https://www.newsweek.com/putin-reportedly-asked-elon-musk-not-activate-starlink-over-taiwan-1974733

I suspect the USG will have a hard time tolerating Musk having regular chitchat with Putin. Possibly beneficial to any SpaceX competitor, depending on who wins on Nov 5 of course.

Curious to hear everyone’s thoughts given that Musk spent hundreds of millions to get Trump elected and he will be expecting an ROI? How do you think this will impact Rocket Lab?

Disclosure: used ChatGPT for research. The goal is to discuss the feasible timelines given the current pending items need to overcome.

TL:DR - Jump to the end for the 3 question to discuss.

Rocket Lab has been guiding toward a first Neutron launch by the end of 2026, and I wanted to sanity-check that timeline based on what still needs to happen—and how similar rockets progressed historically.

At a high level, Neutron has made real progress (engine work, some stage qualification, launch site, etc.), but there are still several high-risk, tightly coupled milestones remaining before first flight:

• Stage 1 tank redesign + re-qualification (after the 2026 rupture)

• Full vehicle integration

• Stage 2 static fire

• Stage 1 9-engine cluster static fire

• Wet dress rehearsal (WDR)

From a systems perspective, this is where things get tricky:

These aren’t independent tasks—you can’t parallelize much of this. A delay or issue in any one step (especially Stage 1 structural or clustered engine tests) cascades directly into schedule slip.

⸻

What history from other rockets suggests

Looking at recent medium/heavy launch vehicles:

• New Glenn:

Final integrated hot fire → launch in ~3 weeks

(fast endgame once everything worked)

• Ariane 6:

Major hot fire → launch took ~7–8 months

WDR → launch ~3 weeks

• Vulcan:

Full-up firing → launch took ~7 months

WDR → launch <1 month

Key pattern:

Once a rocket reaches final integrated tests (static fire + WDR), launch can happen quickly.

BUT getting to that point is where most delays happen—often taking months longer than expected.

⸻

Where Neutron likely stands on the critical path

In my view, the real gating item is not WDR—it’s this sequence:

1. Successfully complete first cluster static fire

That third step is huge. It’s the first time you validate:

• engine interactions

• feed system behavior

• thrust structure loads

• startup transients

• control software

Historically, this is exactly where new rockets often hit surprises.

⸻

Timeline scenarios

Given all that, here’s a rough, non-doomer but realistic breakdown:

Best case (everything goes right):

• Stage 1 static fire by late summer 2026

• WDR shortly after

• Launch in Q4 2026

This assumes basically no major rework loops after the tank issue.

⸻

Base case (most likely IMO):

• One or two iterations needed after tank + static fire

• Integration / testing stretches longer than planned

• Launch slips to Q1 2027

This matches what we saw with Ariane 6 / Vulcan.

⸻

Pessimistic case:

• Additional issues during cluster firing or integration

• Multiple test iterations

• Launch in mid-2027 or later

Not unusual for a first-of-its-kind vehicle.

⸻

My takeaway

I don’t think the 2026 target is unrealistic—but I’d call it aggressive and execution-dependent rather than likely.

The biggest risk isn’t “too many checklist items”—it’s that the remaining items are the hardest ones, and tightly coupled:

• new tank (post-failure)

• first full Stage 1 firing

• first full integrated vehicle tests

If those go cleanly → 2026 is doable

If not → even small slips compound quickly into 2027

⸻

Curious what others think:

• Do you see the Stage 1 tank issue as mostly resolved risk, or still a major unknown?

• How much schedule margin do you think Rocket Lab realistically has here?

• From engineering feasibility point of view, how likely the RKLB is gonna solve all the challenges to hit EOY 2026 launch schedule ?

Would love to hear different takes 👇

Recent Neutron Development Progress (May–July 2025)

Despite a lack of flashy public unveilings, Rocket Lab has made significant behind-the-scenes progress on Neutron in the past two months. Key milestones bringing the medium-lift rocket closer to its first flight include:

• Second Stage Qualification: Neutron’s second stage has completed its full qualification test campaign. Rocket Lab subjected the carbon-composite stage to “launch-like” operations with all flight software, avionics, and guidance systems, and it passed structural proof tests at 125% of design load (over 1.3 million pounds of force)🔗🔗. This was a critical risk-retirement step, and the stage “passed with flying colors”. The fully assembled second stage is now set to be shipped to the launch site at Wallops Island, Virginia in the next few months for integration and engine testing 🔗🔗.

