Futurism⁠88%

SpaceX Stock Hits All-Time Low of $115 ⁠81%

By Victor Tangermann⁠83%

7/22/2026, 7:06:44 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 23 faulty reasoning types, including Pessimism Bias, Biased Writer Voice, and Appeal to Authority, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 36.6% saturation with 158 hits. Analysis detected 868 faulty-reasoning hits from 432 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 72.2% and a BS Rank of ⁠81% (4,162 of 21,112 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 80.30% of the article peer group.

Shares of Elon Musk’s SpaceX are continuing their weeks-long decline, hitting a new all-time low of around $115 by Wednesday afternoon. 
The scale of the accumulating losses since the company’s hotly-anticipated IPO last month is staggering. 
The company has wiped out over $1.1 trillion in market value since hitting an all-time high of $225 last month, and it’s possible that its decline is just getting started. 
The rocket company has given investors little to grasp onto, apart from an ever-optimistic Musk claiming that it could one day be worth more than the entire Earth . 
On Thursday, the company was forced to scrub the launch of its Starship spacecraft because several engines failed to start — a perfect metaphor for the company’s recent stock market performance. 
Meanwhile, countless short sellers are making billions by betting against the company , adding plenty of downward pressure on the stock. 
Looming in the background is the second quarter earnings call of Musk’s EV maker, Tesla, on Wednesday evening. 
The company has been burning through cash at an alarming rate despite seeing sales and revenues jump. 
Analysts are still keeping close tabs on the chance that Musk may fold Tesla into SpaceX, a merger of unprecedented proportions. 
Tesla will likely be facing plenty of questions about the possibility during this week’s earnings call. 
“I think there’s over 80 percent chance that Tesla and SpaceX get together in 2027,” tech analyst and longtime Tesla bull Dan Ives said in a note . 
“It’s the logical move from a data engineering perspective and Musk ownership. 
It makes too much sense for it not to happen.” 
The level of uncertainty is palpable. 
SpaceX is lining up its prototype Starship rocket for another launch attempt on Thursday. 
Roughly a week and a half later, the company is expected to release its second quarter financials, a major litmus test of where the company is headed. 
As Yahoo Finance notes , investors are interested in how much the rocket company will be spending on AI products and the growth of its Starlink internet satellite business. 
What likely won’t change is the fact that the company’s lofty valuation remains largely disconnected from its ability to make any money. 
SpaceX lost almost $5 billion last year — and xAI, which was folded into the company when it took over X-formerly-Twitter, lost a further $6.4 billion. 
More on SpaceX: SpaceX Is Learning a Nasty Lesson About Going Public When Your Main Product Is Experimental 
The post SpaceX Stock Hits All-Time Low of $115 appeared first on Futurism . 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 2.8%Victor Tangermann: 6.3%Futurism: 6.0%Confirmation Bias2.8%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 2.6%Futurism: 1.6%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 4.9%Victor Tangermann: 5.5%Futurism: 6.2%Availability Heuristic4.9%This article: 7.2%Victor Tangermann: 1.4%Futurism: 1.5%Representativeness Heuristic7.2%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 1.0%Futurism: 0.6%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 8.8%Victor Tangermann: 2.3%Futurism: 2.6%Overconfidence Bias8.8%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 11.3%Futurism: 11.5%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 1.9%Futurism: 1.2%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 6.3%Victor Tangermann: 0.6%Futurism: 0.6%Status Quo Bias6.3%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.5%Futurism: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 10.0%Victor Tangermann: 2.8%Futurism: 2.2%Optimism Bias10.0%This article: 19.2%Victor Tangermann: 6.1%Futurism: 4.3%Pessimism Bias19.2%This article: 36.6%Victor Tangermann: 23.7%Futurism: 22.6%Negativity Bias36.6%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 2.1%Futurism: 1.6%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 5.1%Victor Tangermann: 0.7%Futurism: 1.1%Fundamental Attribution Error5.1%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.1%Futurism: 0.2%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: 0.3%Futurism: 0.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.9%Futurism: 1.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.5%Futurism: 0.6%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.0%Futurism: 0.1%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 6.9%Victor Tangermann: 2.3%Futurism: 2.2%Recency Bias6.9%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.6%Futurism: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.1%Futurism: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 1.9%Futurism: 1.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.6%Futurism: 0.6%Straw Man0.0%This article: 11.3%Victor Tangermann: 7.8%Futurism: 6.8%Appeal to Authority11.3%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 2.5%Futurism: 2.5%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 6.9%Victor Tangermann: 3.2%Futurism: 2.6%Slippery Slope6.9%This article: 2.8%Victor Tangermann: 0.2%Futurism: 0.2%Circular Reasoning2.8%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 10.0%Futurism: 10.5%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 7.2%Victor Tangermann: 0.9%Futurism: 0.9%Red Herring7.2%This article: 4.9%Victor Tangermann: 0.9%Futurism: 1.2%Bandwagon4.9%This article: 6.7%Victor Tangermann: 8.8%Futurism: 9.3%Appeal to Emotion6.7%This article: 2.3%Victor Tangermann: 1.7%Futurism: 1.5%Begging the Question2.3%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 3.9%Futurism: 3.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.2%Futurism: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 1.0%Futurism: 1.1%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.1%Futurism: 0.3%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 11.1%Victor Tangermann: 0.3%Futurism: 0.3%Composition/Division11.1%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 3.8%Futurism: 4.3%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.1%Futurism: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 3.7%Victor Tangermann: 3.1%Futurism: 2.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)3.7%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.0%Futurism: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 6.3%Victor Tangermann: 0.3%Futurism: 0.2%Middle Ground6.3%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: 6.5%Victor Tangermann: 4.1%Futurism: 3.9%Unattributed Quote6.5%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 2.4%Futurism: 2.6%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 17.1%Victor Tangermann: 21.7%Futurism: 20.8%Biased Writer Voice17.1%This article: 6.5%Victor Tangermann: 1.3%Futurism: 2.1%Indoctrination6.5%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 2.2%Futurism: 2.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.5%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%

432 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers18%attributed speech353writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageDan Ives • 28 words • 100.0% coverageDan Ives • 12 words • 0.0% coverageDan Ives • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageYahoo Finance • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Dan Ives

100%flagged-word coverage
50 attributed words63% of attributed speech86% writer coverage
0%30.0%60.0%Unattributed Quote+56.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Dan Ives: 56.0%56.0%Indoctrination+56.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Dan Ives: 56.0%56.0%Biased Writer Voice-21.0 ptsWriter: 21.0%Dan Ives: 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.