diff --git a/inbox/queue/2026-04-21-spacex-s1-dual-class-shares-musk-voting-control.md b/inbox/queue/2026-04-21-spacex-s1-dual-class-shares-musk-voting-control.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..0d2aa29ed
--- /dev/null
+++ b/inbox/queue/2026-04-21-spacex-s1-dual-class-shares-musk-voting-control.md
@@ -0,0 +1,45 @@
+---
+type: source
+title: "SpaceX Public S-1 Filing: Dual-Class Shares Give Musk Irremovable 79% Voting Control"
+author: "Multiple (Reuters via US News, The Next Web, RTÉ)"
+url: https://www.usnews.com/news/top-news/articles/2026-04-21/exclusive-musk-and-insiders-to-retain-voting-control-of-spacex-after-ipo-filing-shows
+date: 2026-04-21
+domain: space-development
+secondary_domains: [internet-finance]
+format: article
+status: unprocessed
+priority: high
+tags: [spacex, ipo, governance, voting-control, dual-class-shares, musk, belief7]
+intake_tier: research-task
+flagged_for_rio: ["SpaceX IPO governance structure is relevant to capital formation thesis and permissionless capital comparison — dual-class is antithesis of decentralized ownership. Rio should evaluate implications for space economy capital formation."]
+---
+
+## Content
+
+SpaceX's public S-1 filing (made public approximately April 21, 2026, following the confidential filing of April 1) confirms:
+
+**Dual-class share structure:**
+- Class B shares (insiders): 10 votes per share
+- Class A shares (public IPO): 1 vote per share
+- Result: Musk controls ~79% of SpaceX votes while holding ~42% of equity
+
+**Irremovability clause:** The S-1 explicitly states that Musk "can only be removed from our board or these positions by the vote of Class B holders." In practice: Musk is the primary Class B holder; he cannot be removed without his own consent.
+
+**Post-IPO roles:** Musk will remain CEO, CTO, and Chairman of SpaceX's nine-member board.
+
+**IPO targets:** $1.75 trillion valuation; raise up to $75 billion (vs. Saudi Aramco's record $29.4B in 2019); 30% retail investor allocation. Nasdaq listing targeting June 2026.
+
+**Source context:** Reuters exclusive (April 21), widely confirmed by TNW, RTÉ, Globe and Mail, IndexBox, Financership.
+
+## Agent Notes
+**Why this matters:** The S-1 governance disclosure crystallizes a risk that Belief 7 (single-player dependency) identified at the company level — it now operates at BOTH the company level (SpaceX is sole Western heavy-lift) AND the governance level (Musk is structurally irremovable). This is a qualitatively new addition to the single-player dependency analysis.
+**What surprised me:** The irremovability clause is unusually explicit even for dual-class structures. Most dual-class companies (Google, Meta) at least nominally allow removal through board processes. SpaceX's language is more absolute.
+**What I expected but didn't find:** Any independent board oversight mechanism. There is none. The nine-member board is chaired by Musk and controlled by Class B holders.
+**KB connections:** [[SpaceX vertical integration across launch broadband and manufacturing creates compounding cost advantages that no competitor can replicate piecemeal]], Belief 7 (single-player dependency), [[launch cost reduction is the keystone variable that unlocks every downstream space industry at specific price thresholds]]
+**Extraction hints:** Primary claim: "SpaceX's dual-class IPO structure makes Musk structurally irremovable as CEO/CTO/Chairman, concentrating single-player space economy risk at both the organizational and governance levels simultaneously." Secondary: "SpaceX targeting $75B IPO raise at $1.75T valuation — largest IPO in history if completed."
+**Context:** This is the primary governance disclosure for the most important private-to-public transition in the space economy. Rio should evaluate the capital formation implications. Belief 7 should cite this filing directly.
