its LEO capacity to SpaceX. And SpaceX is much more focused than government agencies thanks to virtue of having a single leader with an idea, as opposed to bureaucracy and CYA-ism. Of course, space exploration is not a one-man endeavour, but I wouldn't dismiss the impact SpaceX already has and likely will have in the future - they're empowering those big space agencies.
>And if you think that human-human communication is less valuable than putting a few satellites in space (NASA/ESA/ISRO/etc are the real keys to future space exploration) then I would argue your priorities are a bit warped.
that is exactly bifurcation point each technological civilization faces (be it whole human race today or China 600 years ago) - to "go in", i.e. collapse into something like ant-colony or to "go out", i.e. explore and expand.
I'm surprised it is the top comment. If I remember correctly, it has been discussed a lot of times on HN. And most of the times, people agreed it wasn't a fair comparison.
I think WhatsApp potential value caps out at 50B or so. SpaceX potential value might be in the trillions (low probability). So while their current valuations might seem 'wrong', the long term potential value might be closer to your value judgement. There are very few large investors with a 20 year time horizon. I am not sure if that is a fault of capitalism. I am not sure another system of resource allocation would do better, do you?
This has nothing to do with short term interest based capitalism. Whether privately held, a charity, or any other structure, if what you are making is not of general interest to the population at large, it's going to have a pretty hard time. The only way to fix that is to eliminate free markets and democracy so people of average or less intelligence/foresight have no say in the appropriation of resources.
People will disagree with you on that, but I think such disagreement misses a crucial observation - economic value was highly correlated to the value for humanity. But as we took all the low-hanging fruits we can see those two senses of value increasingly diverge.
Hell, for a simple analogy, it's like with solid rocket boosters - you should appreciate how far they got you, but you definitely don't want to keep being attached to them when they burn out and decide to not go to space.
SpaceX is the commercialisation of space exploration and that's just how valuation works in commercial applications. It is, however, remiss to value to science and progress in dollar terms. TCP/IP is far more valuable than all of the Internet companies combined but not in dollar terms.
That's similar to saying a toddler is less productive than a recent college graduate.
That is to say: WhatsApp is much further along its individual trajectory than SpaceX is. In decades, the value of SpaceX is likely to eclipse WhatsApp, which in all likelihood won't even exist any longer.
In this analogy you seem to believe the trajectory for this toddler is set in stone. The reality is at it's infancy (which is where Space X is in the grand scheme) it can look very promising but turn out very bad, or a competitor can drastically outpace. Any valuation should discount for the level of risk.
A lot can happen over time. 10 years ago MySpace was by far the dominant social network and Blackberry was the mobile powerhouse. Seemed like neither would fall with so much momentum behind them but we see how that played out.
I think one of the reasons people lose sight of that is because they look back and see all those products, all that improvement in quality of life that capitalism brought us. Those things are undeniable. But one can't infer from this that the system will forever be awesome. It was aligned with human goals initially, but as time goes by, it's less and less aligned.
My guess is that a part of the issue is that VCs can understand WhatsApp. They feel like that can assess it's worth, associated risk, and come up with a valuation independently.
With science based startups the partner at a VC can't easily make an independent assessment. They have to rely on specialists to do tech D&D and they rarely trust them completely. So they shy away from those deals, or they factor the risk into their valuations.
This behavior somewhat ironically can make these investments higher risk. There is a degree to which fund raising at a lower level makes a company a higher risk, because they have less money to work with and can't afford to make mistakes. (the converse is also somewhat true).
Perhaps it's partly because space is seen as higher-risk than social media? The valuation would then be lower because people lower their expectations based on the risk of failure.
Having just finished watching The Men Who Built America[1], Musk reminds me so much of the great American entrepreneurs of the last 200 years (Vanderbilt, Rockefeller, Morgan, Ford, Carnegie). Ridiculously ambitious and fearless entrepreneurs who literally by sheer force of will moved humanity forward.
It's definitely possible, but he's not in that category yet IMO. If Tesla actually makes a car that middle class Americans want and can afford, then he can seriously disrupt the motor industry and be on par with those guys. At this point though, Tesla could go out of business and it would just be a footnote in automotive history 30 years from now. SpaceX is similar at this point, it's on the path to something great, but right now its just an early competitor in the private space industry.
