Nick

624 posts

Nick

Nick

@GoPats15

Katılım Haziran 2015
48 Takip Edilen66 Takipçiler
Nick
Nick@GoPats15·
Then we’d hear exactly the same as we are now but from opposite sides…… do you really think democrats would be critical of Obama hosting a major sporting event on the White House lawn? Of course not, they’d be praising him for doing something so modern/trendy, just like they did when Biden hosted the Pride day event. Meanwhile the Republicans would’ve been critical because it’s all the same political BS gaslighting game. Few on either side can ever be honest when something isn’t bad, just because it’s the other side doing it.
English
0
0
0
565
Nick
Nick@GoPats15·
Yep, and the Highways are a better investment, because an automated subway in Paris only benefits people traveling around Paris. Meanwhile a widening Highway not only benefits people traveling but commerce since so much is moved via trucks. That $100 billion could help economies across the country, be it by small amounts but still likely more beneficial to more taxpayers than a subway in a city…
English
2
0
0
320
Nick
Nick@GoPats15·
I’m not in the industry so I’m curious as to the legal rights FIFA has to enforce any of these “rules” Do bars and restaurants pay any special licensing fees to tv services to be able to publicly show programming, especially sports? If so, do these contracts forbid the same things that FIFA does: not allowing an administration fee? If yes, than this just sounds like the norm. If no, it be great to see some wealthy chain or restaurant/bar association to sue them….
English
1
0
0
1K
Nick
Nick@GoPats15·
1) It’s advertising for the military: recruitment and a way to show citizens where the tax dollars go. 2) It’s training for the pilots, not just flight hours but also unique situations that mimic combat conditions outside of a normal training area. 3) It’s a crowd favorite and an added bit of spectacle that increases the feeling of importance of the event.
English
0
0
4
404
Nick
Nick@GoPats15·
@ATRightMovies 2000 remake of On the Beach (1959) …. Made for TV movie/miniseries but dam it was good and a really emotionally hard movie to watch….
Nick tweet mediaNick tweet media
English
0
0
1
178
Nick
Nick@GoPats15·
Money, pure and simple. Starliner already costs more to fly than Dragon, it will cost even more to fix the issues it had when it flew last time. And honestly there’s not as much of a need for it now. Blue Origin will likely develop it’s own crew capsule for New Glenn, Starship may soon replace Dragon, and Orion (while not setup for ISS) has already proven itself. Starliner would really be ULA’s crewed capsule for Vulcan but it’s looking more and more likely that, that program will also loose funding due to the lower costs and reliability of SpaceX and Blue Origin. It’s only real salvation is if SpaceX goes public and is hit with relentless short selling alongside massive rocket failures (like the early starship launches not the partial failures of the last few) and bad press which forces it’s stock price to plummet beyond recoverability. If SpaceX goes out of business or is forced to raise prices back to ULA levels then NASA may be willing to fund Starliner fixes and future flights. Or of course, Boeing lobbyists are able to get congress to continue to fund it… who knows🤷🏼.
English
0
0
0
501
Remington
Remington@CollectPanda33·
So with SpaceX picking up a contract extension for commercial crew, I have to ask, what is so fundamentally wrong with Starliner that it may never carry crew again?
Remington tweet mediaRemington tweet media
English
35
1
74
10.1K
Nick
Nick@GoPats15·
Why do you think that’s a fantasy? Do you honestly think Space tourism won’t become more of a thing over the next 20 years? And if that becomes a thing, why not sub orbital transportation, something that might cost even less to do? Even at that $50 per pound cost Mentioned earlier (something that they will be trying to get even lower) you’d be talking $10k for a 200lb person. Do you seriously think there isn’t a market for say $20k (high profit margin) one way travel to the other side of the world in an hour? People pay that now for a first class ticket on a 15 hour flight from LA to Sidney.. So why is it a complete fantasy, if they can get rocket travel to be as safe and reliable as air travel?
English
0
0
0
5
wux
wux@VonWucks·
@GoPats15 @wbic16 @antibearthesis I stopped reading at passenger service. That is a complete fantasy It's genuinely embarrassing that people believe that is even a possibility Good day to you
English
1
0
0
63
Noah
Noah@antibearthesis·
One of these is not like the other: SpaceX IPO: $2T Valuation Amazon: $2.8T Valuation SpaceX revenue: $18.7B Amazon revenue: $742B Explain this gap.
The Assembly@InTheAssembly