+
+## Curator Notes (structured handoff for extractor)
+PRIMARY CONNECTION: Belief 7 (single-player dependency is the greatest near-term fragility) — this makes the dependency governance-permanent, not just operational
+WHY ARCHIVED: The irremovability clause adds a new dimension to the single-player risk analysis that wasn't in the KB before this filing
+EXTRACTION HINT: Two claims: (1) governance concentration (irremovable dual-class), (2) IPO scale ($75B raise, $1.75T target). Do NOT duplicate April 30 archive on Starlink revenue/margins.
diff --git a/inbox/queue/2026-04-30-spacex-s1-orbital-datacenter-risk-self-disclosure.md b/inbox/queue/2026-04-30-spacex-s1-orbital-datacenter-risk-self-disclosure.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..ad535335d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/inbox/queue/2026-04-30-spacex-s1-orbital-datacenter-risk-self-disclosure.md
@@ -0,0 +1,55 @@
+---
+type: source
+title: "SpaceX S-1 Self-Disclosure: Orbital AI Data Centers 'May Not Be Commercially Viable'"
+author: "Multiple (Dataconomy, TechRadar, TNW, FinTech Weekly)"
+url: https://dataconomy.com/2026/04/30/spacex-warns-orbital-ai-data-centers-may-not-be-viable/
+date: 2026-04-30
+domain: space-development
+secondary_domains: [ai-alignment, energy]
+format: article
+status: unprocessed
+priority: high
+tags: [spacex, xai, orbital-datacenter, s1, risk-disclosure, ipо, atoms-to-bits, radiation-hardening]
+intake_tier: research-task
+flagged_for_theseus: ["SpaceX S-1 self-discloses that orbital AI compute may not be viable — this directly intersects with Theseus's analysis of AI physical-world deployment constraints. Radiation hardening of AI hardware is a specific engineering gap."]
+---
+
+## Content
+
+SpaceX's S-1 IPO filing contains explicit risk disclosures about its orbital AI data center ambitions that contradict Musk's public statements:
+
+**From the S-1 risk section:**
+- "Necessary technologies remain untested and may not perform reliably in orbit"
+- AI systems "would need adaptation to withstand the conditions of space, during which repairs would not be feasible"
+- "Today's AI hardware isn't built for the radiation environment in orbit, so compute architectures will need to evolve"
+- Thermal management "is one of the hardest challenges"
+- Orbital data centers "may not be commercially viable"
+
+**The Musk contradiction:**
+- January 2026 (Davos): Musk called space-based AI "a no-brainer" and predicted it would be "the cheapest option within two to three years"
+- S-1 hedges this entirely as potentially non-viable
+
+**xAI rebuild admission (Musk tweet, March 12, 2026):**
+- "xAI was not built right first time around, so is being rebuilt from the foundations up"
+- Filed for IPO with an AI asset that was explicitly rebuilt from scratch — an unusual disclosure sequence
+
+**Technical barriers cited:**
+1. Radiation hardening of AI compute hardware — current GPUs/TPUs not designed for orbital radiation
+2. Thermal management — waste heat dissipation in vacuum at orbital compute scales is unsolved
+3. In-orbit repair infeasibility — unlike terrestrial data centers, orbital failures cannot be maintained
+4. Starship dependency — the orbital DC thesis depends on Starship's projected performance metrics
+
+**Via Satellite (Feb 18, 2026):** Pre-S-1 analysis already flagged the risks, but described the opportunity as "potentially transformative" for satellite backhaul and edge compute even if the large-scale orbital DC vision fails.
+
+## Agent Notes
+**Why this matters:** The SpaceX S-1 self-disclosure is the most important credibility check on the xAI orbital compute thesis. It directly tests Belief 10 (atoms-to-bits interface) applied to SpaceX's claimed xAI value. The S-1 is a legal document — SpaceX MUST disclose risks it believes are real. This is more credible evidence than marketing claims.
+**What surprised me:** The S-1 language is much more explicit about infeasibility than I expected from a company trying to pitch a $1.75T valuation. Legal disclosure requirements forced honesty that Musk's public statements obscured.
+**What I expected but didn't find:** An engineering roadmap for solving the radiation hardening problem. The S-1 identifies the problem but offers no specific timeline or solution pathway.
