News
[Update: Scrubbed] SpaceX Starship to attempt same-day static fire and launch
Update: Starship SN11 did manage a timely static fire around 8am CDT but after hours of work, SpaceX appears to have scrubbed a Friday, March 26th launch attempt.
SpaceX’s website has yet to be updated and Friday’s FAA TFR is still active but a road closure meant to last until 7:30 pm CDT to cover the static fire and launch was retracted after the highway was reopened around 2:45 pm. It’s unclear what caused the scrub but weather or technical issues from the static fire are two likely candidates. SpaceX still has TFRs active on Saturday and Sunday, but the company hasn’t tested or flown on a weekend in months.
Lacking only an official confirmation, SpaceX appears to be readying the fourth full-size Starship prototype to attempt a Raptor static fire test and launch on the same day.
That hopeful day in question happens to be today – Friday, March 26th. If all goes according to plan, Starship serial number SN11 will fire up its three Raptors, verifying their health after an engine was apparently swapped out on Wednesday. Possibly just an hour or two later, after detanking and retanking liquid oxygen and methane propellant, the Starship prototype could lift off on SpaceX’s fourth high-altitude test flight.
Late on March 24th, SpaceX rolled Raptor engine SN46 from its Boca Chica factory to the launch pad, where Starship SN11 is installed on one of two suborbital launch mounts. The engine move and subsequent installation came as a surprise, as nobody managed to catch an implied Starship SN11 engine removal in the two or three days prior (extremely thick fog being the likeliest cause).
The implied issue with the Raptor that was removed is likely to blame for a several-day launch delay that followed Starship’s seemingly successful Monday static fire. After that test, SN11’s launch was initially scheduled as early as Tuesday or Wednesday, only to slip day by day as the week proceeded. SN11 first rolled to the launch pad on March 8th, just 18 days ago, so launch delays don’t come as a huge surprise given that the current factory-to-launch record for a three-engine Starship is 33 days, three static fires, and one engine swap.
If SN11 manages a same-day static fire and launch on March 26th, it will still crush that record by almost 50%. To an extent, the feat also isn’t unprecedented. On March 3rd, Starship SN10 aborted its first true launch attempt milliseconds after Raptor ignition when the rocket’s flight computer detected indications that they were producing too much thrust. Amazingly, instead of scrubbing the launch attempt, SpaceX loosened Starship SN10’s thrust limit parameters and tried again, successfully lifting off just three hours after the abort.
Despite the abort and immediate hands-free recycle, Starship SN10 subsequently became the first prototype of its kind to launch to 10 km (6.2 mi), free-fall back to earth, and land in one piece. Minutes later, a fire and harder landing than expected conspired to make SN10 explode, but the test flight was arguably still a massive success. Simultaneously, the flight indicated that Starships are technically capable of successfully flying hours after a post-ignition launch abort, demonstrating an extraordinary level of robustness for clustered high-performance rocket engines.
As such, while it’s probably reasonable to assume that Starship SN11 wont launch today, SN10 proved that there is nonzero chance of a static fire and launch hours apart. Additionally, given just how close SN10 go to unequivocal success (i.e. a soft and survivable landing), Starship SN11 has the best chance yet at at launching, landing, and making it through the ordeal without exploding.
Starship SN11’s third static fire and first launch attempt are both currently scheduled sometime between 7am and 7:30pm CDT (UTC-5). Stay tuned for updates as we wait for SpaceX’s official confirmation and an evacuation notice of Boca Chica Village residents.
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
