News
Elon Musk talks upgrades after SpaceX Starship launches, explodes in midair
SpaceX has completed its fourth Starship test flight in as many months, offering the latest glimpse into the often frustrating reality of a highly iterative, hardware-rich rocket development program.
Right on schedule, SpaceX Starship prototype serial number 11 (SN11) lifted off from Boca Chica, Texas at exactly 8am CDT (UTC-5) – all but completely cloaked in a thick layer of fog. While unfortunate for any unofficial observers (and possibly SpaceX’s own desire to gather video footage of a test flight), SpaceX has experience launching rockets (namely Falcon 9) in thick fog thanks to its Vandenberg Air Force Base launch site on the California coast.
As such, fog theoretically poses no fundamental threat to rockets like Starship, but SN11 still took the opportunity to explore new and exciting failure modes shortly before touchdown. CEO Elon Musk himself didn’t take long to weigh in and has even offered some details and a schedule for upgrades planned for SpaceX’s next-generation launch vehicle – upgrades hoped to alleviate whatever issues led to Starship SN11’s premature demise.
First and foremost, due to the fog, the general public saw virtually nothing throughout the launch attempt. Remote streaming cameras set up near SpaceX’s launch facilities – now, excitingly, with the company’s own permission – did manage to catch some level of detail, providing the bare minimum level of insight needed to speculate on SN11’s failed landing attempt.
Per an official webcast and NASASpaceflight’s unofficial “Danger-Close Camera,” installed a few hundred feet from the launch site with SpaceX’s permission, Starship lifted off at exactly 8am and had a seemingly nominal ascent, reaching a familiar 10 km (6.2 mi) apogee around four minutes later. SN11 then arced over onto its belly and free-fell for ~100 seconds. Aside from a few intermittent fires burning on some of the rocket’s three Raptor engines, not an uncommon sight since SN8 first flew, nothing appeared particularly out of the ordinary.
At T+5:49, however, things rapidly went wrong. Still belly-down, Starship SN11 attempted to reignite all three of its Raptor engines to propulsively flip into a vertical landing position. After at least one seemingly successful reignition, SpaceX immediately lost onboard video and telemetry feeds. Based on NASASpaceflight’s pad-adjacent camera, a substantial explosion followed one or two seconds after that attempted ignition, ending Starship SN11’s test flight around 20 seconds earlier than any of its three late siblings.
Debris began to visibly hit the ground another 5-10 seconds after that explosion was first heard, all but guaranteeing that Starship SN11 exploded in midair. At this time, it’s impossible to know what exactly went wrong, but there are two clear possibilities. Starship SN11 could have failed to reignite two or even all three Raptor engines, triggering onboard flight termination system (FTS) explosives designed to prevent the rocket from straying beyond a safe zone of operations. More likely, Starship suffered a substantial failure during that reignition and flip attempt, triggering an almost immediate explosion that tore the rocket apart around half a kilometer (~1500 ft) above the pad and landing zone.
Shortly after, Musk said that Raptor “engine #2 had issues on ascent” that were notable but not enough to explain a violent midair failure and confirmed that whatever went wrong came “shortly after landing burn start.”
Musk offers Starship upgrade schedule, details
Having suffered a failure a bit less than six minutes after launch, Starship SN11 – the fourth three-engine, high-altitude prototype – was ironically the farthest from a successful landing before something went wrong: one step forward, two steps back. While unfortunate, SpaceX still got some amount of data and uncovered one or several new failure modes – arguably the two of the most important primary goals of any developmental flight test program.
Further, Musk revealed that SpaceX intends to complete and roll Starship SN15 to the launch pad just “a few days” from now – certainly earlier than expected. While the SpaceX CEO didn’t go much into detail, he reaffirmed that SN15 would bring substantial upgrades, stating that “it has hundreds of design improvements across structures, avionics/software, & engine[s].”
Musk also touched on SpaceX’s near-term plans after SN15’s upgrade path, confirming that Starship prototypes from SN20 onwards will be “orbit-capable” with even more improvements. That seemingly delineates three clear ‘blocks’ of Starship prototypes, beginning with SN8 through SN11, proceeding with SN15 through SN19, and (nominally) gearing up for true orbital-class test flights with prototype SN20 and its successors. All told, SN11’s midair demise appears likely to be just a small blip in front of a jam-packed, well-structured series of Starship upgrades and flight tests just over the horizon.
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
