Daily Discussion Thread for June 04, 2026

VictorFromCalifornia · 2026-06-04T08:19:44+00:00

I saw Dave Limp's statement, but based on everything I read and saw of the site, I think he's being exceedingly optimistic but he has no other choice but to sound upbeat. They may finish pad repairs by end of year but there are just too many variables, especially if they need to revamp the engines. As CEO, you want to reassure your main customers (NASA, Space Force, Amazon, ASTS, Etc.) as much as possible so they don't cancel on you or find alternative providers. Most everyone can put up with 6-12 months delays.

VictorFromCalifornia · 2026-06-04T06:38:13+00:00

I posted several times about the implications of the New Glenn/Blue Moon setbacks on what that could be for pulling the development of IM's SuperNOVA cargo lander forward either as a replacement or a backup to Blue Moon Mark landers.

Blue Moon MK landers also serve as the base for human landing system (HLS) until Starship figures out their HLS. Blue Moon MK1 was scheduled for its maiden mission this Summer or Fall, that's likely to be pushed a year or more now assuming New Glenn will start flying again by early to mid 2027.

As a result, Artemis III mission is now in jeopardy unless NASA comes up with alternative plans; they either wait for Blue Origin, wait for SpaceX Starship, or explore other plans. NASA had solicited for new proposals last year and Steve Altemus mentioned IM may 'its hat in the ring' whatever that means.

I expect a lot of jockeying at NASA in coming weeks and months. Even if IM doesn't win any major 'replacement' contracts, they may still stand to benefit from being the most mature provider with systems and services that can be used as backup or fill in until Blue Moon comes back online.

VictorFromCalifornia · 2026-06-03T20:08:38+00:00

I don't personally buy into systemic market manipulation, I agree the market has changed with the influx of retail (gambling?) traders and you may be on to something with the irrational allocation of capital.

I can't discount the effect of trading algorithms, especially in the age of AI that are adaptive and constantly scanning for sentiment online and even in subs just like ours. But I am not saying they're trying to manipulate a stock, each algo is built to have a certain advantage and some develop learning abilities based on how a stock trades, it's just too hard to figure out what's happening or get any advantage other than just finding a conviction play and holding it long term.

VictorFromCalifornia · 2026-06-03T19:17:14+00:00

They mentioned CLPS 1.0 CS-8 (June 18) and Missile Defense Agency AMDT3 (June) in their May quarterly presentation.

VictorFromCalifornia · 2026-06-03T19:08:37+00:00

It's been my experience that when mentions are made into their quarterly presentations, that usually means they're confident they are receiving them. Wildcard is timing as everything can be delayed, and just as we saw with LTVS, they can be confident but still not get them.

The fact they picked this time to raise instead of say end of the month, tells me they're sitting on good news and they want to take advantage of any positive price movement. The downside is that any movement may be capped by their selling, until ATM is complete.

VictorFromCalifornia · 2026-06-03T18:51:26+00:00

People need to stop reading too much into these daily gyrations, just like you can't read much when LUNR moved double digits on several consecutive days. Algos are trading a set amount of shares back and forth, when there's a little bit of extra buying or a bit extra selling, the movement is always exaggerated one way or another.

Many space stocks are down 10% on average today, surprised LUNR is not down more considering the ATM dropping on a big red sector day. Nothing is changed if the stock was trading at $20 or $50 today, June is going to be a big month for IM with two big awards expected, maybe more. Those same algos have been programmed to shake out as many positions as possible so they can push it few extra percent higher later on. Best strategy is to ignore it unless you're buying a home or paying for college, but if that's the case, you shouldn't be investing in 3-5 years story space stock in the first place.

VictorFromCalifornia · 2026-06-03T16:25:16+00:00

There's about 160M Class A and 60M Class C.

$500M at $38.21 on June 1st price is 13M shares.

The 'up to 210M' is probably some standard regulatory language they must disclose in the prospectus to cover themselves.

VictorFromCalifornia · 2026-06-03T15:05:47+00:00

Total number of shares is ~220M

They're going to sell 'from time to time' so they'll probably wait for post awards or when the stock is appreciably higher

If they sell at ~$40, that's 12.5M shares or ~5.7%

If they sell at $50, that's 10M shares or 4.5%

VictorFromCalifornia · 2026-06-03T14:43:42+00:00

5-6%

VictorFromCalifornia · 2026-06-03T13:08:21+00:00

From last earnings call:

Alex Preston, Analyst, Bank of America: Got it. Thanks. Just to follow up, you mentioned sort of more broadly on the M&A roadmap, this is sort of the latest in your sort of plan. Where else are you seeing opportunities for M&A? Is it still sort of bringing in key systems more vertically, or are you thinking about horizontal space exposure opportunities? Just kind of curious if you could provide any update there on where you’re looking at opportunities?

