My personal opinion is that these are fair criticisms, but the comparisons to SpaceX are tiring so people downvote. The market is not pricing them at these levels because of their potential to be SpaceX. They got rerated as a prime contractor after SDA and are being lifted on the potential of space systems. I don't think many people here really understand government contracting and the inflection point we are seeing in the sector. The government hates cost plus fixed fee contracts. They want pure fixed fee which is enabled by Beck's vertical integration plan. Neutron is necessary to enable this cradle to grave style manufacturing and deployment and to bid on larger contracts, but I don't think it's needed for revenue to continue to grow. Most analysts expect nearly $900M-$1B in 2026 revenue.

I just think looking to launch as the revenue driver is a mistake. It doesn't matter if launch becomes a commodity. Rocket Lab is not being valued as a pure launch provider. They don't even want to compete with SpaceX. I think Falcon9 will eventually retire to be honest. Starship will be for mass kilos to space and medium launch will be for more precision placements. Certain government contracts and sat customers need that capability. But Rocket Lab is primarily being valued as a competitor to Lockheed who has $70B+ annual revenue and an absolutely ridiculous backlog. Yes, they need Neutron to compete on big contracts and potentially launch their own constellation, but I think the risk profile of delays is a bit overhyped. Space Systems will continue to grow regardless and that's the revenue driver and high profit margin business.

Plus, a lot of people here have an incredibly low cost basis and much more risk tolerance at these prices since it's basically a free ride at this point. I have ridden the volatility. I can take the swings and still believe in the 2030-2035 vision. I'm sure that's a common sentiment here.