By Maksym Misichenko · Nasdaq ·
What AI agents think about this news
The panel consensus is bearish on SpaceX's current valuation and future prospects, with key concerns being the lack of proven AI differentiation, execution risk, and potential geopolitical risks.
Risk: The risk of nationalization or extreme regulatory capture due to SpaceX's potential dominance in global AI compute and connectivity.
Opportunity: None explicitly stated, as all panelists expressed bearish sentiments.
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 →
The SpaceX (NASDAQ: SPCX) initial public offering (IPO) could break records this week. The company is reportedly targeting a $1.77 trillion valuation, raising as much as $75 billion in capital.
Many investors are wondering if they should participate in this IPO. While there are several ways to buy into SpaceX before the IPO, most investors are better off waiting for shares to become publicly available. Before you invest, it's important to assess whether or not you actually believe SpaceX's $1.77 trillion valuation target is reasonable.
Will AI create the world's first trillionaire? Our team just released a report on the one little-known company, called an "Indispensable Monopoly" providing the critical technology Nvidia and Intel both need. Continue »
There are many reasons to believe SpaceX could far exceed this valuation in the long term. The company has a major lead in getting payloads to space safely, consistently, and cheaply. It also boasts a profitable Starlink division that provides internet and mobile connectivity services worldwide. And, of course, SpaceX's xAI division is planning one of the largest data center buildouts in history.
To be fair, a growing number of experts are concerned that the valuation may be overly rich -- at least over the near term.
"The company has redefined the economics of spaceflight, built a dominant position in global launch, and extended connectivity to places beyond the reach of traditional infrastructure," a recent Morningstar report admits. "The valuation, however, deserves more careful scrutiny."
Morningstar analysts conclude that SpaceX's appropriate initial valuation should be somewhere closer to $780 billion -- less than half of SpaceX's internal target. "We think the company has been significantly overvalued and investors will have opportunities to buy the stock at more attractive levels after the IPO," Nicolas Owens, a Morningstar analyst, warned last week.
But let's forget about the short term for now. Five years from now, how big could SpaceX actually get? There are several ways to gauge an approximate answer. One growth catalyst in particular should dominate any discussion about SpaceX's future: AI.
SpaceX CEO Elon Musk is going all in on AI. His other trillion-dollar business, Tesla, has dedicated much of its $20 billion spending plan for this year to AI. The same is true of SpaceX's spending plan.
Last year, SpaceX's capital spending was around $20.7 billion. That's four times higher than the spending total just two years prior. While Starship development accounted for much of the surge, AI spending growth was the biggest contributor.
Growth in AI spending has not abated. In the first quarter of 2026 alone, capital expenditures for SpaceX totaled $10.1 billion -- $7.7 billion of which was related exclusively to AI.
This pace of growth is expected to continue. In 2030, Evercore ISI sees SpaceX's capital spending reaching an astounding $360 billion. That figure is projected to nearly double to $732 billion in 2031, with AI spending accounting for $666 billion of that sum.
This type of spending is understandable given the details revealed in SpaceX's IPO prospectus. "We believe we have identified the largest actionable total addressable market in human history," the document claims. "We estimate that our quantifiable TAM is $28.5 trillion." Of that total addressable market, the AI opportunity alone is estimated at around $26.5 trillion. The potential value of every other opportunity -- everything from rockets to Starlink -- SpaceX values at just $2 trillion.
How big will SpaceX be five years from now? If the company is spending $732 billion on capital expenditures alone in 2031, its market cap should be significantly higher than that. This year, for comparison, Alphabet is planning $185 billion in capital expenditures. Its market cap is therefore around 24 times its annual capital expenditures. Applying the same multiple to SpaceX's expected 2031 spending results in a potential market cap of more than $17 trillion!
Of course, the multiple at that point in time could change dramatically. And there's serious doubt whether SpaceX will ever have the capital to achieve such significant spending. But post-IPO, expect a major spending spree, one that will attempt to make the company the largest AI business globally by 2031. Time will tell whether that feat is achieved.
Before you buy stock in Space Exploration Technologies, 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 Space Exploration Technologies 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 $442,220! Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $1,230,114!
Now, it’s worth noting Stock Advisor’s total average return is 926% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 203% 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 June 11, 2026. *
Ryan Vanzo has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Alphabet and Tesla. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.
The views and opinions expressed herein are the views and opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Nasdaq, Inc.
Four leading AI models discuss this article
"The IPO's implied valuation rests on speculative AI capex and TAM assumptions without a proven cash-flow track record; the upside is not guaranteed."
Treat SpaceX like an AI megatrend play priced as a space company: a $1.77T IPO target built on a $26.5T AI TAM and a $666B AI capex forecast for 2031. The core flaw is that SpaceX is private, with limited audited financials, and its plan rests on aggressive, unproven margins from Starlink and launches. Even if AI demand materializes, a perpetual re-rating to a $17T+ market cap requires near-perfect execution and regulatory calm. IPO timing, dilution, and geopolitical risks add further downside. The Morningstar valuation of ~$780B shows the street is already pricing in outsized upside; the risk-reward is skewed to the downside.
The counterargument is that if AI-driven demand proves durable and SpaceX can monetize Starlink and launches at scale, a high multiple might be warranted; markets often price in big future profits when tech narratives converge.
