News
SpaceX installs second Starship Mk1 canard ahead of transport to launch pad
SpaceX has begun to install Starship Mk1’s second of two forward ‘canards’, aerodynamic flaps the rocket prototype will soon use to attempt the first radical skydiver-style landing. SpaceX technicians are likely working to fully outfit the rocket before transporting its nose section to the launch pad, where it can be mated to Starship Mk1’s lower tank and engine section.
This second canard installation follows just a few days after SpaceX technicians began installing the first fin, a process that took a fair bit longer than usual as a result of new hardware integrated with the control surfaces this time around. Discussed earlier today, those large mechanism are likely the substantial actuators Starship will need to rapidly tweak its trajectory while falling through the atmosphere.
“Barely three weeks after the rocket’s forward flaps (canards) were removed, SpaceX technicians began the reinstallation process with one major visible difference: a massive motorcycle-sized actuator. The appearance of that previously unseen actuator mechanism on the first reinstalled canard suggests that this time around, SpaceX is installing Starship’s flaps with their final purpose of controlling Starship’s free-fall in mind.”
Teslarati, 11/04/2019
With the first installation complete, SpaceX’s Boca Chica technicians will likely be able to install Starship Mk1’s second canard more quickly. Beyond attaching the prototype’s control surfaces, SpaceX has also made a significant amount of progress outfitting Starship Mk1’s nose section with other hardware, notably fitting the nose’s exterior fuel lines with what is likely insulation.
That same black and silver insulation has been visible on SpaceX’s Starship Mk2 prototype in Cocoa, Florida, where technicians appear to have taken a slightly different step than Texas, insulating the plumbing before installing it on the vehicle.
Together again, at last
On October 30th, SpaceX lifted Starship Mk1’s tank and engine section onto a remote-controlled transported and moved the rocket half approximately a mile to its Boca Chica, Texas launch facilities, where Starship was installed on a freshly-constructed launch mount. SpaceX’s decision to move Mk1’s halves separately came as a bit of a surprise but appears to have been driven by a need to ensure that the spacecraft’s bottom half fit properly on the launch mount’s umbilical connections. Between the mount’s hefty steel beams, the beginnings of those panels (often deemed ‘quick disconnects’) are visible at the base of the panorama below.
Also visible around the base of Starship Mk1’s shiny aft section are a number of black steel structures – six, to be precise. Those protrusions are Starship’s landing legs, one of the last significant mechanisms installed on the rocket before SpaceX transported the half to the launch site. For unknown reasons, Starship Mk1’s legs – as well as Mk2’s – are almost nothing like those SpaceX have proposed for past Starship iterations and are even more dissimilar to Falcon 9’s extensively flight-proven hardware.
Instead of Falcon 9’s triangular, spread-eagle legs or BFR’s older tripod fin setup, Starship 2019 features six peg-like legs that only deploy or retract directly up or down. As some observers have noted, some of the hardware installed in and around those steel beam-like legs resembles industrial-grade linear brakes, suggesting that the legs will be deployed from their stowed positions by releasing those brakes and letting gravity do most of the work.
Layman concerns remain about the stability of six perfectly vertical legs with a span essentially the same as Starship’s own diameter, a possible indicator that the dead-simple landing legs on Mk1 and Mk2 may be dramatically simplified for the sake of speedy development. At the same time, it’s possible that their linear brake mechanisms could simultaneously offer some sort of minor suspension or terrain compensation, but their extremely narrow span fundamentally limits their potential stability. For landing on a prepared concrete slab, however, they will likely be sufficient, although almost any lateral velocity at all could result in Starship tipping over.
For now, SpaceX has road closures scheduled on November 7th, 8th, and 12th, the former two of which are probably more focused on transporting Starship Mk1’s nose section to the pad for installation atop the tank section. At the same time, SpaceX is clearly preparing for a series of major Starship tests, including a tank proof test, a wet dress rehearsal, and a triple-Raptor static fire. Stay tuned for updates!
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