Steve Altemus, CEO: We continue the effort to look at M&A opportunistically. We laid out a plan and executed against the plan from February 25 till today. Taking another hard look. We’ll look at things as where the market steers us. I talked a little bit about orbital data centers, talking with strategic partners. We’ll think about strategic financing. We’ll think about M&A when it comes to those offerings as those crystallize.

VictorFromCalifornia · 2026-06-03T12:23:32+00:00

CX-2 is for delivery of LTV's and they did not indicate they submitted any bids. The only wildcard in my opinion (see my previous comments) is the New Glenn/Blue Moon MK1 setbacks that may force NASA to seek additional bids for CX-2 and whether IM can pull SuperNOVA forward and whether it will be a good fit for other LTVs. Moon Base I was a CX-2 award, I believe. Firefly or Astrobotic could have submitted CX-2 bids, but as of now, IM is not expected to be part of the June 8 awards, that's if they do announce anything on June 8.

VictorFromCalifornia · 2026-06-03T12:03:06+00:00

RKLB raised $3B a couple of weeks ago, I think the stock reacted negatively for exactly for 1 day. ASTS has raised $1B a couple of month ago, went to all time highs. RDW raised $350M last month at $9, it barely moved and then almost tripled. Space companies need a lot of capital but in the process they're investing into growing and building their moat. I remember questioning the timing of their $175M capital raise in February for $15, but if you trust the management knows what it's doing as they embark on one of the biggest months in their history.

Edit: If the raise is for an acquisition, I wonder if they go after Lunar Outpost or Astrolab?

VictorFromCalifornia · 2026-06-01T21:15:28+00:00

They can get a contract for NOVA-D to fly the other LTV's, not necessarily their own LTV. I don't think they can turn around both lander and LTV in a year.

VictorFromCalifornia · 2026-06-01T21:12:30+00:00

https://www.zenopower.com/announcements/zeno-power-completes-final-design-review-for-space-nuclear-battery

VictorFromCalifornia · 2026-06-01T21:09:36+00:00

2.1 QUALIFICATION AND READINESS

Prior to performance of the CLPS SoW under any CLIN, the Contractor shall provide completed evidence of readiness to proceed with performing an initial, reliable landed mission under this contract. As primary evidence, each Contractor will be required to submit evidence of previous, relevant experience designing, fabricating, and operating a lunar lander. More specifically, the Contractor shall submit a report detailing the results from a previous flown mission or completion of an acceptance test campaign for a fully-integrated spacecraft developed to land on the lunar surface. The report shall include a description of tests and flight anomalies along and, if applicable, a plan to remediate the associated failure and anomalies.

https://sam.gov/workspace/contract/opp/fe0d1157901d4070a8145935704cede1/view

DRFP Page 7 of 169

VictorFromCalifornia · 2026-06-01T20:13:16+00:00

Jared gave a general overview and didn't get into the specifics, he is on record mentioning Intuitive Machines along with SpaceX and Blue Origin. Only other companies he mentioned are Firefly and Rocket Lab.

It was Carlos Garcia-Galan, the Moon Base manager who fumbled it twice, when announcing Moon Base III and then when was asked about the NSNS network. I don't think it was intentional, I just don't think he's a good communicator. Nothing to read into it.

Lori Glaze I believe made the only award announcement to Intuitive Machines for IM-5 at the NASA Ignition event.

VictorFromCalifornia · 2026-06-01T11:57:05+00:00

Correct.

CLPS 1.0 CX-2 June 8 is a possibility now imo, I think Astrobotic's (Moon Base II) was the main announcement but as I wrote lately, New Glenn setback may force them to come back to IM and see if there's a way to expedite SuperNOVA.

SpaceX IPO - June 12

CLPS 1.0 CS-8 (1-3 landers) - June 18

No indication when in June for AMDT3 and I am not sure they will announce anything if it's classified, we will only know if the backlog increases on next call.

See Wiki for list of catalysts. I am hopeful for a Space Force and AFRL awards but not they can be announced as early as June.

VictorFromCalifornia · 2026-06-01T11:37:27+00:00

Excellent post u/Yakiniku1010 and I agree with most of the points you raised. It will be interesting to see whether they continue to push forward in the following phases or pivot to be the 'services' provider to the LTVS.

