The SpaceX IPO and Data Centers in Space

It’s hardly the biggest problem in the world — or perhaps the height of privilege to consider it a problem at all — but one of the most annoying consumer experiences is booking an Uber Black and realizing you got assigned a Tesla Model Y (Uber finally stopped allowing new Model Y’s onto Black last year). Buckle up for an uncomfortable back seat, basic plastic finishes, and, all-too-often, potential car sickness from a driver who hasn’t completely mastered the Tesla’s aggressive regenerative braking.

Still, the fact that the Model Y ever made it to the Black level is a testament to the brand Elon Musk built. Back in 2016, when 300,000 people dropped $1,000 each in a matter of hours to reserve an as-yet-unreleased Model 3, I explained that the phenomenon was because It’s a Tesla:

The real payoff of Musk’s “Master Plan” is the fact that Tesla means something: yes, it stands for sustainability and caring for the environment, but more important is that Tesla also means amazing performance and Silicon Valley cool. To be sure, Tesla’s focus on the high end has helped them move down the cost curve, but it was Musk’s insistence on making “An electric car without compromises” that ultimately led to 276,000 people reserving a Model 3, many without even seeing the car: after all, it’s a Tesla.

This is the same brand halo that landed what is, if we’re honest, a pretty basic car on the Uber Black list. What actually makes these cars compelling is the extent to which they are computers on wheels: I know plenty of very rich people who drive a Tesla not for the finishes but rather the Full Self-Driving (Supervised); there is nothing like it on the market, at least when it comes to cars you can own.

Tesla appears to be doubling down on this point of differentiation: the company stopped production of the Models S and X earlier this year, focusing production resources on the CyberCab and robots; if you want your car to drive itself, you’ll get the same model as everyone else. It reminds me of Andy Warhol’s famous quote:

What’s great about this country is that America started the tradition where the richest consumers buy essentially the same things as the poorest. You can be watching TV and see Coca-Cola, and you know that the President drinks Coke, Liz Taylor drinks Coke, and just think, you can drink Coke, too. A Coke is a Coke and no amount of money can get you a better Coke than the one the bum on the corner is drinking. All the Cokes are the same and all the Cokes are good. Liz Taylor knows it, the President knows it, the bum knows it, and you know it.

That “tradition” is scale, and America is indeed better at it than any other country in the world; and, amongst Americans, no one pursues and seeks to leverage scale quite like Musk.

Starlink and Airlines

From a press release from American Airlines:

American Airlines today announced a sweeping modernization of its narrowbody inflight customer experience with the installation of Starlink, the fastest Wi-Fi in the sky, on more than 500 narrowbody aircraft beginning in Q1 2027. Starlink is widely regarded as the world’s most advanced satellite constellation using a low Earth orbit to deliver broadband Internet capable of supporting inflight streaming, online gaming, collaborative meeting tools and more. With thousands of satellites in low Earth orbit, Starlink can deliver multigigabit connectivity to aircraft using its Aero Terminal, which can support up to 1 Gbps per antenna.

“As a premium global airline, we are continuously seeking out world-class partners like Starlink to deliver what our customers need and want,” said American Airlines Chief Customer Officer Heather Garboden. “The addition of Starlink solidifies American as a leading airline in keeping passengers connected in flight.” As part of American’s commitment to an elevated onboard experience, Starlink will enable seamless streaming, browsing and real-time communication capabilities across American’s domestic and short-haul international routes.

I linked to the press release just for the amusement of American Airlines, which has in recent years built its strategy around offering anything-but-premium on routes you need, billing their Starlink deal as a commitment to “an elevated onboard experience.” That may have been the argument for United’s Starlink deal when it was announced in 2024, but by this point it’s tablestakes, which is surely exactly how Musk wants it.

