Rocket Lab to go public, develop new vehicle (financial discussion)

[jongoff]

Yeah, if you look back to the point where SpaceX had a similar head count, their revenue was also in a similar range -- a little googling suggests SpaceX hit 2600 employees back in 2012-2013, and their estimated revenue those two years were in a similar range ($400M-680M). They're not publicly traded like Rocket Lab, so those numbers are fuzzier, but it suggests that Rocket Lab is doing just fine on $/employee for where they're at as a company. They're behind where SpaceX is today, but compared to where SpaceX was at a similar point in their business, I think they're doing pretty well.

It's true that the headcount and maybe revenue is similar to SpaceX in 2013, but SpaceX in 2013 is valued at $4~5B, not $26B.

2013 SpaceX was valued as a company that were just getting their medium-lift rocket into operation after a string of small-launch issues, with recovery still in the 'string of failures' period and re-use still theoretical, targeting flight rates to address a market that didn't exist at the time (and which had torpedoed multiple companies in the previous megaconstellation boom).
Rocket Lab is targeting a known market, with recovery and re-use now being a known quantity, after nearly two decades of extremely successful execution.

Remember, stock valuations are not "multiply revenue by some constant to get stock value" or "some multiple of initial investments to 'pay them back' (that's not how investing works)". Stocks tend to be valued at what various investors believe they will be worth selling at at some indeterminate point in the future, plus what they are convinced others may value them at at some other indeterminate point in the future. If investors think Rocketlab will be worth $Xbn 5, 10, 15, etc years in the future, they will be willing to buy stock at some fraction of $Xbn (accounting for inflation, expected dilution, confidence in achieving that outcome, etc) today. The vast majority of stock valuation is entirely divorced from dividend returns (if any), so day-to-day company performance today is rarely a direct driving factor in valuation.

SpaceX in 2013 wasn't facing SpaceX of 2025 as a competitor. RocketLab, however, is.

But the space economy of 2025 and the next 20 years is a LOT bigger than was in 2013...

M.E.T. probably disagrees with me, but I really don't think this is a winner takes all market. Will RocketLab topple SpaceX? Pretty darned unlikely. But if it isn't a winner takes all market, they really don't have to. From a perspective of this thread, the big questions are:

1- Will Rocket Lab be able to get to a point where it's consistently profitable anytime soon (or ever)? Without profitability everything else is kind of academic. They are growing revenue, and outside their investments in Neutron, I think they'd be otherwise profitable already (though I haven't dug deep into their financials). It's mostly a question of how soon Neutron makes it to operations, and how soon it gets to a point where it's not sucking in more money than the rest of the company is making in profit. Barring them investing in some other big capital project (like a constellation), I could see them getting to a profitable quarter within the next year or two.

2- In a world with SpaceX and Blue and ULA, can Rocket Lab attract enough demand with Neutron, and build up enough of a track record with it, to justify keeping it operational (probably where it's at least breaking even or making a modest profit, or enabling enough revenue profit from other business lines to justify modest losses)? This is a bigger question, and will depend strongly on both internal factors (how soon RL actually gets to first launch, how reliable Neutron is, how fast they can ramp up launch cadence, and how economical its operations really are), and external factors (how fast their competitors advance). I don't know how many flights per year is the breakeven point below which Rocket Lab would consider walking away from Neutron, but I think so long as they can get to at least a dozen flights per year they'd keep going. I think they have a decent chance of that.

3- Can they actually become profitable to justify their current valuation? That's the hardest one for me. I haven't really been doing much stock market investing until very recently -- most of my net worth has been tied up in the startups I work for or run, and by the time I started, Rocket Lab was already at a price I felt was overvalued. I think there's a chance that they could grow into justifying a $25B valuation, but I think it'll take a while, and there's a non-trivial chance that it is mildly successful, but has it stock drop back down a bit to something more reasonable. Basically, I won't be tempted to buy shares unless they drop below $25-30/share again.

