TL;DR

• SpaceX plans to issue shares at $135 each, raising about $75 billion, corresponding to a valuation of about $1.75 trillion. The controversy is not over the company's technological capabilities but rather that this valuation has already priced in AI, orbital data centers, and the vision for Mars.
• The market's FUD mainly comes from three points: valuation far exceeds current revenue scale, Starlink profits are subsidizing high-investment AI business, and related financing and internal acquisitions are gradually concentrating risk onto the same balance sheet.
• Related entity: SPCX (proposed listing)

SpaceX is preparing for an IPO that could rewrite capital market records.

The company plans to issue approximately 556 million shares at $135 each, raising about $75 billion, corresponding to an overall valuation of about $1.75 trillion. If the listing proceeds smoothly, this will become one of the largest IPOs in history, and SpaceX will directly enter the ranks of the highest valued companies in the US on its first day of trading.

The market interest based on SpaceX's achievements over the past twenty years is easy to understand.

The company has significantly reduced commercial launch costs by relying on reusable rockets, established the world's largest satellite internet network, and has gradually turned Starlink from a technical experiment into a real source of revenue and profit. In the global commercial space sector, there is almost no truly comparable company to SpaceX.

However, as this IPO approaches completion, skepticism in the market is actually intensifying.

These doubts do not mean that investors deny SpaceX's technological capabilities, nor do they mean that the market thinks Starlink has no value. What truly triggers FUD is the company's desire for the public market to accept an extremely aggressive pricing logic all at once:

Today's investors not only need to pay for rockets and satellite networks but must also pay a premium in advance for AI infrastructure, orbital data centers, next-generation Starships, and for the longer-term space economy.

The market is worried not that SpaceX has no future but that the future has already been overvalued too much.

$1.75 Trillion Valuation Cannot Be Explained by Starlink Alone

The most direct controversy surrounding SpaceX's IPO comes from the valuation.

In 2025, the company's revenue is expected to be about $18.67 billion, a year-on-year increase of 33%, but the net loss will still reach about $4.94 billion. Based on a valuation of $1.75 trillion, SpaceX's market capitalization is nearly 94 times the previous year's revenue.

This multiple does not necessarily mean that the company is overvalued. SpaceX possesses extremely scarce infrastructure, and its business structure is also difficult to compare simply to traditional aerospace, communication, or technology companies.

The problem is that when the valuation reaches $1.75 trillion, it becomes very difficult to fully explain the market pricing with existing business alone.

If investors only view SpaceX as a rocket launch and satellite internet company, the current valuation seems very aggressive; only when the market simultaneously believes that AI, orbital data centers, next-generation satellite networks, and longer-term space infrastructure can become real sources of income can this pricing logic hold.

This is also why the grand vision in SpaceX's prospectus becomes the starting point for market controversy.

When a company's valuation needs to rely on businesses that have not yet formed mature business models for explanation, the market will naturally increase the risk discount.

Starlink Makes Money, AI Burns Cash

If we temporarily set aside Mars, orbital data centers, and deep space transport, SpaceX's current financial structure is actually quite clear.

In Q1 2026, the company achieved revenue of approximately $4.69 billion, but the operating loss reached about $1.94 billion. Among the three major business segments, only the connectivity services segment centered around Starlink was profitable, with a quarterly operating profit of about $1.19 billion. The AI department generated revenue of about $818 million but incurred an operating loss of approximately $2.47 billion.

At the same time, SpaceX's capital expenditure is clearly accelerating. The company's capital expenditures in the first quarter amounted to about $10.1 billion, of which 76% was directed toward AI-related businesses.

This means that SpaceX's most stable source of profit currently remains Starlink, while the company's most aggressive capital investments are flowing into AI.

This model is not without reason. AI infrastructure is inherently an industry that requires a massive upfront capital investment, and data centers, power, chips, and networking equipment cannot be recouped in a short time.

But what the market is truly worried about is:

Is Starlink's profit being invested in a new business that requires continuous cash burn but has an unclear return cycle?

If AI can gradually form stable revenues and profits, these investments will be viewed as an early layout.

Conversely, if the AI business remains in a heavy asset computing lease phase for a long time, SpaceX's valuation logic will face pressure. Because what the market ultimately needs to see is not just revenue growth but whether profits can keep up with the speed of capital investment.

After Acquiring xAI, SpaceX Also Inherits the Risks of AI Expansion

SpaceX's investment in AI is not simply a matter of increased capital expenditures.

In February 2026, SpaceX acquired xAI in an all-stock transaction. The deal valued SpaceX at approximately $1 trillion and xAI at about $250 billion, giving a combined overall valuation of about $1.25 trillion.

From a strategic perspective, this transaction is not difficult to understand. SpaceX has rockets, satellite networks, and potential orbital infrastructure, while xAI has Grok, large data centers, and AI business. Putting the two together can provide a more complete framework for the narrative of orbital data centers and space computing.