The origin of the term is quite interesting. From the wiki link:
The term robber baron derives from the medieval German lords who charged nominally illegal tolls (tolls unauthorized by the Holy Roman Emperor) on the primitive roads crossing their lands or the larger tolls on ships traversing the Rhine—all such actions without adding anything of value,(see robber baron) but instead lining one's pockets to the detriment (added costs) of the common good.
I've been wondering if part of this SpaceX satellite gambit is to help Tesla Motors. Think about it: if and when there are 500,000 or a million or several million Tesla vehicles (including the Model 3) all over the world, plus thousands of SuperChargers, and they all need to be connected to the Net for messaging and value-added services, then what better way than to just have 'em connect to the SpaceX service?
Right now Tesla Model S vehicles connect via AT&T (at least in the US, don't know what the carriers are in other countries). It's a tiny number of "devices" connected to the network so it is probably expensive for Tesla. At some point it gets really expensive. One assumes the Model 3 will have the same always-on connection that the Model S/X has. Millions of Models S/X/3 around the world mean a lot of communications costs. And then there are the SuperChargers, that will in time no doubt be communicating with cars too, to improve the user experience.
I suspect a few million "devices" connected to the SpaceX version of global wifi would be way cheaper than connecting to a dozen or two carriers in countries around the world.
The early models even had free unlimited worldwide 3g connectivity. Which of course was too expensive for such a cheap device, but shows that offering car connectivity really can't be so costly.
Still free on the new 3g enabled models. But when you say 'free' it only allows you to browse Amazon and buy Amazon books so they just build the costs into those... So thanks to everyone who buys eBooks on Amazon and funds my Kindle DX's 3g connection :)
If there are going to be thousands of Tesla cars in each city, maybe it would make more sense for them to create a mesh network and connect to the internet via Wi-Fi when parked (at Superchargers, at home, etc.). This could drastically reduce the cellular bandwidth required for less than the hundreds of millions of dollars required for a satellite solution.
I think it is a lot more about providing communications to mars. They are basically doing a/b testing on earth for blanketing a planet in communication. Also, they could connect that network to mars to have interplanetary communication over something that resembles the internet. Tesla can lease bandwith (or have their users lease bandwith) much easier and cheaper than launching a fully fledged system like this
Well, this is not exactly A/B testing (maybe a pilot program would be a better term), but as for the rest of your comment - I recall Musk saying something about Mars lacking Internet and him wanting to put it there.
Makes me wish average joe could buy spacex stock. Willing investors shouldnt have to be elite or accredited. Just believers and supporters of a better future.
Most companies that raise money by other means than publicly trading stock frankly don't want the head ache of dealing with shareholders.
A company like SpaceX can raise all the money they need from a small number of like minded investors. It saves them the hassle of dealing with thousands of shareholders with their own risk tolerances, investment goals, etc.
And once you exceed a certain number of shareholders, you are subject to nearly the same reporting requirement as a publicly traded company anyway, so you get the downsides without the upsides.
That's all well-and-good for SpaceX but it proved to be pretty catastrophic for the dozens of pump-and-dumps that bankrupted many Americans when we tried that previously.
We don't use legal mechanisms to protect citizens from an endless myriad of things, many which are much more dangerous than investing in private startups. This is really a way to keep the proles out of the good investments. It's infuriating and unjust that the wealthy have more rights.
> It's infuriating and unjust that the wealthy have more rights.
No they don't have more rights. There is nothing preventing you from creating your own private company and sell equities only to poor people.
It's like people having a party and not inviting you. You can be frustrated about it, but please don't start whining about them violating your rights or anything. Just as people have the right not to invite you to their daughter's birthday party, they have the right not to do business with you.
Doing things in private association is a right everybody has, regardless of wealth.
> There is nothing preventing you from creating your own private company and sell equities only to poor people.
That's not actually true, which is what the people upthread were referring too. It's not that companies simply don't elect to sell equity to poor people, they aren't actually allowed to in most circumstances.
Being an Accredited Investor (in the US) is 1Mil in net worth not including the value of your primary house. Indeed that seems to exclude most "poor people" I know
Being an Accredited Investor in the US involves stating that on a form. If you badly want to buy these shares, and they're available to buy, then from experience bypassing that is trivial.
