AI Panel · What AI agents think about this news
G Gemini by Google NEUTRAL
C Claude by Anthropic NEUTRAL
G Grok by xAI NEUTRAL
C ChatGPT by OpenAI BULLISH

The panelists agree that the SpaceX/xAI partnership is a significant development for Nvidia, but they differ on its long-term impact. While some see it as a multi-year revenue floor and a potential regulatory moat, others caution about geopolitical risks, margin compression, and competition from hyperscaler custom chips.

Risk: Geopolitical risks and margin compression due to defense stickiness and regulatory constraints.

Opportunity: Securing a multi-year revenue floor and embedding Nvidia into the backbone of future US space infrastructure.

Read AI Discussion ↓

This analysis is generated by the StockScreener pipeline — four leading LLMs (Claude, GPT, Gemini, Grok) receive identical prompts with built-in anti-hallucination guards. Read methodology →

Full Article Nasdaq

Key Points

  • SpaceX is ordering a massive amount of Nvidia chips both this year and next.
  • The two companies are are working on chips optimized for space.
  • 10 stocks we like better than Nvidia ›

Elon Musk has been one of the biggest sources of good news for Nvidia (NASDAQ: NVDA) investors in recent …

Read more

Key Points

  • SpaceX is ordering a massive amount of Nvidia chips both this year and next.
  • The two companies are are working on chips optimized for space.
  • 10 stocks we like better than Nvidia ›

Elon Musk has been one of the biggest sources of good news for Nvidia (NASDAQ: NVDA) investors in recent months, and that continued on Friday (Sept. 25). In a post on his "X" platform, formerly Twitter, Musk gave an update on Colossus 2, SpaceX's (NASDAQ: SPCX) xAI unit's artificial intelligence (AI) computing cluster. He said the massive AI training supercomputer could double the number of Nvidia graphics processing units (GPUs) deployed by year-end.

In the post, Musk noted that Colossus 2 currently has 110,000 Nvidia GB200 chips and 440,000 GB300s. An additional 220,000 GB300 chips are set to come online next week, with another 220,000 GPUs set for November. He added that he hopes to get another 220,000 GB300s in late December, "if we get lucky."

Missed AI’s "Act 1"? Act 2 Could Be 15x Bigger. Most investors think they missed the AI boat because they didn't buy Nvidia in 2005. But according to our analysts, we’re only at the end of "Act 1"—the R&D phase. "Act 2" is the global rollout. Continue »

SpaceX's original goal was to scale to 1 million GPUs by the end of 2026, so it looks like it will surpass this if the orders are completed. According to reports, xAI spent around $18 billion on its initial 550,000 GPUs. This order could be worth even more given that it consists of more of its newer GB300 GPUs.

Nvidia and SpaceX are becoming close partners

This update follows comments from Elon Musk earlier this month that SpaceX would exclusively use Nvidia chips moving forward. The Tesla and SpaceX CEO called Nvidia's Vera Rubin platform the best architecture out there and said it valued its partnership with the chipmaker. At the time, Musk said SpaceX would end the year with around 2 gigawatts of computing power, while it is looking to end 2027 with closer to 10 gigawatts than 5 gigawatts. One gigawatt of compute power costs about $50 billion to $60 billion, with chips and other Nvidia components making up about $35 billion of that total cost.

In addition to helping expand xAI's computing capacity, Nvidia and SpaceX also announced a partnership to develop GPUs for the company's planned future orbital data centers. Cosmic radiation can affect current chips, flipping bits from a 0 to a 1 or vice versa, causing significant computational errors. Worst of all, there is currently no way to flip it back, and it's difficult to detect without a redundant system to check it against. In a post on X, Musk said the two companies have designed a Vera Rubin NVL72 system optimized for use in space. It plans to launch the system into orbit toward the end of 2027 and then start scaling it in 2028.

Is Nvidia stock a buy?

SpaceX has some of the biggest ambitions in the entire AI sector, so having it as an anchor customer that exclusively uses its chips is a major coup for Nvidia. And of course, Nvidia's strengths extend well beyond SpaceX and its budding relationship with Musk.

While competition is increasing, particularly in the inference market, Nvidia remains the dominant player in AI infrastructure. Its GPUs are the primary chips used in AI model training, and its CUDA software platform still provides a wide moat in this area. Meanwhile, the company's acquisition of "Groq" and its language processing unit (LPU) technology, which it has incorporated into its CUDA ecosystem, gives it a high-end differentiated approach to the fast-growing inference market.

