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
Tesla is being sued by the family of the woman who was killed in a Texas crash involving a Model 3. The driver, who is also being sued, claimed the vehicle was operating on Autopilot mode, but Tesla executives have come out challenging that claim, stating that the driver of the vehicle overrode the system.
The lawsuit was filed by 76-year-old Martha Avila’s daughter and her husband, who allege a “design defect” involving a Tesla and a failure to warn. The suit alleges negligence against Tesla and the driver, Michael Butler.
Butler “stated he was operating with an automated driving assistance system engaged at the time of the crash,” the Harris County Sheriff’s Office said in a statement. He showed no signs of intoxication and was cooperative, the Sheriff’s Office said, according to NBC News.
Just after reports of the crash and numerous headlines that immediately blamed Tesla’s Autopilot suite, both Tesla CEO Elon Musk and Head of AI Ashok Elluswamy challenged that. Musk said the crash made “no sense” given that Tesla Autopilot and Full Self-Driving do not travel at the speeds the door cameras captured the car traveling at, which Tesla says was 73 MPH.
Tesla finally clarifies fatal Texas crash, confirms driver manually overrode acceleration
Elluswamy also revealed that Tesla data showed Butler overrode the system by pressing the accelerator to 100%, and that the pedal was compressed fully even after the car had crashed. Tesla has not released this data to the public, likely because it is communicating with agencies like the NHTSA on an investigation.
The suit uses a Washington Post analysis of government data that “identified at least 17 fatal incidents linked to Tesla Autopilot.”
This is far from the first time an accident has been blamed on Autopilot. A fatal crash in Texas was blamed on Autopilot several years ago, but when Tesla released data to the NTSB, which was investigating the crash, Autopilot was not available where the crash occurred, and Autosteer was never enabled, meaning the car was manually controlled at the time of the accident.
“Application of the accelerator pedal was found to be as high as 98.8 percent,” the NTSB said in their findings. The highest recorded speed in the five seconds leading up to the impact was 67 miles per hour. The area where the crash occurred is residential, and Texas State laws… pic.twitter.com/XGD97NHVZ2
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) March 18, 2026
More information on the accident will be released as Tesla works with agencies to find the cause of the crash. From personal experience, it is hard to imagine Tesla Autopilot or FSD operating in this manner. It drives sometimes too cautiously in residential areas in parking lots, at least in my experience. Speeding happens, but at this rate in this type of area, it is hard to believe.
We look forward to more details being released with time.
The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) has awarded the 2025-2026 Tesla Cybertruck crew cab pickup its highest honor: Top Safety Pick+. This marks the Cybertruck as the only full-size pickup to achieve this distinction in recent evaluations.
The award applies specifically to vehicles built after April 2025, following structural upgrades including front underbody reinforcements and footwell modifications.
These changes enabled strong performance in updated crash tests. The Cybertruck earned “Good” ratings in the small overlap front (driver and passenger sides), updated moderate overlap front, and updated side tests—core requirements for the Top Safety Pick+ designation.
It also secured acceptable or good headlights across trims and a “Good” rating for its standard front crash prevention system in pedestrian scenarios, along with acceptable or good performance in vehicle-to-vehicle testing.
The Cybertruck avoided every single pedestrian collision, including:
- Daytime child crossing
- Nightitime adult crossing
- Night parallel adult
In IIHS pedestrian front crash prevention tests, @Cybertruck avoided every single collision – daytime, nighttime & different angles
It was also the only pickup to earn Top Safety Pick+ (highest award) in 2026https://t.co/BNPqT9TbsW pic.twitter.com/M6nwDisBFK
— Tesla (@Tesla) June 24, 2026
In the large pickup category, competitors such as the Toyota Tundra received only a standard Top Safety Pick, while the Ford F-150 and Ram 1500 did not qualify for either award. This positions the Cybertruck as a standout in occupant protection and crash avoidance among its peers.