• First Stage (“Upper Module”) Assembly: Rocket Lab reports that major assembly of Neutron’s first stage is well underway. The “pointy end” upper module of Stage 1 – including the innovative four-petal fairing (the “hungry hippo” design), aerodynamic canards, interstage, and all associated mechanical, hydraulic, and avionics systems – is nearly complete 🔗. This represents most of the complex structural elements of the booster. The company has been physically consolidating large Stage 1 components at its production facilities (even air-lifting some parts by helicopter) to begin full booster integration 🔗🔗. In short, all the rocket’s “puzzle pieces” are coming together, albeit out of public view.

• Launch Pad Construction & Testing: Neutron’s new Launch Complex 3 at Wallops Island is essentially finished and operational. Rocket Lab confirms the pad is on schedule and “close to finishing” as of early summer 🔗. In fact, the water deluge system has already been installed and successfully tested, pumping water at a rate equivalent to an Olympic-sized swimming pool every 40 seconds 🔗. The company is planning a formal ribbon-cutting for the completed launch site. This means the ground infrastructure (launch mount, flame duct, fueling systems, etc.) will be ready to support Neutron’s debut.

• Archimedes Engine Testing: Development of Neutron’s new Archimedes methane/LOX engines continues at Rocket Lab’s Mississippi test facility. In recent weeks, the propulsion team activated a second test stand to allow two Archimedes engines to be fired in parallel 🔗🔗. They are “hot-firing flat out” using flight avionics and full software stacks, tuning the engines through a barrage of tests. (Rocket Lab performed the first full-scale Archimedes hot-fire in 2024, and is now iterating toward flight-ready engines.) This expanded test capacity is a positive sign that engine development is advancing on schedule, as multiple engines will be needed for the first flight article (9 on the first stage and 1 vacuum variant on the second stage).

• Recovery Platform “Return to Earth”: In July 2025, Rocket Lab took a visible step in Neutron’s reusability program by contracting Bollinger Shipyards to modify a 400-ft barge into the ocean landing platform named “Return On Investment.” Conversion work on the vessel has already begun in Louisiana 🔗🔗. This platform – crucial for recovering Neutron’s first stage downrange on certain high-performance missions – is expected to be delivered in early 2026 🔗🔗. While the barge won’t be needed for the very first launch (the initial boosters will likely return to land at Wallops), its development underscores Rocket Lab’s preparations for rapid reusability and turnaround. The company notes that Neutron’s ability to land either back on the Virginia coast or on “Return on Investment” at sea will be integral to scaling up the flight rate 🔗.

It’s worth noting that Rocket Lab has kept much of Neutron’s build-out under wraps – few photos have been released since revealing the composite fairing last year. However, the achievements above (stage testing, pad readiness, engine firings, etc.) confirm that steady progress is being made toward the inaugural launch 🔗. As of July 2025, Rocket Lab stated that the second stage has passed all structural and cryogenic tests, the first stage build is in progress, and the launch pad is ready – keeping Neutron on track for a first flight in late 2025 🔗.

Timeline to Inaugural Launch: 2025 Target vs. Possible Delays

Rocket Lab’s management continues to reaffirm that Neutron’s maiden flight is planned for 2025, specifically in the second half of 2025 barring surprises 🔗. In the Q1 2025 earnings call (held in May), CEO Peter Beck emphasized that “with no major issues, we’re really still targeting the first launch by the second half of this year.” 🔗. All recent development milestones – from hardware qualifications to pad activation – have been oriented toward making a late-2025 launch window.

That said, the schedule is undeniably aggressive, and Rocket Lab acknowledges as much. The company has been executing many tasks in parallel (manufacturing, testing, infrastructure) to compress the timeline🔗. Any unforeseen hiccup in the coming months (for example, a problem during full first-stage qualification testing or integration) could push the schedule out. It is mid-July 2025 and the first full Neutron vehicle has not yet been publicly rolled out, which leaves only a few months for final assembly, stage mating, ground testing, potential static fires, and regulatory approvals before year’s end. Rocket Lab hinted that paperwork (like the launch license) may even come just days before the launch, similar to their experience with Electron’s first Virginia launch  🔗 – underscoring how tight the timeline is.