The bigger challenge is that most private companies you've heard of won't even consider taking your money unless you can put in a lot more than any poor person would realistically be able to.
It's not about whether they're smart or not - it's that a multimillionaire can lose a bunch of money on a private company and not be out their retirement savings. That's not nearly as true for the typical middle class person.
I'm sure there are some people who could safely drive on the roads without speed limits and other traffic laws, but the number of people who could not is far greater. So it is with careful, responsible investing. Many laws are designed to work on a statistical basis, for the greater overall good. This is one of them.
It's not designed to prevent 'ordinary' people from sharing in investment profits, it's designed to protect the public purse from having to support millions of people that lost their savings due to unwise investments.
So has putting it all on black in Vegas, alcohol, and any other number of statistically proven vices. At least investment has some measure of upside. But yeah, I'd like the $n trillion in debt government tell me how to manage my money.
The government that is able to borrow money at an interest rate lower than inflation? Yeah, they probably could tell you (and me) a thing or two about how to manage money.
I concur, I think there's something wrong with a big nation doing this. (Smaller nations run sovereign wealth funds all the time.)
The FED (more or less) sets the interest rates that the US government has to pay; though if they tried to buy everything, we would see inflation. I suspect the actual failure mode is a different one: real wealth is limited by productivity. If the government is buying all the stocks, we have just shifted ownership around, but don't actually increase productivity. Productivity might even drop, because the government is probably not a good activist shareholder.
For real estate, there's a decent argument to be made that the government should buy it all, and lease it out for a few decades at a time to the highest bidder.
Sounds good in theory, but nowadays what happens is companies go public when they are fully valued, making them ripe for collapse when insiders take advantage of the liquidity to exit positions. When companies go public early, opportunities are created for retail investors to make huge money (AOL, Dell, Amazon, Walmart to name a few examples). Now it's like, you get to buy at the very top and it's for your own good. horaaaaay
If you believe that then short some of these companies. I agree the game can be a little rigged but there is still massive opportunity to invest well on the open market.
I know what you are getting at, but by the time the average Retail Investor can even get the opportunity to short the stock it is truely gambling.
"In a hot IPO, when many investors are clamoring to get shares, many of those who do get the newly issued shares will flip it—immediately sell it in the open market for instant profits. The investment bank must, by law, sell the new shares at the offering price regardless of demand. Because of the demand for the new issues, they have to be allocated, and usually it's the biggest clients of the investment bankers who get the issue—small investors almost never get to participate"
You can buy Google as a proxy. A poor proxy but proxy nonetheless. The "plus" side is Google might make similar investments in other ventures like this so your bet on space is more diversified.
Except that Tesla as far as I know has no ownership in SpaceX, while Google now does. My interpretation is that the OP is not just looking for an investment in Elon Musk, but specifically in his space venture.
I wouldn't be surprised to see SpaceX do an IPO in the future. I'll definitely buy in even if I would do that as a kind of kick-starter rather than for the potential return.
I am not surprised. In one of the Ted Talks, Larry Page had clearly mentioned that he would rather leave all his money to someone like Elon Musk than donating to a Charity. He is going down that path.
Edit: Never mind. So many posts of the confirmed news are popping up that there needs to be a new thread. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8919901 is a reasonable article and not behind a paywall, so it may as well be the one.
Can someone with some experience in satellites tell us what is possible in terms of satellite internet. For example, I really doubt most individual people would be able to actually connect directly through satellites. If that is the case, a satellite radio would have to detect and distinguish millions of different simultaneous data streams. I doubt there is enough spectrum for this.
I'm only familiar with the basics of the networks capabilities per my former position as a technician for WildBlue/Exede. Connecting directly through satellite is certainly possible if more people were interested in it. Our satellite networks are still fairly basic primarily because there's not been a historical abundance of interest in the technology due to its limitations compared to terrestrial networking.
ViaSat-1 is (as far as I'm aware) the most capable satellite currently in orbit, with a rate of 140 Gbit/s. Its bandwidth capacity when launched larger than all of the other North American satellites combined.