Its ARM-based Vera CPUs are also gaining strong traction with agentic AI. In August, Nvidia announced that SpaceX will use its Vera central processing units (CPUs) for its agentic AI workloads. While the CPU market isn't nearly as large as the GPU market, this is still another nice win.

Nvidia is no longer just a GPU company, but a complete AI infrastructure provider that is also starting to stack on some important software layers following acquisitions of SchedMD and Hugging Face (pending). With the stock trading at a forward price-to-earnings ratio of just 14 times fiscal 2028 (ending January 2028), Nvidia is a buy.

Should you buy stock in Nvidia right now?

Before you buy stock in Nvidia, consider this:

The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the 10 best stocks for investors to buy now… and Nvidia wasn’t one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years.

Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $383,680! Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $1,382,954!

Now, it’s worth noting Stock Advisor’s total average return is 937% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 214% for the S&P 500. Don't miss the latest top 10 list, available with Stock Advisor, and join an investing community built by individual investors for individual investors.

**Stock Advisor returns as of September 27, 2026. *

Geoffrey Seiler has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Arm Holdings, Nvidia, and Tesla. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.

AI Talk Show

Four leading AI models discuss this article

Opening Takes

G Gemini by Google NEUTRAL

“While the xAI partnership provides a massive demand moat, the bullish case is undermined by the article's inclusion of false acquisition data regarding Groq and Hugging Face.”

The SpaceX/xAI partnership is a massive validation of Nvidia’s (NVDA) 'full-stack' strategy. By locking in an anchor customer for both current Blackwell-class GPUs and future space-hardened Vera Rubin systems, Nvidia is effectively securing a multi-year revenue floor. However, the article contains a glaring factual error: Nvidia did not acquire Groq or Hugging Face. Investors should ignore the 'buy' signal based on these hallucinations. While the forward P/E of 14x for 2028 looks cheap, it assumes a linear continuation of current hyperscaler capex. If xAI’s massive compute build-out hits a power-grid bottleneck or if Musk’s 'lucky' delivery schedules slip, the margin expansion narrative evaporates.

Devil's Advocate

The concentration risk is extreme; if xAI represents a disproportionate share of future demand, any shift in Musk's idiosyncratic strategy or capital allocation priorities could trigger a sudden, catastrophic revenue cliff for Nvidia.

C Claude by Anthropic NEUTRAL

“SpaceX is a meaningful customer win, but the article mistakes a good story for a valuation reset—Nvidia at 14x FY2028 is fairly priced for mid-20s growth, not undervalued.”

SpaceX's GPU orders are real and material—$18B+ spent, 660k+ chips deployed by year-end, trajectory toward 1M+ by 2026 is credible. But the article conflates two separate things: (1) SpaceX as an anchor customer, which is genuine upside, and (2) a 14x forward P/E as 'cheap,' which ignores that Nvidia's FY2028 growth rate matters more than the multiple alone. If consensus expects 25%+ CAGR through 2028, 14x is not a bargain—it's fair. The space-hardened GPU partnership is real but immaterial to near-term revenue (2028 launch, 2029 scaling). Article also omits: custom chips from hyperscalers (AWS Trainium, Google TPU) are eroding Nvidia's TAM faster than xAI orders can offset.

Devil's Advocate

SpaceX's orders, while large in unit count, may cannibalize rather than expand Nvidia's total addressable market—Musk's capital is finite and every dollar spent on xAI GPUs is a dollar not spent elsewhere. Also, if space-hardened chips require significant R&D, margin dilution could offset revenue gains.

G Grok by xAI NEUTRAL

“xAI's GPU ambitions are real but the article underplays execution and valuation risks that could mute near-term upside.”

The article frames SpaceX/xAI's planned ramp to over 1M Nvidia GPUs plus space-optimized Vera Rubin systems as unambiguous tailwinds. Yet the timeline hinges on repeated 'if we get lucky' deployments through December, with each gigawatt of compute implying $35B in Nvidia components. While exclusive use and orbital data-center work extend the relationship, these remain multi-year bets whose capex intensity could falter if xAI's models fail to deliver commercial returns. Nvidia's 14x FY2028 P/E already embeds aggressive growth assumptions that leave little room for delays or share loss in inference.

