Futurism⁠88%

SpaceX’s Shares Tank After Starship Fails to Launch ⁠89%

By Victor Tangermann⁠83%

7/17/2026, 2:47:45 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 27 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Pessimism Bias, and Appeal to Emotion, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 44.1% saturation with 186 hits. Analysis detected 1,050 faulty-reasoning hits from 422 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 81.9% and a BS Rank of ⁠89% (2,383 of 20,447 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 88.30% of the article peer group.

SpaceX was forced to scrub the 13th test flight of its hulking Starship spacecraft Thursday evening. 
A computer system automatically aborted the launch as the mega rocket fired up its engines and as the countdown struck zero, with SpaceX CEO Elon Musk noting afterwards that “some of the engines didn’t start.” 
“Next launch attempt hopefully in a few days,” he added. 
The aborted flight is a sobering parallel to the rocket company’s performance on Wall Street. 
It’s notably the first Starship launch attempt since SpaceX went public last month. 
And, perhaps as predicted, investors were not impressed. 
Shares nosedived to a new record low of $124 before recovering to around $126, well below its IPO price of $135. 
Shares are down almost 14 percent over the last five days and a whopping 45 percent compared to the all-time high of $225 just over a month ago. 
As Bloomberg points out , SpaceX is set to wipe out more than $1 trillion in market value compared to its June 16 record high. 
It’s certainly not just the failed Starship launch that’s haunting the company. 
The Nasdaq composite slid almost two percent in early trading this morning, with spooked investors selling shares of AI chip makers as concerns over a bubble continue to mount . 
Now that Musk has merged SpaceX with his AI startup, xAI — which has since been renamed SpaceXAI — the rocket company will have to do extra work to convince investors that its lofty valuation is justified. 
SpaceX lost almost $5 billion last year, while xAI burned through $6.4 billion over the same period. 
Despite the poor stock performance, Wall Street remains extremely bullish on SpaceX. 
For instance, Morgan Stanley believes the company will reach a price tag of $300 — far more than double its current stock price. 
Musk himself is convinced that “SpaceX will be worth more than the rest of Earth if we accomplish our goals.” 
But now that its latest Starship launch attempt still hasn’t produced a successful sequence of both reaching space and landing in one piece after years of trying , investors are bound to ask some tough questions. 
After all, Musk’s entire vision for SpaceX — including enormous AI orbital data centers and colonizing the Moon and Mars — pivots on the success of its enormous spacecraft. 
More on SpaceX: SpaceX Investors Are Lamenting All the Money They’ve Lost 
The post SpaceX’s Shares Tank After Starship Fails to Launch appeared first on Futurism . 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 1.9%Victor Tangermann: 5.5%Futurism: 5.7%Confirmation Bias1.9%This article: 6.6%Victor Tangermann: 2.8%Futurism: 1.7%Anchoring Bias6.6%This article: 10.7%Victor Tangermann: 5.3%Futurism: 6.2%Availability Heuristic10.7%This article: 6.9%Victor Tangermann: 1.3%Futurism: 1.5%Representativeness Heuristic6.9%This article: 8.5%Victor Tangermann: 0.9%Futurism: 0.6%Hindsight Bias8.5%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 2.5%Futurism: 2.6%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 4.7%Victor Tangermann: 11.2%Futurism: 11.4%Framing Effect4.7%This article: 5.0%Victor Tangermann: 1.9%Futurism: 1.2%Loss Aversion5.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.6%Futurism: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.5%Futurism: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 7.1%Victor Tangermann: 2.7%Futurism: 2.2%Optimism Bias7.1%This article: 20.1%Victor Tangermann: 5.7%Futurism: 4.2%Pessimism Bias20.1%This article: 32.7%Victor Tangermann: 22.4%Futurism: 22.3%Negativity Bias32.7%This article: 4.7%Victor Tangermann: 1.7%Futurism: 1.5%Self-Serving Bias4.7%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.5%Futurism: 1.1%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.1%Futurism: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.2%Futurism: 0.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.4%Futurism: 0.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.9%Futurism: 1.2%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.6%Futurism: 0.7%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.0%Futurism: 0.1%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 1.9%Victor Tangermann: 2.2%Futurism: 2.2%Recency Bias1.9%This article: 5.9%Victor Tangermann: 0.6%Futurism: 0.5%Primacy Effect5.9%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.1%Futurism: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 1.8%Futurism: 1.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.6%Futurism: 0.6%Straw Man0.0%This article: 11.4%Victor Tangermann: 8.1%Futurism: 7.0%Appeal to Authority11.4%This article: 8.5%Victor Tangermann: 2.6%Futurism: 2.5%False Dilemma8.5%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 3.1%Futurism: 2.6%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 6.9%Victor Tangermann: 0.2%Futurism: 0.2%Circular Reasoning6.9%This article: 5.5%Victor Tangermann: 9.4%Futurism: 10.4%Hasty Generalization5.5%This article: 2.8%Victor Tangermann: 1.0%Futurism: 0.9%Red Herring2.8%This article: 2.8%Victor Tangermann: 0.9%Futurism: 1.2%Bandwagon2.8%This article: 11.8%Victor Tangermann: 8.8%Futurism: 9.3%Appeal to Emotion11.8%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 1.8%Futurism: 1.5%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 9.5%Victor Tangermann: 3.5%Futurism: 3.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)9.5%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.1%Futurism: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 8.8%Victor Tangermann: 0.8%Futurism: 1.0%Burden of Proof8.8%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.1%Futurism: 0.3%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.4%Futurism: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 3.9%Futurism: 4.5%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.1%Futurism: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 1.9%Victor Tangermann: 3.0%Futurism: 2.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)1.9%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.0%Futurism: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.3%Futurism: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.2%Futurism: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.2%Futurism: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.1%Futurism: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 8.3%Victor Tangermann: 4.0%Futurism: 3.9%Unattributed Quote8.3%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 2.4%Futurism: 2.6%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 44.1%Victor Tangermann: 21.5%Futurism: 20.6%Biased Writer Voice44.1%This article: 6.9%Victor Tangermann: 1.3%Futurism: 2.1%Indoctrination6.9%This article: 2.8%Victor Tangermann: 2.4%Futurism: 2.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias2.8%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.6%Futurism: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 1.2%Futurism: 1.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

422 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers27%attributed speech309writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageElon Musk • 35 words • 100.0% coverageElon Musk • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageBloomberg • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageMorgan Stanley • 23 words • 0.0% coverageElon Musk • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Elon Musk

100%flagged-word coverage
65 attributed words58% of attributed speech95% writer coverage
0%27.5%55.0%Unattributed Quote+53.8 ptsWriter: 0.0%Elon Musk: 53.8%53.8%Biased Writer Voice+5.0 ptsWriter: 48.9%Elon Musk: 53.8%53.8%Indoctrination-9.4 ptsWriter: 9.4%Elon Musk: 0.0%0.0%Politically Left Leaning B-3.9 ptsWriter: 3.9%Elon Musk: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.