+**KB connections:** [[the atoms-to-bits spectrum positions industries between defensible-but-linear and scalable-but-commoditizable with the sweet spot where physical data generation feeds software that scales independently]], [[Starship achieving routine operations at sub-100 dollars per kg is the single largest enabling condition for the entire space industrial economy]], the April 30 archive `2026-04-30-spacex-xai-orbital-dc-skeptical-analysis-ipo-narrative.md`
+**Extraction hints:** Primary claim: "SpaceX's own S-1 risk disclosures classify orbital AI data centers as potentially non-viable, citing radiation hardening, thermal management, and repair infeasibility as unresolved engineering barriers — contradicting Musk's January 2026 public statements." This is a scope qualification on the atoms-to-bits sweet spot claim: the sweet spot requires the physical interface to be BUILDABLE, not just theoretically appealing.
+**Context:** This is complementary to the April 30 archive on "skeptical analysis" — that was external skeptic. This is INTERNAL self-disclosure. Different evidential weight.
+
+## Curator Notes (structured handoff for extractor)
+PRIMARY CONNECTION: `2026-04-30-spacex-xai-orbital-dc-skeptical-analysis-ipo-narrative.md` (the archived skeptical analysis) — this is the internal confirmation of what external analysts already suspected
+WHY ARCHIVED: S-1 self-disclosure is the strongest possible source for a risk claim — the company's own legal filing. This materially changes the confidence level of the orbital DC thesis.
+EXTRACTION HINT: The contrast between Musk's Davos statement and the S-1 risk disclosure is the extractable claim — not just that orbital DCs are hard, but that the company's own legal filing hedges what Musk publicly called "a no-brainer."
diff --git a/inbox/queue/2026-05-02-nasaspaceflight-starship-ift12-net-may12-revised-trajectory.md b/inbox/queue/2026-05-02-nasaspaceflight-starship-ift12-net-may12-revised-trajectory.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..34ad608a8
--- /dev/null
+++ b/inbox/queue/2026-05-02-nasaspaceflight-starship-ift12-net-may12-revised-trajectory.md
@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
+---
+type: source
+title: "Starship Flight 12 NET May 12, 2026 with Revised Southern Caribbean Trajectory"
+author: "NASASpaceFlight Staff (@NASASpaceflight)"
+url: https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2026/05/spacex-mid-may-starship-flight-12-revised-trajectory/
+date: 2026-05-01
+domain: space-development
+secondary_domains: []
+format: article
+status: unprocessed
+priority: high
+tags: [starship, ift-12, v3, raptor-3, launch-trajectory, faa, cadence]
+intake_tier: research-task
+---
+
+## Content
+
+SpaceX is targeting NET May 12, 2026 at 22:30 UTC (17:30 CDT) for Starship Flight 12, the first V3 vehicle flight. Launch window extends approximately 2.5 hours (22:30–00:43 UTC). Vehicles: Booster 19 and Ship 39.
+
+**Revised trajectory:** Previous flights tracked a corridor north of Cuba, Hispaniola, Puerto Rico, and the Leeward Islands. Flight 12 introduces a revised southern corridor: between Jamaica and Cuba, then between St. Vincent and Grenada. This avoids major airline corridors from Hispaniola and Puerto Rico.
+
+**Safety rationale:** In the event of a mishap similar to Ships 33 or 34, debris would fall into open Caribbean waters rather than near populated areas. This is a FAA-relevant safety improvement that could support future cadence acceleration.
+
+**V3 significance:** Raptor 3 engines debut. New vehicle mass fraction and Isp performance data will be the first direct measurement of V3's economics. The sub-$100/kg trajectory thesis depends on V3 achieving "airline-like" reuse rates — this flight begins the V3 data series.
+
+**Ship 39 note:** Ocean soft landing (not tower catch) — appropriate for a first V3 flight. Tower catch performance will be assessed for subsequent V3 flights.
