DOD
Dominion Energy Inc
stock NYSE

> Viewing launch and Starlink as separate businesses where launch is just a "lemonade stand
You misunderstood, I wasn’t calling the launch side the lemonade stand, I was calling both launch and starlink combined a lemonade stand compared to the AI valuation. There is just not enough money in the potential market to fund a multi trillion dollar valuation.
It’s easy to forget when trillion dollar companies are becoming so normalised that a trillion dollars is a ***lot*** of money, in order to hit the claimed trillion dollar revenues by 2030 and assuming they managed to gain a billion customers (households all over the world, even in rich countries you don’t need more than 1 internet subscription per household) they’d need to be billing each of them $1000 a year. Good luck getting $1000 a year from your average Somalian family, but that’s what would be required to approach trillion dollar revenue numbers. Good luck even getting 100 million people to pay that for even “just” $100 billion revenue.
> To think Nasa And the DOD wont Increase their budgets significantly is a bit naive in my opinion.
Doesn’t matter, there’s not enough money there realistically to justify a trillion dollar valuation. SpaceX are not going to be receiving multiple % points of all US government spending which is what they’d require. NASA is currently 0.3% of US federal spending for context.
You also seem to be confusing stock price movements with endorsements of the quality of the company, a falling stock price and a “don’t buy” recommendation don’t mean it’s a bad company, just an overvalued one.

I see your point about the current status, But I don't think we are looking at it the same. Thinking that holding 90% of current launch mass means launch revenue is capped is a pretty flawed way to look at things, especially considering the fact that space itself is really an emerging market, the space launch market is NOT static and inelastic, and Id expect as we advance in technology the actual money in that market share is going to increase exponentially. I get to be in early if I buy sooner then later.
Viewing launch and Starlink as separate businesses where launch is just a "lemonade stand, isn't how id look at it. Launch is the capital expenditure engine for Starlink. Just the launch dominance alone gives it a ridiculous advantage over its competitors, Pretty much everyone else is paying Gucci prices to get things into space while Space X is paying Walmart prices, the money they do save from the launches they use to buy infrastructure so they can scale the company.
The falcon 9 Literally Paved the way for reusable rockets, Literally changed the logistics for sending things into space and made a lot of companies change up their strategies. You are right though, China wont be using Space x. Its literally impossible at this moment.
To think Nasa And the DOD wont Increase their budgets significantly is a bit naive in my opinion. Their budgets aren't static either. China made space dominance a matter of national security, I doubt We wont respond to that with more overspending, Its literally what America does, and its competitors are still miles behind it. Id say space x still has 4 more years before anyone catches up to them, and at that point space x will still be eating a huge chunk of the growing space market.
My Personal Valuation has nothing to do with Musk Himself, Its the results his companies are getting in an impressive amount of time. Not only that but I think of it like a cross between a critical utility, a global telecom, and a logistics monopoly. Everything its doing now no matter how scattered it seems is just a hyperscale strategy to stay ahead, and reduce its costs before its competitors do. Definitely think that just because there's some cult followers and is funded by Ai, doesn't make it not a valuable company. And also Inversely How do you know the negative action of space x isn't fueled by raging Elon haters?

> Viewing launch and Starlink as separate businesses where launch is just a "lemonade stand
You misunderstood, I wasn’t calling the launch side the lemonade stand, I was calling both launch and starlink combined a lemonade stand compared to the AI valuation. There is just not enough money in the potential market to fund a multi trillion dollar valuation.
It’s easy to forget when trillion dollar companies are becoming so normalised that a trillion dollars is a ***lot*** of money, in order to hit the claimed trillion dollar revenues by 2030 and assuming they managed to gain a billion customers (households all over the world, even in rich countries you don’t need more than 1 internet subscription per household) they’d need to be billing each of them $1000 a year. Good luck getting $1000 a year from your average Somalian family, but that’s what would be required to approach trillion dollar revenue numbers. Good luck even getting 100 million people to pay that for even “just” $100 billion revenue.
> To think Nasa And the DOD wont Increase their budgets significantly is a bit naive in my opinion.
Doesn’t matter, there’s not enough money there realistically to justify a trillion dollar valuation. SpaceX are not going to be receiving multiple % points of all US government spending which is what they’d require. NASA is currently 0.3% of US federal spending for context.
You also seem to be confusing stock price movements with endorsements of the quality of the company, a falling stock price and a “don’t buy” recommendation don’t mean it’s a bad company, just an overvalued one.

I see your point about the current status, But I don't think we are looking at it the same. Thinking that holding 90% of current launch mass means launch revenue is capped is a pretty flawed way to look at things, especially considering the fact that space itself is really an emerging market, the space launch market is NOT static and inelastic, and Id expect as we advance in technology the actual money in that market share is going to increase exponentially. I get to be in early if I buy sooner then later.
Viewing launch and Starlink as separate businesses where launch is just a "lemonade stand, isn't how id look at it. Launch is the capital expenditure engine for Starlink. Just the launch dominance alone gives it a ridiculous advantage over its competitors, Pretty much everyone else is paying Gucci prices to get things into space while Space X is paying Walmart prices, the money they do save from the launches they use to buy infrastructure so they can scale the company.
The falcon 9 Literally Paved the way for reusable rockets, Literally changed the logistics for sending things into space and made a lot of companies change up their strategies. You are right though, China wont be using Space x. Its literally impossible at this moment.
To think Nasa And the DOD wont Increase their budgets significantly is a bit naive in my opinion. Their budgets aren't static either. China made space dominance a matter of national security, I doubt We wont respond to that with more overspending, Its literally what America does, and its competitors are still miles behind it. Id say space x still has 4 more years before anyone catches up to them, and at that point space x will still be eating a huge chunk of the growing space market.
My Personal Valuation has nothing to do with Musk Himself, Its the results his companies are getting in an impressive amount of time. Not only that but I think of it like a cross between a critical utility, a global telecom, and a logistics monopoly. Everything its doing now no matter how scattered it seems is just a hyperscale strategy to stay ahead, and reduce its costs before its competitors do. Definitely think that just because there's some cult followers and is funded by Ai, doesn't make it not a valuable company. And also Inversely How do you know the negative action of space x isn't fueled by raging Elon haters?

I fully understand that plenty of people scam the system and had cushy office jobs yet have gotten somehow rated 100% disability, and I don’t like it either.
But my anger isn’t with THEM. They exploit a bad system. Be mad at the system that allows that to happen. Or call “100% disabled” something else because in my eyes—if you’re somehow 100%, you better be in a fucking wheelchair for life, or be ambulatory but incapable of maintaining any sort of normalcy due to a mental condition.
Your beef should be with the naming convention that either mislabels disabilities and should change how they classify and designates things, or the system itself that allows people to game the system.
I’m not mad at them for taking what’s available to them. And even if I was: there are far FAR bigger problems and systematic issues with the government and VA and the DOD than these people you have such vitriol for.

DOD is broke, no bailouts this time