SpaceX Aims for a $750 Billion IPO, Valued at $1.75 Trillion

The capital market has welcomed a super giant, and commercial aerospace now has its first clear pricing benchmark in the public market.

Written by: Mike, Frank, MSX Maotong

If everything proceeds as planned, SpaceX will list on Nasdaq on June 12 under the ticker symbol SPCX.

Unless something unexpected occurs, this will become the largest IPO in the history of global capital markets—based on the current offering details, SpaceX plans to raise approximately $75 billion, with a target valuation of around $1.75 trillion, surpassing the fundraising size of Saudi Aramco’s IPO and making it one of the most valuable publicly traded companies upon listing.

But for the market, SpaceX's significance goes far beyond "just another star tech stock going public."

More importantly, the commercial space industry—a sector long caught between imagination and high barriers—has finally gained a true public market pricing anchor. Over the past few years, investors have recognized that the space economy is compelling, understanding that satellite internet, commercial launches, remote sensing data, and defense aerospace all hold long-term potential, but they struggled to determine the actual value of these assets.

Once SpaceX begins trading at public market prices, all publicly listed commercial space companies will be reassessed on the same valuation table—those closer to SpaceX’s capabilities, with real orders and revenue, will be distinguished from those merely riding the hype.

Therefore, in re-evaluating commercial spaceflight around SpaceX’s IPO, the focus should not be on chasing short-term sentiment, but on answering three key questions: First, why is commercial spaceflight worth long-term attention? Second, which companies within the sector truly have sustainable business models? Third, after SpaceX’s IPO, will it draw capital away from the sector or lift the entire industry?

To understand why commercial spaceflight deserves long-term attention, it’s necessary to recognize the historic transformation this industry is undergoing.

For decades, access to space was essentially an extension of national capabilities. The United States had NASA, the Soviet Union had its space agency, and later Russia had Roscosmos; rocket development, satellite launches, and space exploration were fundamentally government-led large-scale projects. Although private capital participated, it struggled to become the dominant force.

The reasons are simple: the costs are too high, the timelines are too long, and the failure rate is too great. Traditional satellite launches often cost hundreds of millions of dollars, with project development cycles measured in years and commercial return cycles potentially spanning a decade. For most companies, this is not a sector that can be addressed with conventional business models, but rather more akin to a strategic national investment.

That’s why SpaceX’s industry-changing key isn’t just that it launches rockets into space, but that it has reshaped the cost curve of accessing space.

Reusable rockets are at the heart of this transformation. The Falcon 9 first stage can autonomously return and land after launch, then be inspected and reused for subsequent missions. This technology has transformed launches from disposable one-time use items into amortizable infrastructure. Launch costs that once reached hundreds of millions of dollars have been reduced to the tens of millions, and with the maturation of next-generation systems like Starship, costs could continue to decline further.

Once the cost curve breaks downward, the previously unsustainable business model will begin to become viable.

Satellite internet is the most direct example. In the past, launching thousands of satellites to form a low-Earth-orbit constellation was economically inconceivable; but after reusable rockets reduced costs, Starlink became possible—transforming from a grand vision into a subscription-based network available to users worldwide.

The same logic applies to remote sensing data services. Commercial satellites capture images of Earth, track crops, monitor ports, and serve defense and insurance industries. In the past, high costs of satellite manufacturing and launch made large-scale commercialization difficult. However, as satellite deployment costs decline and data processing capabilities improve, space-based data has the potential to evolve from “high-end customized services” into “subscription-based data products.”

In the longer term, areas such as space manufacturing, in-orbit services, lunar missions, and space-based AI data centers are still in early stages of exploration. However, their underlying logic is consistent: only when the marginal cost of accessing space continues to decline will new demands be unleashed.

Similar scenarios have occurred throughout history. The technological breakthrough in shale gas lowered extraction costs and transformed the U.S. energy landscape; smartphones reduced the barrier to mobile computing, triggering the explosion of mobile internet; cloud computing turned IT infrastructure from a one-time capital expense into an on-demand pay-as-you-go model, enabling SaaS to truly become a major industry.