+
+## Agent Notes
+**Why this matters:** IFT-12 is the first data point on V3 performance, which directly tests Belief 2's claim that Starship can achieve sub-$100/kg operations. Raptor 3 Isp data, vehicle reentry behavior, and turnaround timeline will be the most important space economy data published in 2026.
+**What surprised me:** The revised southern Caribbean trajectory is a proactive safety move — SpaceX is building the regulatory track record needed for cadence acceleration without being forced to. This is regulatory intelligence, not just engineering.
+**What I expected but didn't find:** No specific Raptor 3 performance spec or dry mass improvement figures published in advance. Those will only be derivable post-flight from telemetry.
+**KB connections:** [[Starship achieving routine operations at sub-100 dollars per kg is the single largest enabling condition for the entire space industrial economy]], [[SpaceX vertical integration across launch broadband and manufacturing creates compounding cost advantages that no competitor can replicate piecemeal]], [[the space launch cost trajectory is a phase transition not a gradual decline analogous to sail-to-steam in maritime transport]]
+**Extraction hints:** Claims: (1) Starship V3 debut introduces Raptor 3 and revised trajectory for improved debris safety margin; (2) NET May 12 2026 is the first operational window for V3 data; (3) revised trajectory represents proactive cadence-enabling regulatory positioning.
+**Context:** NASASpaceFlight is the primary technical coverage outlet for Starship. This is the most technically authoritative source on flight configuration.
+
+## Curator Notes (structured handoff for extractor)
+PRIMARY CONNECTION: [[Starship achieving routine operations at sub-100 dollars per kg is the single largest enabling condition for the entire space industrial economy]]
+WHY ARCHIVED: V3 flight is the primary 2026 update to the launch cost keystone variable thesis. Trajectory revision shows proactive regulatory positioning.
+EXTRACTION HINT: Focus on V3 vs V2 technical differences and trajectory safety improvement — two distinct claim candidates. DO NOT duplicate April 30 archive on general IFT-12 target.
diff --git a/inbox/queue/2026-05-02-spacex-ipo-prospectus-timeline-june-nasdaq.md b/inbox/queue/2026-05-02-spacex-ipo-prospectus-timeline-june-nasdaq.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..f459a7726
--- /dev/null
+++ b/inbox/queue/2026-05-02-spacex-ipo-prospectus-timeline-june-nasdaq.md
@@ -0,0 +1,59 @@
+---
+type: source
+title: "SpaceX IPO Timeline: $75B Raise, $1.75T Valuation, June 2026 Nasdaq Listing"
+author: "Multiple (Motley Fool, TechStackIPO, ARK Invest, Reuters)"
+url: https://www.fool.com/investing/2026/04/27/spacex-ipo-timeline-every-important-date-need-know/
+date: 2026-04-27
+domain: space-development
+secondary_domains: [internet-finance]
+format: article
+status: unprocessed
+priority: medium
+tags: [spacex, ipo, starlink, valuation, nasdaq, timeline, capital-markets]
+intake_tier: research-task
+flagged_for_rio: ["SpaceX IPO at $1.75T valuation is the largest-ever IPO and the primary test case for whether space economy capital formation can occur at civilizational scale. Rio should evaluate the IPO mechanics, retail allocation (30%), and ARK's $1.75T floor argument."]
