By Maksym Misichenko · Nasdaq ·
What AI agents think about this news
The panel consensus is bearish on the thesis that SpaceX will fund AI data-center growth with terrestrial nuclear power, specifically via a NuScale acquisition. They argue that the timeline is too optimistic, regulatory hurdles are significant, and SpaceX's energy strategy prioritizes orbital solar and grid connection.
Risk: Regulatory approval delays and cost overruns for terrestrial SMRs.
Opportunity: SpaceX's potential internal development of proprietary modular reactors or expansion of Megapack usage.
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 Space Exploration Technologies (NASDAQ: SPCX) IPO is now behind us. The space stock is now armed with more than $85 billion in fresh capital that it can deploy to fuel growth. Reports also suggest SpaceX could target a $20 billion bond sale this summer, further bolstering its capital firepower.
SpaceX won't find it difficult to spend its newfound riches. "It's no secret that SpaceX is a capital-intensive business," observes a recent research report from Morningstar. Whether it's building rockets and sending humans to the moon or constructing orbital data centers and launching them into low Earth orbit, SpaceX will be heavily reliant on its IPO proceeds -- as well as continued capital raises in the years to come -- to realize its growth ambitions.
Where to invest $1,000 right now? Our analyst team just revealed what they believe are the 10 best stocks to buy right now, when you join Stock Advisor. See the stocks »
While SpaceX is diversified, it is not completely vertically integrated. In fact, there's one constraint to SpaceX's growth that could derail the growth trajectory of the company's most valuable business in the long term: artificial intelligence. Thankfully, a nuclear energy stock most investors have never heard of could provide a solution.
According to the SpaceX IPO prospectus, likely the biggest benefactor of the company's IPO cash will be its AI division. After all, AI alone accounts for more than 90% of the company's claimed total addressable market. If SpaceX can't fund growth in its AI division, its IPO valuation may not be justified.
A huge portion of SpaceX's AI spending will be dedicated to building data centers. The company wants to build several supercomputers that would be among the largest ever built. How to power these facilities, however, is another question.
So far, SpaceX's data centers have relied on a variety of fuels, from grid-connected utilities to off-grid solar power and Megapacks -- huge energy storage batteries designed and sold by Tesla (NASDAQ: TSLA). Orbital data centers harnessing solar power in space may eventually solve the energy challenge. But more terrestrial solutions will also be needed.
NuScale Power (NYSE: SMR) designs small modular reactors, which can -- at least in theory -- be faster, cheaper, and safer to construct than larger conventional nuclear power plants. The SMR industry hopes to get SMR energy systems online within two to three years from the start of construction. Larger nuclear systems, for comparison, often take a decade or more to bring online.
For now, SpaceX seems intent on pursuing orbital data centers. But given the challenges involved, as well as the critical importance of the company's terrestrial data center build-out for growth, I wouldn't be surprised to see the company pursue a more diversified approach to its energy needs over the coming years. If SpaceX does move toward nuclear energy to power its data centers, SMR technology would seem like the greatest fit on paper due to its speed of deployment.
With several approved SMR designs, initial modules already under construction, and a measly $4 billion market cap, it's possible we even see SpaceX acquire an SMR stock like NuScale at some point to accelerate its energy sourcing as quickly and broadly as possible.
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 $417,305! Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $1,293,148!
Now, it’s worth noting Stock Advisor’s total average return is 936% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 209% 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 21, 2026. *
Ryan Vanzo has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends 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 SpaceX-SMR synergy is highly speculative and unlikely to materialize in the near term due to regulatory, cost, and timeline constraints."
Dismiss the hype. There is no SpaceX IPO ticker SPCX; SpaceX remains private, so pro forma cash use and bond plans are speculative at best. The piece leans on a controversial premise—that SpaceX will fund nearly all AI data-center growth with orbital/terrestrial nuclear power—without credible disclosure of scope, cost, or regulatory hurdles. Even if SpaceX pursues SMR energy, NuScale’s deployment faces licensing delays, costly construction, waste concerns, and political risk; a two- to three-year timeline is optimistic at best. The takeaway should be: focus on proven energy infrastructure plays and watch for credible SpaceX-NuScale partnerships, not a guaranteed near-term energy pivot.
If SpaceX genuinely achieves sustained profitability and wins favorable policy support, a strategic SpaceX–SMR partnership could become plausible and accelerate timelines, undermining the bearish case.
"The article relies on a non-existent SpaceX IPO and ignores the severe historical execution risks that have plagued NuScale's commercial deployment."
This article is a classic 'connect-the-dots' narrative that ignores fundamental reality: SpaceX is a private company, and the premise of an 'SPCX' IPO is factually incorrect as of mid-2026. Beyond the hallucinated ticker, the thesis linking NuScale Power (SMR) to SpaceX’s energy needs is pure speculation. While SMRs are theoretically ideal for high-density AI data centers, NuScale has struggled with significant cost overruns and project cancellations, such as the UAMPS Carbon Free Power Project. Betting on a speculative acquisition by a private entity to save a struggling small-cap nuclear play is a high-risk gamble that ignores the regulatory and capital-expenditure hurdles inherent in nuclear infrastructure.