Commercial spaceflight is following a similar path. It is not a linear expansion of existing markets, but rather the reopening of new markets after a breakthrough in the cost curve.

This is why the global space economy is transitioning from a niche technological narrative to a long-term industrial narrative. Multiple institutions project that the global space economy could grow from approximately $630 billion in 2023 to around $1.8 trillion by 2035, with the real driver of growth being the commercial inflection point fueled by declining launch costs, satellite manufacturing, data processing, and defense demands.

SpaceX has garnered such high market attention because it is no longer just a rocket company.

Based on currently disclosed information, SpaceX’s business structure can be roughly divided into three layers: launch and space infrastructure, Starlink satellite internet, and AI and computing services following its integration with xAI.

The first layer consists of launch services and space systems.

This is the foundational capability of SpaceX and the basis for all its other businesses. The Falcon 9, Heavy Falcon, Starship, and the launch ecosystem built around NASA, the U.S. Department of Defense, and commercial customers together form SpaceX’s engineering moat. Reusable rockets not only give it lower costs but also enable a higher frequency of mission execution.

In the aerospace industry, high frequency itself is a barrier. The more launches, the more data, the faster engineering iterations, and the more mature cost control become. This positive cycle is difficult for traditional aerospace companies to catch up with in the short term.

The second layer is Starlink.

If the Rocket business demonstrated SpaceX’s engineering capabilities, then Starlink proves its commercialization prowess. Low Earth orbit satellite internet is essentially a global communications network—the broader its coverage, the more users it attracts, and the more mature its terminals become, the greater the opportunity to continuously reduce marginal costs.

This is also the key difference between SpaceX and most commercial space companies: it doesn’t just sell one-time projects—it also generates ongoing subscription revenue. Starlink serves individuals, businesses, aviation, maritime, government, and defense markets, transforming a capital-intensive space project into a revenue model more akin to that of telecommunications providers and internet infrastructure. For capital markets, this business segment is also the most understandable and easiest to model part of SpaceX’s valuation.

The third layer is AI and computing power services.

This is the most imaginative and controversial aspect of SpaceX’s current valuation. With xAI’s integration into SpaceX, the company’s narrative has expanded from “rockets + satellite internet” to “space infrastructure + AI infrastructure.” Whether it’s large-scale ground computing clusters or, further in the future, orbital AI data centers, SpaceX is positioning itself at the heart of the infrastructure race in the AI era.

However, this business layer also introduces new uncertainties. According to disclosed data, Starlink has already demonstrated strong profitability, but the overall SpaceX group continues to be burdened by high capital expenditures and losses in its AI business. In other words, SpaceX is not a company that has simply achieved stable profitability; rather, it is a company that, after proving the commercialization of its core business, continues to channel cash flow and capital market expectations into the next super-narrative.

This is also why its valuation is so complex.

It combines the certainty of NASA and defense contracts, the growth potential of Starlink subscription revenue, and the long-term vision of AI, Starship, Mars missions, and space-based data centers. It is not a traditional aerospace stock, nor merely an internet stock, but a composite giant built on engineering capabilities, communication networks, government contracts, and AI infrastructure.

This is precisely why the market is willing to assign it a valuation in the trillions of dollars—and why investors must remain cautious.

After understanding the long-term logic of commercial spaceflight, the real question has only just begun: Which companies within the commercial spaceflight sector are worth long-term attention?

A fundamental assessment must first be made: commercial space is not a homogeneous sector. It includes platform companies with valuation logic comparable to SpaceX, satellite network companies, data service providers, high-flexibility small-cap companies, as well as ETFs or closed-end instruments offering indirect exposure. Consequently, the valuation methodologies and risk-reward profiles differ significantly across these assets.

