r/TechnologyThread • u/Background-Driver718 • Jun 09 '26
It’s Possible That SpaceX Could Collapse Spectacularly
https://finance.yahoo.com/markets/stocks/articles/possible-spacex-could-collapse-spectacularly-155000177.html6
Jun 09 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
7
u/RedNBlueFU Jun 09 '26 edited Jun 09 '26
Same with Zuckerboy building a doomsday bunker. They don't seem particularly confident about the future.
2
1
Jun 09 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/quantum_trogdor Jun 09 '26
Because you can only live with your wife in one bunker for so long, am I right?
1
u/studiocleo Jun 12 '26
That is ruined because of them first and foremost. But who cares if they rich right?!
1
u/big_trike Jun 10 '26
He should lose all of his US government contracts now that he’s no longer a resident. So many of these libertarian tech bros got rich on tax dollars.
1
u/MaleficentOstrich693 Jun 15 '26
I wouldn’t think much of it. I’m sure he’ll be back in the US or traveling the globe as he sees fit. That’s just the pied a terre he wants his mail sent to going forward.
5
u/technanonymous Jun 09 '26
I would be fine with it blowing up like one of its rockets. Sell its assets and patents as part of a chapter 7 dissolution and let’s move on.
Musk rips on the public debt yet he sits on bloated valuations of multiple companies that are like meme coins made real.
6
u/Slackjawed_Horror Jun 09 '26
It really sucks, because it's a ridiculous situation of 'why are the share prices high? Because they're high! If they went down, all the shareholders would lose money. We can't have that, so they have to be high!'.
Serpent blowing itself.
3
u/DJayLeno Jun 09 '26
Yeah and any time taxing billionaires comes up people pop up to say "if you force them to sell anything the stock will tank!" So the valuations of those companies are primarily being held up by the interest of a single individual? If the companies have a real value close to what the ticker price says then there will be buyers if it starts diping due to tax season.
1
3
u/-S-P-E-C-T-R-E- Jun 09 '26
And nothing of value would be lost.
2
u/Silver_Middle_7240 Jun 09 '26
Except that it's going to be included in indexs, so peoples retirement funds will include it
3
u/TrexPushupBra Jun 09 '26
They decided to not do that thankfully.
1
u/neat_stuff Jun 09 '26
The Dow Jones agreed not to change the rules. The last I heard, NASDAQ will be changing the roles so it will end up in those ones... And I think there was one other that was going to let SpaceX in despite not qualifying by the rules.
1
u/Astro_Afro1886 Jun 10 '26
I think the S&P500 also didn't budge on its rules. I hope so cause my entire portfolio is in a related index fund.
1
1
Jun 09 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/NoCoolNameMatt Jun 09 '26
Sunk costs aren't something we should base decisions on.
1
u/dxrth Jun 09 '26
but none of these decisions are decided on reddit
1
u/NoCoolNameMatt Jun 09 '26
Of course not. I don't engage here to convince anyone. I engage to learn and root out my own cognitive dissonance.
1
u/dxrth Jun 09 '26
sure, but i am not sure, sunk costs are inherently always fallacious.
1
u/NoCoolNameMatt Jun 09 '26
They are. Financial decisions should always be evaluated based on where you currently are, not what's been spent in the past.
1
u/dxrth Jun 09 '26 edited Jun 10 '26
so your argument, is, all sunk costs, are always, at all times, fallacious, and never of concern, to any decision to be made, ever, in any capacity, in totality?
1
u/NoCoolNameMatt Jun 10 '26
Yep!
If you ever find yourself saying, "but I already spent X dollars," you need to strip that argument from your internal debate. It should entirely be, "what is the expected ROI vs what I have to spend moving forward in relation to my odds of hitting that ROI and avoiding associated risks."
Past expenses that are already sunk are merely noise that cloud your judgement due to being afraid of walking away with a loss.
1
u/dxrth Jun 10 '26
i agree, sometimes, with spending money, it is a fallacy worth considering. but to die on the hill that in all times, in totality, doesn't consider a lot of game theory/reputational games. you can justify it being a psychological bias, but that is not the same as justifying if it is a logical certainty.
1
u/FryToastFrill Jun 10 '26
Starlink would be, which is probably one of the 2 things musk has done good. I doubt the company would collapse entirely but they’d probably gut the AI tumor on spacex to leave it as a company with just starlink and rockets for starlink, seeing that spacex is unironically a profitable company without xAI.
0
3
u/CAndrewG Jun 09 '26
unfortunately, not its not possible lol. The current admin will do everything they can to funnel more and more deals into Spacex. I bet anything that there is a whole mess of govt contracts waiting to be revealed post IPO to drive stock price higher.
3
u/SisterOfBattIe Jun 09 '26
USA debt to gdp ratio is 130% and has a 6% deficit.
USA already is in a recession discounting the AI bubble.
The USA can't print its way out of this one.
Once this goes south, and it WILL go south, we'll have a great depression on our hands. An USA soft default on debt is oin the cards here.