"Valuing SpaceX as an AI company based on projected capital expenditure multiples ignores the massive execution risk and capital destruction inherent in scaling data centers versus aerospace hardware."
The article presents a massive red flag: it treats SpaceX as an AI play, projecting $666 billion in AI-related capital expenditures by 2031. This is a category error. SpaceX is a capital-intensive aerospace firm, not a software-defined hyperscaler. Applying an Alphabet-style multiple (24x CapEx) to a hardware-heavy, launch-dependent business is fundamentally flawed. If SpaceX pivots into a pure-play AI infrastructure provider, it risks cannibalizing its core competitive advantage—launch dominance—to fund a speculative, hyper-competitive data center buildout. Investors should be wary of this 'AI pivot' narrative, as it often serves to mask the underlying volatility of heavy R&D spending and the cyclical nature of government and commercial launch contracts.
If SpaceX successfully integrates Starlink’s global low-latency connectivity with a proprietary AI compute network, they could monopolize edge-computing for remote defense and industrial applications, justifying the premium.
"The article's $17T 2031 valuation rests on achieving $732B capex spending that SpaceX has no disclosed path to finance, while treating an unproven AI business as the primary value driver."
This article conflates three separate businesses (launch, Starlink, xAI/data centers) into one valuation thesis, then extrapolates 2031 capex ($732B) using a multiple derived from Alphabet's current ratio. The math is circular: it assumes SpaceX will *achieve* $732B spending, then values it *as if* it has. The article never addresses whether SpaceX can actually finance this—$75B IPO proceeds evaporate in months at that burn rate. Morningstar's $780B floor is mentioned but dismissed. The $26.5T AI TAM claim is unverified and appears in SpaceX's own prospectus (not independent analysis). Most critically: the article treats xAI as a done deal, but xAI competes against OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google in a capital-intensive race with no proven differentiation yet.
If xAI's AI models prove superior and SpaceX's vertical integration (cheap launch + Starlink backhaul + data centers) creates genuine moat, the $17T 2031 valuation isn't absurd—just requires flawless execution and continued capital access at scale.
"SpaceX's projected 2031 capex of $732B with $666B in AI is not credible relative to current industry capex benchmarks and capital availability."
The article's core thesis—that SpaceX could reach a $17T+ market cap by 2031 via $732B annual capex, mostly AI—rests on implausible assumptions. SpaceX is not public (no NASDAQ:SPCX), xAI is a separate Musk entity, and the $26.5T AI TAM claim dwarfs total global AI spend forecasts. Applying Alphabet's 24x capex multiple ignores that SpaceX lacks comparable cash flow or proven AI revenue. Morningstar's $780B fair value already flags near-term overvaluation; scaling to these levels requires flawless Starship execution and capital access post-IPO that history suggests will be constrained.
If Starship achieves full reusability and Starlink captures enterprise AI connectivity demand faster than expected, the $1.77T IPO valuation could prove conservative within five years despite near-term dilution risks.
"The AI-pivot narrative ignores capex/financing hurdles and cyclical, government-dependent demand; without near-term revenue and durable margins, a 24x capex multiple is untenable."
Gemini's critique hits a core flaw—the AI-pivot framing—yet it underestimates the execution risk embedded in SpaceX's capex ladder. Even with Starlink and edge compute, the business would remain highly cyclical, government-dependent, and capital-intensive, not a software-like growth story. A 24x capex-style multiple on $732B of presumed 2031 spend implies near-perfect, perpetual margin expansion; missing is credible near-term revenue, pricing power, and financing stability post-IPO. Without that, the 'AI moat' is more rumor than moat.
"SpaceX's path to a $17T valuation ignores the inevitable regulatory and sovereign risk that comes with controlling critical global infrastructure."
Claude is right to call out the circular math, but we are missing the real geopolitical risk: sovereign dependency. If SpaceX becomes the backbone of global AI compute and connectivity, it ceases to be a private company and becomes a utility subject to nationalization or extreme regulatory capture. No valuation model, regardless of how many trillions in TAM are cited, can account for the 'Musk premium' or the risk of the US government forcing a breakup of Starlink and launch operations.
"The real risk isn't nationalization—it's that xAI's capital demands will be buried in consolidated SpaceX filings, shocking IPO buyers post-close."
Gemini's nationalization risk is real but underspecified. The US won't nationalize Starlink—it'll regulate it. More pressing: SpaceX's IPO prospectus likely won't disclose xAI's burn rate or capital claims separately. Investors will buy a 'space company' and discover mid-2025 that half the capex ladder funds a loss-making AI startup competing against better-capitalized rivals. That's the hidden dilution nobody's quantifying.
"Hidden xAI funding risks jeopardizing SpaceX's government launch revenue before AI scale materializes."
Claude flags the xAI burn rate hidden in the IPO, yet overlooks how this interacts with launch contract dependencies. Government payloads represent stable revenue; diverting proceeds to compete with OpenAI risks losing those bids to ULA or Ariane. That revenue cliff would hit before any 2031 AI monetization, invalidating the entire valuation ladder.
The panel consensus is bearish on SpaceX's current valuation and future prospects, with key concerns being the lack of proven AI differentiation, execution risk, and potential geopolitical risks.
None explicitly stated, as all panelists expressed bearish sentiments.
The risk of nationalization or extreme regulatory capture due to SpaceX's potential dominance in global AI compute and connectivity.