I guess my point is that there's a wide range of outcomes between RocketLab takes over the Universe, and RocketLab goes out of business, and I think they'll be successful enough that they'll still be around and actively launching Neutron for years to come. I just am not convinced that their current valuation is something I could make money by buying in today.

That's my $0.02,

~Jon

[M.E.T.]

Yeah, if you look back to the point where SpaceX had a similar head count, their revenue was also in a similar range -- a little googling suggests SpaceX hit 2600 employees back in 2012-2013, and their estimated revenue those two years were in a similar range ($400M-680M). They're not publicly traded like Rocket Lab, so those numbers are fuzzier, but it suggests that Rocket Lab is doing just fine on $/employee for where they're at as a company. They're behind where SpaceX is today, but compared to where SpaceX was at a similar point in their business, I think they're doing pretty well.

It's true that the headcount and maybe revenue is similar to SpaceX in 2013, but SpaceX in 2013 is valued at $4~5B, not $26B.

2013 SpaceX was valued as a company that were just getting their medium-lift rocket into operation after a string of small-launch issues, with recovery still in the 'string of failures' period and re-use still theoretical, targeting flight rates to address a market that didn't exist at the time (and which had torpedoed multiple companies in the previous megaconstellation boom).
Rocket Lab is targeting a known market, with recovery and re-use now being a known quantity, after nearly two decades of extremely successful execution.

Remember, stock valuations are not "multiply revenue by some constant to get stock value" or "some multiple of initial investments to 'pay them back' (that's not how investing works)". Stocks tend to be valued at what various investors believe they will be worth selling at at some indeterminate point in the future, plus what they are convinced others may value them at at some other indeterminate point in the future. If investors think Rocketlab will be worth $Xbn 5, 10, 15, etc years in the future, they will be willing to buy stock at some fraction of $Xbn (accounting for inflation, expected dilution, confidence in achieving that outcome, etc) today. The vast majority of stock valuation is entirely divorced from dividend returns (if any), so day-to-day company performance today is rarely a direct driving factor in valuation.

SpaceX in 2013 wasn't facing SpaceX of 2025 as a competitor. RocketLab, however, is.

But the space economy of 2025 and the next 20 years is a LOT bigger than was in 2013...

M.E.T. probably disagrees with me, but I really don't think this is a winner takes all market. Will RocketLab topple SpaceX? Pretty darned unlikely. But if it isn't a winner takes all market, they really don't have to. From a perspective of this thread, the big questions are:

1- Will Rocket Lab be able to get to a point where it's consistently profitable anytime soon (or ever)? Without profitability everything else is kind of academic. They are growing revenue, and outside their investments in Neutron, I think they'd be otherwise profitable already (though I haven't dug deep into their financials). It's mostly a question of how soon Neutron makes it to operations, and how soon it gets to a point where it's not sucking in more money than the rest of the company is making in profit. Barring them investing in some other big capital project (like a constellation), I could see them getting to a profitable quarter within the next year or two.

2- In a world with SpaceX and Blue and ULA, can Rocket Lab attract enough demand with Neutron, and build up enough of a track record with it, to justify keeping it operational (probably where it's at least breaking even or making a modest profit, or enabling enough revenue profit from other business lines to justify modest losses)? This is a bigger question, and will depend strongly on both internal factors (how soon RL actually gets to first launch, how reliable Neutron is, how fast they can ramp up launch cadence, and how economical its operations really are), and external factors (how fast their competitors advance). I don't know how many flights per year is the breakeven point below which Rocket Lab would consider walking away from Neutron, but I think so long as they can get to at least a dozen flights per year they'd keep going. I think they have a decent chance of that.

3- Can they actually become profitable to justify their current valuation? That's the hardest one for me. I haven't really been doing much stock market investing until very recently -- most of my net worth has been tied up in the startups I work for or run, and by the time I started, Rocket Lab was already at a price I felt was overvalued. I think there's a chance that they could grow into justifying a $25B valuation, but I think it'll take a while, and there's a non-trivial chance that it is mildly successful, but has it stock drop back down a bit to something more reasonable. Basically, I won't be tempted to buy shares unless they drop below $25-30/share again.