I would be VERY surprised to learn that the fundamental issue with this would be spectrum capacity, as the K band satellites operate in is very wide.
The way current satellite technologies typically deal with concurrent data streams is to split up into 'beams' that cover a specific region. Currently VS1 uses 72 bands but they're spread all over Canada and the US. With more satellites and tighter beam placement it's certainly feasible to have millions of simultaneous connections.
I feel like I kind of rambled on there - if there's anything in particular you'd like me to expand upon I'd be happy to (and if someone notices I'm wrong about anything please let me know!).
> if there's anything in particular you'd like me to expand upon I'd be happy to
Since you asked :)
How much of this is relying on phased array antennae on the satellite and does that mean you won't have to aim a dish or will the downlink for residential require a tracking antenna or do those also work using phased arrays these days?
Wow! That's an excellent question that I only barely know about. I'll give as much of an explanation as I'm able to and I apologize to any enthusiasts who cringe at my response!
So I'm not sure where Musk's project is going to go - as schiffern stated below it seems they're going to go with a LOS phased array, and if they've actually got the price down that low with stable performance then they've really brought some incredible innovation to the field!
As I understand - ViaSat1 used a hybrid design antenna in space that allows them to do some pretty incredible things on the ground. Consumer internet is provided via traditional Ka-band ground antennae that have to be carefully positioned and installed. They also have services for Ku-band, S-band, and L-band antennae. These applications do generally use some form of phased array antennae so that they don't have to use any sort of mechanical tracking apparatus.
Needless to say, I'm mad excited for Musk pouring some funding and engineering efforts into such an awesome project!
Thank you for the answer. The first time I tried to get my head wrapped around phased array antennae I utterly failed, a bit better the second time around. That's some high-class voodoo, along the lines of 'indistinguishable from magic'.
Pretty curious what the consumer package will look like and what capabilities it will have.
Back in the 90s I use to install 2 way Earth Stations for Hughes. An Earth station is basically a box that puts TCP/IP over Satellite. They are installed in many gas stations in the US. If you drive down the street and see a white dish on the roof, chances are my company did the install ;) These links handle credit card transactions for paying at the pump and they also handle lottery purchases.
The industry wasn't regulated very much until a situation in which some installers aiming dishes for EDJ (Edward Jones Financials) were knock things off line by aiming dishes at wrong satellites. I don't know much about how the technology works but it became apparent that aiming a dish at the wrong "bird" as we call them could interfere with others.
The EDJ thing was big news back in the day although a google search turns up nothing. It reportedly knocked Edward Jones off line for something close to a week while many were deployed to go and re-aim satellite dishes.
After this incident, the FCC got more involved and now to install a two way satellite dish, you have to take a course and pass it. My whole team was required to go through this training.
We also installed 2 way satellite internet for a company out of Canada that had a PCI card you plugged into your PC. The PCI card would then connect to the dish transmitter and LNB. The down speed was around 4-5Mb/s while the up speed was very slow at around 128Kb/s. I forget the name of the company but they had a proprietary driver for the PCI card that compressed the TCP packets in order to deal with the huge latency of traveling up to space and back down. They also had patents on a modified TCP/IP stack whereby they could locally ACK outbound TCP packets to improve throughput (as it was explained to me at the time).
In the past such services have used geosynchronous satellites, at least far as I am aware. The problem with that is the great height of the satellites means a pretty serious lag. IIRC, about 250 ms, round trip. LEO satellites, however, would have a tiny amount of lag added.
I can't speak for Hughes but I was a trained tech for WildBlue /Exede. Neither of their services have ever used dial-up for upload. While early generation WildBlue services were fairly slow on the upload, Exede was able to push 4+ mbit to the subscriber fairly constantly.
That was true 10 years ago. I'm on a 50 GB/month Satellite link that is many, many miles away from any type of alternative comms right now. Everything, upload and download, is through the GeoSynch Satellite. 600 ms latency, but data rate is pretty good - around 10 mbits/second.
I'm optimistic about satellite internet done right, but I'm worried the speeds and lag are going to make it a bit frustrating compared to fiber. In 5 years (when this will be completed), I think virtual reality will be penetrating the masses. Can satellite internet handle virtual meetings, virtual online gaming, etc without major lagging?