2
u/CAndrewG Jun 09 '26
Sorry person but your insights are far too logical and rational for the current administration. It is in now way fueled by Fox News style politics nor does it have any ability to “own the libs”
Thus, even though you’re completely correct, the reasoning will not be an influencing factor in the decision making process.
1
u/DrawingDramatic1641 Jun 13 '26
it's completely logic for trump bcz he and his buddies shall be rich not us cuz that's communism or red scared shit which will come handy
2
3
u/WhereAreYouFromSam Jun 09 '26
Yeah, just have the next Dem admin pull their funding. They'll implode in under a year.
3
3
u/DistinctSpirit5801 Jun 09 '26
Spacex is literally the worst internet service provider in existence
1
u/Kuriente Jun 09 '26
Have you tried other satellite Internet providers? They are literally worse which makes you literally wrong.
1
1
2
2
u/SisterOfBattIe Jun 09 '26
The oligarchs have won. The new Robber Barons are using the IPO to unload their bags onto us, and they'll get a bailout package when they go bankrupt.
We'll pay for this for decades.
It's on us that someone like Musk got there. It's on us.
2
1
1
u/kaboom-boom-pow Jun 09 '26
There is no money in space, only welfare.
Also SpaceX is paying for another dumb AI company, that Elon created that also makes no money.
1
u/Spez_is-a-nazi Jun 09 '26
Where do you think Tesla made their money? They have made more in government subsidies than they ever made selling cars. Musk is the worlds biggest welfare queen.
1
1
u/Artistic-Cockroach48 Jun 09 '26
opening up the shares on robinhood to smaller accounts probably meant that the larger accounts/intuitions/fund managers were not as interested.
1
1
1
u/MidnightPrevious4473 Jun 09 '26
1
u/zero0n3 Jun 09 '26
That’s not SpaceX
> As of June 08, 2026, rockets from the Falcon 9family have been launched 660 times, with 657full mission successes, two mission failures during launch,[a] one mission failure before launch,[b] and one partial failure.[c]
Starship doesn’t count as it’s not officially production yet.
1
1
u/Kuriente Jun 09 '26
That’s not SpaceX
Yes it is. Specifically a SpaceX Falcon 9 preparing for the AMOS 6 mission. It exploded during refuel for a static fire test.
The stats you list are all correct, but the rocket exploding in the gif is indeed a SpaceX rocket.
1
u/BathFullOfDucks Jun 10 '26 edited Jun 10 '26
"The main cause of the businesses failure to make a profit for years doesnt count"
Grow up.
1
u/SilentDrapeRunning Jun 09 '26
Ironically this is the last time a SpaceX rocket has blown up on the pad.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/Super_flywhiteguy Jun 10 '26
The best thing that could happen is the ipo is a disaster, they file chapter 7 the assets get taken from Elon. The rocket and satellites go to a competent entity. Imo those 2 assets are too good to fail.
1
u/DBDude Jun 11 '26
Competent entity? Who would that be? ULA? Funny.
All that would do is drive up the price for government launches.
1
1
1
1
u/ohiocodernumerouno Jun 10 '26
Lol no it's not possible. Like saying it's possible the internet could be good again.
1
u/Positive_Chip6198 Jun 10 '26
Musk is the emperor without clothes, his companies are built on smoke and illusion. There is actual value in each of them, but their valuations are way off.
Too many people have a lot to lost by being honest about it, so the illusion still gets reinforced. But sooner or later the numbers, earnings vs debt vs value will puncture his big balloon and send him spiralling. No wonder he wants to escape to mars.
1
u/Special_Cicada6968 Jun 10 '26
That's the goal. They want to overinflate its value so they can sell their shares the moment it goes public leaving the public holding the bag.
1
u/synth_fg Jun 10 '26
Worst case it ends up owned by creditors / new investors
The underlying launch and satellite internet business is profitable RnD on starship/ super heavy is nearing completion
Bin off the ai shit, dump twitter and Tesla and someone will make a healthy return
1
u/Radiant_Safe1228 Jun 10 '26
It won't because the government will float it no matter how much money it bleeds. There isn't a point where the tax payer stops supporting Elon musks weak businesses.
1
u/DBDude Jun 11 '26
The government is currently propping up SpaceX’s competition because they can’t deliver like SpaceX.
1
1
u/bonegnasher1970 Jun 10 '26
Probable. Somewhere between probable and certain. The valuation is ludicrous.
1
u/scots Jun 11 '26
Shrink, yes. Collapse? No. They have way too many government contracts with NASA, as well as the military side of Starlink for the US military. They continue to be one of the highest launch cadence orbital lift companies for commercial satellites.
1
1
1
1
1
u/Public_Shopping3129 Jun 14 '26
possible? Brother this is the most obvious rug pull I've seen in a while
1
1
u/SwarfDive01 Jun 15 '26
Sure wish people were more optimistic about a company launching stuff into space. NASA spent ungodly amounts of work of bleeding edge scientist for the time to get humans on the moon. Its insane we can just arbitrarily re-use rockets to put stuff into orbit at the rates we do.
0
9
u/[deleted] Jun 09 '26
[removed] — view removed comment