Worth noting that it actually opened at $150 on public markets. It's kind of funny how we call the $135 figure the "public offering" price when there is really nothing public about it. Maybe it made more sense in some past era when it was more difficult for third parties to make private pre-IPO investments.

Not that there's anything particularly unusual about this. High profile tech companies almost universally (actually I am not aware of any moderately recent exceptions at all) fall below the actual public opening price in the days or weeks following the IPO. I honestly don't know why anybody buys them.

There are a lot of people who want to see them fail. Have some patience, it's not even been a year.

The Fed can still declare some kind of financial emergency and increase the money printing again. My guess is this is likely, given the sway that tech CEOs have over the White House, and the reality of overseas competition.

It's funny how our perceptions are driven by the source of our news. I generally perceived the positive coverage in regular news as unrelenting. I know the tech news sources I read were constantly complaining about rule changes and manipulations on the part of Spacex, but run-of-the-mill national news outlets seem to be endlessly hyping the stock to the point that a few of my non tech-savvy family members were asking if they needed to buy it as soon as they went public.

To me, the bigger issue with SpaceX is that there's no real argument for how space exploration will benefit humanity in any tangible way. Humans cannot live sustainably on Mars or the moon -- that's just a straight-up lie. Satellites add some value for sure, but it's pretty limited, which helps explain why most of the launches just support StarLink (which itself is probably unsustainable financially). This whole thing is just a bunch of space nerds pushing society down a terrible cul-de-sac which will lower quality of life in meaningful ways in the coming century.

The article about atmospheric pollution from deorbiting satellites leaves out the biggest source of stratospheric aluminum oxide: Solid rocket boosters. A single Ariane 6 launch creates 100-200 tons of aluminum oxide in the atmosphere (depending on whether it uses 2 or 4 boosters). SpaceX doesn't use solid boosters, so it's a rounding error in terms of its contribution. Also SpaceX is switching to Starship, which uses methane instead of kerosene, drastically reducing the amount of soot produced.

Last year when this topic came up, I did the math for how long it would take before aluminum oxide from satellites was worth worrying about. If you assume the entire satellite is made from aluminum, and that aluminum oxide is as bad as the most potent ozone-destroying CFC, and that the particles stay in the atmosphere forever, it would take 5,000 years before atmospheric levels of aluminum oxide reached the same concentration as R-12.[1] So basically, it's not worth worrying about.

1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45493143#45494364

How many satellites would it take burning up in the atmosphere to raise the aluminum content of the atmosphere by just 1 part per billion (not million)? Each satellite is 300kg, it would take 57 MILLION satellites. The cost to do that at current prices would be $138 trillion.

Airplane exhaust has a real measurable impact on the atmosphere, curious why people choose to target satellite debris instead of plane exhaust as their topic of environmental concern.

> and illegally, not sure how he's allowed to get away with it

The law's hold over you is inversely proportional to your net worth in the US.

Sarcasm? Hard to tell.