News
Blue Origin launches first suborbital tourists after six years and 15 test flights
More than six years after New Shepard’s first test flight and nine years after a pad abort featuring a prototype of the rocket’s capsule, Blue Origin has launched its first crew of suborbital tourists.
Almost exclusively funded by Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos’ stock sales over more than 21 years of operations, Blue Origin has been working towards New Shepard’s first crewed launch for approximately a decade. Aside from a pad abort test of the rocket’s relatively simple ‘crew capsule’ in October 2012, New Shepard – purported to be fully reusable – has performed 15 uncrewed test flights since April 2015. At least according to Blue Origin, of those 15 tests, 14 were fully successful and 11 crossed the 100 km (~62 mi) Karman Line – a largely arbitrary line drawn between Earth’s atmosphere and space.
Six years and three months after New Shepard’s first flight, the rocket lifted off on its 16th suborbital mission and inaugural crewed launch. Along for the ride were Jeff Bezos himself, brother Mark Bezos, hedgefund multimillionaire Joes Daemen’s son Oliver Daemen, and trailblazing pilot and aviator Mary “Wally” Funk.
While New Shepard NS-16 reached an apogee of 107 km (66 mi) and a maximum speed of 2233 mph (1 km/s / Mach 2.9), less than 13% of the way to orbit, the mission did mark a number of “spaceflight” firsts insofar as its passengers did technically spend between 70 and 150 seconds in “space.” Notably, NS-16 passengers Oliver Daemon and Wally Funk are now respectively the youngest and oldest people in history to reach space. While Blue Origin hasn’t disclosed the value of his second-place bid, Oliver Daemen was technically a paying customer, making New Shepard the first rocket in history to launch a paying passenger on its first crewed flight.
In June, Blue Origin held a tone-deaf auction that ultimately resulted in a mystery buyer winning the first ticket on New Shepard at a jaw-dropping cost of $28 million – just shy of the $30M Richard Garriott paid to ride a Soyuz rocket to space, spend almost two weeks in orbit, and scream back to Earth at Mach 25. Bizarrely, the company still hasn’t revealed the winner, at no point mentioned that there would be runners-up, inexplicably swapped the mystery winner for Oliver Daemen with “scheduling issues” as the comical excuse, and has yet to reveal what Daemen paid for his ticket. In general, Blue Origin still refuses to provide any information about the price of seats on New Shepard.
Meanwhile, although Blue Origin did provide invite-only access to some media outlets and offered numerous interview opportunities with the NS-16 crew, there have been virtually zero chances for reporters and journalists to ask real questions. Beyond New Shepard, which raises dozens of questions on its own, Blue Origin’s orbital New Glenn rocket is years behind schedule and apparent issues with the BE-4 engine meant to power both it and the United Launch Alliance’s (ULA) Vulcan has also significantly delayed the latter rocket’s launch debut.
For the last several years, Vulcan and New Glenn were both aiming for a launch debut sometime in 2020. Both targets eventually slipped to 2021 and as of 2021, Vulcan is now expected to launch no earlier than early 2022 and New Glenn’s debut has slipped to “late 2022” – likely meaning 2023.
On its own, New Shepard has had one of the most bizarre development paths of any rocket in history. Despite virtually unlimited resources from Bezos’ average sale of billions of Amazon stock each year and the fact that New Shepard is a fully reusable rocket that demonstrated the ability to fly twice in ~60 days in 2016, Blue Origin has only launched the rocket 15 times in the 75 months before NS-16. The company has never once implied that New Shepard suffered major issues during any of its test flights, save for NS-1’s failed booster recovery (though Blue has generally glossed over or ignored that lone failure).
Somewhat coincidentally, New Shepard’s first test flight occurred just a few weeks before SpaceX attempted the first major test of a partially integrated Crew Dragon prototype, resulting in a successful pad abort test in May 2015. Despite several significant, documented delays, less than four years later, Crew Dragon aced an uncrewed orbital launch to the ISS and back to Earth. 14 months after Demo-1, SpaceX became the first private company in history to launch astronauts to orbit. Less than six months after that historic launch and four months after Crew Dragon returned two NASA astronauts to Earth, SpaceX launched its first operational four-astronaut mission to the ISS.
