News
SpaceX Starlink launch suffers last-second scrub, ULA up next [update: double scrub]
Update: ULA has scrubbed today’s NROL-44 launch attempt after the weather at the launch site substantially worsened. The Delta IV Heavy rocket’s next shot at launch is now scheduled no earlier than 11:58 pm EDT (03:58 UTC), Tuesday, September 29th, just two hours after a SpaceX Falcon 9 is scheduled to launch the US military’s fourth upgraded GPS III satellite.
SpaceX’s eleventh Starlink launch of the year was scrubbed ~30 seconds before liftoff by bad weather, likely delaying the mission a few days and leaving ULA’s latest Delta IV Heavy launch attempt next in line.
Scheduled to lift off at 10:22 am EDT on Monday, September 28th, SpaceX’s 12th operational Starlink launch (V1 L12) nearly made it to liftoff before the company called the mission off, prioritizing mission success above all else. Given that SpaceX’s Starlink program puts the company in the unique position of being its own launch customer, the decision to let a relatively mild weather violation delay a Starlink mission by at least a few days is unintuitively encouraging.
It’s no secret that SpaceX has become the most successful private launch company in history and a commercial force to be reckoned with, handily overtaking United Launch Alliance (ULA) and Arianespace to acquire a vast majority of the commercial launch market share. Falcon 9 is on track to become the fastest commercial rocket in history to cross the 100-launch milestone and SpaceX is already well on its way to regularly out-launching entire countries with 20+ missions per year. The single biggest risk facing the company is arguably complacency and an infamous tendency known as “launch fever.”
At the cutting edge of spaceflight, constant, exhaustive vigilance is ultimately the only thing standing between a reliable rocket or spacecraft and catastrophic failure. Perhaps the single biggest threat to that vigilance is the somewhat understandable desire to avoid launch delays – a fact of life for rocketry that nevertheless costs time, money, and (to some) reputation. The term “launch” or “go fever” was originally colloquialized to describe the irresponsible managerial pressure to launch largely responsible for both of NASA’s catastrophic Space Shuttle failures.
Some (if not most) parts of SpaceX almost assuredly would rather avoid launch delays. The fact that the company continues to accept Starlink launch delays and respect Falcon 9’s limits strongly implies that SpaceX has found ways to prevent launch fever while still pushing the envelope of launch cadence and rocket reuse. Starlink-12, for example, was originally meant to launch on September 17th but was delayed ~10 days by strong ocean currents before being scrubbed seconds before launch on September 28th. Combined with the fact that SpaceX is technically free to accept more risk on its own Starlink launches, compounded delays will inevitably test the limits of any organization’s resolve.
While the argument that SpaceX is technically the only direct stakeholder in Starlink missions is a bad-faith argument that could easily be made to push for increased risk tolerance, it’s only true in a vacuum. A Falcon 9 failure during a Starlink launch would still have major consequences for all of SpaceX’s customers, particularly delaying critical NASA astronaut and US military launches until a lengthy accident investigation is completed. SpaceX executives and managers involved in launch go/no-go decisions clearly understand this and act accordingly.
Starlink-12 will likely be recycled for another launch attempt sometime after ULA’s next Delta IV Heavy launch attempt and probably after SpaceX’s own GPS III SV04 mission for the US military, scheduled no earlier than (NET) 12:02 am EDT (04:02 UTC) and 9:55 pm EDT (01:55 UTC), September 29th, respectively. Catch ULA’s latest NROL-44 launch attempt at the company’s official webcast below.
Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.
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
