The IPO was 135, opened at 150 and closed on day 1 at 160.95 (but went up to about 175 briefly), closed day 2 at 192, then 201, and then it started coming back down.
So if you bought in on day 1 or on day 6 onwards, you're probably doing fine, but anyone on day 2-5 and they're hurting.
Everyone will probably be under by the time the insiders can start selling shares though.
Edit: Nasdaq 100 adds it tomorrow, so there might still be another pump until the insiders sell.
People have the memory of a gold fish when it comes to anything long term, so they just vote against their best interest again because they're incapable of connecting the dots.
They understand money to some extent though, but even at that scale, not as much.
I think it was a black mirror episode, but might have been something else, where civilization as we know it is gone, but the fully automated mega factories are still running.
Accelerator / brake pedals have multiple redundant calculations that all happen to combat people saying its a sensor issue, or at least in cars that log that kinda thing, which a Tesla does.
Its such a common accusation that is almost never true, so they've done things like that to protect against it.
And raising the temperature factually increase the radiators capability to the 4th power, and the ISS runs at a cooler temperature than these GPUs need to run at, thus these radiators will be smaller. (edit: NASA source For a given amount of waste heat, the lower the rejection temperature, the larger the required radiating
surface. For radiation heat transfer, the quantity of heat rejected is proportional to the fourth power of
temperature; therefore, the area requirements increase rapidly as the temperature decreases. T)
I've been pretty consistent in this entire post on the 70kW but max rated for 84kW, but i might have been wrong about the 84 part mixing that up with something else.
I've been consistent with the AI datacenter being - 125kw avg, 150kw peak as well. 2x ISS before accounting for temperature difference is 140kW which is < 2x average, but not quite peak which is 2.15x.
There is no way these will be bigger than 2x what the ISS has.
Edit: Looks like you were working off of older data
the EATCS provides a substantial upgrade in heat rejection capacity from the 14kW capability of the Early External Active Thermal Control System (EEATCS).
Data / hardware sovereignty is a real thing, you can't put all your data centers in another county, but building them in Texas vs Vermont/Alaska or elsewhere is stupid.
The ISS is rated for 84kw but is run max at 70kw, probably for margin of error and whatnot since its for human saftey, which these will not be. They can also probably run hotter, (edit reducing the size).
That just increases the land space required though which makes it harder to get it built upfront, but I agree, land based solar, even taking 3x+ the land required + battery backup is probably still cheaper given they'll last 20 years or more.
Ground projects like that take years to complete as well, between finding a spot, permitting, building it etc and to some extent time is money in this current environment.
Weight wise, they can launch 50 AI datacenters per launch with Starships 100T capacity, but volumetric wise I don't know how well they can fold these up and if they'll actually reach 50, but lets say they can get 50. I honestly have no idea if they can.
That's 7.5MW of solar panels deployed each launch which will be coming off a factory line launching multiple times a week. They did 123 starlink launches in 2025, so thats 922.5MW solar capacity launched in a year if they did that with the AI sats, but they'll likely do way more if starship actually works.
You can't build an almost 1GW solar array (edit and datacenter) on land that quickly.
(edit2: Oops I didn't do the 3x+ for the 1GW solar i mentioned above, it would need to be 4-5GW on land so it can overproduce to store enough in the batteries for overnight)
The downside of course is it's only going to last 5-10 years. That's a lot of costs to try to recoup in that time frame.
These dishes only need a radiator < 2 times the size of the ISS radiators if they were using the radiators on the ISS. They're only 125kw avg, 150kw peak and the ISS radiators are rated 84kw.
I'm sure there's been advancements in radiating heat efficiently in space as well.
Cumulatively it'll be a lot, but the solar panels will be even more. They're way bigger than the radiators.
It's not no real benefit, these are some, which are legitimate benefits.
Unlimited sun, without the sun having to go through the atmosphere which increases the efficiency of the solar panel.
No opposition / red tape from communities fighting against the data centers, some communities are evening banning them.
No theft or vandalism.
Just to restate my relevant edit you probably didn't see above
I’m not trying to say they are going to earn enough revenue to make these things profitable like they did with Starlink, I’m just talking about the technical specs of what they say they’re going to do. There’s a lot of misconceptions about what they even intend to try putting up there.
One rack is generally going to be well more than enough for a persons inference needs.
They want to put a million of these up there long term, where are you going to find space for a million individual racks? Now it's a large datacenter again.
I did see one thing about a company adding a cluster or something to someones house and giving them a cut of it. That decentralizes the power distribution, and space requirement, but it adds other problems like vandalism / theft as how well can you protect a thing tacked onto the side of a house worth 10s of thousands of dollars.
Edit: And you don't fix or upgrade them, they deorbit in ~5 years, and get replaced with the next best thing. Radation protection to avoid bit flipping will be a cost issue, but they already have hardened chips that work in space, so I'm not sure how much new technology is needed, and starship can lift a shit ton of weight, so heavy shielding is possibly an extra option?
Edit2: Just to be clear, I'm not trying to say they are going to earn enough revenue to make these things profitable like they did with Starlink, I'm just talking about the technical specs of what they say they're going to do. There's a lot of misconceptions about what they even intend to try putting up there.
The IPO was 135, opened at 150 and closed on day 1 at 160.95 (but went up to about 175 briefly), closed day 2 at 192, then 201, and then it started coming back down.
So if you bought in on day 1 or on day 6 onwards, you're probably doing fine, but anyone on day 2-5 and they're hurting.
Everyone will probably be under by the time the insiders can start selling shares though.
Edit: Nasdaq 100 adds it tomorrow, so there might still be another pump until the insiders sell.