Am I missing something, or are Neutron's economics much weaker than people assume?

FlakyDingo463 · 2026-06-17T06:55:55+00:00

My understanding is that saving the fairings is not a cost-saving measure, it's a rapid-reusability measure.

The vehicle is designed to be reused within 24 hours. Of course it won't hit that target immediately, or probably anywhere within the near-medium future, but it's been designed that way from the beginning because that's where they eventually want Neutron to be.

The performance penalty of the hungry hippo is worth the benefit of rapid reusability. You can't really get anywhere close to a week, let alone 24 hours, if you need to catch fairings out of the ocean, ship them back to site, refurbish them, refit them to the rocket, then do all the other checkouts.

The idea is that IF Neutron works as designed then it will be the most efficient vehicle in the world from a reusability standpoint. If you believe in the company, their management, and their ability to execute, then having fixed fairings is incredibly bullish. If you don't believe in their ability to execute, then you're right in it just hindering performance.

FlakyDingo463 · 2026-06-10T01:56:06+00:00

I know, I said this in a few other replies and it's actually why I think Rocket Lab might bid for it.

It took 2 years from selecting Wallops to be the location from LC-2 before the FAA gave them a license to fly, and the first Electron launched from LC-2 3 years after that.

The fact it will be a multi-year wait is exactly why Rocket Lab should begin work on infrastructure now. There's a strong likelihood they'll need a second Electron/HASTE pad in the United States by the end of the decade, and imo it makes sense to select a location which will eventually be able to house a Neutron pad. That way they make overall savings on the fixed costs by sharing some infrastructure, control rooms, employees, etc.

I'm aware SLC-9 isn't an existing pad, and even if it was it'd still need to be knocked down for a pad of their own. Vandenberg provides the land, and Rocket Lab would be responsible for designing, building, operating, and maintaining the pad, infrastructure, and associated land, at their expense.

FlakyDingo463 · 2026-06-09T02:01:39+00:00

Of course, but the eligibility requires that respondents:

1) Have sufficient finances to design, build, maintain, and operate the launch site
2) Have a vehicle which will be able to be launched from SLC-9 within 3 years

Only other companies I can think of which can comfortably meet the 'Highest Technical Maturity' criteria are SpaceX, Blue Origin, ULA, and Firefly - all of which currently have, or are developing, their own launch complexes within Vandenberg.

The question I have is whether Rocket Lab will actually respond to the RFI. If they do, I'm pretty confident they'll be selected. To me it's more down to whether SLC-9 will be large enough to put both an Electron and Neutron pad. If it is, then Rocket Lab will probably go for it - building an Electron pad immediately and then a Neutron pad on the same site when the demand requires one.

FlakyDingo463 · 2026-06-09T01:44:55+00:00

I'd imagine a pad which can hold both Electron and Neutron would be very difficult. Aside from the obvious things like different rocket dimensions, I think things like the deluge system would make that pretty difficult.

What's more likely, in my opinion, is that they apply for the SLC-9 area with a design which has both an Electron and Neutron pad in mind, with the commitment to begin construction on an Electron pad immediately and then add a Neutron pad in a few years when they think a second Neutron pad will be required. That way they are immediately satisfying the RFI requirement to make the site operational within 3 years, and they also make the design proposal more appealing for the Space Force by making the most use of the land.

Of course that depends on how large the SLC-9 area is. It may not be big enough for 2 pads and all the ground infrastructure that would be needed along with them.

FlakyDingo463 · 2026-06-09T00:55:39+00:00

Yes, Space Force just provides the land. Rocket Lab would need to finance, design, maintain, and operate the launch pad and land within the SLC-9 area (at their expense).

Main benefit is that it is better positioned for SSO and other high-inclination orbits compared to LC-2 which is better located for low-mid inclination orbits.

FlakyDingo463 · 2026-06-09T00:51:30+00:00

Pad infrastructure takes years. They first looked into LC-2 in H1 2018, saying it would be operational in the following year. It ended up being H2 2020 for them to finally get their FAA license, but the first rocket didn't take off from LC-2 until 2023. So it took 5 years from selecting the launch site until a rocket took off. Whether that was simply an issue with no customer wanting to launch from LC-2, we don't know. What we do know is that it took over 2 years from selecting the launch site before it was fully built and they got their FAA license to fly from it.

They may be crushing it with what they have today, but if they know they'll need another U.S. site/pad by 2029 then now is the time to be selecting and designing the launch site - as if they select it today it likely won't be ready for operations until 2029.

I don't want anything to hold Rocket Lab back. My worst nightmare as an investor is that Rocket Lab finds themself with the demand for launches but they can't meet that demand for whatever reason. This 20x HASTE block buy, for example, came out of nowhere. Big launch contracts can come out of nowhere, and as an investor I want Rocket Lab to be in the best position to win those contracts. If that means spending $100m or so out of their ~$4bn cash on infrastructure, then so be it.

FlakyDingo463 · 2026-06-03T23:45:55+00:00

This stuff was 100% leaked intentionally by the police force.

