The twelfth flight of Starship, staged on May 23 from the Boca Chica launch site in Texas, was far more than a routine shakedown test. For Elon Musk it was the most delicate technical milestone before the most anticipated financial event of the year: SpaceX’s listing 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 by investors, funds and market analysts.
The question is still open: was the debut of Starship V3 a genuine success capable of reinforcing SpaceX’s industrial narrative, or an inconclusive result still well short of the goals the company has promised?
A successful flight, but not a perfect one
In purely operational terms, Flight 12 marked several steps forward compared with earlier tests. The new Starship V3 configuration completed its ascent, hit the planned flight parameters and carried out a simulated payload deployment on a suborbital trajectory. It also survived atmospheric re-entry, confirming structural improvements to the heat shield and aerodynamics.
The most significant technical detail, however, concerns how the vehicle handled propulsion anomalies. During the flight, two Raptor engines failed, including one Raptor Vacuum. The control system compensated automatically, allowing the vehicle to continue its mission profile without losing attitude. In engineering terms, that is a concrete demonstration of engine-out capability — one of the key elements in certifying the reliability of a launch vehicle intended for operational missions.
That 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 total loss of the vehicle or an early abort of procedures.
What the V3 version got right
Flight 12 was the operational debut of the V3 configuration, an evolution designed to increase payload capacity, structural robustness and reusability.
Among the results considered positive were the stability of the ascent phase, better thermal performance during re-entry and the effectiveness of the control systems despite the anomalies. For the first time, SpaceX was able to gather complete data across nearly the entire mission profile.
For Musk, who in the hours that followed called the test «epic», the flight confirms that the overall architecture is sound. And that matters a great deal at a stage when the company has to convince the market that Starship is no longer an experimental gamble but an industrial asset capable of generating revenue.
What still doesn’t work
Calling Flight 12 an unqualified success would nonetheless be premature. Several crucial objectives remain out of reach.
The test did not complete the orbital relight, an essential step for validating long-duration missions and complex maneuvers. Nor did it carry out the booster catch with the «Mechazilla» system, a central element of the rapid-reuse model on which much of SpaceX’s economic promise rests.
Even more important, there is still no full demonstration of rapid turnaround. Starship’s real competitive advantage is supposed to be the ability to fly, return and launch again on dramatically shorter timelines than competitors. For now, that goal remains theoretical.
For aerospace analysts, Flight 12 shows that SpaceX is solving its «first-order» problems, but has not yet validated the systemic ones. And it is the systemic problems that determine whether the project is economically sustainable.
The most anticipated listing of the year
The timing of the flight was no accident. On May 20, SpaceX filed its S-1 registration statement with the SEC (the US Securities and Exchange Commission) ahead of going public, disclosing for the first time figures that had until now remained opaque.
In 2025 the company posted revenue of $18.7 billion, up 33% from the previous year. Its consolidated net loss, however, was $4.9 billion. In the first quarter of 2026 alone, revenue reached $4.694 billion.
Looking at the revenue mix, 61% came from Starlink, now the group’s backbone. The launch business remains important but is no longer dominant, while the newer segment tied to artificial intelligence is posting significant operating losses.
Long-term debt has reached $29.1 billion. And among the principal risk factors listed in the prospectus, Starship itself appears explicitly: any delays in its development could compromise the company’s future growth capacity and profitability.
That is why Flight 12 was an essential reputational test.
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.
That would make it one of the largest IPOs in American history. But a comparison with the fundamentals raises questions.
PitchBook estimates a fair value closer to $1.5 trillion. Morningstar points to multiples that look particularly aggressive relative to expected revenue. In essence, the market would be paying today for Starship’s future potential rather than for current performance.
In that context, Flight 12 takes on enormous symbolic value. A perfect flight was not required: what was needed was a credible signal that the program was entering a phase of maturity.
The test appears to have delivered that signal — but not strongly enough to dispel every doubt.
The xAI knot and the pressure on Starlink
There is another factor weighing on the financial narrative: the growing integration with the AI operations tied to Musk’s wider ecosystem.
According to the filing, the AI segment recorded operating losses of roughly $6.3 billion. That means, at least in the short term, it is Starlink that financially supports a substantial part of the group’s technological ambitions.
The reading offered by some analysts is straightforward: Starlink generates cash, xAI absorbs it, and Starship represents the bet meant to transform the entire industrial model.
If Starship accelerates, the whole ecosystem gains credibility. If it slows down, the financial pressure rises.
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 system’s full operational maturity.
In financial terms, it probably achieved the minimum objective: avoiding a negative signal on the eve of the listing.
One question remains open, though. Wall Street will not value SpaceX solely for what Starship did on May 23, but for what it will be able to do over the next twelve months.
If the IPO succeeds, Musk will have enormous resources to accelerate the race to space, with potentially disruptive effects on supply chains, advanced manufacturing and new industrial opportunities — including for European companies.
But if the market decides Flight 12 was not enough to justify the valuation being asked, 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.