SpaceX is about to be the largest IPO in human history. But here’s the catch… It’s also going to be the trade most retail investors REGRET for the next 5 years. Here’s why, and the 4 space stocks I’m actually paying attention to instead: On June 12, SpaceX will list on Nasdaq under the ticker SPCX. The expected valuation is around $1.75 trillion. That’s more than twice the previous record IPO, and more than the GDP of all but a handful of countries on earth. But even if SpaceX doubles from there, your return is 100%. In the same window, a small cap space stock with the right setup can do 5x or 10x. The math simply does not work for retail investors hoping for asymmetric returns from a trillion dollar IPO. You are buying a fully priced, fully discovered, fully institutional name on day one. The real money in space is not SpaceX. It’s in the smaller, less-followed public names that will get revalued the moment SpaceX trades. Here are the 4 I am watching: VELO Velo3D 3D prints metal parts inside SpaceX's Raptor engines. SpaceX backed them early and was their first customer. The cleanest direct supplier name on the public market. RDW Redwire Space The picks and shovels of space infrastructure. Solar arrays, deployable structures, microgravity manufacturing. The stuff every satellite and spacecraft needs. BKSY BlackSky Real-time earth observation satellites with major defense and intelligence customer base. Sub-billion-dollar market cap with a Pentagon backlog. GHM Graham Corporation Rocket turbopumps through its Barber-Nichols subsidiary. Already supplies multiple US launch players. Nobody is pricing the space exposure inside this name. Most of these sit between $1 billion and $4 billion market cap. Meaning even if they 5x to 10x from here, they would still be relatively small businesses. That’s the power of an asymmetric bet. Either it goes to zero, or it does 5x to 10x over the next few years. At The Assembly, we are a team of 8 with one goal: help you find the right stocks early. Turn notifications on so you don’t miss our alerts. This is EXTREMELY important. If you are not following us yet, you will understand later why that was a mistake.