I guess my point is that there's a wide range of outcomes between RocketLab takes over the Universe, and RocketLab goes out of business, and I think they'll be successful enough that they'll still be around and actively launching Neutron for years to come. I just am not convinced that their current valuation is something I could make money by buying in today.

That's my $0.02,

~Jon

I agree with you Jon. Most of my RKLB criticism is actually around point 3 you made above - justifying their current valuation.

And even beyond that, the idea that RKLB is going to be worth hundreds of billions of dollars, or as Beck recently started phrasing it “that they will become the largest space company in the world”.

I think expectations are too high for this company, not because they aren’t hard working or innovative or good at what they do. But because of the reality of where we are in 2025 in the space industry.

[sstli2]

I agree with you both and would caution against any publicly-traded space sector company as I very much do buy the idea that valuations are inflated because of the public expectation of some kind of correlation with SpaceX. This is the case for RKLB, this is the case for ASTS, and this is the case for FLY.

[M.E.T.]

I agree with you both and would caution against any publicly-traded space sector company as I very much do buy the idea that valuations are inflated because of the public expectation of some kind of correlation with SpaceX. This is the case for RKLB, this is the case for ASTS, and this is the case for FLY.

100%. You see this every time SpaceX’s valuation shoots up. The stock pumpers on X instantly start posting “If SpaceX is worth $800B, just think how undervalued RKLB is at $25B”.

Same with ASTS. As if SpaceX ‘s achievements are a given for any new challenger with similar ideas.

Frankly, I don’t think SpaceX themselves would make it if they were entering the market in 2025 with a medium lift partially reusable rocket for the first time.

[XRZ.YZ]

With SpX IPO insight,
it could on one side cause speculation on space sector and could raise stock price for all space comanies.

On the other end, we just don't know how much of the share holder is due to people wants to invest in space because of SpX, but they aren't able to buy it, so they buy whatever closest they can got.


For example, have a look at ARKX ETF's current holding. As soon as SpX IPOed, I have no doubt it will buy as much as regulation permits.

[Tywin]

I think IF we continue with the "mega constellation economy", is difficult to see a very large more high valuation of RKLB...but IF the data centers in space is coming for real, then they could be a lot more value to come.

[XRZ.YZ]

I think IF we continue with the "mega constellation economy", is difficult to see a very large more high valuation of RKLB...but IF the data centers in space is coming for real, then they could be a lot more value to come.

In hyperscale word,
AWS probably will use BO
Google Cloud will likely use SpX
X/Grok (very small compared with other giant) will use SpX

Azure/Oracle/OpenAI probably will avoid BO, and if there is an alternative to SpX, they will likely be happy with that

[M.E.T.]

I think IF we continue with the "mega constellation economy", is difficult to see a very large more high valuation of RKLB...but IF the data centers in space is coming for real, then they could be a lot more value to come.

In hyperscale word,
AWS probably will use BO
Google Cloud will likely use SpX
X/Grok (very small compared with other giant) will use SpX

Azure/Oracle/OpenAI probably will avoid BO, and if there is an alternative to SpX, they will likely be happy with that

“X/Grok very small” 😂😂😂. They will be the biggest.

[lightleviathan]

I think IF we continue with the "mega constellation economy", is difficult to see a very large more high valuation of RKLB...but IF the data centers in space is coming for real, then they could be a lot more value to come.

In hyperscale word,
AWS probably will use BO
Google Cloud will likely use SpX
X/Grok (very small compared with other giant) will use SpX

Azure/Oracle/OpenAI probably will avoid BO, and if there is an alternative to SpX, they will likely be happy with that

“X/Grok very small” 😂😂😂. They will be the biggest.

There’s a limit of scale to platforms like Twitter and Bluesky inherently, just like all other social media platforms. Thus, once the illusion of infinite growth with both AI and with X goes away, I don’t see how funding can come from anywhere except from out of Elon’s pocket, essentially becoming his Blue Origin.

