SpaceX / xAI Merger

Go $1.25 Trillion or Go Home

In one of the biggest deals of all time, Elon Musk’s corporate empire has taken its most audacious turn yet. SpaceX’s acquisition of xAI creates a newly merged entity valued at $1.25 trillion with SpaceX being valued at $1 trillion and xAI at $250 billion, consolidating two of Musk’s most ambitious ventures under one roof. This deal is, in theory, a bet that aerospace dominance and artificial intelligence leadership can be welded together into something greater than the sum of their parts. Yet the merger also raises fundamental questions about whether combining a sector-leading rocket company with an AI startup in an extremely competitive environment makes strategic sense, or whether it merely concentrates risk within Musk’s interconnected business ecosystem.

SpaceX has spent two decades establishing itself as the undisputed leader in commercial spaceflight. Founded in 2002, the company revolutionised the aerospace industry through reusable rocket technology, vertical integration and innovative design/manufacturing practices, slashing launch costs and securing lucrative contracts with NASA and the Department of Defence. SpaceX’s Starlink satellite internet constellation has become a behemoth itself with around 10,000 of the approximate 15,000 active satellites in space operated by them, which in turn has created a revenue stream worth billions. All of this is occurring while the Starship programme promises to enable Mars colonisation and deep-space exploration (which has a far more uncertain chance of success). Recent reports suggested SpaceX was valued at approximately $800 billion in private markets before this merger, with persistent rumours of IPO discussions.

xAI, by contrast, represents a more precarious venture. Founded in mid-2023 as a direct competitor to OpenAI (the company Musk co-founded before acrimoniously departing) and other AI research labs, xAI launched with the explicit mission to create “truthful” AI that could rival frontier models. The company’s flagship product, Grok, was initially integrated into X (formerly Twitter). What began as a separate AI venture quickly evolved into something far more ambitious. After raising $6 billion in December 2024 at a valuation of approximately $45 billion, xAI acquired X Corp outright in March 2025 in an all-stock transaction that valued X at $33 billion whilst valuing xAI itself at $80 billion in the process of attaining a total valuation of $113 billion. The transaction gave Musk complete control over both the social media platform and the AI company, creating a vertically integrated AI and social network entity. The precarious nature of the company lies in the fact xAI’s competitive position is genuinely mixed. On technical benchmarks, Grok 3 achieved impressive results, including 93.3% accuracy on the 2025 American Invitational Mathematics Examination and becoming the first AI model to break the 1400 ELO score on the LMArena platform, demonstrating particular strength in mathematics and coding. Its integration with X also provided unique real-time information capabilities. However, significant challenges remained. With annualised revenues of approximately $500 million by mid-2025, xAI lagged far behind OpenAI’s $13 billion and Anthropic’s $7 billion. Enterprise adoption surveys showed strong interest but limited actual deployment compared to established competitors. Furthermore, the company’s reliance on massive computational scaling (using five to ten times more computing power than rivals) raised questions about business model sustainability. xAI was and is still facing considerable pressure to convert technical achievements into meaningful market share (albeit now under the SpaceX umbrella).

The core strategic justification for this merger centres on orbital data centres; deploying computing infrastructure in space rather than on Earth. This concept has transitioned from science fiction to theoretically plausible engineering, and the SpaceX-xAI combination uniquely positions the merged entity to pursue it. Orbital facilities offer abundant solar power without atmospheric attenuation (the reduction in intensity of electromagnetic radiation, like light and radio waves, or sound waves as they travel through the Earth’s atmosphere) or weather disruption, radiative cooling that eliminates the massive energy costs of terrestrial data centre cooling systems, the avoidance of land acquisition and planning permissions, and modular scalability through standardised deployment. Starship’s projected launch costs of $10-20 million per launch with 100+ tonne payload capacity fundamentally change the economics, potentially making orbital deployment cost-competitive with land construction in certain scenarios.

AI training workloads are nearly ideal for orbital computing: they require massive computational resources running continuously for weeks or months, they generate enormous electricity and cooling costs on land, and crucially, they tolerate the 50-150 millisecond communication latency inherent in satellite links far better than interactive applications. AI training consumes electricity on a staggering scale, often enough to power a small city for months. On Earth, data centres compete with residents and industries for grid capacity, driving up costs and environmental strain. In orbit, satellites can receive near-constant sunlight, unobstructed by atmosphere or the day/night cycle. Solar panels in space are up to eight times more productive than their land counterparts, theoretically providing a near limitless, carbon-neutral energy source for continuous training runs. Another advantage presents itself as traditional data centres spend massive amounts of electricity and freshwater on cooling systems to prevent GPUs from overheating. HVAC infrastructure often accounts for nearly as much power consumption as the computing hardware itself. Space offers an elegant alternative. In the vacuum of orbit, there’s no air for fans or chillers to work with. Instead, orbital servers use passive radiative cooling where large radiators beam waste heat directly into the void as infrared radiation. This eliminates water usage entirely and drastically reduces the energy overhead typically devoted to temperature control. Finally, another significant advantage is that AI training is latency-tolerant. Interactive applications like gaming, video calls, or high-frequency trading require near-instant feedback, typically under 20 milliseconds. A 150ms delay would render these services unusable. But AI training is fundamentally different. It’s an asynchronous, batch-processing workload that runs over weeks or months. While the initial data upload takes marginally longer via satellite link, the real work (the computational heavy lifting) happens onboard the satellite. Once the data reaches the orbital server, the training process is entirely unaffected by communication delays with the ground. If orbital data centres prove viable, xAI gains access to computing resources at potentially lower long-term costs than competitors negotiating with terrestrial cloud providers, whilst SpaceX creates a new revenue stream that could eventually rival Starlink.

