News
SpaceX orbital Starship launch debut officially slips to 2022 – but it’s not all bad news
US government documentation suggests that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) aims to complete an environmental review of SpaceX’s orbital Starship launch site no earlier than December 31st, 2021, precluding an orbital launch attempt this year.
In light of the FAA taking until September 2021 to publish the draft of that environmental assessment (EA), a major delay has been the expected outcome for months. The latest development finally makes that delay official, confirming that even in the new best-case scenario, SpaceX will be unable to conduct Starship’s first orbital launch before January 1st, 2022. But while that unfortunate confirmation comes as little surprise, it’s not all bad news.
It’s unclear how accurate the Federal Infrastructure Projects’ “Permitting Dashboard” actually is but the information displayed on the website is specific and detailed enough for it to be deemed trustworthy. If correct, it states that the FAA aims to complete SpaceX’s orbital Starship EA by December 31st. To an extent, that internal estimate relies on the optimistic assumption that the FAA will rule in SpaceX’s favor on the matter and issue either a finding of no significant impact (FONSI).
Of course, there’s a chance that the portal’s claim that the FAA will file Starship’s final orbital EA and conclude the EA process on the same day actually implies that the FAA has already ruled out the worst-case scenario (a no action alternative finding), which would be excellent news for SpaceX. In an optimal scenario, the 12/31/21 target means that the FAA could issue a FONSI or mitigated FONSI before the end of 2021. However, even if that’s the case, a highly favorable environmental review is just one part of the process of securing an orbital Starship launch license, which will be the next gating factor for the SpaceX rocket’s full-up launch debut.
Update: In an official email, the FAA says that the final EA it intends to release by December 31st “will include a Finding of No Significant Impact or decision to initiate an Environmental Impact Statement.” It’s unclear if that FONSI includes the possibility of a mitigated FONSI, which would be the optimal compromise scenario. If the FAA pursues an EIS, it would effectively restart the environmental review process from scratch, potentially delaying orbital Starship launches by a year or more.
There is very little public insight into what that launch licensing process involves or how long it usually takes but it’s safe to say that it could take months for the FAA to move from issuing a favorable EA to approving even the most limited possible orbital Starship launch license (a permit for a single flight). Still, there is some reason for optimism. If the FAA actually publishes a final – and favorable – environmental assessment by the end of 2021, less than four months after issuing the first draft EA for orbital Starship launches, it would be an exceptionally quick turnaround for such a large project and review.
Now that SpaceX has completed the first successful six-engine Starship static fire, the company could potentially be technically ready for the first orbital Starship launch as soon as the ship’s Super Heavy booster completes similar testing. That test campaign is even more ambitious than Starship’s and will eventually culminate in the first one or several 29-engine booster static fires, making Super Heavy the most powerful rocket stage ever tested. Plenty of uncertainty remains about the timeline for Super Heavy Booster 4 (B4) testing, though.
With a quick burst of progress, both Super Heavy B4 and Starbase’s orbital launch site could feasibly be ready to support testing before the end of November. Before true Super Heavy testing can began, SpaceX will need to close out one or both of the orbital pad’s liquid methane (LCH4) tanks, fill them with several hundred to several thousand tons of LCH4, button up Booster 4’s aft section with six steel ‘aerocovers’, finish reinstalling 29 Raptors, and complete the heat shield that will protect most of those engines during ground testing and in flight. Normally, that would likely be a few-day or few-week process for SpaceX but the company’s unusually slow pace of work as of late could turn it into a several-month ordeal.
With any luck, SpaceX has simply prioritized work on Starbase’s orbital launch site over the last few months and will refocus on preparing Super Heavy B4 and Starship S20 for flight as the FAA’s environmental review and launch licensing processes finally near their end.
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