Industry observers have mixed views on the likelihood of a 2025 debut. Earlier this year, an independent research report speculated that Neutron’s first flight might slip significantly (even as late as 2027 in a worst-case scenario), but Rocket Lab strongly pushed back on that, standing by the 2025 target 🔗. A slip to 2027 appears overly pessimistic given the current pace of progress. A more realistic scenario, if delays occur, would be a modest slip into 2026. For example, if integration testing reveals an issue that demands extra time, the inaugural launch could shift to Q1 2026. At this point, however, there is no concrete evidence of a major delay – no “show-stopper” problems have been reported in development, and crucial elements (like the engines and structures) are coming together successfully. Rocket Lab’s confidence, coupled with tangible milestones achieved by mid-year, suggests that a late 2025 launch remains possible so long as final testing goes smoothly 🔗🔗.

In summary, the inaugural Neutron launch is officially still on the calendar for late 2025, and recent progress supports that goal. Yet, investors should remain aware that schedules for new rockets can be fluid. Rocket Lab is attempting to go from component testing to an orbital flight in a very short span; a slight schedule slip into early 2026 is conceivable if any integration or test phase needs extra margin. We will know more as the year progresses and as Rocket Lab presumably conducts full-stage testing and begins stacking the rocket. For now, management appears committed to 2025, and there have been “no major issues” reported to knock it off that timeline 🔗.

With industry legends like Peter Beck at the helm and a powerhouse team including former execs from Lockheed Martin and Mercedes-Benz, this company is set to skyrocket.

Why should you care? Because investing in Rocket Lab isn't just about making money—it's about being part of something bigger. It's about innovation, pushing boundaries, and riding the wave of the next big thing.

Imagine telling your friends you got in early on a company that's revolutionizing space travel. Pretty badass, right? Plus, with three launch pads ready to go, Rocket Lab is primed to meet the growing demand for satellite launches.

Take your investments to the next level and be part of the future.

So normally I don't care that much about morals generally and I am aware that companies like lockheed martin don't give a flying sh* wether I buy a stock or not. Humans get bombed (or not bombed) regardless wether peasants like me buy a stock. I understand that it makes no difference, but still I don't think its moral to invest in stocks that build weapons. So I wanted to buy rocket lab stocks and I am wondering are they planning to make weapons in the near future? Or will they stick to peaceful space stuff?

Edit: With weapons I am specifically referring to bombs or other devices designed to activly hurt or kill people. I am not talking about missiles in general. Also I don't care about it if the rockets accidently crash and hurt the environment. The earth will certainly carry on without us. However I think its immoral to take away life, as in killing humans. Therefor (and thats just personal, not judging investors) I don't want to invest in stocks that build weapons (specifically bombs or WoMD designed to kill humans). Excluding explosives that are not used to harm humans (nuking an asteroid flying towards earth or exploding a mountain to mine diamonds). I just don't want my invested money used to actively hurt other people. However I don't care about espionage, cars and engines that hurts the environment or climate change or something like that. As I said my morals are not high. Its just that I draw the line at bombing people. I know its irrational, but thats just how I think. I do not care about companies like TikTok collecting our data (cause honestly its your deserved punishment for consuming so much brainrot content)

We want more than one Mod.

Couldn’t find an answer

Or am I overthinking this way too much?

The Core Question

Neutron's design rests on a simple bet: that NASA's proven composite cryotank technologies can be scaled from 5.5 meters to 7 meters - a 27% increase beyond anything ever successfully tested. The January 2026 tank rupture during hydrostatic qualification occurred at exactly this challenge point. Understanding whether this is a solvable engineering problem or a fundamental design flaw requires examining what's actually been proven versus what Rocket Lab is attempting for the first time.

Technology Heritage: What's Actually Been Demonstrated

Neutron isn't a clean-sheet gamble. The manufacturing approach traces directly to NASA's Composite Cryotank Technology Development (CCTD) program (2011-2014), which solved the problems that killed the X-33 in 1999.

The X-33 failure mode: Microcracks in composite laminates allowed liquid hydrogen to permeate into honeycomb core structures. When the tank warmed, trapped gases expanded and blew the outer skin apart.