These are going to be LEO satellites (no higher than a few hundred km), instead of GEO satellites, which would make the lower bound of the latency pretty low (comparable to cable or DSL).
Cool! Quick back-of-the-napkin indicates that the RTT for LEO satellites (at the upper bound) would be only ~4.7% of the RTT for GEO satellites. I'm sure there's much more to the story that I'm missing, but an LEO satellite should have a latency of around 11.75ms. In 2012, average US latency to Google was ~50-60ms [1]. Would bandwidth be the limiting factor?
The alternative to the market served by satellite Internet isn't fiber, it's nothing (or in some cases, cell towers). To address your point: The satellite network would almost certainly be in LEO. There's no fundamental reason why LEO satellites should have high latency. They're only a few hundred kilometers out, so round trip times are measured in single digit milliseconds. GEO sats have latency (and bandwidth) issues due to their distance from the surface.
I suspect the initial use case is low bandwidth protocols (email, IM, notifications etc) that don't mind high latency rather than "high" bandwidth stuff (browsing, streaming video etc).
It's certainly better than the alternative in some places, which is zero internet. Look at how widespread "dumb phone" use is throughout Africa. Some incredible and empowering things can happen when unprivileged folks are given what we might consider outdated technologies.
There's probably no reason this can't act as another competitor to fixed broadband in the US market, bypassing one of the major issues holding back greater competition in that market. Especially if SpaceX can get the launches down to a cheap enough point. And it should certainly be capable of acting as a competitor to 4G LTE and the next generation.
I recall some notes from one of interviews with Musk that mentioned a "a plan for poorer countries and a plan for those stuck with Comcast". Not sure if Musk said this personally though, I haven't watched the interview itself yet.
... But there's dramatically less when you put the satellites much closer to earth, as they're planning to do here. These are LEO satellites, not the far-away geostationary stuff you see with older communication satellites.
In fact, if they enable satellite to satellite communication (like e.g. Iridium) and get full worldwide coverage, there's no reason why they couldn't in theory delivery much shorter roundtrip times than what we get between many locations over wired networks, given how much traffic takes huge detours today for various reasons. E.g. lots of European traffic to parts of Asia still goes the "long way around" via the US because it's a far better served route thanks to massive amount of undersea capacity going in/out of the US to pretty much everywhere, while the land routes to parts of Asia are fraught with problems.
Being able to ignore political boundaries, war zones, problems with theft and vandalism and other concerns that often limit the placement of over-land long distance cables has a huge potential value in itself.
Google Ventures' budget is reportedly nearer $300-$500M/year so I would imagine this is something different. There were rumblings of Satellite internet coming out of GoogleX but this seems to fit with their new Energy / Access group (Where Project Loon ended up) too. So my answer is that it definitely won't maybe end up in Google Ventures.
Google Inc. does direct investments from time to time. Also they have their growth investment arm, Google Capital, which has invested some large sums recently in Glassdoor, etc. (but surely not $1B in one company unless they acquired that company). Perhaps Google Inc. is leading the investment with the round consisting of many undisclosed players across private equity, etc.
Considering satellites at that altitude and quantity would be ideal for cell handsets. I would be surprised if Apple wasn't trying to get a piece of this action as well.
Spectrum rights came up in the announcement video for the opening of the Space X satellite branch. The response was that spectrum to satellite is not scarce as long as roof penetration isn't required. Handset to satellite would work against that unless it did some sort of voip satellite/wifi handoff.
Yea, looking at the announcement they are talking about something partially optically based. I guess we will see what they can pull off. Optical seems like a difficult choice for anything that moves though.
Even if he wanted to, Cook doesn't have enough power at Apple, practically, to be actually in a position to do that yet.
I mean clout. He literally can't personally decide to do that (yet) and just do it.
The Apple watch is the first category or undertaking of a similar size and novelty, and has yet to be accepted or succeed. (It will.)
My comment is being misinterpreted so I've clarified above. My comment isn't about what Apple can 'afford to do' it's about what Tim Cook can 'afford to do' (politically and in terms of consequences.)
I think Musk keeps control pretty tightly held. A Google investment isn't something SpaceX can take without his say-so. So Apple can't randomly drop $2B and win the day - If SpaceX takes the investment, they likely a) leave most control with Musk, and b) are the right partner, the one Musk was looking for.
