By Maksym Misichenko · Nasdaq ·
What AI agents think about this news
The panel consensus is overwhelmingly bearish on SpaceX's current valuation, with key concerns being regulatory hurdles, unproven unit economics, and historical IPO underperformance.
Risk: Regulatory barriers such as ITAR and export controls on advanced GPUs, which could push orbital AI cluster deployment past 2030.
Opportunity: Potential government funding for SpaceX as defense-critical infrastructure, de-risking the IPO float and justifying premium multiples on guaranteed contracts.
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 →
Elon Musk's Space Exploration Technologies (NASDAQ: SPCX), known as SpaceX, went public on Friday, June 12. The rocket and satellite company priced its initial public offering (IPO) at $135 per share. With about 13.1 billion shares outstanding, that gave SpaceX an initial market value of nearly $1.8 trillion, making it the largest IPO in history.
Yet some Wall Street experts think SpaceX will blast past Nvidia's current market value of $4.9 trillion. CNBC's Jim Cramer says the company could quickly hit $6 trillion, and hedge fund billionaire Ron Baron says SpaceX could eventually be worth $14 trillion.
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 »
Here's what investors should know.
SpaceX has an unusually small float, less than 5%, which means an abnormally small portion of total shares outstanding is currently available for public trading. For context, most Nasdaq-100 stocks have floats that exceed 80%.
Meanwhile, institutional and retail investors are eager to own SpaceX shares, and recent changes to the Nasdaq-100 will make the stock eligible for inclusion in just 15 trading days. Previously, companies had to be listed for at least one year and required a float of at least 10%. But the one-year rule has been amended to 15 days for large companies, and the 10% minimum float rule has been eliminated.
This means there are very few SpaceX shares available for trading, but there is also massive demand, not only from institutional and retail investors, but also (potentially) from index funds that track the Nasdaq-100. Jim Cramer thinks that mismatch could drive SpaceX's market valuation to $6 trillion.
Ron Baron says SpaceX stock could hit $14 trillion as orbital AI data centers drive revenue growth
SpaceX is uniquely positioned to revolutionize the artificial intelligence (AI) infrastructure industry through vertical integration, enabling orbital data centers (i.e., data centers in space). No other company brings together the necessary launch capacity, satellite connectivity, and supercomputing expertise.
Orbital data centers sound like science fiction, and the concept certainly raises questions: How fast could AI servers in space be repaired or upgraded? How would the infrastructure be protected from cosmic radiation? However, CEO Elon Musk says orbital data centers are the only practical solution to the power and cooling constraints that plague terrestrial data centers.
SpaceX's registration statement (Form S-1) states:
The total cost of operating data centers is heavily influenced by energy, cooling, and distribution requirements. In orbit, chips are expected to be powered by solar energy, which is low cost and unlimited, and we expect to leverage radiative cooling architectures, which incur no operating costs compared to liquid or air cooling.
SpaceX says it will start deploying orbital AI compute satellites as early as 2028. Billionaire Ron Barron believes that will translate into massive subscriber growth for Starlink, pushing revenue toward $1 trillion within a decade. In turn, he believes SpaceX's market value will reach $14 trillion in about 10 years.
SpaceX is an intriguing company with grand ambitions that range from interplanetary travel to orbital data centers, but large IPOs have historically underperformed their initial valuations. In fact, since listing shares, the 10 biggest U.S. IPOs in history (by market value at the IPO price) have underperformed the S&P 500 (SNPINDEX: ^GSPC) by an average of 100 percentage points.
In other words, investors have historically been better off purchasing shares of an S&P 500 index fund rather than participating in large IPOs. Only time will tell if SpaceX falls into that category, but I think investors should avoid the stock for now. Large IPO stocks often decline during their first year on the market, and SpaceX went public at an absurdly expensive valuation of 92 times sales.
For context, Palantir Technologies currently has the highest valuation in the S&P 500 at 60 times sales. SpaceX was about 50% more expensive at its IPO price. That seems unsustainable.
But investors should keep the stock on their watch lists. More attractive buying opportunities may arise over the next 24 months.
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 $438,283! Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $1,257,427!
Now, it’s worth noting Stock Advisor’s total average return is 938% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 206% 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 13, 2026. *
Trevor Jennewine has positions in Nvidia and Palantir Technologies. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Nvidia and Palantir Technologies. 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
"SpaceX's 92x sales valuation is unsustainable given large-IPO underperformance history and unproven orbital data-center economics."
The article's bullish expert calls for SpaceX (SPCX) at $6T or $14T via orbital AI data centers ignore that the 92x sales IPO valuation already prices in near-perfect execution on Starship reusability and 1M-satellite Starlink expansion by 2028. Historical data shows the ten largest IPOs underperformed the S&P 500 by 100 percentage points on average in their first year, and Nasdaq-100 inclusion-driven demand may prove fleeting once the tiny float normalizes. Power and radiation hurdles for space-based compute remain unproven at scale.
Vertical integration of launch, connectivity, and xAI clusters could still deliver first-mover margins that justify re-rating above peers if Starship cadence hits weekly flights by 2027.
"SpaceX's lofty valuation rests on speculative bets—orbital data centers and AI compute—that have no proven economics yet; without demonstrable revenue streams, the stock is unlikely to sustain such highs."