English
828
152
3.7K
2.3M
Nick
Nick@GoPats15·
Well there’s a lot of potential and it’s all tied up in making Starship and Superheavy work as intended. Rapid reusability to be able to drop launch costs way down which will open up a box of new possibilities. Let’s start here on earth. SpaceX has already demonstrated a roughly 1hr suborbital flight from Texas to Australia. Now I believe they are estimating initial reusable cost of around 10 million per launch with a 100 ton orbital capacity. Just using those numbers (which could be a lot less cost for a suborbital launch as well as much more capacity not needing to go to orbit) that would give you a roughly $50 per lb cargo cost. Imagine the global production and international cargo freight implications of just that alone….. corporations keeping virtually no on hand inventory but instead shipping it from a factory in china/india to the US in a day.. think of how many millions that would save and how crazy those valuations could go. And yes there’s certainly lots more economic impact in terms of job losses, it’s not all rosy. But it certainly goes to demonstrate the kind of impact this one tiny part of SpaceX potential could be. Speaking of which, just think about the international long haul airline industry if Starship can provide passenger service… Airlines would basically become domestic/under maybe 5-6 hr international flight, hub support for them. Meanwhile, off planet…. Lower cost satellite launches open up tons of new possibilities for companies who couldn’t afford them before. Space tourism could be a new boom industry, the space data centers…. But the real revolution that could boost GDP is space mining. Not just minerals that we commonly use now but the possibilities of mining He3 from the moon for fusion power. If that was to work, and it could be mined at a low enough cost, you’re talking about a revolution in energy production equivalent to the world switching from wood/coal fires to oil based energy production…. Cheap clean energy would spark a GDP boost beyond our imaginations. And that’s not even touching on any technological revolutions we don’t see coming that could happen too. So yes, there’s a lot of potential for SpaceX to it’s self be the direct cause of a GDP growth unlike anything I think we’ve seen before. And it all traces back to low cost, reliable and frequent space travel which right now is focused on Starship, Superheavy and the Raptor engines……
English
1
0
0
240
wux
wux@VonWucks·
@wbic16 @antibearthesis @GoPats15 You're going to need to do so much more than just say words to support a 1000x GDP increase by one company - and in 10 years you said in another reply Robots! Mars! Bitcoin! Toast!
English
2
0
4
292
Nick
Nick@GoPats15·
SpaceX could very well become a Verizon killer with Starlink…. The big question will be if they’re able to figure out how to provide steady service in urban areas. Beyond that, Starlink could certainly give Verizon (and comcast) a real battle when it comes to internet data. The V3 satellites are already expected to deliver similar service to what many residents already get. SpaceX also has its eye on cell phone service, having bought up the spectrum earlier this year… squeezing Verizon while not needing the same level of staff/maintenance for their system could be the nail in the coffin for Verizon in 10 or so years…. Still it’s all speculative and yet another reason why the valuation is so high…
English
2
0
0
65
SingleMalt
SingleMalt@SingleMalt1942·
@GoPats15 @antibearthesis $2T for a company that loses $5 billion a year. Only one division of SpaceX turns a profit. Starlink - $1.5 trillion valuation operating income - $4.4 billion Verizon - $200 billion valuation Operating income - $30 billion SpaceX is going to IPO at over 300x EBITDA.
English
1
0
2
57
Nick
Nick@GoPats15·
True, but when you think about it - has then been a company like SpaceX with so much growth potential before? Going back to the dot com bubble, what if just before it, Amazon announced they are in the process of developing internet web servers that will revolutionize the industry and that they expect to have almost 50% of the global data infrastructure in 20 years? People who understood the internet and how it was changing so much of our daily lives would know that that kind of revolution could be worth the crazy valuation and survive any bubbles (so long as the company showed it was continuing to be the leader) No company is close to where SpaceX is and how fast it could grow. So yes, still a dream since it’s a work in progress but more a dream like during the development of the first commercial jet aircraft and less like the dream of developing a teleporter…
English
0
0
1
15
SingleMalt
SingleMalt@SingleMalt1942·
@Ds785James @GoPats15 @antibearthesis Space X isnt just buying a dream. It’s buying a dream within a dream. It’s going to trade at around 350 P/E ratio. For perspective, that’s about 7x the multiple of the Nasdaq when the dot com bubble burst…. 7 times more expensive than the dot com bubble before collapse.
English
1
0
0
31
Nick
Nick@GoPats15·
True, but considering Musk’s history so far, I wouldn’t put it past him to have SpaceX buy Tesla and make it a subsidiary. Also while Tesla may be developing the humanoid robots, it’s SpaceX who wants to make the automated satellite factory on the moon, not to mention the automated systems SpaceX will used to build/expand lunar and martian bases (some might be the tesla bots but they wouldn’t be doing it alone). Again, judging from their past business models, I’d expect SpaceX to develop their own probes and such in house (similar to JPL for NASA) which would likely make them a leader in robotics as well as Spaceflight.
English
0
0
1
100
Nick
Nick@GoPats15·