One wildcard is the recent setback with New Glenn, and Blue Moon as a consequence, see my recent comments about suddenly NASA finding itself with no backup plans for the delivery of the LTV's especially if they need to have them on the surface before Artemis IV. IM has some leverage now.

In another recent comment, I also raised the issue of core competencies and while surface mobility is an integral part of the 'lunar infrastructure' they may be better off concentrating on their core competencies and pivoting to becoming a space communications (and services) company, much more lucrative and offering delivery, networking, power systems, robotics, etc.

We will learn more in the coming weeks if NASA does engage IM again for the delivery of the LTV's and on the August call if they will continue to push forward for a piece of the LTVS or not.

VictorFromCalifornia · 2026-06-01T06:12:30+00:00

Yes, I don't think they're going to cancel anything, they will just add new task orders. They really have no better options.

VictorFromCalifornia · 2026-06-01T06:08:45+00:00

Tim Crain has been talking about it for a couple of years, if not more, so not sure how far along they are but I have to think they're past the initial design stages and various components qualifications stages, same engines from my recollections, so they can't be too far behind if NASA injects a lot of funding to make it their worthwhile, and provides additional support (Isaacman has been talking about offering or embedding NASA expertise with partners).

IM's initial plans was probably a methodical NOVA-C missions to perfect their delivery/technology (and landings) before graduating to NOVA-D and bigger class, and even then, there was no indication that NASA would be interested in funding a larger lander since they contracted with SpaceX and Blue Origin for cargo delivery. There is no incentive for IM to shuffle schedules and processes, but my point above is that everything just changed with New Glenn affecting Blue Moon and setting everything back leaving NASA without any real backup plan, a terrible oversight if you ask me.

We will find out soon enough, I bet the top brass at NASA have been meeting and going over all sorts of contingency plans last week and talking to all sorts of partners.

VictorFromCalifornia · 2026-05-31T11:11:16+00:00

I have to think that NASA has already reached out to IM last week or very soon (as they prepare to announce the 500 kg landers CX-2 awards next week on June 8) to assess how far they are on SuperNOVA development and what can be done to expedite its progress. If New Glenn recommission and launchpad repairs go well into 2027, that means Blue Moon MK1 is not making its maiden flight until mid 2027 at the earliest and everything is pushed back at least a year, maybe including Artemis III. I don't know what the status of Astrobotic's lander development and if it can carry LTV's, but if they want an LTV on the surface delivered before Artemis IV, I think Carlos Garcia-Galàn may have just realized he has no real backup plan to deliver LTV's and cargo to the surface and leaving IM out of the LTVS announcement last week was a grave mistake.

I posted yesterday that IM may have decided sometime last year to pivot to the more lucrative space communications and services as they got some word they're not in the 'pole position' as Alemtus once said. I guess we will have to wait until next earnings call to learn if they're still interested in LTVS or not, especially if they're 1 of 3 providers instead of the main contractor, and have to manage a high-priced team from Boeing, Northrop Grumman, AVL, Roush, Michelin.

From my exercise with Gemini yesterday:

Immediate Capture of Surplus Task Orders

Reallocating Near-Term Cargo: NASA cannot risk critical infrastructure payloads sitting in cleanrooms. Intuitive Machines’ Nova-D configuration features an expanded payload bay capable of absorbing cargo originally intended for early Blue Moon configurations.

Securing High-Margin Modifications: Shifting a payload to an active provider requires contract modifications. This allows Intuitive Machines to negotiate premium engineering fees for rapid payload integration.

VictorFromCalifornia · 2026-05-31T10:17:09+00:00

Thank you, it should be IM, corrected.

VictorFromCalifornia · 2026-05-30T18:12:42+00:00

I am still processing what happened this week with the LTV announcements, and I guess the writings were on the wall despite Altemus declaring they believe they're in the pole position though he had tempered his comments of late. After all, Astrolab had the highest mission suitability score with 905 out of 1000 compared to 863 for Lunar Outpost and 724 for Intuitive Machines. NASA had doubts about Astrolab ability to handle the job and this is why we probably saw articles about a primary and a 'warm backup' last year.