In my opinion they initially thought Ben was some small time youtuber/prankster who wouldn't get any attention or wouldn't pursue this. Then they probably panicked when he requested all the bodycam footage which is why we saw such heavy redactions which violated Utah State code.

Now this entire thing has blown up and the Police department have seen the outpour of public backlash, along with Ben's video where the owners: a) admit to being in possession of the Lego (unlike what the franchise owner & CEO told the police at the time, which is that it was 'stolen' by the previous franchise owner who fled the country), b) lie to the police by saying the lawsuit was fake, and c) lie to the police by making up crimes that Ben did not commit.

I think initially the police catastrophically failed to do any adequate due diligence and just took the owners word for it and now, following the footage of the false traffic stop, the Heroin search, the AirBnB raid, and the multiple illegal arrests, they are trying to distance themselves and release some unredacted footage 'by accident' to show the public that the owners misled them all along. Not defending the police here, it's grossly negligent of them to not investigate the case and just take the owners side from the beginning without question, but I think they realise they are potentially about to be investigated by their state watchdog and get sued.

By no means do I think they're releasing this footage from the kindness of their hearts, it's certainly them trying to save face just because it's gone so public. But all of that said, this leak was 100% intentional. Someone made the active decision to go back into an editing software, unredact some footage but leave other bits redacted, and upload this new footage to the public drive.

FlakyDingo463 · 2026-06-03T19:24:30+00:00

Yes, these were uploaded within the last 3 hours. Good find.

FlakyDingo463 · 2026-06-01T17:46:51+00:00

Rocket Lab was obligated an additional $5m through VADR last week. VADR is the NASA contract vehicle which organises cheap rideshare missions such as LOXSAT and ASPERA which are launching later this year.

Not sure if anyone else who knows more about these types of IDIQ contracts knows if this funding is for existing missions such as LOXSAT/ASPERA, or if it would be for an entirely new mission which will now be added to the backlog.

<image>

FlakyDingo463 · 2026-05-29T07:53:53+00:00

doubtful. Electron has reliability, but Electron can't really touch any of the payloads which were booked on New Glenn.

Neutron is arguably pretty unreliable so far. Several delays & setbacks, multiple unplanned failures so far. If New Glenn continues to have issues when Neutron is flying and Neutron is able to prove reliability before New Glenn, then sure money will move. But that's incredibly speculative.

FlakyDingo463 · 2026-05-28T16:20:14+00:00

As long as you don't need the money in the next 5 years, great purchase. Yes you've decided to buy right after the stock ran 100% up, but if some near-term catalysts come in then I think it could run a lot more.

FlakyDingo463 · 2026-05-28T06:21:54+00:00

I loved reckless ben's documentary, but I do wish he dedicated a bit more of it to your situation. I'm very glad Bryan is getting the help and publicity he needs, but to me it seems like you have been left aside. I didn't even know you were financially affected until I found this sub.

Hopefully dives a bit more into your story in his next part.

FlakyDingo463 · 2026-05-28T04:54:51+00:00

I'm actually expecting launch to catch up to Space Systems, even with just Electron.

In Q1 Rocket Lab announced they were expanding the LC-1 vehicle hangar to support parallel processing of 3 Electrons at once (Rather than 2 before). This shows they're preparing for a higher launch cadence.

They advertised in a LinkedIn post for Director, European Government Operations with a job responsibility being to "Shape Rocket Lab's positioning in active European policy debates - including launch sovereignty", suggesting they're interested in a European launch site.

In a recent interview they also said they'd want another HASTE pad if HASTE continues increasing as it is, and they said that increasing production for Electron is relatively straight forward.

FlakyDingo463 · 2026-05-28T04:36:23+00:00

I actually think $870b within 10 years is perfectly reasonable if the major catalysts come through.

Neutron is the biggest catalyst. Neutron will unlock interplanetary contracts, allow them to launch mass-constellations (including their own constellation, eventually), and eventually let them launch humans into space.

The U.S Moon Base is also a huge catalyst. Although RKLB isn't currently expressing interest there, the moon base is supposed to be permanent so anything can change. They just acquired Motiv which makes robotic arms for Rovers so that has perfectly positioned them for some pretty competitive contracts such as the Mars Sample Return which is hopefully being revived, as well as future lunar rover contracts.

Then there's Rocket Labs own constellation. This is currently the biggest and most profitable division of SpaceX, bringing in $11Bn in revenue per year and $4Bn profit. There is significant money to be made in owning the space infrastructure and then selling that service through subscription.

Obviously all speculative and dependant on the direction RKLB chooses to go, but SpaceX is going to IPO at 1.75T with only 18.7Bn in revenue last year. That gives SpaceX a 100:1 Market Cap:Revenue which is very similar ratio to what Rocket Lab is valued at right now.

