The twelfth flight of Starship, which took place on May 23 from the Boca Chica base in Texas, was far more than a routine shakedown test. For Elon Musk it represented the most delicate technical milestone before the most anticipated financial event of the year: the listing of SpaceX on the Nasdaq, scheduled for June 12 under the ticker SPCX. That is why Flight 12 was watched closely not only by aerospace engineers, but also by investors, funds and market analysts.
The question remains open: was the flight of Starship V3 truly a success capable of reinforcing SpaceX’s industrial narrative, or rather an inconclusive result, still far from the promised milestones?
A successful flight, but not a perfect one
From a strictly operational standpoint, Flight 12 marked several advances over previous tests. The new Starship V3 configuration completed its ascent, reached the planned flight parameters and carried out a simulated payload release in suborbital orbit. It also survived atmospheric reentry, confirming structural improvements to the heat shield and aerodynamics.
The most significant technical data point, however, concerns the handling of propulsion anomalies. During the flight, two Raptor engines were lost, including one Raptor Vacuum. The control system compensated automatically, allowing the vehicle to continue its mission profile without losing attitude. In engineering terms, this is a concrete demonstration of engine-out capability, one of the key elements for certifying the reliability of a launch vehicle intended for operational missions.
This is precisely the point underlined by several international observers: Starship did not fly under ideal conditions, but it demonstrated resilience. That is a substantial difference from previous flights, which often ended with the total loss of the vehicle or the premature interruption of procedures.
What the V3 version got right
Flight 12 marked the operational debut of the V3 configuration, an evolution designed to increase payload capacity, structural robustness and reusability.
Among the results considered positive are the stability of the ascent phase, better thermal performance during reentry and the effectiveness of the control systems despite the anomalies. For the first time, SpaceX was able to collect complete data on almost the entire mission profile.
For Musk — who in the hours that followed described the test as «epic» — the flight confirms that the overall architecture is sound. And that matters a great deal at a stage when the company must convince the market that Starship is no longer an experimental gamble but an industrial asset designed to generate revenue.
What still doesn’t work
Calling Flight 12 an unqualified success would, however, be premature. Several crucial objectives remain out of reach.
The test did not complete the orbital relight, an indispensable step for validating long-duration missions and complex maneuvers. Nor was the booster catch with the “Mechazilla” system carried out — a central element of the rapid-reuse model on which SpaceX bases much of its economic promise.
Even more important, there is still no full demonstration of rapid turnaround. Starship’s true competitive advantage is supposed to be the ability to fly, return and take off again in dramatically shorter times than its competitors. For now, that objective remains theoretical.
For aerospace analysts, Flight 12 shows that SpaceX is solving “first-level” problems, but has not yet validated the systemic ones. And it is precisely the latter that determine the economic sustainability of the project.
The most anticipated IPO of the year
The timing of the flight is no coincidence. On May 20, SpaceX filed its S-1 prospectus with the SEC (the US Securities and Exchange Commission), revealing in detail, for the first time, numbers that had until now remained opaque.
In 2025 the company posted revenue of $18.7 billion, up 33% from the previous year. Consolidated net loss, however, came to $4.9 billion. In the first quarter of 2026 alone, revenue reached $4.694 billion.
Looking at the revenue structure, 61% comes from Starlink, now the group’s backbone. The launch business remains important but not dominant, while the new segment tied to artificial intelligence is posting significant operating losses.
Long-term debt has reached $29.1 billion. And among the main risk factors listed in the prospectus, Starship appears explicitly: any delays in its development could compromise future growth capacity and profitability.
That is why Flight 12 was an essential reputational milestone.
A dizzying valuation
According to reports gathered by financial media, SpaceX is targeting a valuation of roughly $1.75 trillion, with a potential raise of between $75 billion and $80 billion.
It would be one of the largest IPOs in American history. But the comparison with fundamentals raises questions.
PitchBook estimates a fair value closer to $1.5 trillion. Morningstar points to particularly aggressive multiples relative to expected revenue. The market, in essence, would be paying today for Starship’s future potential rather than for current performance.
In this scenario, Flight 12 takes on enormous symbolic value. A perfect flight was not needed: what was needed was a credible signal that the program was entering its maturity phase.
The test appears to have provided that signal — but not enough to dispel every doubt.
The xAI knot and the pressure on Starlink
There is then another element weighing on the financial narrative: the growing integration with the AI division tied to Musk’s wider ecosystem.
According to the filing, the AI segment recorded operating losses of roughly $6.3 billion. This means that, at least in the short term, it is Starlink that economically sustains a substantial part of the group’s technological ambitions.
Some analysts read it this way: Starlink generates cash, xAI absorbs it, while Starship represents the bet meant to transform the entire industrial model.
If Starship accelerates, the whole ecosystem gains credibility. If it slows down, financial pressure mounts.
The verdict: what to expect now
So, success or failure? Technically, Flight 12 was a partial success. It demonstrated real progress and a capacity for resilience, but it has not yet certified the full operational maturity of the system.
From a financial standpoint, it probably achieved the minimum objective: avoiding a negative signal on the eve of the listing.
One question remains open, however. Wall Street will not judge SpaceX solely on what Starship did on May 23, but on what it will be able to do over the next twelve months.
If the IPO succeeds, Musk will have enormous resources to accelerate the space race, with potentially disruptive effects on supply chains, advanced manufacturing and new industrial opportunities — including for European companies.
But if the market judges Flight 12 insufficient to justify the valuation being sought, the most ambitious space bet of our time could enter a far more delicate and difficult phase.
Editor’s note
This article was originally published in Italian on money.it by Giorgia Paccione on May 25, 2026 as «Starship Flight 12, successo o fiasco? L’impatto su SpaceX (e Musk) in vista della maxi IPO». It has been translated and adapted for an international audience by the Money.it International desk.