However, substantial technical challenges should temper this optimism and cannot be dismissed. Radiation in space degrades commercial electronics rapidly; radiation-hardened components exist but cost orders of magnitude more and lag commercial performance by generations. An orbital data centre might use processors equivalent to technology from five to ten years ago, negating performance advantages. Alternatively, one can accept higher failure rates with commercial components, but replacing failed modules requires expensive retrieval missions or robotic repair systems that don’t yet exist at commercial scale. Thermal management, whilst theoretically simpler through radiative cooling, requires large surface-area radiators that add mass and deployment complexity; dissipating heat from thousands of densely packed GPUs in microgravity (the condition in which people or objects appear to be weightless) involves solving engineering problems land data centres never face. The regulatory framework for commercial orbital infrastructure remains underdeveloped, creating uncertainty about jurisdiction, environmental impact assessment, and international treaty obligations. Success for this synergy depends on proving that these challenges, and assumedly there will be many more, are indeed manageable at scale.

Beyond orbital computing, the claimed operational synergies appear modest. SpaceX uses autonomous technologies for spacecraft docking, booster landings, and satellite constellation management, and deep space missions could require advanced autonomy due to communication delays preventing real-time control. Integration with xAI could theoretically accelerate development of these capabilities, though the specific advantages over targeted partnerships or strategic hiring remain unclear, and keep in mind that SpaceX has successfully developed autonomous systems for two decades without owning an AI company. Data applications present similar ambiguity. Starlink generates network performance data and satellites produce Earth observation imagery, but most SpaceX data is highly specialised data with limited applicability to training general-purpose language models. The notion that Starlink network logs will somehow enable xAI to leapfrog OpenAI’s capabilities seems optimistic at best.

Thus, this merger also raises fundamental questions about business logic and resource allocation. Aerospace requires hardware engineering, manufacturing, and systems integration, whilst AI demands software development and machine learning research; disciplines requiring different talent, processes, and organisational cultures. SpaceX achieved dominance through relentless focus on reducing launch costs and adding AI development risks potentially diluting this focus without clear prioritisation frameworks for resolving competing demands. Resource allocation presents equally serious challenges: Starship development, Starlink expansion, orbital data centres, and xAI operations all require billions in capital simultaneously, forcing management to prioritise among divisions with vastly different risk profiles and timelines. This creates potential for internal conflict, compounded by compensation tensions as AI engineers command premium salaries that dwarf aerospace engineering pay scales, potentially disrupting SpaceX’s established culture and retention strategies.

One interpretation of the merger is that it may be better understood as IPO preparation rather than a new permanent corporate situation. SpaceX employees have long sought liquidity, but Musk has resisted public listing to maintain operational control and avoid quarterly earnings pressures. Meanwhile, xAI would face brutal scrutiny in a standalone IPO, with investors demanding answers about minimal revenue and its competitive position against entrenched rivals. A combined entity offers some advantages: the $1.25 trillion valuation establishes a high reference point for pricing negotiations and potentially less dilution to existing ownership, xAI’s valuation issues may be rolled up and disguised in the performance of SpaceX, the scale attracts large institutional investors with mandates requiring substantial market capitalisation, and the diversified growth story spanning proven aerospace revenue with speculative AI upside creates optionality in marketing the offering. However, there are potential downsides as well. Public investors typically discount complexity, and explaining the aerospace-AI integration thesis whilst projecting credible combined financials will prove difficult. More problematically, public company disclosure requirements will expose xAI’s minimal revenue and substantial losses in granular detail, potentially undermining the unified growth narrative if the AI division appears to be draining profits from successful aerospace operations. Investors will want to see Starship’s operational status beyond test flights, xAI showing meaningful improvement in capabilities and revenue traction, orbital computing moving from concept to proof-of-concept, and a credible path to overall profitability.

The merger has a few potential further interpretations as well. One view treats this as administrative efficiency, simplifying the management overhead of coordinating separate private companies, eliminating duplicated functions, and creating a unified path to eventual public listing. A more critical interpretation suggests defensive consolidation, with the merger primarily rescuing xAI from an untenable competitive position against currently better performing rivals; integration provides potential subsidisation through Starlink contracts and SpaceX computing resources, avoiding the embarrassment of outright failure whilst the $250 billion xAI valuation provides face-saving cover for all parties involved in previous funding rounds. The most optimistic interpretation invokes long-term vision: Mars colonisation requires sophisticated AI for autonomous operations in communication-delayed environments, and developing these capabilities now makes strategic sense even if short-term financial returns remain unclear. Finally, there is the simple fact that Elon is the driving force behind these companies and Tesla, and he may simply be trying to consolidate the entities to simplify his workflow and operations.

So as an overall quick assessment: the merger makes strategic sense for IPO preparation and simplification of operations. The current valuation is highly optimistic based on current fundamentals, and realistic outcomes depend on execution across Starship development, orbital computing deployment, and xAI improvement over the next 3-4 years. The technical opportunities are real but unproven and while some of the strategic logic is sound, the valuation is aggressive. As they say, ideas are cheap, execution is everything. Only time will tell if the ambitions of Musk will finally meet an insurmountable wall. So far, it hasn’t.

*Disclaimer: This information is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute financial, investment, or professional advice. The author may hold positions in the assets or companies discussed.

Bonnefin Research is a free publication focused on better investment thinking. Subscribe and share to support the work, and join the discussion in the comments as we continue building this community.