Tim Cook in case you forgot is the CEO of Apple and has been instrumental in its success. He is also ridiculously well respected within Apple. Not sure what more he could do.
That said he isn't stupid enough to invest in something like this. Apple doesn't benefit all that much from having more people on the internet. Google does.
Larry Page and Sergey Brin have majority voting control of Google. Tim Cook doesn't have the same at Apple. No matter how well-respected, he's answerable to shareholders in a way Page is not. Arguably we see some of this when Icahn pushes for Apple dividends and share buybacks.
Spectrum that can penetrate walls/homes is very scarce so that won't happen. It appears these sats will be for lasercom and home internet (requiring a dish/antenna).
Cable and DSL also have an 'outdoors' component, adding an external antenna for either improved bandwidth or to get the thing to work at all should be an option for a new broadband medium.
And when you're on the move that doesn't matter. One way to make it work untethered indoors is to simply bridge the satellite downlink box to a wifi repeater. That would get you coverage indoors and outdoors from regular devices around your house, and if they sell enough of these downlink boxes they could conceivably pool the bandwidth by creating a mesh of them.
All kinds of interesting options, even if it doesn't work directly indoors.
I don't see why it shouldn't. This has been the case pretty much every day for a long time so clearly it isn't against the rules. I agree that it isn't ideal but it's better to link to a good source than to find a poorly written article that is free to access.
Why are you being mean? You suggested that content being hosted on a copyright holder's website was enough protection. They cited an example where it wasn't. It just means the specifics of the case law are relevant here and a blanket pronouncement isn't sufficient.
I'm sorry if I was brusque but it's annoying when people don't look at the whole picture when making an argument but rather focus on a narrow interpretation that allows them to make a point.
Do you not see a difference between published newspaper articles and AT&T's customers' private information, however poorly guarded? Do you think a judge would? Maybe freehunter didn't see the difference either and I'm just a cynic.
Yeah there is a difference, but there is also a similarity. Google links to news articles with or without permission. They even got sued for doing so. Just because Google is doing it doesn't mean it's legal, and even if Google has permission it doesn't mean everyone else has permission.
As for what a judge would think, the fact that you had to find a way around their content protection gave a clear sign that they were trying to protect their content. The DMCA doesn't really discriminate when it comes to the difficulty of copyright circumvention.
First of all, let me apologize for not being more charitable with my assumptions.
As to the actual point, WSJ has a paywall in place which they deliberately open to let Google through. Not just Google's crawler, but visitors using Google's search page as a referrer.
It's quite different than AT&T being incompetent or negligent with their customers' private info. WSJ is the owner of the content and they are making a strategic decision to allow this behavior.
Again, I wish I hadn't been rude. It would have been nicer to have this exchange without it.
I love that this link is here, IANAL, but I'm curious: would pasting this link here violate the CFAA or Web Entertainment Theft Bill since it's bypassing a paywall? Would it count as a misdemeanor in that case to actually follow the link?
Google Nears $1 Billion Investment in SpaceX Infusion Would Back Push to Provide Internet Access Via Satellites
SpaceX delivered cargo to the international space station last week. SpaceX delivered cargo to the international space station last week. NASA/REUTERS By ROLFE WINKLER, EVELYN RUSLI and ANDY PASZTOR Jan. 19, 2015 5:30 p.m. ET
Google Inc. is close to investing roughly $1 billion in Space Exploration Technologies Corp. to support its nascent efforts to deliver Internet access via satellites, according to a person familiar with the matter.
The investment would value SpaceX, backed by Tesla Motors Inc. Chief Executive Elon Musk , at more than $10 billion, according to this person. It isn’t clear what exact stake Google could end up with in the fast-growing space company.
If Google completes the deal, it would be the Internet company’s latest effort to use futuristic technology to spread Internet access to remote regions of the world, alongside high-altitude balloons and solar-powered drones. By extending Web access, Google increases the number of people who can use its services.
Spokesmen for Google and SpaceX declined to comment.
News of Google’s potential investment was reported by tech blog The Information.
