Space
SpaceX is already preparing for operational astronaut missions
While the world’s attention is focused on the return of orbital human spaceflight from US soil after a nearly decade long absence with the upcoming May 27th Crew Dragon Demo-2 mission, SpaceX is simultaneously preparing for the first Crew Dragon operational mission certified by NASA, dubbed Crew-1, slated to occur later this year.
On Friday, April 24th, SpaceX treated its Twitter followers to some rare imagery of static fire testing completed at the company’s development facility in McGregor, Texas. The company spotlighted a fresh-from-the-factory Falcon 9 booster and Falcon 9 second stage Merlin Vaccum (MVac) engine intended for the Crew-1 mission. Crew-1, the follow-up mission to May’s Demo-2 mission and SpaceX’s first operational human spaceflight mission for NASA, will propel a crew of three NASA astronauts and one JAXA astronaut in a Crew Dragon capsule to the International Space Station.
SpaceX also provided its followers with a view of the pristine second stage MVac engine of the Crew-1 mission before it was sent to Texas for testing. The one-hundredth production MVac engine is seen inside of SpaceX’s manufacturing facility located in Hawthorne, CA before being prepared for shipment. The second stage MVac engine is the only piece of Falcon 9 hardware that SpaceX does not actively recover and reuse, unlike the first-stage booster and protective payload fairing nosecone.

Part of the process
A static fire test is a typical occurrence before shipping the booster and second stage to Florida for payload integration and launch. The static fire process involves holding down the booster and igniting the engines to run for a full-duration firing. A similar test is also performed on with the second stage MVac engine. These test-fires are performed at the Mcgregor facility to proof the vehicle and check for any inconsistencies or off-nominal test readings that may occur before shipping to the vehicle to the launch site. Following the test-fire, the entire vehicle is inspected, cleaned, and prepared for shipment.
A test-fire in Mcgregor is not the last time the engines will be put through the paces before launch. Typically a week or so before the scheduled launch date, the Falcon 9 booster is transported to the launch pad. There, the booster is fully fueled with propellant while securely held to the launch mount. All nine Merlin-1D engines are once again ignited briefly (anywhere between 6 – 12 seconds) to test the propellant load process and collect engine-firing measurements such as temperature and pressure.
Certification before operation
Although the Crew-1 mission is tentatively on the books for later this year, SpaceX and the Crew Dragon capsule have yet to achieve NASA certification to begin operational missions to and from the International Space Station. The second orbital demonstration flight of the Crew Dragon capsule (Demo-2) will serve as the final end-to-end test of SpaceX’s crew transportation system.
However, SpaceX still faces a few obstacles before achieving a full go-ahead by NASA for the launch of Demo-2. As reported by SpaceNews.com NASA’s Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP) met via teleconference on Thursday, April 23rd for a routine quarterly briefing. In that meeting, it was briefly discussed that there are still a few “technical items” that remain to be cleared by NASA before the launch of the Demo-2 mission.
Although not specified in the briefing – and likely to be followed up on during “part 2” of the ASAP meeting to be held in early May – those items likely refer to wrapping up the joint investigation of a recent in-flight engine failure of a Falcon 9 Merlin-1D engine and one more qualifying drop-test of the Crew Dragon Mark 3 parachutes. SpaceX, however, shows no plans letting formalities stop the preparation to support future astronaut missions.
Check out Teslarati’s newsletters for prompt updates, on-the-ground perspectives, and unique glimpses of SpaceX’s rocket launch and recovery processes.
Elon Musk
Why SpaceX just made a $60 billion bet on AI coding ahead of historic IPO
SpaceX has secured an option to acquire Cursor AI for $60 billion ahead of its historic IPO.
SpaceX announced today it has struck a deal with AI coding startup Cursor, securing the option to acquire the company outright for $60 billion later this year, while committing $10 billion for joint development work in the interim. The announcement described the partnership as building “the world’s best coding and knowledge work AI,” and comes just days after Cursor was separately reported to be raising $2 billion at a valuation above $50 billion.
