Tim Dudek

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. research.33fg.com/analysis/s… 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.

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.