Amazon is probably a safer option as it’s continuing to grow and will be competing with SpaceX on space based internet and probably data centers. But remember Amazon has no stake in Blue Origin so if the rocket part of the commercial space race takes off (excuse the pun) Amazon won’t benefit but also won’t be exposed if SpaceX crushed BO into bankruptcy. SpaceX is the riskier bet but with much higher upside. Like I said, it’s being valued like a start up so you’re investing into it would reflect the same kind of risk. But you also need to consider the likelihood of post IPO the price skyrocketing but then crashing after they hype and likely before Starship is flying regular missions. Just look at all the haters coming out again after yesterday’s semi successful but also disappointing launch. They will continue to hammer SpaceX through its testing phase. While Superheavy has pretty much proven the possibility of rapid reuse by landing on the tower. It still needs to prove the engines are up to it and they nor the high heated areas don’t need any refurbishing before reuse. Starship meanwhile has even more to prove with it’s tiles and if they will live up to the rapid reuse plan. Don’t forget, SpaceX is basically following NASA’s orginal plans for the Space Shuttle, but they learned quickly that the tiles needed inspection, servicing and/or replacing after each launch. This was a major factor in the failure of the Shuttle program to become financially independent and help fund NASA in the post Apollo era budget cuts. So like I said, SpaceX more risky but if they can solve those problems, you’re likely looking at the biggest corporation that will have ever existed.
English
0
0
1
87
Noah
Noah@antibearthesis·
@GoPats15 which is the better buy then
English
5
0
4
11.4K
Nick
Nick@GoPats15·
Well they launched Starship 1/2 way around the world and landed it right where they planned to. It survived reentry and the more extreme stresses they subjected it to. All this with an engine failure. As for the Superheavy booster, it performed well right up until just after separation. And even with the engine failure you could see how well the fins did still being able to steer the booster. So yes, not 100% successful for every objective they were hoping for but still successful overall since starship made it into sub orbit and back down to where it was aimed to be (and also appeard to successfully “land” before falling into the ocean)
English
0
0
2
245
PebMets
PebMets@PebMet1·
I'll make this very simple @SpaceX fans. No matter what @elonmusk says, losing your engines on the booster right after separation and losing an engine on Starship in flight is no one else's definition of a success.
English
238
81
660
34.1K
Nick
Nick@GoPats15·
Was always going to loose a ton of engines. They always planned on a water landing since it’s a new engine they weren’t going to try to land back at the tower and risk tower damage or worse. Classic SpaceX testing, new ship/engines they test with water landings until it’s proven it works.
English
4
0
14
5.1K
Zack Golden
Zack Golden@CSI_Starbase·
Yikes. Looks like the 33 engine boost back did not go as planned. Lost a ton of engines
English
67
32
1.2K
275.4K
cinesthetic.
cinesthetic.@TheCinesthetic·
Name a TV finale that actually lived up to expectations.
English
608
18
322
7.5M
Nick
Nick@GoPats15·
@pgshaftman @elonmusk Seriously dude? Isn’t this exactly the point of a testing/development cycle? This wasn’t an ongoing failure (yet) that they’ve been trying to work out while the rocket is in full commercial use….
English
0
0
0
688
Adedeji Muhammad
Adedeji Muhammad@pgshaftman·
@elonmusk If a single mechanical failure can scrub a launch that costs millions per hour, is the system truly ready for rapid turnaround or just optimistic engineering?
English
71
3
26
19.3K
Nick
Nick@GoPats15·
Specifically said the Patriots rarely sat players to rest. Only occasionally if there was an injury but starters almost always played well into the 4th quarter and only sat when there was a comfortable lead. They weren’t getting pulled if the Pats were close or behind to loose the game. As for Brady his regular season record against non AFC East teams was 142-45 or a 76% win rate. There’s a reason why he’s labeled the GOAT, and the Patriots had a 20 year Dynasty….. they were dominant everywhere didn’t matter the division. In fact he was 80% win rate or better in 4 divisions…. AFC east ranks 5th at 78%, NFC east at 70% and tied for the two lowest are AFC & NFC west both at 64%….. At some point you have to acknowledge that it wasn’t that the AFC east was awful and any elite QB/Coach combo would’ve put up similar numbers. It was just how good the Patriots and Brady were. Truly mind blowing…
English
0
0
0
8
keith miller
keith miller@Keith_Miller11·
@GoPats15 @Savageboston Brady was 86-22 in that division. Multiple losses came at the end of seasons when players are resting. For all of your bluster about the dolphins he still won over 70% against them.
English
1
0
0
23
Savage
Savage@Savageboston·
I always found if funny that people tried to discredit Tom Brady and the Patriots for the AFC East being bad, when he dominated every other division just as hard. Literally didn’t matter.
English
26
16
469
16.4K
Nick
Nick@GoPats15·
@_FoxboroForever Love Jules but he was a loyal soldier. There’s only 1 answer when it comes to a true leader who represented the “Patriot Way” and my all time favorite.
GIF
English
0
0
0
26
Foxboro Forever
Foxboro Forever@_FoxboroForever·
Patriots fans, who’s your all time favorite Patriot to never wear another uniform? I’m going with JE11.
Foxboro Forever tweet media
English
48
19
167
6.6K
Nick
Nick@GoPats15·
I watched the games, I remember how hard some of those wins were. Divisional games were usually tough both sides know each other so well. Scores don’t always tell the story especially if one team breaks in the 3rd/4th quarter and the other team pulls away. But here’s some dolphins data for you to back up that part of my argument: Went 1-1 in regular season in: 01, 02, 04, 05, 06, 08, 09, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18 and 19 For visual comparison they went 2-0 in 03, 07, 10, 11, 12 and 16. Like I said, Dolphins were always a hard game especially at the end of the season when they were playing for pride and one thing the separates Bill and Tom for other teams was they rarely sat starters for those last games. Brady was in until the 4th quarter and wasn’t coming out if Pats were behind….
English
1
0
1
33
keith miller
keith miller@Keith_Miller11·
@GoPats15 @Savageboston Just stop. You don’t actually believe any of this. The Bills were ass until Allen got there. The dolphins haven’t been good in 2 decades. And the jets about the same amount of time.
English
1
0
0
42