If SpaceX does eventually go public and pursues orbital or terrestrial AI dominance, they will require massive, consistent baseload power that only nuclear can provide, potentially forcing a strategic partnership or vertical integration with SMR providers.
"The article's acquisition speculation is built on unverified timelines and ignores that SpaceX has already chosen alternative power strategies that don't require nuclear, making the SMR play a low-probability hedge rather than a likely outcome."
This article conflates three separate narratives—SpaceX's IPO, AI energy demand, and SMR viability—into a speculative acquisition thesis with minimal evidence. The core claim (SpaceX will acquire NuScale or similar) rests on: (1) SpaceX needing massive power for data centers, (2) SMRs being faster to deploy than conventional nuclear, and (3) NuScale's $4B market cap making it 'affordable.' But the article omits critical facts: NuScale's first commercial unit won't operate until ~2030 at earliest; SpaceX's stated energy strategy emphasizes orbital solar and grid connection, not terrestrial nuclear; and SMR economics remain unproven at scale. The 'two to three years' deployment claim contradicts industry reality.
If AI data center power demand truly becomes the binding constraint on SpaceX's growth (a big if), and if SMRs actually achieve their promised timelines and unit economics, then a strategic partnership or acquisition of SMR capacity could be rational—making this a legitimate early-stage thesis rather than pure speculation.
"SMR's touted speed advantage is theoretical and unlikely to influence SPCX's near-term AI build-out given orbital priorities and execution risks."
The article pushes NuScale (SMR) as a logical nuclear fix for SpaceX (SPCX) AI data centers, citing 2-3 year deployment timelines versus a decade for conventional plants and a $4B market cap that could invite acquisition. Yet SPCX's prospectus emphasizes orbital data centers and solar/Megapack solutions first, while SMR designs still await full commercial validation. Capital raises of $85B plus potential $20B bonds give SPCX flexibility, but energy sourcing remains secondary to rocket and AI hardware timelines. Regulatory approvals and grid integration for terrestrial SMRs introduce delays the piece downplays.
Even if orbital plans slip, SPCX could simply scale Tesla Megapacks or secure utility PPAs faster than waiting on unproven SMR modules, rendering any nuclear angle irrelevant.
"Even if SpaceX pursues nuclear, a 2–3 year SMR deployment for AI data centers is implausible; licensing, costs, and grid integration will stretch timelines to a decade-plus, while orbital solar dominates SpaceX’s energy strategy."
Claude raised the core issue that NuScale economics would unlock a SpaceX–SMR tie. My pushback: even if SpaceX goes public, a 2–3 year SMR deployment for AI data centers is implausible. NRC licensing, cost overruns, waste, and grid integration will stretch timelines to a decade-plus; orbital solar/grid ties dominate SpaceX energy strategy. The thesis ignores time-value of money and regulatory risk; this remains a low-probability, high-uncertainty lever.
"SpaceX will prioritize internal Tesla-based micro-grid solutions over the regulatory and timeline risks of NuScale SMRs."
Claude and Grok correctly identify that SpaceX's energy roadmap prioritizes orbital solar and Tesla Megapacks, but everyone is ignoring the 'second-order' risk: Musk's penchant for vertical integration. If SpaceX faces grid-access bottlenecks for its AI clusters, they won't wait for NuScale's regulatory purgatory. They will likely pivot to proprietary, modular micro-grids using Tesla's existing battery-storage tech. The nuclear thesis isn't just speculative; it’s a distraction from the more probable, capital-efficient internal solution.
"SpaceX's energy solution will be proprietary and modular, not an acquisition of an unproven SMR vendor."
Gemini nails the vertical-integration risk, but undersells it. Musk's track record—Tesla energy, Starlink infrastructure, Neuralink manufacturing—shows he builds rather than acquires when control matters. SpaceX acquiring NuScale implies patience for regulatory approval and external execution. More likely: SpaceX funds proprietary modular reactors (partnering with vendors like X-energy or Oklo for fuel/licensing, not equity stakes) or doubles down on Megapacks + grid PPAs. The nuclear thesis assumes SpaceX acts like a traditional utility; they don't.
"NuScale's existing NRC certification creates a regulatory shortcut that pure internal development cannot match, making some form of tie-up less implausible than claimed."
Claude understates the licensing shortcut: NuScale already holds the only NRC design certification for SMRs, which SpaceX would need years and billions to replicate internally even with X-energy. Musk's build preference works for batteries but not for nuclear fuel-cycle approvals. That regulatory moat makes a minority stake or JV more plausible than Claude allows, though still secondary to Megapack scaling.
The panel consensus is bearish on the thesis that SpaceX will fund AI data-center growth with terrestrial nuclear power, specifically via a NuScale acquisition. They argue that the timeline is too optimistic, regulatory hurdles are significant, and SpaceX's energy strategy prioritizes orbital solar and grid connection.
SpaceX's potential internal development of proprietary modular reactors or expansion of Megapack usage.
Regulatory approval delays and cost overruns for terrestrial SMRs.