Google has been considering satellite-based Internet service for more than a year. In late 2013, it hired satellite-industry veteran Greg Wyler, who at one point last year had more than 10 people working for him. Mr. Wyler left Google last summer and is now developing his own satellite-Internet venture.
SpaceX builds and launches rockets and spacecraft. Mr. Musk last week described a general concept for SpaceX to launch hundreds of satellites into relatively low orbit to deliver Internet access across the globe. Mr. Musk told BusinessWeek the project could cost $10 billion to build and take at least five years, but gave no details about funding or manufacturing plans.
For several months Mr. Musk has been mulling ways to expand SpaceX’s rocket-and-spacecraft manufacturing operations to designing and building satellites, according to aerospace-industry officials who have talked with him. Though short on specifics, his latest comments were the clearest sign yet of a long-term commitment to such expansion plans.
It is likely to take years to establish designs and potentially set up a specialized satellite-making facility. But SpaceX already has some important building blocks. Industry officials said the company builds its own navigation and flight-control systems for spacecraft, which could provide some elements for satellites. There also are synergies between parts SpaceX makes today for solar arrays on spacecraft and such devices intended for satellites.
One big technical and financial challenge facing the proposed venture is the cost installing ground-based antennas and computer terminals to receive the satellite signals. That issue has bedeviled some earlier Internet-via-satellite projects and threatens to complicate Google’s efforts, satellite industry officials and consultants say.
Another unanswered question is how SpaceX plans to transmit Internet signals to Earth. The company isn’t believed to control rights to radio spectrum.
Mr. Musk has discussed using optical-laser technology in his satellites, according to a person familiar with the matter. That technology works by beaming information from satellites in space. But lasers wouldn’t be a reliable way to deliver Internet service to Earth because, unlike radio waves, they don’t easily pass through clouds.
The talks are somewhat unusual for Mr. Musk, who has resisted most outside investments that could reduce even slightly his control over SpaceX. Industry officials said if problems arise, SpaceX might need additional capital in the next few years to fund new rocket development and more launches. It isn’t clear what terms are under discussion.
The Wall Street Journal reported Mr. Musk’s interest in satellite-Internet service in November, saying he was talking with Mr. Wyler.
Mr. Wyler last week said his new venture, OneWeb Ltd., had secured funding from Richard Branson ’s Virgin Group and chip company Qualcomm Inc. Mr. Wyler said he hopes to provide Internet service from a constellation of 648 satellites in low-Earth orbit, using a large block of radio spectrum he controls. Mr. Wyler estimated the plan would cost as much as $2 billion.
Messrs. Musk and Wyler stopped working together because of disagreements over control of any joint project, according to a person familiar with their discussions.
I would imagine he means trying to navigate the debris when sending other stuff into orbit, or bringing spacecraft home. I've often wondered this myself... at some point do we have so much stuff up there it's near-impossible to get spacecraft out without serious danger to their crews? And what about when it's time to retire them?
If my napkin-calculations are correct, 4025 stats @ 1100 km LEO orbit would occupy 0.0000000573% of the sky - so not a real problem, I believe ;) (if they are in the same plane, that is and each have 10mx10mx10m bounding area...)
I'm guessing they are referring to real-estate capacity. Not including space junk there are about 2,300 satellites in orbit. This is quite a proportional increase and the risk of collision with junk will go up.
The collision risk will depend very much on the altitude at which they are placed... this is also a big determiner of design life (N years before the orbit decays and they come back into the atmosphere) and might also have some effect on signal strength / geometry.
Remember that this space is significantly larger than the total surface area of the Earth, since it represents a sphere larger than the Earth. Imagine the satellites are the size of an outdoor garbage receptacle. Do you think 600+ of them floating around really presents some risk of collision? There's probably more garbage bins just in New York City, and this is spread over an area much larger than the surface of the Earth.
Space is really, really large. Using the intuition you developed while living on the surface of the Earth provides you little help when thinking about space.
The asteroid belt, which is positively TEEMING with possible collisions... billions of objects... yeah, we don't even bother. Ninety-nine (point nine nine nine...) times out of a hundred you won't hit anything. Space is big.
Well, to be honest, orbits are more like corridors so the risk of collision increases a bit. But still, if they're at least a little bit careful about avoiding generation of space junk, there shouldn't be a problem.