In the same period that Blue Origin completed five uncrewed New Shepard test flights, SpaceX launched Crew Dragon’s Demo-1, In-Flight Abort, Demo-2, Crew-1, and Crew-2 missions, carrying six astronauts to orbit and back and delivering another four to the ISS (where they still are). Not only did SpaceX also launch five Crew Dragons, but April 2021’s Crew-2 mission marked the first time in history that astronauts launched on a flight-proven liquid rocket booster and a flight-proven space capsule, beating Blue Origin to the punch despite the far greater challenges and risks posed by orbital spaceflight.
Put simply, it’s disappointing but not exactly surprising that Blue Origin continues to go to great lengths to avoid having to answer questions that haven’t been obviously vetted or preselected.
Elon Musk
ARK’s SpaceX IPO Guide makes a compelling case on why $1.75T may not be the ceiling
ARK Invest breaks down six reasons SpaceX’s $1.75 trillion IPO valuation may be justified.
ARK Invest, which holds SpaceX as its largest Venture Fund position at 17% of net assets, has published a detailed investor guide to why a SpaceX IPO may be grounded in a $1.75 trillion target valuation.
The financial case starts with Starlink, SpaceX’s satellite internet constellation, which has surpassed 10 million active subscribers globally as of early 2026, with 2026 revenue projected to exceed $20 billion. ARK’s research puts the total satellite connectivity market opportunity at roughly $160 billion annually at scale, and Starlink is adding customers faster than any telecom network in history. That growth alone would justify a substantial valuation.
Additionally, ARK notes that SpaceX has reduced the cost per kilogram to orbit from roughly $15,600 in 2008 to under $1,000 today through reusable Falcon 9 hardware. A fully operational Starship targeting sub-$100 per kilogram would represent a significant cost decline and open markets that do not currently exist. SpaceX executed a staggering 165 missions in 2025 and now accounts for approximately 85% of all global orbital launches. That infrastructure position took decades to build and would be nearly impossible to replicate at comparable cost.
SpaceX officially acquires xAI, merging rockets with AI expertise
The February 2026 merger with xAI added a layer to the valuation that straightforward financial models struggle to capture. ARK argues that at sub-$100 launch costs, orbital data centers could deliver compute roughly 25% cheaper than ground-based alternatives, without power grid delays, permitting friction, or land constraints. Musk has stated a goal of deploying 100 gigawatts of AI computing capacity per year from orbit.
The $1.75 trillion figure itself is not a conventional earnings multiple. At roughly 95x trailing revenue, it prices in Starlink’s adoption curve, Starship’s cost trajectory, and the orbital compute thesis together. The public S-1 prospectus, due at least 15 days before the June roadshow, will give investors their first complete look at the financials to test those assumptions. ARK’s position is that the track record earns the benefit of the doubt. Fully reusable rockets were considered unrealistic for years. Starlink was considered financially unviable. Both happened on timelines that surprised skeptics.
Elon Musk
Ford CEO Farley says Tesla is not who to look at for EV expertise
Interestingly, Farley has been one of the most hellbent CEOs in terms of a legacy automaker standpoint to push the EV effort. It did not go according to plan, as Ford took a $19.5 billion charge and retreated from its EV push in late 2025.
Ford CEO Jim Farley said in a recent podcast interview that Tesla is not who Americans should look at to beat Chinese carmakers.
The comments have sparked quite a bit of outrage from Tesla fans on X, the social media platform owned by Elon Musk.
Farley said that Chinese automakers are better examples of how to beat competitors. He said (via the Rapid Response Podcast):
“If you’re an American and you want us to beat the Chinese in the car business, you’re all going to want to pay attention, not necessarily to Tesla. Nothing against Tesla—they’ve been doing great—but they really don’t have an updated vehicle. The best in the business for us, cost-wise and competition-wise, supply chain, manufacturing expertise, and the I.P. in the vehicle, was really BYD. In this next cycle of EV customers in the U.S., they want pickups and utilities and all these different body styles. But they want them at $30,000, not $50,000. Like the first inning, they want them affordably.”