[TrevorMonty]

I think IF we continue with the "mega constellation economy", is difficult to see a very large more high valuation of RKLB...but IF the data centers in space is coming for real, then they could be a lot more value to come.

In hyperscale word,
AWS probably will use BO
Google Cloud will likely use SpX
X/Grok (very small compared with other giant) will use SpX

Azure/Oracle/OpenAI probably will avoid BO, and if there is an alternative to SpX, they will likely be happy with that

“X/Grok very small” 😂😂😂. They will be the biggest.

There’s a limit of scale to platforms like Twitter and Bluesky inherently, just like all other social media platforms. Thus, once the illusion of infinite growth with both AI and with X goes away, I don’t see how funding can come from anywhere except from out of Elon’s pocket, essentially becoming his Blue Origin.

What has this post to do with RL?.

[XRZ.YZ]

What has this post to do with RL?.

If orbital data center became next big things. Then what’s the opportunity for RL.

[thespacecow]

Rocket Lab is completely irrelevant to orbital data center business. Orbital data center is even more sensitive to $/kg, launch cadence (measured in tons/time) than constellations, Neutron is simply not up to task.

[TrevorMonty]

What has this post to do with RL?.

If orbital data center became next big things. Then what’s the opportunity for RL.

This thread is about RL finances not competition.
Once you bring S & B into conversation you are on wrong thread. Best take competition discussions to Neutron vs F9 & SS.

[jstrotha0975]

Neutron needs a purpose to survive, it needs a satellite constellation.

[XRZ.YZ]

Rocket Lab is completely irrelevant to orbital data center business. Orbital data center is even more sensitive to $/kg, launch cadence (measured in tons/time) than constellations, Neutron is simply not up to task.

Why irrelevant?
RL is the top player in space solar module.
RL is also a potent player in satellite bus industry and many of the sub-systems.

And for launch, if Neutron can get market share from elsewhere, why not Orbital data center?

[XRZ.YZ]

What has this post to do with RL?.

If orbital data center became next big things. Then what’s the opportunity for RL.

This thread is about RL finances not competition.
Once you bring S & B into conversation you are on wrong thread. Best take competition discussions to Neutron vs F9 & SS.

Financial eventually turns into tangible market size times market share for each sub-market a company is in.
Orbital Data center is a new tangible market. We don't know how large it could be or if it will grow in meaningful future, but it's not zero as recently there is a startup training some kind of LLM in space with a single H100 GPU.
https://www.cnbc.com/2025/12/10/nvidia-backed-starcloud-trains-first-ai-model-in-space-orbital-data-centers.html
And many other large companies are considering it recently.

And market share depends on competition.

[lightleviathan]

Rocket Lab is completely irrelevant to orbital data center business. Orbital data center is even more sensitive to $/kg, launch cadence (measured in tons/time) than constellations, Neutron is simply not up to task.

Why irrelevant?
RL is the top player in space solar module.
RL is also a potent player in satellite bus industry and many of the sub-systems.

And for launch, if Neutron can get market share from elsewhere, why not Orbital data center?

Just to piggyback off of this, Rocket Lab will be well positioned if and only if Neutron can sustain a high flight rate. Rocket Lab already builds cheap buses and soon will be able to launch their own flat satellites, so they could logically launch orbital data centers also. The only way in my opinion for them to do this cost competitively is to partner with a company like Google or Intel to launch their chips cheaply. Google could get low latency inference and training for Gemini with their TPUs in orbit, and Intel would actually have a customer buying their chips, so there would be less bottleneck for compute as they could scale up production.

[thespacecow]

Rocket Lab is completely irrelevant to orbital data center business. Orbital data center is even more sensitive to $/kg, launch cadence (measured in tons/time) than constellations, Neutron is simply not up to task.

Why irrelevant?
RL is the top player in space solar module.
RL is also a potent player in satellite bus industry and many of the sub-systems.