But from a financial perspective, SpaceX has taken on not only the growth potential of AI but also the capital pressure behind AI expansion.

The prospectus reveals that xAI's affiliated subsidiary signed over $20 billion in AI infrastructure leasing agreements with entities related to Valor Equity Partners, involving GPUs and data center hardware. Valor's founder, Antonio Gracias, is also a SpaceX director and a long-time partner of Musk.

Some of these transactions were classified as "failed sale-leasebacks" because they did not meet the conditions for normal sale-leaseback accounting confirmation. This means that corresponding obligations need to be entered as debt on SpaceX's balance sheet, rather than simply treated as lease expenses.

Reducing the upfront cash pressure of data center construction through leasing and financing arrangements is not uncommon. What truly raises market concerns is that the financing party is not a completely independent third party, and both the buyer and seller in the acquisition of xAI are controlled by Musk.

This raises two unavoidable questions:

Is the $250 billion valuation of xAI reasonable?

Are the transaction conditions of related financing sufficiently transparent?

The market is not worried about SpaceX starting to invest in AI but about the debt, financial arrangements, and execution risks of the AI business entering the publicly listed company's balance sheet through internal mergers and related transactions.

Texas corporate law amplifies this concern. SpaceX is registered in Texas, and related laws allow public companies to raise the holding threshold for shareholder derivative lawsuits and restrict shareholders' access to certain emails, texts, and electronic communications records. For SpaceX, valued at about $1.75 trillion, a 3% stake corresponds to a value exceeding $50 billion.

This does not mean that common shareholders cannot sue the company under any circumstances.

But it means that if investors believe related transactions have harmed company interests and wish to challenge the directors or executives on behalf of the company, the actual threshold will be very high.

As company boundaries become increasingly blurred, the public market bears not only business risks but also the capital allocation risks of Musk's entire business system.

Investors Can Buy Growth but Have Difficulty Influencing Decisions

Governance issues are important because SpaceX is about to become a public company, but the influence that ordinary investors can exert is extremely limited.

SpaceX employs a dual-class share structure. Musk will maintain absolute control through high-voting shares, making it difficult for ordinary shareholders to change outcomes through voting mechanisms, even if the company faces capital allocation disputes, related transaction disputes, or strategic direction disagreements in the future.

This structure is not uncommon. Many technology companies use dual-class share designs to prevent founders from losing control after going public.

But what makes SpaceX unique is that the company will still need to make many high-risk, long-cycle, and high-capital-intensive decisions in the future. Investors must accept not just lower voting rights but a more extreme governance premise:

The company can continue to invest significant resources into Starship, AI, and orbital infrastructure, even if these projects cannot generate profits in the short term; ordinary shareholders will find it very difficult to change strategic direction.

For long-term optimistic investors about Musk, this structure may not be an issue. SpaceX's past successes have been built on the founder's strong personal decision-making ability and risk appetite.

But for investors who place more importance on governance transparency, this means another thing:

Investors must bear the long-term execution risks while finding it difficult to effectively constrain management.

Starship Is a Technical Project and a Valuation Variable

Market concerns about SpaceX are not limited to AI and governance structure.

Whether it is the next-generation Starlink satellites, orbital data centers, or Mars transportation, all ultimately rely heavily on the same infrastructure: Starship.

The significance of Starship goes beyond just manufacturing a bigger rocket. It needs to significantly reduce the unit launch cost, increase the scale of single payloads, and ultimately achieve high-frequency and repeatable commercial launches.

Only when Starship truly enters the stage of scaled operation can SpaceX deploy the next-generation satellite network more cost-effectively, send larger-scale equipment into orbit, and create realistic conditions for orbital computational infrastructure.

This is also why each test of Starship is not just aerospace news but also affects how the market understands SpaceX's long-term valuation.

SpaceX's valuation does not just depend on whether Starship can fly but rather on whether it can fly in a stable, low-cost, and high-frequency manner like an infrastructure tool.

What Exactly is the Market FUD Worried About?

Looking at several sets of data together provides a more complete framework than simply asking "Is SpaceX overvalued?": Starlink has already proven its commercial value, reusable rockets have established significant competitive barriers, and AI and orbital data centers offer the company new growth space.

However, at the same time, the company's valuation has reached $1.75 trillion, the AI department is still incurring significant losses, capital expenditures are continuously expanding, and related financing and internal acquisitions are blurring business boundaries, with ordinary shareholders having limited governance constraints.

These facts can coexist without contradiction.

Because the surrounding FUD concerning SpaceX does not deny the company's past accomplishments.

Rather, it is:

When Musk places Starlink, rockets, AI, and future orbital infrastructure into the same valuation model, what possibilities is the public market willing to pay a premium for, and what uncertainties should be discounted?

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。