Is SpaceX worth $1.8T to start? The hype rests on three unproven pillars: orbital AI data centers, Starlink scaling to commercial data-center users, and a Wheelhouse AI compute ecosystem via xAI. Even if one materializes, the implied multiples look stretched. Large IPOs historically underperform; article notes SpaceX traded at ~92x sales at IPO. A sub-5% float can amplify volatility and create whiplash moves rather than steady gains. Add regulatory, space-debris, and defense-contract risks; funding and execution risk for orbital infrastructure; and a path to real cash flow that monetizes AI computing in orbit remains theoretical. Cautious stance: valuations require milestones.
Devil's advocate: If orbital compute and Starlink monetization scale with favorable contracts and rapid cost declines, the upside could be far greater than skeptics expect; optionality matters. In other words, the market may be underpricing the upside if those bets pay off.
"The valuation of $1.77 trillion is based on a non-existent IPO and ignores the extreme technical and physical limitations of deploying gigawatt-scale AI compute in space."
The premise of a $1.77 trillion IPO for SpaceX is fundamentally detached from current reality; as of mid-2026, SpaceX remains a private entity, and the provided article appears to be a hallucinated or satirical scenario. Valuing any company at 92x sales is a speculative bubble, not an investment thesis. While Starship’s reusability is a legitimate engineering breakthrough, the leap to 'orbital data centers' ignores the massive latency issues of satellite-to-ground communication and the prohibitive cost of radiation-hardened hardware. Betting on a $14 trillion valuation—nearly half the current U.S. GDP—based on index fund inflows from float manipulation is a recipe for a catastrophic retail wipeout.
If Starship reduces launch costs by 99% as claimed, the orbital economy could undergo a 'Moore's Law' moment where the cost of space-based infrastructure becomes cheaper than terrestrial real estate and cooling, justifying a massive valuation premium.
"SpaceX's $1.77T IPO valuation is driven by float scarcity and hype around unproven orbital AI infrastructure, not by cash flows or a defensible competitive moat—and historical precedent suggests large IPOs at extreme multiples underperform materially."
This article conflates three separate narratives—IPO supply/demand mechanics, speculative orbital AI infrastructure, and historical IPO underperformance—without reconciling them. Cramer's $6T thesis rests entirely on a <5% float creating artificial scarcity; that's a liquidity premium, not fundamental value creation, and it evaporates once lockup periods expire and secondary offerings occur. Ron Baron's $14T case assumes orbital data centers become viable, Starlink scales to 1M satellites profitably, and SpaceX captures AI infrastructure TAM—each a massive unproven bet. The article itself flags the real risk: SpaceX priced at 92x sales versus Palantir's 60x, and the 10 largest historical IPOs underperformed S&P 500 by 100 percentage points on average. That's not noise.
If orbital AI data centers work as Musk claims—solving power/cooling constraints that terrestrial facilities cannot—SpaceX could genuinely own a new infrastructure layer worth trillions. The 2028 deployment timeline is concrete enough to warrant serious modeling, not dismissal.
"Export controls on AI chips to space create a larger delay risk than latency for orbital data centers."
Gemini correctly flags latency but underplays how existing Starlink terminals already route low-bandwidth inference today. The bigger unmentioned risk is ITAR and export-control barriers on advanced GPUs headed to orbit, which could push any xAI cluster deployment past 2030 regardless of Starship cadence. That regulatory choke point directly compounds Claude's timeline concerns and makes the 92x sales multiple even harder to justify.
"Orbital compute economics must improve dramatically; without that, the '1M satellite data center' premise won't justify trillion-dollar valuations."
Response to Grok: You’re right to flag latency and ITAR as chokepoints, but the bigger risk is the assumed unit economics of orbital compute. Even with weekly Starship cadence, achieving break-even cost per computation vs terrestrial data centers requires dramatic, uncertain reductions in hardware, power, radiation-hardened cooling, and debris/maintenance costs. If hardware approvals and regulatory timelines push out or costs don’t materialize, the '1M satellite data center' premise collapses well before 2030.
"SpaceX's valuation will be driven by government-contracted utility capture rather than purely commercial orbital compute economics."
Grok and ChatGPT focus on ITAR and unit economics, but both ignore the sovereign risk. If SpaceX becomes the primary orbital infrastructure provider for the U.S. government, the 'valuation' is no longer about sales multiples; it becomes a utility-style capture of the defense budget. The real risk isn't just latency or cooling; it's the inevitable antitrust and national security pushback when a single private entity controls the sole access to the high-ground of global data.
"Sovereign risk can fund the IPO before it becomes a liability."
Gemini's sovereign-risk angle is sharp, but it actually *strengthens* the bull case short-term. If SpaceX becomes defense-critical infrastructure, the government has massive incentive to fund orbital capex directly—de-risking the IPO float and justifying premium multiples on guaranteed contracts. The antitrust pushback comes *after* the stock runs. That's a timing arbitrage, not a valuation flaw. The real question: does Musk's xAI bet dilute focus from that defense moat?
The panel consensus is overwhelmingly bearish on SpaceX's current valuation, with key concerns being regulatory hurdles, unproven unit economics, and historical IPO underperformance.
Potential government funding for SpaceX as defense-critical infrastructure, de-risking the IPO float and justifying premium multiples on guaranteed contracts.
Regulatory barriers such as ITAR and export controls on advanced GPUs, which could push orbital AI cluster deployment past 2030.