Their subsystem business is mainly geared towards old space, e.g. SolAero's main customer is government programs like Gateway, JWST. Their total cells manufactured to date is 4MW, that's just about 2 weeks worth of Starlink launches. The scale and cost is not even relevant to large constellations like Kuiper (which doesn't use space grade cells), let alone orbital data centers.

And why would orbital data center companies out source satellite bus to RL instead of building it themselves, when RL has no experience building large number of satellites or building multi-ton satellites? Even Kuiper doesn't outsource its bus production.

And for launch, if Neutron can get market share from elsewhere, why not Orbital data center?

First of all, Neutron hasn't get market share from elsewhere, so far their launch manifest is 2 secret launches from an unknown customer.

But more importantly, as I said, orbital data center has very high requirement for $/kg and launch cadence. Per Google's paper, for orbital data center to reach power cost parity with terrestrial data center, you need launch cost to be below $200/kg, that's just impossible for Neutron (at 13t per launch it needs launch price to be below $2.6M).

And if we use paper's estimated power density at ~50W/kg, to launch a gigawatt data center you need to launch 20,000 tons to orbit. Given a gigawatt data center on Earth is projected to take about 2 years to complete, you need to launch this 20kt in roughly 2 years to be competitive with terrestrial data center. That's 770 Neutron launches per year, I don't think they even designed the thing to launch 100 times per year, let alone 700.

[XRZ.YZ]

Their subsystem business is mainly geared towards old space, e.g. SolAero's main customer is government programs like Gateway, JWST. Their total cells manufactured to date is 4MW, that's just about 2 weeks worth of Starlink launches. The scale and cost is not even relevant to large constellations like Kuiper (which doesn't use space grade cells), let alone orbital data centers.

And why would orbital data center companies out source satellite bus to RL instead of building it themselves, when RL has no experience building large number of satellites or building multi-ton satellites? Even Kuiper doesn't outsource its bus production.

Google even outsource to PlanetLab. RL surely has more experience and competence than PL in this domain.
https://research.google/blog/exploring-a-space-based-scalable-ai-infrastructure-system-design/

To begin addressing these challenges, our next milestone is a learning mission in partnership with Planet, slated to launch two prototype satellites by early 2027. This experiment will test how our models and TPU hardware operate in space and validate the use of optical inter-satellite links for distributed ML tasks.

https://www.planet.com/pulse/planet-to-build-and-operate-advanced-space-platform-for-project-suncatcher-moonshot/

[imprezive]

Their subsystem business is mainly geared towards old space, e.g. SolAero's main customer is government programs like Gateway, JWST. Their total cells manufactured to date is 4MW, that's just about 2 weeks worth of Starlink launches. The scale and cost is not even relevant to large constellations like Kuiper (which doesn't use space grade cells), let alone orbital data centers.

And why would orbital data center companies out source satellite bus to RL instead of building it themselves, when RL has no experience building large number of satellites or building multi-ton satellites? Even Kuiper doesn't outsource its bus production.

Google even outsource to PlanetLab. RL surely has more experience and competence than PL in this domain.
https://research.google/blog/exploring-a-space-based-scalable-ai-infrastructure-system-design/

To begin addressing these challenges, our next milestone is a learning mission in partnership with Planet, slated to launch two prototype satellites by early 2027. This experiment will test how our models and TPU hardware operate in space and validate the use of optical inter-satellite links for distributed ML tasks.

https://www.planet.com/pulse/planet-to-build-and-operate-advanced-space-platform-for-project-suncatcher-moonshot/

Google had its own satellite program that it sold to Planet, they have a long relationship. It’s not just some outsourcing. Google also has a large holding in SpaceX, it would be odd for them to work with RL instead. Even if they did the contract for even full bus manufacturing wouldn’t be huge because the bus needs to be cheap to close the economics. Starlink doesn’t add value because the buses are pricey it’s because of the service revenue. That’s not an addressable market for RL for orbital data centers.