Despite Farley’s synopsis, it is worth mentioning that Tesla had the best-selling passenger vehicle in the world last year, and in China in March, as the Model Y continued its global dominance over other vehicles.
Musk responded to Farley’s comments by stating:
“This is before Supervised FSD is approved in China. Limiting factor is production output in Shanghai.”
This is before supervised FSD is approved in China. Limiting factor is production output in Shanghai.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) April 19, 2026
Interestingly, Farley has been one of the most hellbent CEOs in terms of a legacy automaker standpoint to push the EV effort. It did not go according to plan, as Ford took a $19.5 billion charge and retreated from its EV push in late 2025.
Ford cancels all-electric F-150 Lightning, announces $19.5 billion in charges
Instead, Ford is “doubling down on its affordable” EVs and said it would pivot from its previous plans.
Reaction from Tesla fans was pretty much how you would expect. Many said they have lost a lot of respect for Farley after his comments; others believe he is the last CEO anyone should be taking advice on EVs from.
Nevertheless, Farley’s plans are bold and brash; many consider Tesla the most ideal company to replicate EV efforts from. It will be interesting to see if Ford can rebound from this big adjustment, and hopefully, Farley’s plans to replicate efforts from BYD work out the way he hopes.
Elon Musk
SpaceX wins its first MARS contract but it comes with a catch
NASA awarded SpaceX a $175 million Mars rover contract while the White House proposes cutting the mission.
NASA just signed a $175.7 million contract with SpaceX to launch a Mars rover that the White House is simultaneously trying to defund. The contract, awarded on April 16, 2026, tasks SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy with launching the European Space Agency’s (ESA) Rosalind Franklin rover from Kennedy Space Center in Florida, no earlier than late 2028. It would mark the first time SpaceX has ever sent a payload to Mars.
Under NASA’s Rosalind Franklin Support and Augmentation project, known as ROSA, the agency is providing braking engines for the rover’s descent stage, radioisotope heater units that use decaying plutonium to keep the rover warm on the Martian surface, additional electronics, and a mass spectrometer instrument, as noted by SpaceNews.
Those nuclear heating units are the reason an American rocket was required at all. U.S. export controls on radioisotope technology mean any payload carrying them must launch on a domestic vehicle, which narrowed the field to SpaceX and United Launch Alliance. Falcon Heavy’s pricing made it the practical choice.
SpaceX is quietly becoming the U.S. Military’s only reliable rocket
Falcon Heavy debuted in February 2018 and has 11 launches to its record. The rocket has not flown since October 2024, when it sent NASA’s Europa Clipper toward Jupiter. The three-core design, built from modified Falcon 9 first stages, gives it the lift capacity needed for deep space planetary missions that a single Falcon 9 cannot reach.
The Rosalind Franklin rover has been sitting in storage in Europe for years. It was originally due to launch in 2022 as a joint mission with Russia, but Russia’s invasion of Ukraine ended that partnership, leaving the rover built but stranded without a launch vehicle or landing hardware. NASA stepped back in through a 2024 agreement with ESA to rescue the mission. The rover is designed to drill up to two meters below the Martian surface in search of evidence of past life, a science objective no previous mission has attempted at that depth.
The contradiction at the center of this story is hard to ignore. The White House’s fiscal year 2027 budget proposal included no funding for ROSA and did not mention the mission at all in the detailed congressional justification document released April 3.
Musk has long argued that reaching Mars is not optional. “We don’t want to be one of those single planet species, we want to be a multi-planet species.” Whether this particular mission survives Washington’s budget fight, the Falcon Heavy contract means SpaceX is now formally on record as the rocket that could get humanity’s next Mars science mission off the ground.
The timing of this contract carries extra weight given that SpaceX filed confidentially with the SEC in early April and is targeting an IPO roadshow in the week of June 8. It would be the largest public offering in history.
ARK’s SpaceX IPO Guide makes a compelling case on why $1.75T may not be the ceiling
Ford CEO Farley says Tesla is not who to look at for EV expertise
