The timing is the point. SpaceX is moving through the final stretch before its public debut, and Oppenheimer’s initiation adds another bullish voice just as institutional investors are trying to decide whether the story is about rockets, Starlink, or something broader.

That broader story is exactly why the valuation fight has become so sharp. SpaceX is not being marketed as a one-trick launch company. It is being sold as a platform, with the usual space business, a fast-growing connectivity arm, and a sprawling ambition that stretches far beyond orbit.

The operating case for SpaceX starts with scale. In 2025, the company launched 83% of the mass sent to orbit from Earth and accounted for 51% of global orbital launches, according to Morningstar’s research (Morningstar, March 9; Morningstar, June 1). That dominance is the sort of fact investors can touch, which is useful in a debate full of speculative projections.

Starlink is the clearest reason bulls are still leaning in. It generated $3.26 billion in revenue in the latest quarter, or 69% of total company revenue, and it is the only segment currently operating at a profit (CNBC, June 3). Damodaran also noted that connectivity revenue grew by almost 50% and that subscriber count doubled from 5 million in the first quarter of 2025 to 10.3 million in the first quarter of 2026 (Damodaran, June 4).

That gives the bullish thesis a real foundation. The company is not relying on hope alone, at least not all of it.

The problem is that the numbers still refuse to line up neatly. Morningstar’s $780 billion valuation assumes a narrow economic moat and treats the newly acquired AI business as too uncertain to pin down cleanly (Morningstar, June 1). Damodaran’s post-prospectus work gets to $1.3 trillion in equity value, or roughly $1.21 trillion to $1.22 trillion in enterprise value, after folding in the company’s more complete financial picture (Damodaran, June 4).

Even PitchBook’s fair-value range, cited in Morningstar’s earlier work, runs from $1.1 trillion to $1.7 trillion (Morningstar, March 9). None of those estimates cleanly justify a $1.75 trillion to $1.8 trillion IPO story.

The latest financials help explain why. SpaceX recorded a net loss of $4.94 billion in 2025 and lost another $4.28 billion in the latest quarter (CNBC, June 3). The space business lost $619 million on an operating basis, while the AI unit lost $2.5 billion, and the company itself says it has “a history of net losses and may not achieve profitability in the future” (CNBC, June 3).

There is also the matter of capital spending, which is not a side note here. Damodaran says SpaceX spent almost $14 billion on capital expenditures and almost $9 billion on R&D in 2025, calling the scale of the reinvestment “breathtaking” (Damodaran, June 4). Morningstar says the firm has about $30 billion in debt and $16 billion in cash as of the end of the first quarter of 2026, leaving it with roughly $14 billion in net debt (Morningstar, June 1).

The IPO proceeds are meant to support that spending. Morningstar says SpaceX is targeting gross proceeds between $50 billion and $80 billion at around a $1.75 trillion valuation, with funds earmarked for additional R&D, AI infrastructure, and Starlink deployment (Morningstar, June 1).

That is a very different use of capital from the usual public-market playbook, and it explains why this deal is being discussed like a strategic campaign rather than a simple listing.

The hard part is the AI piece. Morningstar says it sees a wide range of outcomes around the newly acquired AI business, gives it an indeterminate moat rating, and calls it a material threat of value destruction (Morningstar, June 1). CNBC reported the same basic concern, along with SpaceX’s own warning about future profitability (CNBC, June 3).

Damodaran’s valuation update shows why that matters. He says xAI pushed his estimate of book equity from $20 billion to $41.3 billion, while total debt rose to $22.9 billion, leaving net debt slightly negative at about $1.9 billion because cash exceeds debt (Damodaran, June 4). He also notes that SpaceX’s total TAM is estimated at $28 trillion, with $26 trillion tied to AI (Damodaran, June 4).

That is the kind of number that makes bankers smile and analysts reach for the calculator. Sometimes the same exercise.

Even the skeptics leave room for a strong debut. Morningstar says SpaceX’s small initial float, broad investment-bank support, strong appetite for AI infrastructure, and a possible path to Nasdaq 100 inclusion within 15 trading days could lift the stock well above any fundamental estimate, at least for a while (Morningstar, June 1).

Float matters because only about 3.3% of SpaceX equity is expected to trade initially, and Morningstar says that setup could lead to 20% to 30% price swings on major news (Morningstar, March 9). In plain English: a thin market can turn a stock into a very expensive mood ring.

Control also stays concentrated. Damodaran says Elon Musk will control more than 85% of the voting rights through the company’s two-class structure, and Morningstar says he has agreed not to sell his roughly 40% economic stake for at least a year after the IPO (Damodaran, June 4; Morningstar, June 1). Public investors will get exposure, but not much say.

Damodaran’s historical reminders are the quietest part of the argument, which usually means they deserve attention. He points to Facebook trading at half its IPO price within months of listing, and Uber losing more than 50% of its market cap in the year after its public offering (Damodaran, June 4).

He also says he would not be surprised to see the offering priced at $1.8 trillion, then see the stock rise in the days or weeks after the listing (Damodaran, June 4). That is not the same as saying the valuation makes sense. It is just a reminder that markets can stay enthusiastic long after the spreadsheets have surrendered.

One thing is clear already. Oppenheimer’s SpaceX coverage arrives into a market where the debate is not whether the company is important, but how much of that importance can be priced today. The answer, depending on whom you ask, ranges from richly valued to eye-wateringly expensive.