News
SpaceX valuation to grow by 27% as Starship, Starlink programs seek more funding
CNBC reports that SpaceX is seeking to raise at least $1.725 billion in its first funding round of 2022, potentially boosting the private company’s valuation as high as $127 billion.
The report signals just the latest in a long line of high-profile rounds of funding SpaceX has secured over the last seven years, gradually boosting its valuation by a factor of more than 100. More likely than not, this round will also be fully subscribed or even oversubscribed as investors scramble over a relatively rare opportunity to snag a small slice of SpaceX – a demand so high that Equidate once stated that SpaceX effectively had access to ‘an unlimited amount of funding’ in 2018.
Four years later, it’s clear that Equidate’s position and forecast were prescient. After a few slow years post-2015, SpaceX’s fundraising activity returned with a vengeance in 2019. From 2019 to 2021, the company privately raised more than $5.2 billion – nearly triple the amount of private funding SpaceX raised from 2002 to 2018. In the likely event that the latest in a long line of highly sought-after and oversubscribed SpaceX investment rounds, SpaceX will have ultimately raised between $8.6 and $9 billion since 2015, averaging about $1.3 billion per year over the last seven years.
More likely than not, a vast majority of that $9 billion has gone towards Starlink and Starship – both of which are also almost exclusively responsible for the fact that SpaceX’s valuation outmatches its annual revenue by a factor of several dozen. CEO Elon Musk has stated in 2017 and 2018 that SpaceX invested around $1 billion to develop Falcon booster reusability and more than $500 million to develop a triple-booster variant of Falcon 9 known as Falcon Heavy – still the most capable operational rocket in the world four years after its debut. It’s possible that some portion of SpaceX’s fundraising since 2015 has gone towards basic recurring expenses during years with few launches and relatively little revenue.
However, it’s likely that most or all of the remaining $7-7.5 billion – separate from several lucrative contracts awarded by the US military and NASA – has gone towards Starlink and Starship. In the last few years, SpaceX has effectively built a massive factory and launch pad for the largest rocket ever built (Starship) out of empty lots in South Texas. SpaceX has also turned several nondescript buildings near Seattle, Washington into the most productive satellite factory in spaceflight history and is working on additional factories to mass-produce hundreds of thousands to millions of cutting-edge satellite dishes per year to allow millions of people to connect to the internet through Starlink.
Assuming a rough marginal cost of $500,000 per satellite and $15 million per Falcon 9 launch, SpaceX could have easily spent more than $2 billion just to build and launch the ~2650 Starlink satellites it’s launched to date. Accounting for the annual salaries and overhead needed for the thousands of employees required to build those satellites and conduct more than 50 different Starlink launches, the true cost over several years could be closer to $3-5 billion. Meanwhile, Starbase has rapidly expanded, built vast new infrastructure, mass-produced around two-dozen different Starship tanks and prototypes, completed dozens of tests, built and tested 150-200 Raptor engines, and conducted nine major flight tests.
Up until late 2021, perhaps less than 5-10% of funding for the above activities came directly from US government contracts. While Starlink remains almost entirely privately funded, SpaceX’s Starship program received a major influx of funding and support from NASA through a $3 billion Moon landing contract awarded in April 2021, but protests from two competitors meant that funds from that contract only began reaching SpaceX around the end of the year. Ultimately, it’s not hard to see why SpaceX has needed to raise so much capital in the last three years.
News
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 faces wrath of the Texas skies
SpaceX pushed Starship Flight 13 to Friday, blaming weather instead of the previous engine issues.
SpaceX called off Thursday’s launch attempt of Starship Flight 13, pushing the mission to Friday because of weather tied to Tropical Storm Bertha. The company confirmed the delay on X, noting “Now targeting Friday, July 24 for Starship’s thirteenth flight test, due to weather. A key objective for the flight test is to get clear imagery from the ground of Starship’s heatshield as it flies at a higher dynamic pressure during ascent, which won’t be possible with today’s weather conditions.”
This is the second delay for Flight 13 in two weeks. SpaceX first tried to launch the mission on July 16, but the countdown ended in an automated abort at T-0 when four of Super Heavy Booster 20’s 33 Raptor engines failed to ignite. Musk said at the time that two Raptors would need to be removed and replaced, as Teslarati reported. The company spent the following week destacking Ship 40 and Booster 20, swapping engines, and running leak checks before restacking the vehicle on Pad 2 Wednesday night, according to Spaceflight Now’s live coverage.
Unlike the engine problem, Thursday’s delay has nothing to do with the hardware. SpaceX wants clean footage of Starship’s heat shield captured from the ground as the vehicle flies through max dynamic pressure, something the storm’s cloud cover over South Texas would not allow. The company said visibility should improve for Friday’s attempt, with the same 90 minute window opening at 5:45 p.m. CT.
Flight 13 will be the second outing for the V3 versions of Starship and Super Heavy, following their debut on Flight 12 in May. The mission carries 20 production Starlink V3 satellites, the first time SpaceX has flown operational satellites rather than mass simulators on Starship. Six of those satellites are fitted with cameras to inspect the heat shield from a different angle during ascent, giving engineers a second data source beyond the ground imagery the weather is currently blocking.