Without layering, simply grouping everything under the term "space stocks" makes it easy to buy the weakest comparable assets at the peak of hype. A more reasonable approach is to break down commercial spaceflight into five layers:

Layer 1: Platform-type space infrastructure

This layer most closely aligns with SpaceX’s public market comparable logic. For instance, SpaceX’s scarcity lies not just in rockets, but in its full-stack capabilities spanning launches, satellites, ground stations, communication networks, government contracts, and long-term AI infrastructure. Among publicly traded companies, the closest equivalents in positioning are RKLB.M (Rocket Lab) and FLY.M (Firefly Aerospace).

Rocket Lab is currently the most prototypical platform-style candidate among publicly traded space companies. It operates the Electron small launch vehicle business, as well as satellite and space systems services, and is expanding into medium-sized reusable rockets through Neutron. In 2025, Rocket Lab achieved annual revenue of $602 million, with a year-end backlog of $1.85 billion, giving it relatively leading revenue visibility among commercial space public companies.

On the surface, Rocket Lab’s current valuation isn’t cheap. But the market is willing to pay a premium, essentially pricing in a transformation in identity—from merely a “small rocket company” to a space infrastructure platform driven by three engines: launch services, satellites, and defense contracts.

The biggest catalyst in 2026 will be the maiden flight of the medium-sized reusable rocket Neutron. Management’s latest guidance points to the fourth quarter; if Neutron successfully launches, Rocket Lab will for the first time possess medium-lift capability comparable to Falcon 9 in certain mission scenarios, enabling it to move from the small payload market into the larger mainstream segment. At the same time, Rocket Lab’s defense credentials are strengthening. The company’s SDA Tranche 3 contract, involving 18 satellites worth approximately $816 million, is gradually transitioning from orders into revenue.

By adding acquisitions and integrations in areas such as laser communications, space robotics, and satellite components, Rocket Lab’s story is no longer just about “whether it can launch,” but about “whether it can become the second space infrastructure platform on the public market.”

Firefly, on the other hand, resembles a second-tier player in the platform’s growth phase. The company went public in August 2025 at an IPO price of $45, raising approximately $868 million. Its business spans launch services, lunar missions, and defense, and it already counts NASA and Lockheed Martin among its clients. However, it remains in a high-growth, unprofitable, and highly volatile stage.

The advantage of such companies lies in their flexibility, but the disadvantage is equally clear: when tasks fail, orders are delayed, or market risk appetite declines, their valuations face more severe pressure than those of mature platforms.

Therefore, Rocket Lab is better suited as a core example of the commercial space platformization logic, while Firefly leans more toward a high-flexibility growth model.

Layer 2: Satellite Network and Connectivity Services

The second layer examines coverage, access, and long-term service revenue.

The most representative company in this layer is ASTS.M (AST SpaceMobile). Its core focus is not on manufacturing satellites, but on building a satellite communication network designed for direct connection to ordinary mobile phones—commonly referred to in the market as “direct-to-cell.”

If this model proves viable, ASTS has enormous potential. It addresses global mobile network coverage gaps, connectivity in remote areas, disaster communications, and defense communications, and theoretically can collaborate with existing mobile operators rather than fully replacing them. However, ASTS faces clear challenges: commercial validation is still underway, and the pace of satellite deployment, capital consumption, spectrum coordination, and progress in operator partnerships will all impact the speed at which its valuation can be realized.

SATS.M (EchoStar) is a more mature satellite operations platform; while its growth potential is lower than ASTS, its assets and business operations are more established, and its volatility is relatively more controlled. For investors, this type of asset is better suited as a stable benchmark for observing satellite communication infrastructure, rather than solely pursuing high elasticity.

Layer 3: Space Data Services

The third layer is the easiest in the space economy to transition from a "concept stock" to a "operating asset."

The company is represented by PL.M (Planet Labs), and the logic is straightforward: it sells continuously updated Earth observation data, which can be applied in agriculture, insurance, energy, ports, defense, and government governance.