The move makes strategic sense given where each company currently stands. Cursor currently pays retail prices to Anthropic and OpenAI to the same companies competing directly against it with Claude Code and Codex. That means every dollar of revenue Cursor earns partially funds its own competition. With SpaceX bringing computational infrastructure to the Cursor platform, that could reduce Cursor’s dependence on OpenAI and Anthropic’s Claude AI as its providers. Access to SpaceX’s Colossus supercomputer, with compute equivalent to one million Nvidia H100 chips, gives Cursor the infrastructure to run and train its own models at a scale it could never afford independently. That one change restructures the entire unit economics of the business.
Elon Musk teases crazy outlook for xAI against its competitors
Cursor’s $2 billion in annualized revenue and enterprise reach across more than half of Fortune 500 companies gives SpaceX something its xAI subsidiary currently lacks, which is a proven, fast-growing software business with real enterprise distribution.
For Cursor, SpaceX’s $10 billion in joint development funding is transformational. Cursor raised $3.3 billion across all of 2025 to reach that $2 billion in revenue. A single $10 billion commitment from SpaceX, even as a development payment rather than an acquisition, dwarfs everything Cursor has raised in its entire existence. That capital accelerates product development, enterprise sales infrastructure, and proprietary model training simultaneously.
The timing is deliberate. SpaceX filed confidentially with the SEC on April 1, 2026, targeting a June listing at a $1.75 trillion valuation, in what would be the largest public offering in history. The company is expected to begin its roadshow the week of June 8, with Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan, and Morgan Stanley serving as underwriters. Adding Cursor to the portfolio before that roadshow gives IPO investors a concrete enterprise software revenue story to price in, alongside rockets and satellite internet.
The deal also addresses a weakness that became visible after February’s xAI merger. Several xAI co-founders departed following that acquisition, and SpaceX had already hired two Cursor engineers, signaling where its AI talent strategy was heading. Cursor, for its part, faces a pricing disadvantage competing against Anthropic’s Claude Code.
Whether SpaceX exercises the full acquisition option before its IPO or after remains the open question. Either way, this deal reshapes what investors will be buying into when SpaceX goes public.
Elon Musk
How much of SpaceX will Elon Musk own after IPO will surprise you
SpaceX’s IPO filing confirms Musk will maintain his voting power to make key decisions for the company.
Elon Musk will retain dominant voting control of SpaceX after it goes public, according to the company’s IPO prospectus that was filed with the SEC. The filing reveals a dual-class equity structure giving Class B shareholders 10 votes each, concentrating power with Musk and a handful of other insiders, while Class A shares sold to public investors carry one vote.
Musk holds approximately 42% of SpaceX’s equity and controls roughly 79% of its votes through super-voting shares. He will simultaneously serve as CEO, CTO, and chairman of the nine-member board after the listing. Beyond that, the filing includes provisions that may limit shareholders’ influence over board elections and legal actions, forcing disputes into arbitration and restricting where they can be brought.
The case for Musk holding this level of control is grounded in SpaceX’s actual history. The company’s most important bets, from reusable rockets to a global satellite internet constellation, were decisions that ran against conventional aerospace thinking and would likely have faced resistance from a board accountable to investor gains. Fully reusable rockets were considered economically irrational by established industry players for years. Starlink, which now generates over $4 billion in annual operating profit, was widely dismissed as financially unviable when it was proposed. The argument for concentrated founder control seems straightforward, and the decisions that built SpaceX into what it is today required someone willing to ignore consensus and absorb years of losses.
SpaceX files confidentially for IPO that will rewrite the record books
For context, Musk’s position is significantly more dominant than Zuckerberg’s at Meta. The comparison with Tesla is also worth noting. When Tesla did its IPO in 2010, it did not issue dual-class shares. Musk has only recently pushed for enhanced voting protection, proposing at least 25% control at Tesla in 2024 after selling shares to fund his Twitter acquisition left him with around 13%.
SpaceX has clearly learned from that experience and structured the IPO differently by planning to allocate up to 30% of shares to retail investors, roughly three times the typical norm for a large offering. The roadshow is expected to begin the week of June 8, with a Nasdaq listing rumored to be a $1.75 trillion valuation and a $75 billion raise.
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.