News
Elon Musk says SpaceX could soon face bankruptcy – here’s why that’s unlikely
In a new leaked email, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk says that the company could go bankrupt if, by the end of 2022, it can’t achieve Starship and Starlink milestones that are by all practical appearances out of reach.
The news – first broken by SpaceExplored – comes about a week after CNBC reported that Musk was “shaking up” SpaceX’s leadership by effectively firing its vice president of propulsion due to “a lack of progress” in the development of Starship’s Raptor engine. Now, apparently after taking his first good look ‘under the hood’ in a while, Musk says that “the Raptor production crisis is much worse than it seemed a few weeks ago.” Worse, the CEO has implied that if it “can’t get enough reliable Raptors made [by the end of 2022]…[SpaceX will] face a genuine risk of bankruptcy.”
The email raises both skepticism and several major questions.
First and foremost, can there be any truth to Musk’s claim that SpaceX could go bankrupt because of an unspecified “Raptor production crisis [and disaster]?” Put simply, not really. Musk’s argument is simple enough. According to his estimations, the first-generation (V1) Starlink satellite internet constellation is “financially weak by itself,” which has led SpaceX to develop a much larger, more advanced second-generation (V2) Starlink satellite and constellation that the company’s existing “Falcon [rockets have] neither the [payload] volume nor mass to orbit” to launch. To efficiently launch the Starlink V2 constellation, then, Musk says SpaceX needs Starship to be operational.
Up to that point, nothing in Musk’s email implies that a “Raptor production crisis” could pose any serious harm to SpaceX beyond annoying delays. More than two years ago, Musk believed that Raptor V1.0 already cost less than $1M to produce. As of 2021, SpaceX (again per Musk) is completing an average of one Raptor engine every two days and currently has 35 functional engines installed on Starship and Super Heavy booster prototypes in Boca Chica, Texas. Already, at a rate of one engine every 48 hours, SpaceX’s Raptor production capabilities are theoretically strong enough to fully outfit a significant Starship fleet.
-->Both stages of Starship are designed to be rapidly and fully reusable and absolutely need to be to efficiently and rapidly launch SpaceX’s Starlink V2 constellation. In theory, a production capacity of ~180 Raptors per year should allow SpaceX to outfit a fleet of three Super Heavies (99 engines) and 13 Starships (72 engines). Even if Super Heavy booster reuse is initially no faster than Falcon (~1 launch per month) and Starship reuse is no faster than Dragon (~3 launches per year), that fleet would be able to launch at least 36 times per years. Even if SpaceX’s former propulsion executives somehow pulled the wool over Musk’s eyes, tricking him into seeing engines that just weren’t there and hiding hundreds of millions of dollars in secret cost overruns from the company’s own accountants, an annual run rate of 100 Raptor engines at a cost of $5 million each would still be able to power a fleet of six reusable ships and two boosters capable of ~20 launches per year.
Musk says that SpaceX will only face the risk of bankruptcy if it “cannot achieve a Starship flight rate of at least once every two weeks next year” – equivalent to 26 launches annually. Again, being deceived for years would be a terrible look but nothing described above appears to have any chance of bankrupting SpaceX. However, the CEO also says that SpaceX “is spooling up” one or several factories to produce “several million” Starlink user terminals (dishes) per year in a process that “will consume massive capital [and assumes] that [Starlink V2 satellites] will be on orbit to handle the bandwidth demand.” He even goes as far as to say that those millions of terminals “will be useless otherwise.”
Once again, while what he describes is an undeniable hurdle for SpaceX, the company is making a choice to “consume massive capital” to “spool up” Starlink dish factories before the constellation capacity needed to take advantage of those dishes has been secured. SpaceX doesn’t need to make such a massive investment so quickly when it could instead split that money with Starship, ensure that Starship and Raptor and Starlink V2.0 satellites are ready or close to ready for routine launches, and then invest heavily in dish production.
For example, just this month, SpaceX raised almost $350M from investors that have a practically bottomless appetite for SpaceX investments. Combined, by the end of the year, SpaceX will have likely raised more than $2.3B in 2021 alone. Valued at more than $100 billion, the company could – as a last resort – feasibly raise double-digit billions in one fell swoop with an IPO. Put simply, the only way SpaceX could ever go bankrupt in the near term would be by consciously letting itself drown in a sea of life preservers.
This is not to say that SpaceX doesn’t have numerous massive challenges ahead of it, nor is it to say that its fundraising potential is truly limitless. Investors could eventually become disillusioned. It’s entirely possible that it will take SpaceX years longer than Musk expects to begin routine Starlink V2.0 launches with Starship. Environmental approvals alone could easily preclude more than five orbital Starship launches in 2022 and potentially prevent regular (i.e. biweekly) launches well into 2023. But the fact of the matter is that unless Elon Musk is telegraphing signs that the rest of the company’s finances are a house of cards, the odds of SpaceX actually going bankrupt anytime soon are vanishingly small. In reality, he’s likely just attempting to (for better or worse) instill some amount of fear and panic in SpaceX employees to encourage them to work more hours and take fewer days off.