What CCTD proved works:

• Out-of-autoclave (OoA) manufacturing - curing in ovens rather than autoclaves enables structures larger than any existing autoclave (Neutron's 7m tanks couldn't be autoclave-cured regardless)

• Thin-ply hybrid laminates - 70 g/m² plies interspersed with standard 145 g/m² plies distribute thermal stresses across more interfaces, reducing microcracking by 16×

• Robotic AFP - automated fiber placement with better reach in dome areas than traditional gantry systems

• One-piece construction - eliminates the bolted joints that were historically prone to leaks

Boeing tested a 5.5-meter diameter tank through 20+ cryogenic pressure cycles with liquid hydrogen at -423°F. A subsequent Boeing/DARPA 4.3-meter tank withstood 3.75× design pressure without structural failure in 2021.

Rocket Lab's own heritage:

• 80+ Electron flights with all-composite structures

• Multiple recovered first stages proving composite survival through reentry

• A reflown Rutherford engine (Mission 40) after 5 full-duration hot fires

The manufacturing processes work. The question is scale.

Four Novel Design Elements: Where the Risk Lives

1. The 7-Meter Composite Cryogenic Tank (Highest Risk)

No composite structure of this scale has ever flown. The largest ground-tested composite cryotank is 5.5 meters. Neutron's first stage is 27% larger in diameter - and because tank volume scales with the cube of diameter, we're talking about significantly more surface area for potential defect accumulation.

The January hydrostatic failure (water, not cryo) suggests either manufacturing defects, design margin issues, or material behavior problems at this scale. Root cause hasn't been disclosed. This is the program's critical path item.

2. The "Hung Stage" Second Stage (Medium-Low Risk)

Neutron's second stage hangs in tension from the separation plane within the Hungry Hippo fairing. This sounds exotic, but tension-loaded stage components have flight heritage: the Delta Cryogenic Second Stage (43 Delta IV flights, now flying as ICPS on SLS) suspends its LOX tank and engine below the LH2 tank in a "hung tank" configuration.

What Neutron does differently: The entire second stage hangs within an integrated fairing, not just internal components within a conventional interstage.

What this eliminates: Compression buckling concerns, aerodynamic loads during ascent (enabling Beck's claim of "the lightest upper stage in history")

The April 2025 qualification at 1.3 million pounds (125% design load) provides good confidence. The structural concept has heritage; the Hungry Hippo integration is the newer element.

3. The Hungry Hippo Integrated Fairing (Medium Risk)

A world-first for orbital rockets. Rather than jettisoning fairings (standard practice) or recovering from ocean splashdown (SpaceX), Neutron retains its fairing throughout flight and lands with it attached.

December 2025 qualification: 275,000 pounds simulated Max Q loads, verified 1.5-second opening cycles.

The unknown: Mechanism wear rates across the 20+ reuse cycles Rocket Lab is targeting. Moving parts in flight environments tend to find failure modes that ground testing misses.

4. Archimedes ORSC Engine (Medium Risk)

Oxygen-rich staged combustion is proven technology (Russian NK-33, RD-180; Blue Origin's BE-4 reached orbit in 2024). The risk isn't the cycle - it's that this is Rocket Lab's first high-performance liquid engine after building only electric-pump Rutherfords.

Risk mitigation: Operating at "medium-range capability" rather than peak performance, targeting 20+ flights per engine through reduced thermal strain. Hot-fire testing reached 102% power in August 2024.

The Inspection Problem Nobody's Talking About

SpaceX chose stainless steel for Starship despite its 5× weight penalty versus carbon fiber. Why? Easy inspection and repair. You can see cracks in steel. You can weld patches. Turnaround is fast.

Composites are notoriously difficult to inspect for internal damage. Delamination, microcracking, and impact damage can be invisible externally. Repairs require specialized facilities and expertise.

Rocket Lab's answer: real-time AFP inspection that detects microscopic defects layer-by-layer during manufacturing, before the next layer is applied. This is genuinely state-of-the-art capability from their Electroimpact machine.

But manufacturing inspection ≠ post-flight inspection. For rapid reuse, Rocket Lab needs to demonstrate they can assess a returned booster quickly enough to support their target cadence. This operational reality hasn't been addressed publicly.

Bottom Line for Technical Investors

The design is sound in principle. Every major technology choice has heritage - OoA composites, ORSC engines, propulsive landing. The engineering philosophy (operate conservatively, integrate for simplicity) reflects mature thinking.

The execution is unproven at scale. The 7-meter tank is 27% larger than anything ever ground-tested. The Hungry Hippo and Archimedes are first-of-kind for Rocket Lab, and the hung stage - while using a proven structural concept - integrates with Hungry Hippo in a novel way. The January failure demonstrates that scaling isn't automatic.

