Space Exploration Technologies, commonly known as SpaceX, began trading publicly on June 12 after pricing its initial public offering at $135 per share. With about 13.1 billion shares outstanding at the IPO, the company was valued at nearly $1.8 trillion at launch, which made it the largest IPO in history.
From there, Wall Street’s focus quickly shifted from the listing itself to supply-demand dynamics and what investors believe the company could eventually build—an outcome some prominent market commentators tied to valuations far beyond today’s level.
Key takeaways
- IPO pricing: SpaceX priced its IPO at $135 per share, valuing the company at nearly $1.8 trillion at launch.
- Catalyst: Commentators highlighted an unusually small public float and upcoming Nasdaq-100 index eligibility as potential demand drivers.
- Valuation debate: CNBC’s Jim Cramer argued a rapid path toward a $6 trillion valuation is possible.
- Long-term thesis: Hedge fund billionaire Ron Baron suggested orbital AI data centers could support a $14 trillion market value in about a decade.
- Implication: Despite lofty long-term scenarios, the opening valuation raised questions about sustainability, with comparisons pointing to historical patterns in other large IPOs.
What drove the IPO spotlight
SpaceX’s market debut came with a valuation already at the top of IPO history. The company’s IPO structure also matters for how its shares can trade. According to CNBC, SpaceX has an unusually small float—less than 5%—meaning only a limited portion of the total shares are available for public trading. In contrast, most Nasdaq-100 constituents typically have floats above 80%, according to the report cited in the article.
On the demand side, the article said investors have been eager to own SpaceX stock, including both institutional and retail participants. It also pointed to a potential index effect: upcoming changes to the Nasdaq-100 are expected to make SpaceX eligible for inclusion in just 15 trading days. The same coverage said the prior Nasdaq-100 listing criteria were adjusted—specifically extending the time requirement from one year to 15 days for large companies and eliminating the 10% minimum float rule.
Why some investors see upside to much higher valuations
In its discussion of SpaceX’s valuation potential, the article emphasized the interaction between limited share availability and strong demand. Jim Cramer, speaking on CNBC, argued that the mismatch between supply and demand could drive SpaceX toward a $6 trillion valuation.
The logic is straightforward: when fewer shares are available to trade, incremental demand—whether from investors directly or through index-related buying—can have an outsized effect on price and therefore market capitalization, especially in the period leading into index inclusion.
Separately, hedge fund billionaire Ron Baron delivered a more ambitious long-term forecast, according to the article. He argued that orbital AI data centers could become a major revenue engine and, in turn, push SpaceX’s market value to $14 trillion over the next decade.
Orbital AI data centers: the revenue thesis investors are underwriting
The “orbital AI data center” concept centers on using space-based infrastructure to support high-power computing needs that are constrained on Earth. The article attributes SpaceX’s position to vertical integration—bringing together launch capacity, satellite connectivity, and supercomputing expertise under one corporate umbrella.
Specific components highlighted in the article include SpaceX’s Starship, described as a rapidly reusable system intended to reduce the cost to reach orbit compared with historical averages; Starlink, described as operating the largest broadband satellite constellation in low-Earth orbit and planning expansion; and xAI, described as having deployed a coherent gigawatt-scale AI training cluster, with Colossus systems characterized as among the largest AI training clusters on Earth.
While the concept raises practical questions—such as servicing timelines, upgrades, and protection from cosmic radiation—the article pointed to statements attributed to SpaceX’s SEC registration materials. It quoted the registration statement as saying that operating data center costs are heavily influenced by energy, cooling, and distribution requirements, and that in orbit chips are expected to be powered by solar energy and cooled using radiative architectures with no operating costs compared with liquid or air cooling.
The article also said SpaceX plans to begin deploying orbital AI compute satellites as early as 2028. Based on that roadmap, it reported that Ron Baron expects strong subscriber growth for Starlink that could drive revenue toward $1 trillion within a decade, and support the $14 trillion valuation scenario he outlined.
What could limit the rally: historical IPO patterns and valuation questions
Despite the bullish scenarios, the article raised the counterpoint that large IPOs often disappoint relative to their starting valuations. It cited an observation that among the 10 biggest U.S. IPOs in history by market value at the IPO price, those companies have underperformed the S&P 500 by an average of 100 percentage points since listing.
It also flagged concerns about the valuation level at which SpaceX came to market. The article said SpaceX priced at what it described as an “absurdly expensive” valuation of 92 times sales, and it contrasted that with Palantir Technologies’ current valuation of 60 times sales as the highest among S&P 500 companies mentioned in the coverage.
For investors, that combination of factors—an extreme starting valuation, typical post-IPO normalization risk, and a market that will also test the orbital AI thesis over time—may define the near-term trading path. The article suggested that investors may wait for clearer signals in the next 24 months, even while keeping the stock on watch lists.
Investors watching SpaceX next will likely focus on how quickly demand builds ahead of Nasdaq-100 eligibility, whether the company’s stated timeline for orbital AI compute deployments remains on track, and what additional detail emerges as it progresses through regulatory and operational milestones following the IPO. With the broader market also sensitive to interest-rate expectations and risk appetite, the stock’s trajectory may hinge on both company-specific execution and shifting capital-market conditions.
