| ▲ | paxys 6 hours ago |
| Just a neat bit of financial engineering. You can tell because Elon picked SpaceX instead of Tesla – which would have actually made sense at some level (Optimus Robots + AI). But Tesla is public and so he'd need to follow laws and reporting requirements. |
|
| ▲ | wongarsu 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| You can tell it's just financial engineering because in the entire press release xAI is only mentioned in the first two sentences. Everything after that is Elon talking about space data centers to distract from the actual topic. Which seems to be working |
|
| ▲ | cakealert 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| This is fairly naive, Elon isn't the only investor in SpaceX. My guess is "that they did the math" and had an engineering study which convinced them that getting AI datacenters into space will make sense. It's also not hard to imagine why, the process alone once perfected could be reused for asteroid mining for example, then mirogravity manufacturing, either of which alone would be enormous capital intensive projects. Even if AI dataenters in space are break-even it would be a massive win for SpaceX and leave their competition far behind. |
| |
| ▲ | javascriptfan69 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Are you a bot or are you just stupid? | | |
| ▲ | fooker 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | There are several other companies that have announced efforts to try data centers in space. | | |
| ▲ | javascriptfan69 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | I know this is hackernews and we like to get hyped up for new technologies, but, like, this just straight up isn't happening. There is no benefit to putting data centers in space versus the giant cost that you would incur by doing so. Can people please try and use their fucking brains for a second? | | |
| ▲ | fooker an hour ago | parent [-] | | > Can people please try and use their fucking brains for a second? Have you considered that people smarter than you think it is plausible? | | |
| ▲ | youarentrightjr a minute ago | parent | next [-] | | > Have you considered that people smarter than you think it is plausible? I know many people smarter than me, plenty of them who have spent careers building data centers, and not one of them think this is plausible. You should consider whether people smarter than the average investor are pulling a fast one. | |
| ▲ | javascriptfan69 11 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | Have you considered that people smarter than you are scamming you? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | brokensegue 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| does he need spacex/xai to prop up tesla or the other way around? |
| |
| ▲ | paxys 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Tesla is still very profitable, as is SpaceX I assume. Twitter/X has been a $44 billion dollar failure, and xAI is a vanity project so Musk can go around saying he is a player in the AI space. Investors in both X and xAI need to be bailed out, hence this announcement. | | |
| ▲ | __alexs 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Tesla has a P/E in the hundreds and a ~0.3% market cap to profit ratio. In what world is this "very" profitable? | | |
| ▲ | paxys 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | In the world where it makes $8-10B in profit on $90-95 billion in revenue every year. Whatever price investors choose to trade the stock at is irrelevant to those numbers. | | |
| ▲ | mminer237 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | It's actually down to $3.8B in profit now, and will be losing money within a year at the rate its been losing profitability. | |
| ▲ | 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | __alexs 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | 2% net return on assets is garbage | | |
|
| |
| ▲ | spikels 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The $44B Twitter/X buyout was not a failure. For example Fidelity has its $19M investment in the buyout - now xAI common shares - marked at $62M (up over 3X) as of 12/31/25. It was certainly valued even higher on 1/31/26 after xAI had an oversubcribed fund raise in January. All before this merger announcement. | | |
| ▲ | paxys 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The fact that it had to be successively bailed out by xAI (which itself was funded by Tesla) and now SpaceX shareholders is exactly what makes the acquisition a failure. | | |
| ▲ | torginus 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | He spent other people's money (or maybe even imaginary money) he couldn't have used for himself (since selling off major stakes in your company is a big nono) | |
| ▲ | spikels 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | A "bailout" is when a company rescued from bankruptcy. Common equity holders take large losses or are wiped out. This did not happen here. We also know the Twitter buyout debt was sold at near par before the merger with xAI which is inconsistent with being near bankruptcy. |
| |
| ▲ | cowsandmilk 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > xAI had an oversubcribed fund raise in January My understanding is that it was not oversubscribed and would not have closed without Tesla’s investment. | | |
| ▲ | spikels 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | It was originally for $15B. They raised $20B of which $2B was from Tesla. Your sources might be shady (Elektrek?). |
|
| |
| ▲ | 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | verzali 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I think its an effort to position SpaceX as an AI company in order to justify some ridiculous valuation at IPO. | | |
| ▲ | Ifkaluva 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | I think it's more so that the upcoming new public shareholders of SpaceX bail out his X/xAI misadventure. |
| |
| ▲ | churchill 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [dead] | |
| ▲ | kypro 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Do you genuinely not think that "Elon" (xAI) is player in the AI space? You don't have to think they have the best models of course, but they are clearly a very significant, and some might argue, leading player in the AI race. | | |
| ▲ | paxys 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > and some might argue, leading player in the AI race What is this argument exactly? What are they leading? | | |
| ▲ | johnsmith1840 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | It is a real model, real datacenters, and deployed heavily on their social media platform. That's the full stack? Only other player that vertically setup is facebook, google and microsoft. |
| |
| ▲ | CryptoBanker 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | xAI’s models are really not pioneering at all. They weren’t the first to do MoE. Not the first to do open weighting, not the first to have memory or multi-modal vision. So no, I wouldn’t say Elon is a major player in the AI space. People use his models because they are cheap and are willing to undress people’s photos. | | |
| ▲ | tacoooooooo 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | saying they aren't pioneering is very different than saying they aren't a major player in the space. There're only like 5-7 players with a foundational model that they can serve at scale. xAI is one of them |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | SilverElfin 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I suspect SpaceX will acquire Tesla at some point. It’s the most profitable of these companies. So basically SpaceX employees and shareholders are covering up for the failing Tesla business and the already-failed xAI business. Let’s not forget, xAI is the parent of Twitter/X (the social network). So now, taxpayers are paying to keep Twitter/X alive. After all, it is taxpayer money going to the contracts the government gives SpaceX for launches. Nice way to subsidize what is effectively a one sided campaign machine for the GOP and far right. | | |
| ▲ | bhouston 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > I suspect SpaceX will acquire Tesla at some point. I think that is also likely, unless Tesla can stage a major turnaround, it is going to be beaten by Chinese competitors nearly everywhere that they are allowed (which is everywhere but the USA.) | |
| ▲ | AirMax98 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | This was my immediate thought as well. A great time to ask yourself — why am I literally paying for any of this? At best I literally don't use any of these services, at worst they are actively used against me. | |
| ▲ | senko 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I get what you're saying, but that taxpayer money is paying for the launch services at a very competitive rate (possibly the cheapest of all available options), not a subsidy scheme. | | |
| |
| ▲ | Ifkaluva 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I guess the difference is Tesla is a public company, so requires more paperwork. SpaceX isn't public yet, but will be soon, meaning it will have a cash infusion. |
|
