News
SpaceX’s first orbital-class Starship and Super Heavy to return to launch pad next week
CEO Elon Musk says that SpaceX could return the first orbital-class Starship prototype and its Super Heavy booster to the launch site after rolling the rockets back to the factory for finishing steps.
In response to a video of Super Heavy Booster 4 (B4) returning to the build site, Musk rather specifically stated that both Booster for and Starship 20 (S20) will return to the orbital launch pad on Monday, August 16th. SpaceX returned Ship 20 to its ‘high bay’ vertical integration facility mere hours after the Starship was stacked atop a Super Heavy booster (B4) for the first time ever on August 6th. For unknown reasons, perhaps due to high winds, Booster 4 spent another five days at the pad before SpaceX finally lifted it off the orbital launch mount and rolled it back to the high bay, where it took Ship 20’s place on August 11th.
Almost immediately after S20’s August 6th return, its six Raptor engines were removed to make way for an engine-less proof test campaign that Musk has now implied could start as early as next Monday. Mirroring S20, SpaceX also begin uninstalling Super Heavy Booster 4’s 29 Raptor engines the same day it returned to the high bay.
Around 12 hours after the process began, SpaceX appeared to have removed 14 (just shy of half) of Super Heavy B4’s Raptor engines – a pace almost as spectacular as their 12-18 hour installation a bit less than two weeks prior. Aside from making engine removal dramatically easier, Musk says that SpaceX moved Ship 20 and Booster 4 back to the build site to expedite some minor final integration work – namely “small plumbing and wiring.”
However, aside from Raptor removal, the most obvious and significant work ongoing since the pair’s return to the high bay is the process of inspecting Starship S20’s heat shield and repairing or replacing broken, chipped, and loose tiles. Not long after Ship 20 arrived back at the build site, workers in boom lifts began a seemingly arduous process of inspecting the Starship’s nose heat shield and marking – with colored tape – hundreds of tiles with cracks, chips, or other less visible issues.
After several days of inspections and hundreds of tiles marked, SpaceX finally began the process of removing off-nominal tiles early on August 12th. According to NASASpaceflight.com, that removal process is not particularly easy and can require the use of power tools to effectively cut tiles off their embedded mounting frames. Given the amount of force required, some level of care is also almost certainly needed to avoid damaging any adjacent tiles, which could quickly cause a minor misstep to exponentially spread. Nevertheless, a small team of SpaceX technicians seemingly managed to remove no less than several dozen (and maybe 100+) broken tiles in a few hours.
Up next, those removed tiles will need to be replaced. Still, it remains to be seen if SpaceX will choose to fully complete Starship S20’s “98% done” heat shield before sending the ship back to the launch site for proof and static fire testing. To a degree, putting Starship through a gauntlet of ground tests with a full heat shield installed would be an excellent test of the resilience of its thermal protection system to major thermal stresses from frosty steel skin and expansion/contraction during fueling, as well as violent vibrations during static fires.
However, Starship S20’s heat shield is already so close to completion that it might be only marginally less valuable to save time by testing the vehicle as soon as possible.
To an extent, Booster 4 is a much simpler case as Super Heavy needs to major thermal protection. However, according to Musk, some or all of Super Heavy’s 29 Raptor engines will need their own miniature thermal protection system – perhaps a flexible blanket-like enclosure not unlike what SpaceX uses to partially protect Falcon booster engines during reentry. It remains to be seen if Booster 4 will return to the launch site without engines for cryogenic proof testing or if SpaceX will install heat shielded Raptors before starting the first flightworthy Super Heavy’s first test campaign.
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
