The entire space launch market is about $20B with multiple competitors in 2025. And by the most generous estimates it is going to be $80B by 2035. They can reuse the rockets as much as they like, the company isn’t worth $1.7T.

▲

chatmasta 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

3x growth in ten years is the “most generous” estimate?

▲

darth_avocado 4 days ago | parent [-]

Yes because outside Starlink and govt contracts, there isn’t that massive of a demand growth in the sector. There a limit to how many satellites can be in orbit at a time and land based telecom infrastructure makes it so that satellite based infra isn’t necessary unless you’re in remote areas.

	▲	inemesitaffia 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		Starlink is already most of the revenue. What's the point of the except? The main problem is the AI stuff.

▲

4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

Dig1t 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

How can you say “The company isn’t worth X”? Isn’t the company worth exactly as much as people are willing to pay for its shares?

I don’t personally think Google is worth $4T but the share price says otherwise.

▲

darth_avocado 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

You’re comparing a publicly traded company where the supply demand economics have established a price to a company whose financials are not public, and is valuing itself at $1.7T and forcing everyone’s 401Ks and pension funds to fund it. Not the same thing.

▲

lotsofpulp 4 days ago | parent [-]

>forcing everyone’s 401Ks and pension funds to fund it.

Source?

▲

darth_avocado 4 days ago | parent [-]

https://theconversation.com/musks-spacex-is-shaping-up-as-th...

▲

lotsofpulp 4 days ago | parent [-]

The source links in that website (which looks like clickbait) do not support your claim.

https://www.morningstar.com/funds/spacex-ipo-how-index-funds...

> S&P is reportedly considering a fast entry rule change to its flagship index, though it has not yet been approved, and details are scant.

> FTSE Russell is also considering a fast entry rule for its suite of US market indexes and is in a consultation period as of early April 2026.

Only Nasdaq 100 has changed its rules, but Nasdaq 100 is not (and should not be) in most retirement funds.

	▲	darth_avocado 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		If 1/3 having changed rules and 2/3 considering changing the rules isn’t evidence enough then not really much to discuss here.

▲

olalonde 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

When someone says that it usually means they believe the price is bound to drop.

▲

mvdtnz 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> Isn’t the company worth exactly as much as people are willing to pay for its shares?

Really? We're still making claims like this in the year of our Lord 2026? People in the markets today are not predicting the real value of a company, they're gambling that the various political and financial machinations from people like Elon Musk will increase the share price enough that they can sell at a profit. The value of shares like Tesla are utterly disconnected from the value of the underlying business.