Starlink is the consumer-facing business of SpaceX, generating $8.7 billion in revenue last year and $4.4 billion in profit; while it’s not totally clear exactly how SpaceX accounts for launch costs, obviously Starlink benefits greatly from the fact that it has access to SpaceX’s launch capacity. That launch capacity has resulted in over ten thousand active satellites in low Earth orbit, delivering low latency high speed Internet anywhere in the world — including in the air. That’s the carrot for airlines; the stick is the prospect of everyone else having the same service, and customers making flight decisions based on the quality of Internet access available.

There is a similarity to Tesla in this way. Musk companies at their best don’t win the game; they change the rules through scale, such that billionaires buy economy cars because they actually drive themselves (with supervision), and airlines transform the consumer experience on their own dime. Musk makes all-in bets — whether that be in terms of launch capacity or in autonomous driving — not by making rational short-term business decisions, but by starting with the desired end state and working backwards.

SpaceX’s Silly S-1

Tech has a long history of silly charts — there is an entire category known as Bezos charts — and the SpaceX S-1 has one that made me laugh. It came in the discussion of SpaceX’s total addressable market:

We believe we have identified the largest actionable total addressable market (“TAM”) in human history. We estimate that our quantifiable TAM is $28.5 trillion, consisting of $370 billion in Space from space-enabled solutions; $1.6 trillion in Connectivity across $870 billion in Starlink Broadband and $740 billion in Starlink Mobile as well as additional opportunities in enterprise and government; $26.5 trillion in AI across $2.4 trillion in AI infrastructure, $760 billion in consumer subscriptions, $600 billion in digital advertising, and $22.7 trillion in enterprise applications. For illustrative purposes of sizing our addressable market opportunity, we exclude China and Russia from our global estimates.

This image is approximately to scale vertically, but certainly not horizontally: I could use the help in really wrapping my mind around the $26.5 trillion AI opportunity, given it’s more than 13 times the space and connectivity opportunity combined!

In all seriousness, the numbers are obviously absurd, but then again, everything about this IPO is absurd. SpaceX is seeking a $2 trillion valuation on a mere $18.67 billion in revenue with $4.9 billion in losses last year, and growth actually slowed from 35% to 33%. That slowdown happened despite the addition of xAI (and thus also X), which tipped the company from a small profit to that massive loss, thanks to $5.1 billion in AI R&D expense. That R&D, keep in mind, went towards building a model that is in 5th place, and whose entire founding team recently left the company. But sure, $26.5 trillion AI opportunity!

This is not to say that SpaceX won’t get its desired valuation. Tesla’s valuation never made any sense right up until the Models 3 and Y actually worked out, causing Tesla’s share price to soar (and even then it was hard to ever build a financial model that justified the new share price). Musk’s ability to make his own reality starts with investors; from 2021’s Mistakes and Memes and comparing Apple and Tesla:

This comparison works as far as it goes, but it doesn’t tell the entire story: after all, Apple’s brand was derived from decades building products, which had made it the most profitable company in the world. Tesla, meanwhile, always seemed to be weeks from going bankrupt, at least until it issued ever more stock, strengthening the conviction of Tesla skeptics and shorts.

That, though, was the crazy thing: you would think that issuing stock would lead to Tesla’s stock price slumping; after all, existing shares were being diluted. Time after time, though, Tesla announcements about stock issuances would lead to the stock going up. It didn’t make any sense, at least if you thought about the stock as representing a company.

It turned out, though, that TSLA was itself a meme, one about a car company, but also sustainability, and most of all, about Elon Musk himself. Issuing more stock was not diluting existing shareholders; it was extending the opportunity to propagate the TSLA meme to that many more people, and while Musk’s haters multiplied, so did his fans. The Internet, after all, is about abundance, not scarcity. The end result is that instead of infrastructure leading to a movement, a movement, via the stock market, funded the building out of infrastructure.

I explained in that Article why I generally did not cover Tesla’s financial results, and the reasoning extends to why I don’t expect to cover SpaceX’s: Musk is the master of memes, and is himself a meme. He offers a dream — Mars, fully autonomous vehicles, an addressable market of $28.5 trillion — and positions his companies and their stock as access to that dream, and through the alchemy of capital markets, transforms shared delusion into mass market reality.