Update: Musk has tweeted a brief public comment confirming that he believes bankruptcy is actually an unlikely – but not impossible – outcome for SpaceX.
If a severe global recession were to dry up capital availability / liquidity while SpaceX was losing billions on Starlink & Starship, then bankruptcy, while still unlikely, is not impossible.
GM & Chrysler went BK last recession.
“Only the paranoid survive.” – Grove— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) November 30, 2021
-->
Elon Musk said in late November that he’s “tried to warn” legacy automakers and “even offered to license Tesla Full Self-Driving, but they don’t want it,” expressing frustration with companies that refuse to adopt the company’s suite, which will eventually be autonomous.
Tesla has long established itself as the leader in self-driving technology, especially in the United States. Although there are formidable competitors, Tesla’s FSD suite is the most robust and is not limited to certain areas or roadways. It operates anywhere and everywhere.
The company’s current position as the leader in self-driving tech is being ignored by legacy automakers, a parallel to what Tesla’s position was with EV development over a decade ago, which was also ignored by competitors.
The reluctance mirrors how legacy automakers initially dismissed EVs, only to scramble in catch-up mode years later–a pattern that highlights their historical underestimation of disruptive innovations from Tesla.
Elon Musk’s Self-Driving Licensing Attempts
Musk and Tesla have tried to push Full Self-Driving to other car companies, with no true suitors, despite ongoing conversations for years. Tesla’s FSD is aiming to become more robust through comprehensive data collection and a larger fleet, something the company has tried to establish through a subscription program, free trials, and other strategies.
Tesla CEO Elon Musk sends rivals dire warning about Full Self-Driving
However, competing companies have not wanted to license FSD for a handful of speculative reasons: competitive pride, regulatory concerns, high costs, or preference for in-house development.
Déjà vu All Over Again
Tesla tried to portray the importance of EVs long ago, as in the 2010s, executives from companies like Ford and GM downplayed the importance of sustainable powertrains as niche or unprofitable.
Musk once said in a 2014 interview that rivals woke up to electric powertrains when the Model S started to disrupt things and gained some market share. Things got really serious upon the launch of the Model 3 in 2017, as a mass-market vehicle was what Tesla was missing from its lineup.
This caused legacy companies to truly wake up; they were losing market share to Tesla’s new and exciting tech that offered less maintenance, a fresh take on passenger auto, and other advantages. They were late to the party, and although they have all launched vehicles of their own, they still lag in two major areas: sales and infrastructure, leaning on Tesla for the latter.
I’ve tried to warn them and even offered to license Tesla FSD, but they don’t want it! Crazy …
When legacy auto does occasionally reach out, they tepidly discuss implementing FSD for a tiny program in 5 years with unworkable requirements for Tesla, so pointless. 🤷♂️
🦕 🦕
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) November 24, 2025
Musk’s past warnings have been plentiful. In 2017, he responded to critics who stated Tesla was chasing subsidies. He responded, “Few people know that we started Tesla when GM forcibly recalled all electric cars from customers in 2003 and then crushed them in a junkyard,” adding that “they would be doing nothing” on EVs without Tesla’s efforts.
Companies laughed off Tesla’s prowess with EVs, only to realize they had made a grave mistake later on.
It looks to be happening once again.
A Pattern of Underestimation
Both EVs and self-driving tech represent major paradigm shifts that legacy players view as threats to their established business models; it’s hard to change. However, these early push-aways from new tech only result in reactive strategies later on, usually resulting in what pains they are facing now.
Ford is scaling back its EV efforts, and GM’s projects are hurting. Although they both have in-house self-driving projects, they are falling well behind the progress of Tesla and even other competitors.
It is getting to a point where short-term risk will become a long-term setback, and they may have to rely on a company to pull them out of a tough situation later on, just as it did with Tesla and EV charging infrastructure.
Tesla has continued to innovate, while legacy automakers have lagged behind, and it has cost them dearly.
Implications and Future Outlook
Moving forward, Tesla’s progress will continue to accelerate, while a dismissive attitude by other companies will continue to penalize them, especially as time goes on. Falling further behind in self-driving could eventually lead to market share erosion, as autonomy could be a crucial part of vehicle marketing within the next few years.
Eventually, companies could be forced into joint partnerships as economic pressures mount. Some companies did this with EVs, but it has not resulted in very much.
Self-driving efforts are not only a strength for companies themselves, but they also contribute to other things, like affordability and safety.