In fiscal year 2026, Planet Labs generated revenue of approximately $308 million, ended the year with a backlog of $900 million, and achieved positive Adjusted EBITDA for the first time—a significant milestone indicating the company has transitioned from “burning cash to tell a story” to becoming self-sustaining through its core business operations.

In contrast, BKSY.M (BlackSky) is more focused on space intelligence and defense subscription models, with key highlights including high-frequency remote sensing, AI analysis, international clients, and government contracts. Its business model aligns more closely with that of a space intelligence service provider, with defense and sovereign demand serving as critical pillars.

SATL.M (Satellogic) is smaller in scale and more elastic, but with lower certainty, making it better suited as a high-elasticity supplementary holding rather than a core sector asset.

Layer 4: High-elasticity receipt

Companies such as MNTS.M (Momentus) and SIDU.M (Sidus Space) belong to Layer 4.

Their common characteristics include small market capitalization, early liquidity, and high volatility; their pricing relies more on events, themes, and technical validation. When sentiment heats up, these assets often move first, as only a small trading volume is needed to push prices. However, once the market shifts from sentiment to fundamental valuation, they are also the most likely to be reevaluated.

Layer 5: SpaceX Mapping Tool

Before SpaceX's official listing, the market also offered another option: gaining indirect exposure to SpaceX through ETFs, closed-end funds, or pre-IPO instruments.

Tools such as DXYZ.M, VCX.M, and NASA.M have, to varying degrees, facilitated pre-IPO scarcity trading for SpaceX.

The core logic of DXYZ is “SpaceX-style pre-IPO trading + scarce private tech assets.” It provides public market investors with an indirect channel to trade in private sector giants.

VCX resembles a basket of unlisted tech assets, including not only SpaceX but also other AI and pre-IPO tech companies, so its pricing logic is more aligned with overall risk appetite for unlisted tech assets.

NASA.M is more like a hybrid of a space-themed ETF and a SpaceX exposure tool. It launched at the end of March 2026 and quickly attracted significant capital due to expectations surrounding SpaceX’s IPO, becoming one of the most closely watched space-themed investment tools in the market.

But this type of tool has a very real issue: once SpaceX itself goes public, the scarcity of its alternatives will be diminished.

When SpaceX was not directly accessible, the market was willing to pay a premium for alternative exposures; but once SPACX became directly tradable, some capital may shift from these alternatives to the underlying asset. This does not mean these instruments will necessarily lose value, but their pricing logic will change—from being a “sole entry point” to becoming a “portfolio allocation tool.”

This is also a key reason why the space sector may diverge after SpaceX's IPO.

Lastly, it’s worth noting that all four core holdings of the MSX Q2 Top Picks—RKLB.M, YSS.M, BKSY.M, and PL.M—achieved positive returns, with an average gain exceeding 100%.

Of course, commercial spaceflight is worth long-term attention, but that doesn't mean every price level is worth chasing.

SpaceX's current targeted valuation is approximately $1.75 trillion, implying a price-to-sales ratio nearly 100 times its 2025 revenue. This valuation suggests the market has already priced in many years of future growth, including the expansion of Starlink, the maturation of Starship, a surge in AI computing services, and the long-term commercialization of space infrastructure.

If post-listing performance growth falls below expectations, Starlink user growth slows, or AI business capital expenditures continue to expand, the valuation adjustment could be severe.

High valuation itself is one of SpaceX's biggest risks.

However, the true significance of SpaceX's IPO lies in how it will help the market clearly distinguish between core assets, comparable assets, and mere sentiment-driven assets.

For investors, the most compelling long-term opportunity in commercial spaceflight isn't the words "space" themselves, but which companies can turn imagination into orders, orders into revenue, and revenue into cash flow after the cost curve declines.

Next, the true turning point for the commercial space sector will no longer be how big a story someone can tell, but who can prove what they stand on.

The answer will be revealed soon.