Musk’s track record matters in this regard. Building an electric car company was possible, as was full self-driving (supervised); at the same time there were ever increasing government mandates and programs around decreasing emissions that acted as the stick to Tesla’s carrot. Similarly, landing rockets was possible, and the new market creation downstream from correspondingly lower launch costs was comprehensible. That Musk succeeded in both instances gives him the benefit of the doubt.

The question that matters, then, is not if the numbers make sense right now (they absolutely do not); what matters is if the dream is even possible, and if there are actual reasons to think it might happen. I think that data centers in space meet these conditions.

The Case for Data Centers in Space

The first question about data centers in space is if they are even possible, and I think the answer is clearly yes. The key thing to consider is that there is no requirement that these data centers look anything like data centers on earth. On earth we build massive buildings full of GPUs with massive infrastructure for cooling those GPUs and massive power plants (or a connection to a grid which connects to massive power plants) to power those GPUs. The idea of transporting these massive structures to space sounds implausible, and it is!

However, there is no reason that space data centers would look like data centers on earth. What makes far more sense is to think about an individual satellite as something akin to a rack. Right now the largest Starlink satellite in orbit is the V2 Mini Direct-to-Cell, which measures 7.4 meters by 2.7 meters by 0.3 meters (estimated); an NVL72 rack from Nvidia, meanwhile, measures 2.2 meters by 1.1 meters by 0.6 meters, so we’re already in the right size range. The V2 Mini Direct-to-Cell consumes (and dissipates) up to an estimated 25kW of energy; the NVL72 up to 135kW, and it can fit a 1 trillion parameter model quantized to FP4.

The big shortcoming for a rack-satellite is power and its dissipation, but going from 25kW to 135kW is certainly within the realm of possibility — and given that you don’t need much of the cooling and power distribution usage on earth, something closer to 100kW might deliver similar performance. There are other issues to address, including the problem of radiation screwing with calculations, reliability, etc., although those two concerns could be addressed in part by using larger chips (which are less efficient, but also use less power); these rack-satellites will also be disposable, like Starlink satellites, ameliorating reliability issues. The key factor, however, is that a fleet of racks, interconnected with lasers (as Starlink’s already are), each with their own solar panels and radiator arrays for cooling (deploying 200+ square meters of radiators per rack will be a huge challenge), is possible.

---

The next question about data centers in space is if there is a use case for them — the carrot — and I already made the argument that there is in The Inference Shift. Specifically, there are three types of workloads developing around LLMs: training, answer inference, and agentic inference. From the section making the case for “agentic inference”:

Critically, this articulation of an agentic-specific memory hierarchy implies a necessary trade-off of speed for capacity. Here’s the thing, though: lower speed isn’t nearly as important a consideration if there isn’t a human in the loop. If an agent is waiting around for a job that is being run overnight, the agent doesn’t know or care about the user experience impact; what is most important is being able to accomplish a task, and if entirely new approaches to memory make that possible, then delays are fine.

If delays are fine, then all of the focus on pure compute power and high-bandwidth memory seems out of place: if latency isn’t the top priority, then slower and cheaper memory — like traditional DRAM, for example — makes a lot more sense. And if the entire system is mostly waiting on memory, then chips don’t need to be as fast as the cutting edge either. This represents a profound shift in future architectures, but it also doesn’t mean that current architectures are going away:

• Training will continue to matter, and Nvidia’s current architecture, including high-speed compute, large amounts of high-bandwidth memory, and high-speed networking, will likely continue to dominate.
• Answer inference will be a meaningful market, albeit a relatively small one, and speed from chips like Cerebras or Groq (I explained how Nvidia is deploying Groq’s LPUs here) will be very useful.
• Agentic inference will gradually unbundle the GPU, which alternates between stranding high-bandwidth memory (during the prefill process) and stranding compute (during the decode process), in favor of increasingly sophisticated memory hierarchies dominated by high capacity and relatively lower cost memory types, with “good enough” compute; indeed, if anything it will be the speed of CPUs for things like tool use that will matter more than the speed of GPUs.

