Tim Dudek @Tim_Dudek - Twitter Profile

@AaronDFordNV @TeamFordNV Yes, we are all looking forward to the return of the Biden-Ford economy. If you thought 4% inflation wasn’t bad enough, let’s return to 9% inflation where no one could afford eggs…

0

6

Tim Dudek

@Tim_Dudek

9 days ago

@AaronDFordNV You don’t have me, so you can’t do it. Guess you lose.

0

11

Tim Dudek

@Tim_Dudek

10 days ago

@NevadaAG “My tax dollars ought not pay for your bags of fudge rounds”. Oliver Anthony SNAP is rife with Fraud! No wonder they call him Aaron D Fraud…

0

1

0

30

Tim Dudek

@Tim_Dudek

10 days ago

@AaronDFordNV You and Joe Biden created the affordable “crisis”. Worst inflation in a generation. Having to try to lie yourself into office is embarrassing for you. Shame on you.

0

5

0

104

Tim Dudek

@Tim_Dudek

11 days ago

@AaronDFordNV Next time we vote, we get to vote against you!

0

5

Tim Dudek

@Tim_Dudek

11 days ago

@NevadaAG DEI is systemic racism. Your values are abhorrent… You are unfit for office.

0

1

0

17

Tim_Dudek retweeted

Aaron Burnett

@aaronburnett

13 days ago

There has been a lot of hand wringing on the appropriate valuation of SpaceX. Some large institutions believe SpaceX can only be valued at half what the market seems to be willing to pay for it. Others are claiming it has 15X appreciation ahead of it. Almost all of this difference of opinion comes down to how comfortable you are modeling beyond 2030 and what valuation method you use. 2030 valuation using a traditional Gordan DCF produces a very different result than a 2040 EV/EBITDA Multiple. Both have pros and cons. Most analysts don’t really discuss this and lead with a headline number. We are very comfortable modeling out to 2040, as large portions of what SpaceX is proposing is real world infrastructure, which provides modelable physics constraints to anchor against. The analysis we released today explores this in-depth, its open to the public all the way through IPO. I highly encourage you check it out prior to then. https://t.co/McShCl78uo We’ve run 5,000 monte carlo runs across 500 variables (real number, even though it sounds fake) and three valuation methods. This video is of a 3D cloud chart showing every simulation outcome expected in valuation output across two of the most impactful variables to the model when using an EV/EBITDA multiple from 2026 to 2040. The horizontal axis is the steepness of the orbital data center demand S-curve. The vertical axis is the rate at which chip compute efficiency becomes cheaper. Each of the 5,000 dots is one simulated future; green dots are the ones where SpaceX's 2040 value clears the $1.77T IPO line, over time. Under EV/EBITDA valuation through 2040, 96% of our simulated futures clear the expected IPO price once the bell rings Friday. We aren’t publishing this publicly to tell investors what the stock is worth, we’re publishing this to help investors understand the world of outcomes, what the fundamentals suggest through 2040, and what frankly most analysis simply won’t share. SpaceX is a generational company working on long term infrastructure harnessing a domain no one has been able to tap in so far: space. It deserves doing the work as an investor. because this in not financial advice. The cleanest way to hold SpaceX is a bond stapled to a call option (AI-Compute); Starlink is the bond, the near term SatCom annuity that funds the next flywheel. Understand the world of outcomes and take your position accordingly. Comparables and P/E won't take you far enough.

424

3K

1K

870

1M

Tim_Dudek retweeted

Sawyer Merritt

@SawyerMerritt

13 days ago

Mach33 has published its new @SpaceX valuation model. Mach33 believes the current ~$1.77T equity valuation does not fully reflect the long-term upside from Starship, orbital compute infrastructure, and future SpaceX growth initiatives. "The globe below shows their base case for what SpaceX places on orbit through 2040. In 2028 the model puts ~40,000 tonnes of Starlink mass on orbit as the first orbital data center satellites may appear. Through the late 2020s almost all the new mass is still broadband, and the compute halo only scales once Starship cadence is redirected after 2030. By 2040 that halo reaches roughly 370,000 tonnes on orbit, Starlink mass on orbit peaks near 860,000 tonnes around 2038, and the Moon and Mars program lands around 34,000 tonnes of payload on the surface. The revenue view tells the same story in dollars: Starlink scales first to roughly $300 billion a year by the early 2030s and funds the company, while orbital-compute revenue overtakes it around 2036 and climbs toward $1 trillion a year by 2040. That ordering sets up the rest of this report: Starlink hardware goes up first and funds the company through 2030, compute hardware goes up later and carries the value." You can read the full thing here: https://t.co/9bcy8uiG5H

92

2K

207

427

439K

Tim_Dudek retweeted

Aaron Burnett

@aaronburnett

14 days ago

these specs fall right in between our modeled specs for our V1 and V2 orbital compute sats. Elon says this is the A1 spec (will improve over time), and if they hit these specs it will be about ~40% better than we estimated. for the first wave of orbital data centers. importantly, these specs imply that they were able to get better power density improvements simply from architecture changes. This opens up the possibility to use 'off the shelf' compute, with much less reliance on custom chip builds for power density or high temperatures. Probably one big reason why Elon feels bullish on timelines. (assuming) One helpful way to think about this is how many MWs of compute per launch. Our estimate was ~5MW/starship launch. These specs would line up close to ~7MW/starship launch. ~120 launches get you 1GW of compute. the single most interesting thing (to me) here is what appears to be a hot-swappable compute payload. If true, that would address any maintenance concerns and make compute upgradable bringing down the cost to just the compute replacement cost in the limit.

18

251

22

55

31K

Tim_Dudek retweeted