Tesla has exhibited data that specifically shows its self-driving tech is safer than human drivers, most recently by a considerable margin. This would help with eliminating accidents and making roads safer.
Tesla’s new Safety Report shows Autopilot is nine times safer than humans
Additionally, competition in the market is a good thing, as it drives costs down and helps innovation continue on an upward trend.
Conclusion
The parallels are unmistakable: a decade ago, legacy automakers laughed off electric vehicles as toys for tree-huggers, crushed their own EV programs, and bet everything on the internal-combustion status quo–only to watch Tesla redefine the industry while they scrambled for billions in catch-up capital.
Today, the same companies are turning down repeated offers to license Tesla’s Full Self-Driving technology, insisting they can build better autonomy in-house, even as their own programs stumble through recalls, layoffs, and missed milestones. History is not merely rhyming; it is repeating almost note-for-note.
Elon Musk has spent twenty years warning that the auto industry’s bureaucratic inertia and short-term thinking will leave it stranded on the wrong side of technological revolutions. The question is no longer whether Tesla is ahead–it is whether the giants of Detroit, Stuttgart, and Toyota will finally listen before the next wave leaves them watching another leader pull away in the rear-view mirror.
This time, the stakes are not just market share; they are the very definition of what a car will be in the decades ahead.
News
Waymo driverless taxi drives directly into active LAPD standoff
No injuries occurred, and the passengers inside the vehicle were safely transported to their destination, as per a Waymo representative.
A video posted on social media has shown an occupied Waymo driverless taxi driving directly into the middle of an active LAPD standoff in downtown Los Angeles.
As could be seen in the short video, which was initially posted on Instagram by user Alex Choi, a Waymo driverless taxi drove directly into the middle of an active LAPD standoff in downtown Los Angeles.
The driverless taxi made an unprotected left turn despite what appeared to be a red light, briefly entering a police perimeter. At the time, officers seemed to be giving commands to a prone suspect on the ground, who looked quite surprised at the sudden presence of the driverless vehicle.
People on the sidewalk, including the person who was filming the video, could be heard chuckling at the Waymo’s strange behavior.
The Waymo reportedly cleared the area within seconds. No injuries occurred, and the passengers inside the vehicle were safely transported to their destination, as per a Waymo representative. Still, the video spread across social media, with numerous netizens poking fun at the gaffe.
-->Others also pointed out that such a gaffe would have resulted in widespread controversy had the vehicle involved been a Tesla on FSD. Tesla is constantly under scrutiny, with TSLA shorts and similar groups actively trying to put down the company’s FSD program.
A Tesla on FSD or Robotaxi accidentally driving into an active police standoff would likely cause lawsuits, nonstop media coverage, and calls for a worldwide ban, at the least.
This was one of the reasons why even minor traffic infractions committed by the company’s Robotaxis during their initial rollout in Austin received nationwide media attention. This particular Waymo incident, however, will likely not receive as much coverage.
Tesla Model Y demand in China is through the roof, and new delivery dates show the company has already sold out its allocation of the all-electric crossover for 2025.
The Model Y has been the most popular vehicle in the world in both of the last two years, outpacing incredibly popular vehicles like the Toyota RAV 4. In China, the EV market is substantially more saturated, with more competitors than in any other market.
However, Tesla has been kind to the Chinese market, as it has launched trim levels for the Model Y in the country that are not available anywhere else. Demand has been strong for the Model Y in China; it ranks in the top 5 of all EVs in the country, trailing the BYD Seagull, Wuling Hongguang Mini EV, and the Geely Galaxy Xingyuan.
The other three models ahead of the Model Y are priced substantially lower.
Tesla is still dealing with strong demand for the Model Y, and the company is now pushing delivery dates to early 2026, meaning the vehicle is sold out for the year:
NEWS: New orders for all four Tesla Model Y trims in China are now officially sold out for 2025, as the factory’s remaining production capacity for the year has been fully allocated.
Estimated delivery dates for new orders now show January-February 2026. pic.twitter.com/Dfnu7yY58N
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) December 1, 2025
Tesla experienced a 9.9 percent year-over-year rise in its China-made EV sales for November, meaning there is some serious potential for the automaker moving into next year despite increased competition.
There have been a lot of questions surrounding how Tesla would perform globally with more competition, but it seems to have a good grasp of various markets because of its vehicles, its charging infrastructure, and its Full Self-Driving (FSD) suite, which has been expanding to more countries as of late.
Tesla Model Y is still China’s best-selling premium EV through October
Tesla holds a dominating lead in the United States with EV registrations, and performs incredibly well in several European countries.
With demand in China looking strong, it will be interesting to see how the company ends the year in terms of global deliveries.
Elon Musk’s warning to legacy automakers: Tesla FSD licensing snub echoes EV dismissal
Waymo driverless taxi drives directly into active LAPD standoff