At the same time, these categories won’t be equal in size or importance. Specifically, agentic inference will be the largest market by far, because that is the market that won’t be limited by humans or time. Today’s agents are fancy answer inference; in the future true agentic inference will be work done by computers according to dictates given by other computers, and the market size scales not with humans but with compute.

It’s agentic inference that makes the most sense for racks in space, and conveniently enough, that is also the market that is likely to be the largest in the long run.

---

The third question about data centers in space is if there is a stick. Specifically, while I think that racks-in-space are both a lot more viable than people think, and a lot more relevant to agentic inference than current modes of compute, it is at the end of the day cheaper and easier to build on earth, all things being equal.

All things are not equal, however: right now we are at the very beginning of the AI buildout and already one of the biggest constraints is not just power (expected), but zoning (unexpected). I wrote in an Update last week:

That leads to an interesting contrast to globalization: when companies were closing down American factories and laying off workers and moving operations to China, none of the affected towns or workers had a say. They just suddenly no longer had a job, and a huge number of cities across the Rust Belt no longer had a reason to exist. People simply had to move, or worse, retreat to things like alcohol or drugs.

AI, however, is the opposite: building data centers requires permission, which is to say that people actually have a say. Again, I am not at all saying that these people are well informed about data centers, or about the economic impact on their communities, much less the economic impact of AI generally; what I am noting is that people who didn’t have a say in globalization are suddenly finding they do have a say about AI, and it’s not a surprise they are expressing their disapproval by blocking data centers.

In that Update I made the case that data center builders — and by extension the companies that use them — should straight up pay people for permission to build data centers in their communities. At a minimum, however, that increases the costs of terrestrial data centers. What seems very plausible in the long run is that the demand for compute ends up being so large that there eventually is nowhere left to build, making the vast expanses of space not just an alternative but in fact the only choice.

An IPO Worth Supporting

If all of this happens — and there are a lot of “if”s here! — then suddenly that $2 trillion valuation starts looking reasonable. SpaceX is already monetizing xAI’s first data center, Colossus 1, to the tune of $15 billion/year for 300MW of capacity; that’s 3,000 racks-in-space. Anthropic, meanwhile, will probably make 3x the revenue on that capacity; it remains to be seen if xAI can get back in the state-of-the-art game, but if so then the amount of revenue it can generate per rack-in-space will be commensurately higher. Even without xAI, however, SpaceX has the potential to be a monopoly provider of marginal compute capacity.

There are, needless to say, a massive number of assumptions baked into this argument, including assuming a huge number of engineering challenges are solved, Starship actually works, SpaceX gets sufficient supply of the right kinds of chips, compute demand is massively larger, agentic inference unbundles current architectures, and data center opponents are successful. The risk attached to all of these assumptions should discount the valuation you put on this business, which is to say I still think this IPO is nuts.

At the same time, I’m glad it exists, for multiple reasons. The first one is the most obvious one: Musk, for all of his faults, has already pushed humanity forward on multiple vectors, including electric cars, self-driving, reusable rockets, satellite Internet, etc., and I’m excited to see him try and do more.

The second is that I am in fact concerned about our ability to muster enough compute to fully realize the gains from AI, and am very worried about a replay of nuclear power, where our failure to build denied us the opportunity to even imagine what could be invented in a world of unlimited energy; the fact Musk is proposing an alternative path to unlimited compute is a relief.

The third is that I appreciate the extent to which this IPO is a return to what an IPO should be: the opportunity for people to contribute capital to actually build the business, and to benefit if it works out. As I noted, I can’t make a financial model that necessarily justifies this valuation, particularly based on current financials, but neither can a VC investing in the Series A of a company. SpaceX has already invented a lot, and its early investors are going to make a lot of money with this IPO; at the same time, there is still so much more to invent that there remains a lot of upside — and, to be very clear, a lot of risk. It’s a testament to SpaceX’s ambitions that retail investors get to play VC.

And hey, you get Mars upside for free!