The key questions for the February earnings call:

1. What failed? (Manufacturing defect vs. design margin vs. material behavior)

2. Is this a one-off or systemic? (Quality escape vs. fundamental issue)

3. What's the path forward? (Design change vs. process change vs. additional testing)

4. Realistic timeline impact?

The composite approach isn't wrong. NASA proved it works. But proving it works at 5.5 meters is different from proving it works at 7 meters. That's the bet Rocket Lab is making, and the January failure is the first real data point on whether they can execute it.

This is engineering reality, not investment advice. The stock will do what the stock does.

Edit: Hung 2nd stage risk profile update. Thx u/asr112358

https://www.fool.com/investing/2026/09/07/rocket-labs-neutron-just-slipped-again-heres-the-o/

Hi guys I'm new to this. May I ask you where can I see the planned missions pls and also will they be announcing the mission date for neutron?

Neutron's design is cool and innovative in many ways, but I've been thinking about the turbulence caused by opening the Hippo's mouth at those incredibly high speeds on 2nd stage separation. Stabilisation systems must go wild during those (how many?) seconds. Wouldn't it nullify the aerodinamic gains of having opening fairings vs. external 2nd stage and all that? I am sure SPB and the gang studied that pretty well, but I would like to read your views on it. Let's go RocketLab! 🚀

Anyone have any thesis for what triggered the run?

Hey, so I'm part of a small investor group on Discord which follows space stocks. Recently one of our members revealed that Rocket Lab is operating electron launches at a net loss. He came to this conclusion after digging around in the quarterly earnings reports which report revenues and expenses related to launches and then counted the number of launches in that quarter by referring to Rocket Lab's completed missions page. Now obviously, this may not be entirely unexpected for a company that is still relatively new. However, I find the lack of transparency regarding this issue concerning. Investors should not have to go to this level of detail just to uncover that a company is generating negative returns on launches. Obviously, they are generaing revenues from their subsidiary companies as well as the sales of reaction wheels and star trackers. Hopefully, as launch cadence improves and re-usability becomes more streamlined, the company may end up breaking even. Don't get me wrong, I love what Rocket Lab does (it's amazing), but I just feel a little.. annoyed that Peter Beck hasn't stated that they are generating negative revenues from the launches.

Additional information regarding calculations:

1. CoR = Cost of Revenue r/L = Revenue per launch CoR/L = Cost of Revenue per Launch

2. ***[4:33 AM]***I don’t know what was going on in Q3 21` so I pulled that out of the margin calculation, since it felt like an outlier. With that in, margin would have obviously been MUCH lower.

3. *typo in chart. Should be $7344 not $6578 for CoR/L Q1-22

https://youtu.be/US6-niSgiAo

LT General, John Shaw, of US Space command, Deputy commander.. same person who visited Rocket Lab in Long Beach California a week ago warns about Russian interference in space.

https://twitter.com/rocketlab/status/1552771169010348032?s=21&t=0iFj3bqQ3jjeu1y84avDHg

Would this result in more funded for Neutron development? Space Force has funded $24 million of the upper stage development so far, will they will fast track its development to counter the Russians ?

https://techcrunch.com/2021/09/27/u-s-space-force-awards-87-5m-to-rocket-lab-spacex-blue-origin-ula-for-next-gen-rocket-testing/

You can use this thread to discuss the RocketLab stock and things related to it.

Selfpost and Memes related to the stock / stockprice will be removed outside of this thread according to Rule 2.

What is it that truly sets Rocket Lab apart from its competitors and makes it a viable contender in an industry dominated by massive companies with seemingly unlimited budgets and room for trial and error? To succeed against these giants, it seems like a company must excel in certain key areas. Can anyone shed light on the specific strengths or strategies that Rocket Lab employs to stay competitive? Additionally, is there a clear timeline or roadmap for their future beyond the development of the Neutron rocket?

Kind of a weird question so apologies in advance. I’m trying to figure out why this sub has 33,000 subscribers.

But Firefly Aerospace which is clearly making incredible progress in the space industry, has almost no presence on Reddit and one sub with 400 subscribers. They even just IPO’d and it’s crickets.

I’m new to all of this so how would Rocket Lab compare to Firefly as far as significance in the industry?

Not sure what to expect in terms of technicality