Booster 20 will attempt a boostback burn and a splashdown landing burn in the Gulf of America, while Ship 40 follows a suborbital trajectory toward a landing in the Indian Ocean. The flight plan largely mirrors Flight 12, though the booster will run a more aggressive ascent burn after max Q this time, and the ship’s heat shield includes load sensing tiles meant to measure stress at the higher dynamic pressure SpaceX is targeting.
If Friday’s attempt succeeds, Flight 13 could be the last suborbital test in the program. SpaceX is already looking to push for an orbital flight on Flight 14.
Tesla stock (NASDAQ: TSLA) endured one of its sharpest single-day declines in years on July 23, tumbling approximately 14.5 percent and closing near $320 after opening the session around $374. The drop erased more than $140 billion in market value amid heavy trading volume and left the shares at multi-week lows.
The sell-off followed the company’s second-quarter 2026 results, released the previous evening. Tesla reported record revenue of $28.2 billion, up 26 percent year over year, driven by a Q2-record 480,126 vehicle deliveries. Energy storage deployments also rose strongly.
Tesla (TSLA) Q2 2026 earnings results: miss on EPS, beat on revenue
Yet profitability disappointed sharply. Operating income fell 57 percent to $398 million, compressing the operating margin to just 1.4 percent. Non-GAAP earnings per share came in at $0.33, well below the roughly $0.53 analysts had expected. Free cash flow turned negative by $1.1 billion as capital expenditures surged 142 percent to $5.8 billion, largely tied to accelerated spending on artificial intelligence, robotics, and autonomous systems.
The losses on capex were expected, as Tesla said it would be spending heavily in 2026.
Investors also reacted to lingering uncertainty surrounding key product timelines. During the Earnings Call, management reiterated ambitions for Robotaxi deployment and the Optimus humanoid robot, but offered limited new concrete milestones, renewing questions about execution pace that have long accompanied Tesla’s ambitious roadmap.
The magnitude of the decline places it among Tesla’s more severe one-day percentage losses since its 2010 initial public offering. Historically, the two largest single-day drops (split-adjusted) remain September 8, 2020, when shares fell 21.1 percent amid broader market volatility and valuation concerns, and January 13, 2012, with a 19.3 percent plunge during the company’s early growth struggles.
Other notable declines include an 18.6 percent drop on March 16, 2020, at the onset of pandemic-related market turmoil. Thursday’s move ranks roughly ninth on the all-time list but stands out as the steepest in more than a year.
Despite the short-term pain, Tesla’s long-term trajectory has repeatedly recovered from such volatility. The latest results underscore both the strength of its core automotive and energy businesses and the near-term costs of heavy investment in next-generation technologies.
Elon Musk clapped back at France’s decision to withhold the approval for Tesla’s Full Self-Driving (FSD) Supervised system, projecting a clear and blunt message to French Transport Minister Phillippe Tabarot, after he publicly rejected the technology in its current form.
Tabarot outlines several concerns with Tesla Full Self-Driving in a detailed video statement, where he said, “The safety trade-offs are not yet sufficient to authorize it as it currently stands,” he said. He emphasized that FSD is not a true self-driving system and that the driver remains fully responsible.
Key issues Tabarot also brought up included allowing speeding when surrounding traffic exceeds limits and what he believes are insufficient guarantees of driver attention during complex urban maneuvers such as lane changes, intersections, and roundabouts.
Delaying the approval of FSD in France will cost lives
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 22, 2026
While acknowledging technological progress and France’s support for autonomous innovation, Tabarot stressed that deployment must prioritize road safety. He noted ongoing technical discussions with Tesla, the Netherlands, and other European partners, with further ecosystem meetings planned for the fall.
Musk’s rebuke highlights the human cost of regulatory caution. Tesla’s latest safety reports provide compelling data supporting accelerated adoption. In the most recent 12-month period, vehicles using FSD (Supervised) recorded one major collision per approximately 5.1 million miles driven, dramatically better than the U.S. national average of one crash per 698,000 miles.
Even Tesla vehicles driven manually with active safety features outperform the average by a wide margin. These figures come from billions of real-world miles of telemetry, showing FSD vehicles involved in far fewer incidents than both manual Teslas and the broader U.S. fleet.
Critics argue Tesla’s comparisons require careful scrutiny regarding reporting thresholds and fleet demographics, yet the data consistently positions FSD as a potential lifesaver. With road fatalities remaining a leading cause of death worldwide, Musk contends that proven safer technology should not face prolonged bureaucratic hurdles.
France’s measured approach reflects the broader European regulatory caution, which many, especially Musk, have been critical of in the past. However, as autonomous systems from Tesla and competitors like Waymo demonstrate superior safety in independent studies, pressure is mounting for harmonized approvals.
Musk’s warning carries the belief that every month of delay may equate to avoidable tragedies on European roads.
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 faces wrath of the Texas skies
Tesla stock tumbles after earnings, one of its sharpest single-day declines