+---
+
+## Content
+
+Consolidated timeline for SpaceX IPO based on multiple sources (April 27-30, 2026):
+
+**IPO mechanics:**
+- Confidential S-1 filed: April 1, 2026
+- Public S-1 filing: approximately April 21, 2026 (confirmed by Reuters exclusive)
+- Public prospectus: May 15-22, 2026 (required ≥15 days before marketing per SEC rules)
+- Investor roadshow: Week of June 8, 2026
+- Major retail investor event: June 11, 2026
+- Nasdaq listing target: Late June / early July 2026
+
+**Offering details:**
+- Valuation target: $1.75 trillion (post-money)
+- Raise: up to $75 billion (vs. Saudi Aramco's record $29.4B in 2019 — would be 2.5x largest ever)
+- Retail investor allocation: 30% (unusually large; typical is 5-10%)
+- Ticker: SPCE on Nasdaq (tentative)
+- Share price: approximately $525/share implied (TechStackIPO)
+
+**ARK Invest analysis:**
+- ARK's "SpaceX IPO Guide" argues $1.75T "may not be the ceiling"
+- ARK models Starlink growing to $100B+ annual revenue by 2030 (from $11.4B in 2025)
+- xAI integration adds AI services layer not captured in satellite-pure valuations
+
+**Financial data (from S-1):**
+- Starlink revenue 2025: $11.4B, EBITDA $7.2B, adjusted margin 63%
+- Starlink subscribers: 10M+ as of February 2026 (roughly doubling annually)
+- SpaceX disclosed Starlink generates sufficient cash to fund Starship development without external capital
+
+**Note:** Conflicting revenue figure — one source cites $16B 2025 Starlink revenue vs. $11.4B. The $11.4B is the S-1-sourced figure (more authoritative). The $16B may include other SpaceX revenue or be a 2026 projection.
+
+## Agent Notes
+**Why this matters:** The IPO crystallizes SpaceX's economic model into public data. The 63% Starlink margins and $11.4B revenue confirm the flywheel thesis (Starlink funds Starship). The $75B raise would be the largest capital event in space economy history. Whether the $1.75T valuation is justified depends heavily on xAI integration credibility — which the S-1 self-disclosure on orbital DCs (separate archive) significantly complicates.
+**What surprised me:** 30% retail allocation is genuinely unusual and potentially reflects political/reputational strategy — making Starship "the people's rocket" by enabling broad public ownership. This is a narrative play, not just capital markets mechanics.
+**What I expected but didn't find:** Hard data on Starship revenue or cost-per-flight from the S-1. The confidential filing apparently does not disclose Starship program economics separately from Starlink.
+**KB connections:** [[SpaceX vertical integration across launch broadband and manufacturing creates compounding cost advantages that no competitor can replicate piecemeal]], Belief 7 (single-player dependency), [[launch cost reduction is the keystone variable that unlocks every downstream space industry at specific price thresholds]]
+**Extraction hints:** Primary claim: "SpaceX's $75B IPO at $1.75T target valuation — if completed — would be 2.5x the largest IPO in history, validating the space economy as a capital-markets-scale industry and making Starlink's flywheel financially transparent for the first time." Confidence: experimental (IPO not yet completed; valuation subject to market).
+**Context:** Do NOT duplicate the April 30 archive on Starlink revenue/margins — that covers the financial details. This archive covers the IPO mechanics, timeline, and market-scale significance.
+
+## Curator Notes (structured handoff for extractor)
+PRIMARY CONNECTION: `2026-04-30-spacex-ipo-s1-starlink-revenue-margins-ipo-details.md` — this is complementary, not duplicate
+WHY ARCHIVED: The $75B raise scale and June timeline are new specifics not in April 30 archive. 30% retail allocation is a distinct narrative claim.
+EXTRACTION HINT: Focus on the IPO scale (largest ever) and retail allocation (unusual structure) as the extractable claims. Financial details are in the April 30 archive.
diff --git a/inbox/queue/2026-xx-npj-space-tharsis-lava-water-interaction-amazonian.md b/inbox/queue/2026-xx-npj-space-tharsis-lava-water-interaction-amazonian.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..d69ad40a8
--- /dev/null
+++ b/inbox/queue/2026-xx-npj-space-tharsis-lava-water-interaction-amazonian.md
@@ -0,0 +1,48 @@
+---
+type: source
+title: "Recent Explosive Lava-Water Interaction in Tharsis, Mars — npj Space Exploration 2026"
+author: "npj Space Exploration (Nature Portfolio)"
+url: https://www.nature.com/articles/s44453-026-00031-2
+date: 2026-01-01
+domain: space-development
+secondary_domains: []
+format: article
+status: unprocessed
+priority: medium
+tags: [mars, tharsis, lava-tubes, water-ice, geology, ISRU, Ascraeus-Mons, hydrated-minerals]
+intake_tier: research-task
+---
+
+## Content
+
+Published 2026 in npj Space Exploration (Nature Portfolio). Key findings:
+
+**Core discovery:** Rootless volcanic cones adjacent to Ascraeus Mons (Tharsis) show evidence of explosive lava-water interaction during the late Amazonian period (less than 215 million years ago — "recent" in Mars geological terms).