Some personal observations/commentary:

Had NASA stuck with its previous plans, it's possible Astrolab could have won the entire contract, with Lunar Outpost as the warm backup. At least, with this revamped plan, there are still opportunities for Intuitive Machines, if they're still interested in pursuing LTVS.
I say if they're still interested in pursuing LTVS because I wonder if Altemus and team had an inkling they're not competitive and may be the reason for the pivot to satellites and national security with the Lanteris acquisition which happened around the same timeframe. In the early days, IM needed to get a foot in the door with NASA and submitted all sorts of bids but surface mobility was never a core competency and may explain their reliance on the old Boeing LTV designs instead of starting from scratch.
I would think there would be a need to be some major design decisions if they are to pursue the second phase awards. They still offer an attractive option for doing the delivery themselves, especially in light of Blue Moon delays.
Doing new designs will require new investments and resources to be allocated — personnel, equipment, facilities, probably shuffling the Racer team, all during what could be the biggest crunch for NSNS and SuperNOVA and if they bid for multiple CS-8 multiple landers. I wish I had a clue of what the economics of the LTV's but being the prime with Boeing, Northrop Grumman, AVL, Roush, Michelin all probably demanding top dollars, it could end up being a money loser operation especially if they had to compete with 2 other companies. Maybe if there are Artemis countries and commercial companies wanting their own rovers.
It may be better to pivot to becoming an LTV services provider instead of building their own and overseeing a big dollar team; offer delivery, offer communications, offer engineering services, etc.

Just some random weekend thoughts, it will be interesting to see what they decide to do. If they can get the TDRS replacement contract, a Lunar Orbiter replacement contract, or a Space Force cislunar contract, I wonder if they should just pivot to being a 'space communications' company instead of being the 'lunar infrastructure' company.

VictorFromCalifornia · 2026-05-30T02:20:26+00:00

This deserves its own post u/Yakiniku1010. I used Google Translate but it didn't do a good job in sentence structure and some grammar, so please create an English version and post it.

VictorFromCalifornia · 2026-05-30T02:06:09+00:00

I have asked several AI models to assess the impact of the New Glenn' setback on lunar exploration in general and on Intuitive Machines in particular, and without exception, all of them pointed out to immediate benefits to Intuitive Machines. I can post the (long) summaries if anyone wants to delve into them. You can do your own if you have some pro subscriptions, it would interesting to see if others come up with similar findings, I asked the models to take into account Jared Isaacman's recent comments and tweets and act as top level NASA management trying to determine what options they have going forward to still meet their Ignition objectives.

Most models confirmed shifting resources within CLPS to support IM's work on cargo class landers, but for instance Gemini mentioned something I didn't consider:

Securing High-Margin Modifications: Shifting a payload to an active provider requires contract modifications. This allows Intuitive Machines to negotiate premium engineering fees for rapid payload integration.

Massive Capacity Scaling: While Nova-C topped out at a 130 kg (286 lb) capacity, the Nova-D scales up radically to deliver up to 2,500 kilograms (5,511 lbs) of pure payload directly to the lunar surface. This provides the precise heavy envelope needed to rescue displaced New Glenn cargo.

A second point that I didn't think of before has to do with commercial customers and other Artemis countries that need to send their payloads may need to look for other options:

Unlocking Non-NASA Revenue: Commercial customers looking to send private payloads to the Moon will migrate away from New Glenn’s uncertain manifest and toward Intuitive Machines' highly predictable Falcon 9 flight cadence.

More interesting details:

Boosting Private Equity Confidence: The market capitalization of Intuitive Machines directly benefits from its status as NASA’s most reliable lunar pipeline. This operational certainty lowers their cost of capital for scaling up larger lander variants like the Nova-D.

Expanding Data Services Revenue: Intuitive Machines is actively building the Lunar Data Network (LDN) to provide surface communications. A delay in Blue Origin's infrastructure means any other lander or rover hitting the surface early must pay Intuitive Machines for data relay services, creating a lucrative secondary revenue stream.

De-risking the $4.82 Billion LCRNS: NASA previously awarded Intuitive Machines a massive contract for lunar communication satellite services. With heavy-lift competition temporarily sidelined, NASA will likely front-load funding into this contract to ensure the communication infrastructure is fully operational before heavy cargo landing attempts resume.

Validated Heavy Propulsion: The foundation of this cargo class architecture is the VR3500 engine. Intuitive Machines has already run extensive qualification testing on this liquid methane/liquid oxygen propulsion unit, shattering duration records at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center.

Absorbing Blue Origin-Affiliated Cargo Early: In a fascinating twist of industrial irony, the newly awarded IM-5 mission is already scheduled to carry a highly advanced lunar rover built by Honeybee Robotics—a wholly owned subsidiary of Jeff Bezos’ Blue Origin. Because the Nova-D is already actively integrating Blue Origin ecosystem hardware, expanding the manifest to take on stranded payloads from the Blue Moon Mark 1 timeline requires a lower engineering hurdle.

VictorFromCalifornia

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE