News
NASA contracts SpaceX for a second crewed Starship Moon landing
NASA says it exercised a contract option to purchase a second crewed Starship Moon landing from SpaceX.
Aside from its general existence, though, very little else is known about the new contract. NASA has yet to discuss when it will launch or which Artemis mission it will be attached to. A step further, it’s not actually clear why two crewed “demonstrations” are needed or what the difference between those two missions is. But more importantly, a broader Artemis Program manifest overview published days later revealed that NASA has plans for a truly unusual gap in crewed Moon landings in the mid-2020s.
Mere days after the announcement, an official NASA schedule showing the agency’s plans for the Moon and Mars over the next ten years explicitly contradicted it, showing only two Starship HLS demonstrations: one uncrewed and one crewed. Assuming that was simply a matter of poor coordination, the graphic reveals another bizarre reality: NASA appears to be explicitly planning for a three-year gap between SpaceX’s first crewed Starship landing in 2025 and the next crewed Moon landing, which the graphic suggested might occur in 2028.
Every single crewed Apollo Program mission to the Moon – including one aborted circumlunar mission, two missions to lunar orbit, and six successful landings – happened in less than four years. As published, NASA’s current Artemis plan would be akin to completing Apollo 11 – the first crewed Moon landing – in 1969 and then sitting around and waiting until 1972 for the next landing attempt. It’s difficult to properly convey just how bizarre such a huge gap would be.
There are only two obvious possible explanations. First, NASA might prefer a multi-year delay between crewed Moon landings to building and launching another SLS Block 1 rocket, in which case the three-year landing gap is explicitly the fault of years of SLS Block 1B delays – specifically NASA and Boeing’s work on the rocket’s larger Exploration Upper Stage (EUS). Second, it could be the case that NASA and/or SpaceX expects Starship’s first crewed landing to be delayed by one or several years. In 2018, SLS Block 1B was expected to debut as early as 2024. In 2022, NASA now says Block 1B will debut no earlier than 2027, while the last Block 1 launch is NET 2025.
The first explanation is arguably much likelier given that structuring schedules based on the assumption of delays would make very little logistical sense. If SpaceX were to be ready on or close to the original schedule, that would leave NASA’s Moon landing program sitting on its hands for a third of a decade. In an alternative scenario, if NASA was planning to take full advantage of every year it has and SpaceX’s Starship demonstration was still delayed, the space agency would simply end up with more SLS and Orion hardware on hand than it planned for – only a problem if the rocket is literally incapable of launching more than once every year or two. There are few conceivable scenarios where having a mission waiting on a rocket would be preferable to having a rocket waiting for a mission
In other words, NASA probably doesn’t want to plan for a three-year gap between crewed Moon landings. Rather, the anchor NASA has chained the Artemis Program to – SLS and Orion – is likely giving it no choice in the matter. Worse, if SLS Block 1B and EUS development are as poorly managed as SLS Block 1, it’s possible – if not likely – that Artemis IV and V will slip another year or two. As a result, even in the likely scenario that SpaceX’s crewed HLS demonstration runs into a year or so of delays, there could still be a three or even four-year gap between crewed NASA Moon landings right when the program should be getting up to speed.
SpaceX, meanwhile, is privately developing Starship with the ultimate intent of landing humans on Mars. Without NASA’s interest and support, the Moon is a distraction from SpaceX’s real goals. Additionally, through NASA’s Human Landing System (HLS) program, SpaceX will be providing Starship as a service, meaning that the company will retain full rights to and ownership of any system that results. Put simply, there’s a real possibility that NASA’s seemingly extraordinary lack of motivation will create a scenario in which SpaceX could outgrow the space agency’s usefulness in the mid-2020s.
If, for example, SpaceX privately human-rates Starship for launches and entry, descent, and landing; it could use the Starship HLS lander it’s developed with NASA to land its own astronauts on the Moon without the need for SLS, Orion, or NASA. Given that the full extent of NASA’s Artemis Program ambitions appears to be one Moon landing per year, there would be plenty of room for SpaceX to perform multiple additional landings independent of NASA while the space agency’s contractors struggle to build and launch a single SLS rocket in the same time-frame.
Given the political power behind the SLS/Orion programs, it’s not clear if NASA will ever be willing or able to publicly support or take advantage of that logical and likely inevitable maturation of SpaceX’s Starship HLS capabilities. A crewed Moon mission – and especially a crewed Starship landing – successfully completed without the need for SLS or Orion could put NASA’s unsustainable rocket and spacecraft in a very uncomfortable position. Already, the HLS program has relegated SLS/Orion to the role of an Earth-Moon taxi service that just so happens to cost more than $4 billion per launch.
Above all else, uncertainty continues to reign over NASA’s longer-term human spaceflight plans – helped in no small part by the space agency’s lack of any obvious overarching strategy. NASA officials may religiously repeat phrases about how the Artemis Program aims to “sustainably” return humans to the Moon and pave the way to landing astronauts on Mars, but that doesn’t change the fact that the agency’s tangible, funded plans show virtually no evidence of serious preparations for either goal. Only time will tell where that rudderless ship ends up.
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