+
+**Evidence methodology:** Combined surface imagery (HiRISE/CTX), topographic data (MOLA/HRSC), and spectral analysis (CRISM) to identify:
+- Rootless cone morphology consistent with explosive phreatomagmatic eruptions
+- Spectrally identified hydrated minerals (most likely sulfates) = signature of past hydrothermal circulation
+- Spatial association with lava flow features suggesting tube-system presence
+
+**Significance:**
+- This is the YOUNGEST evidence of lava-water interaction in Tharsis, in a province that was long thought to be dry
+- Hydrothermal circulation during eruptions implies subsurface water/ice was present in Tharsis as recently as 215 Ma
+- The sulfate minerals formed in this process are themselves a potential ISRU resource (sulfur chemistry for construction materials)
+- Supports the hypothesis that Tharsis volcanic edifices retain subsurface ice from Amazonian glaciation
+
+**Complementary Nature Communications 2025 paper** (Precipitation from explosive volcanism on Mars): Precipitation induced by explosive Mars volcanism could have deposited unexpected equatorial ice — supporting the idea that Tharsis may have had ice during the period covered by this study.
+
+**Co-location with lava tubes:** Ascraeus Mons is one of the three Tharsis Montes — adjacent to Arsia Mons (which has identified cave skylights). The geological connection between water-bearing formations and tube-bearing volcanic structures is geographically real.
+
+## Agent Notes
+**Why this matters:** The disconfirmation target for today's session was whether lava tubes (Tharsis) and water ice are co-located. This paper provides the geological evidence that they WERE co-located as recently as 215 Ma. Whether ice persists today is separate, but the hydrothermal sulfates are directly accessible ISRU resources.
+**What surprised me:** The 215 Ma figure — this is geologically recent (Mars is 4.6 Ga old; 215 Ma is the last ~5% of its history). Mars remained volcanically and hydrologically active much more recently than the "dead Mars" narrative suggests.
+**What I expected but didn't find:** Direct evidence of CURRENT ice in Tharsis lava tubes — this paper shows geological EVIDENCE of past water, not current ice presence. Those are different claims.
+**KB connections:** [[microgravity eliminates convection sedimentation and container effects producing measurably superior materials across fiber optics pharmaceuticals and semiconductors]] (unrelated), the settlement bootstrapping chain in the KB, [[water is the strategic keystone resource of the cislunar economy because it simultaneously serves as propellant life support radiation shielding and thermal management]]
+**Extraction hints:** Primary claim: "Tharsis region (Ascraeus Mons) shows explosive lava-water interaction as recently as 215 Ma with associated hydrothermal sulfates, indicating Amazonian-era ice presence in the same volcanic province that hosts candidate lava tube skylights — supporting geologically recent co-location of radiation shielding infrastructure (tubes) and water resources."
+**Context:** Nature portfolio publication = high credibility. Consistent with 2024 Nature Geoscience paper showing current transient water frost on Tharsis volcanoes.
+
+## Curator Notes (structured handoff for extractor)
+PRIMARY CONNECTION: The Mars settlement bootstrapping chain in `domains/space-development/` — specifically the water ISRU prerequisite and its co-location with radiation shielding (lava tubes)
+WHY ARCHIVED: Resolves (partially) the lava tube + water ice co-location question by showing geological evidence of the two being co-located in the same volcanic province
+EXTRACTION HINT: Scope carefully — "as recently as 215 Ma" ≠ "currently accessible ice." Claim should be about geological co-location evidence, not current ice confirmation.