Credit: IIHS
Ironically, the same vehicle celebrated for superior U.S. safety performance remains banned from public roads in the United Kingdom and much of Europe. Regulators there cite the Cybertruck’s sharp external edges and highly rigid stainless-steel construction as failing pedestrian-protection standards. European and UK rules require rounded surfaces on protruding parts to minimize injury risk in collisions with vulnerable road users.
Critics also point to the truck’s substantial weight and unyielding body structure, which some argue could transfer more force to other vehicles or pedestrians rather than absorbing it.
Tesla’s engineering philosophy underpins the Cybertruck’s strong IIHS results. The vehicle features a distinctive stainless-steel exoskeleton made from ultra-hard 30X cold-rolled stainless steel. This provides exceptional structural rigidity and a robust safety cage that resists deformation in side impacts and rollovers.
Engineers designed integrated load paths to channel crash forces away from the occupant compartment while allowing controlled energy absorption in key zones. Post-April 2025 refinements to the front underbody further optimized performance in overlap crashes.
Complementing the passive structure is Tesla’s advanced active safety suite, including the standard Collision Avoidance Assist system with automatic emergency braking. This contributed directly to the vehicle’s strong front crash prevention scores. The skateboard platform and low center of gravity also enhance stability and handling, reducing the likelihood of certain crashes.
The IIHS recognition highlights how Tesla’s combination of high-strength materials, structural innovation, and software-driven safety systems can deliver top-tier protection in rigorous testing. While global regulatory differences on design and pedestrian interaction continue to limit the Cybertruck’s availability outside North America, its U.S. safety credentials set a new benchmark for full-size pickups.
Elon Musk
SpaceX’s newest Starmind will make earth data centers obsolete
Elon Musk confirmed Starmind as SpaceX’s AI satellite constellation name, targeting one million orbital compute nodes.
Elon Musk confirmed that Starmind will be the official name of SpaceX’s planned AI satellite constellation, following a trademark filing by xAI that surfaced earlier this week. Starmind is what’s being described to the FCC as a constellation of up to one million AI satellites
It’s worth noting that SpaceX’s Starlink communication satellite and Starmind are built on the same orbital infrastructure concept but serve entirely different purposes. Starlink is a connectivity network, with satellites receiving and relaying data between points on Earth, and functioning as a high-speed internet backbone in space. The satellites themselves do not process or think, and move information from one place to another, the same function a fiber cable performs underground.
SpaceX just forced Verizon, AT&T and T-Mobile to team up for the first time in history
Starmind, on the other hand, is something completely different, and tather than moving data, its satellites would compute data through artificial intelligence and directly in orbit using onboard processors powered by large solar arrays. Where a Starlink satellite is essentially a very fast pipe, a Starmind satellite is a server. The practical implication is that Starmind would allow AI models to run inference, process queries, and generate outputs from space, then beam results down to users anywhere on Earth within milliseconds, and without the data ever needing to travel to a terrestrial data center.
Starship will be able to carry 30 to 50 AI1 satellites per launch, delivering the equivalent of dozens of server racks per flight, with no land acquisition, no power grid approval, and no cooling infrastructure required on the ground.
SpaceX is pursuing this new technology as terrestrial data centers are running into hard limits such as lack of physical space, community opposition, and power and water consumption at a scale that is increasingly difficult to permit. Space has unlimited solar power, natural vacuum cooling, and no zoning boards. Musk said in a June 8 video presentation that he expects space to become the lowest-cost location to deploy AI compute within two to three years. Two AI1 prototypes are scheduled to launch in early 2027, with volume production targeted for the end of that year at a new facility called Gigasat.
The real world applications Starmind enables extend well beyond powering Grok. A constellation of orbiting AI processors could run inference workloads for any paying customer, anywhere on Earth, with latency measured in milliseconds rather than the seconds associated with ground-based cloud routing across continents. Starmind, if it scales as described, would make SpaceX the landlord of AI compute the same way Starlink made it the landlord of satellite internet.
Tesla and driver sued by family of woman killed in Texas crash: what we know
Tesla Cybertruck is officially the safest pickup, IIHS says