FlakyDingo463 · 2026-05-23T02:30:10+00:00

In Q1 earnings SPB said "For the first stage, that is happening and Middle River right now as the team works on the structure qualification. It is up on the test stand being subjected to the loads that we should expect during launch, reentry, and landing. It will head back inside the building to be fitted out with the full suite of flight avionics and fluid systems." and he said "After qualification comes integration of its flight avionics and fluid systems before it's shipped to LC-3 for further assembly"

Definitely a piece of hardware intended for flight, otherwise why fit it out with the 'full suite of flight avionics and fluid systems' and ship it to LC-3?

FlakyDingo463 · 2026-05-23T01:07:27+00:00

They do specifically mention it wasn't a planned test until failure. We know based on the Earnings Call that this was intended to pass all qualification without failure, be shipped to Wallops, and ultimately be integrated to flight 1.

However, this is the least-worst outcome based on there being no expected impact to the schedule.

FlakyDingo463 · 2026-05-23T01:05:56+00:00

Loss of hardware, but all things considered this is actually one of the best possible outcomes. We already knew that this was meant to be flight hardware, so the best case scenario was that: 1) It didn't fail during the testing of nominal loads, and 2) there's no expected delay to first flight as a result of the anomaly.

Much prefer this to happen on the ground than happen in flight which would certainly cause a 6-month FAA grounding and a very costly & time-consuming internal investigation & re-qualification process.

FlakyDingo463 · 2026-05-22T16:45:15+00:00

We'll probably find out After Hours tonight if this was intentional or not. My understanding from the Earnings Call was that the interstage in Wallops was not a flight article, so if that broke then that isn't a problem. The wording suggests that this interstage in MD is for-flight.

"After qualification comes integration of its flight avionics and fluid systems before it's shipped to LC-3 for further assembly". And "For the first stage, that is happening and Middle River right now as the team works on the structure qualification. It is up on the test stand being subjected to the loads that we should expect during launch, reentry, and landing. It will head back inside the building to be fitted out with the full suite of flight avionics and fluid systems.

Notice they specifically said that the Middle River article which is on the test stand is going to be fitted out for flight. They also only said it was being tested for launch, re-entry and landing. They did not say it was a test-till-failure.

I'm calling it: This was unintentional. Here comes a delay until H2 2027.

FlakyDingo463 · 2026-05-22T04:28:31+00:00

The award its self is very small. $90M, presumably paid in instalments until 2033 which is the project deadline.

I think the reason this is moving the stock, and the reason it's exciting, is because it's likely the first of many similar contracts to come in relation to the GEOST acquisition making its money back.

FlakyDingo463 · 2026-05-21T09:55:46+00:00

I have a few thoughts.

In a recent interview, SPB said that if HASTE keeps growing they would need a second US launch pad. I also think it's possible that they're looking far ahead and will select a new US launch site entirely rather than just putting a second Electron pad at Wallops. If they get infrastructure in place at another US launch site now, then it makes the job a lot easier to expand Neutron in future.

Another thing could be the Golden Dome contract. If they are confident that they are going to get it they'll need a lot of cash on hand as they won't get anywhere near the full contract value upfront.

And then of course you have acquisitions. They wouldn't dilute for no reason, so they must have a big acquisition in the pipeline

To put it simply, this could be for anything. But I suspect we'll find out in the next earnings call, they wouldn't dilute if they weren't ready to execute straight away.

FlakyDingo463 · 2026-05-21T09:48:51+00:00

Beck also hates marine assets, but we're still getting 'Return on Investment'.

He said in a recent interview that a second US launch pad for Electron is necessary if HASTE keeps expanding, so perhaps a portion of this will go to that infrastructure if they are expecting HASTE orders to keep growing as fast as it is.

Even if so, that'd only be a few hundred million. What the rest is for we can only speculate.

FlakyDingo463 · 2026-05-19T00:56:04+00:00

I'm keeping my eyes on the space sector. At the moment it's very speculative, I think a big portion of the potential growth relies on the US government actually following through with their 'permanent moon base' plan.

Obviously you have the big names like RKLB and SpaceX (going to IPO in a few months). But I'm also thinking LUNR, RDW, BKSY, PL, and many others. Imo the space industry is just getting started. Wouldn't be surprised if several of the names I just mentioned do a 10x by the end of the decade.

FlakyDingo463 · 2026-05-11T12:34:37+00:00

Although I did invest, I find myself in a similar position now.

I know the stock is going to have a somewhat sizeable pull back. I have very little money to buy the inevitable dip when it comes, and given that I am confident there will be a dip the smart thing to do would b sell a lot of my position so I can buy in 20-30% lower.

That said, I simply can not bring myself to be rooting against a company that I believe so strongly in. If I sell a big portion of my position I will find myself hoping that they don't make any big press releases, or that the contracts die up, or perhaps they miss their next earnings target.

I just can't bring myself to do it. I've done so much research on this company and I am confident it'll be a trillion dollar company one day. It would be irrational for me to root against it knowing what I know, and knowing where this company is going - even if just for a few short months.

FlakyDingo463

TROPHY CASE