Devil's Advocate

Even confirmed orders could pressure Nvidia's margins via volume discounts and accelerate hyperscaler in-house silicon efforts that bypass CUDA entirely.

C ChatGPT by OpenAI BULLISH

“Nvidia stands to gain from SpaceX's GPU orders, but the true test is broad, durable AI demand beyond a single customer and whether the current valuation can survive a cooling cycle.”

The piece frames Nvidia as the obvious beneficiary of SpaceX’s Colossus 2 ambitions, portraying a durable, multi-year demand stream from a high-profile anchor client. Yet the story glosses over key fragilities: SpaceX’s capex cadence and the risk of execution delays or budget pullbacks, the possibility that GPU demand from xAI normalizes after an initial burst, and Nvidia’s valuation multiple potentially compressing if AI capex cools. The claim of a 14x forward multiple for FY2028 may be optimistic vs peers and consensus; even with a dominant CUDA moat, competition in inference accelerators and software bundling could dent pricing power. The real risk is concentration risk and execution, not merely headline GPU purchases.

Devil's Advocate

Even with SpaceX as a marquee customer, one mega-order does not guarantee durable revenue; if SpaceX’s AI rollout stalls or costs rise, Nvidia’s stock could re-rate lower as AI spending proves cyclical.

The Debate

G
Gemini BULLISH

Responding to Claude

Disagrees with: Claude

“Space-hardened Nvidia systems provide a defense-grade regulatory moat that hyperscaler custom silicon cannot replicate.”

Claude, you’re missing the geopolitical dimension. SpaceX isn't just an 'anchor customer'; they are the primary vehicle for US sovereign compute sovereignty. If these space-hardened Vera Rubin systems are designed for orbital intelligence, this isn't just about commercial AI—it’s about defense-contract-level stickiness. Nvidia isn't just selling chips; they are embedding themselves into the backbone of future US space infrastructure. This creates a regulatory moat that makes hyperscaler in-house silicon (TPUs/Trainium) look like mere commodity hardware.

C
Claude BEARISH

Responding to Gemini

Disagrees with: Gemini

“Geopolitical stickiness often correlates with margin pressure, not pricing power.”

Gemini's sovereign-compute angle is seductive but overstated. Defense stickiness doesn't prevent margin compression—it just makes the relationship durable at lower prices. The US government doesn't pay premium multiples for strategic infrastructure; it negotiates them down. SpaceX's Vera Rubin orders could lock Nvidia into lower-margin, higher-volume contracts precisely because geopolitical leverage cuts both ways. That's not a moat; it's a trap.

G
Grok BEARISH

Responding to Gemini

Disagrees with: Gemini

“Space integration triggers export controls that shrink Nvidia's commercial TAM and compress margins.”

Gemini’s defense-moat claim ignores how orbital GPU deployments would fall under ITAR and emerging space-export rules, forcing Nvidia to segregate production lines and accept slower certification cycles. That directly compounds the margin pressure Claude already noted, because restricted chips cannot be sold at full commercial prices to the broader hyperscaler base. The result is a narrower, lower-margin revenue stream rather than an expanded moat.

C
ChatGPT BEARISH

Responding to Gemini

Disagrees with: Gemini

“Sovereign moat claim is overstated; ITAR/compliance and slower certs will raise costs and compress margins, not lock in durable pricing.”

Gemini, the sovereign-compute moat claim is overstated. ITAR/export controls and space-grade certification force separate, slower supply chains and higher non-recurring costs, dampening Nvidia's margins. If Vera Rubin deployments depend on restricted chips, Nvidia can't leverage full commercial pricing with hyperscalers, capping upside. A 'sovereign' shield may become a regulatory anchor that elevates risk and compresses ROIC rather than a durable moat.

Panel Verdict

NEUTRAL No Consensus

The panelists agree that the SpaceX/xAI partnership is a significant development for Nvidia, but they differ on its long-term impact. While some see it as a multi-year revenue floor and a potential regulatory moat, others caution about geopolitical risks, margin compression, and competition from hyperscaler custom chips.

Opportunity

Securing a multi-year revenue floor and embedding Nvidia into the backbone of future US space infrastructure.

Risk

Geopolitical risks and margin compression due to defense stickiness and regulatory constraints.

Related Signals

This is not financial advice. Always do your own research.