Very cool. Sir Peter Beck, Adam Spice, thank you so much for joining us. We really appreciate you taking the time and continuing to engage with our retail community and sharing your knowledge and insight. So, thank you so much for joining us today.
All right. So, to kick off some questions, first of all, congratulations on an amazing quarter. We were all very happy to hear all of the great news, especially the newest acquisition. I think the future is definitely very exciting. So, congratulations to both of you and the whole Rocket Lab team.
Awesome. Thanks. Yeah. No, it was yeah, we're pretty happy with the quarter. That's a good one.
Pretty big milestone getting over $200 million in revenue in a quarter. That's uh you know, look, this actually May is my 8th anniversary of joining Rocket Lab, which was happy revenue. Thank you. Go from zero to couple hundred million dollar quarter. It's pretty epic.
No kidding. When you when you joined Rocket Lab, it was literally zero per quarter.
Yep. Yeah. A lot of things have changed. Some things still remain the same. You know, when when I join, remember the the the original office building that in New Zealand here where Pete had everybody shoehorned into a really really small space where literally like seating was like on an airplane where literally if somebody had to get up and go to the bathroom, everybody out to get out of the out of the aisle and let that person have to go to the bathroom and then same thing when they came back. So, we still keep things very tight when it comes to, you know, facilities utilization and stuff, but some things never change.
I hate real estate. I hate the the expense of real estate. So, we we maximize all of that.
Nice. Difficult to believe as frugal as you come off.
Trusted. I think I think it would be it would be it'd be a hard call to work out who's tighter between Adam and I.
It must be pretty rare for the CEO to be more frugal than the CFO.
I'll take it. Makes my job a lot easier.
That's awesome. Cool. Well, if if you don't mind, we'll kind of lead into some questions. I I figured we kind of break things somewhat structurally between the launch. So, we'll kind of kick things off with Electron, go into Neutron, and then go into some space systems, and then maybe ask you guys some interesting questions at the end. So, I wanted to kind of start with a bit of a rumor. We always like to put on a bit of a tinfoil hat on Rocket Lab Weekly. So several months ago, we heard a rumor floating around about an Electron launch being signed that was hosting a 500 kg payload. Now, we obviously didn't put much weight into this rumor for obvious reasons, but then recently I it was on the Doc Twitz podcast there was a mention of Haste being able to lift up to 1.5 tons, which is in contrast to the 700 kg capacity hosted on the website. So, I assume that the discrepancy between the 700 kgs versus the 1.5 tons is a bit of a mix of, you know, payload side payload size, speed, fuel requirements, and whatnot. But Peter, is there anything you can speak to in terms of this rumored 500 kg electron lift? Is it the that April Fool's electron heavy for me for heavy?
No, no, no. I mean, the standard the standard lift for a orbital electron is around about that 320 kgs. So, that's that's right. Haste. Yeah, haste can do 500 kgs no problems at all. And the 1.5 ton haste, that's like the theoretical structural limit of the vehicle. So you some of those heavy emissions, we we actually put you know carbon straps on the interstage and and some of those areas just some of the unpressurized areas just to allow for that extra kind of bending moments and and loads. But the the 1.5 ton is the like the theoretical structural limit of the vehicle. 700 kgs is like we don't have to do anything to the vehicle. It's just a standard electron. But also once you get over one and a half tons then you know the the performance the hypersonic performance starts to really drop off as well. So so yeah, no there's no no kind of you know conspiracy theory here. They're just they're just numbers depending on on different different outcomes.
That's fair. And it it sounds like Haste is going to have quite the year judging by what was mentioned on the call.
Yeah. Haste is you know, Haste is is a really solid product for us.
So, you guys sold 31 Electron contracts in in the last quarter, which is amazing. I hope I have my numbers right. It's 4:00 a.m. here. But if we extrapolate that out, it's like 120 launches in a year. This was a little bit touched on on the on the earnings call that you guys have a 50 like a week like the the factory was made for one electron a year and you said that it would be pretty nominal pretty small investments to actually get up to that level. But if you guys see sustained demand for Electron, what would it take to to come into like a 70 80 90 launches per year or do you do you ever see that happening?
Well, I mean it it just comes down to the market demand. I mean you know as Adam mentioned on the call you know the hypersonic capabilities and and demand you know from the US is strong. There's a whole bunch of other countries that are looking to do the same thing. And I think if we had to if we had to increase production then, you know, the production process is really well defined and and really mature. So it's just, you know, adding workstations and and and production lines. So it's not it's not a huge lift at all.
Yeah. I mean, most of the hypersonics missions like all the hypersonics missions to date have been launched out of the US. And so, you know, it would require flexibility from some of those customers to be able to launch out of New Zealand or we'd have to create some launch capabilities elsewhere. Because right now we're licensed to launch I think it's a dozen times out of Wopwops per electron. I mean we're confident we could increase that to a higher rate but you know I don't know if we if you're talking about many dozens of launches it would take probably another pad just like we have multiple pads.
Yeah, you you'd want you want two pads here.
Yeah. But the demand is certainly strong. I mean, as you mentioned, I think this year probably about about five or so launches are going to be haste launches out of the the street right now has a forecast the ranges of roughly between 25 and maybe 28 launches is kind of where the the estimates are. And so we're looking at like, you know, 20% or so of those being haste, which is a come a long way from from zero just a few years ago, but it's always been something that we've been pretty excited about and it's now just coming into focus.
I have like a naming convention question and it kind of relates to Electron and and all the products really in the Rocket Lab ecosystem. So, you named the small rocket Electron, the medium rocket Neutron and the spacecraft Photon. What happened to Proton? Should we anticipate that a Proton is still to come?
Well, the Russians took that already, so yeah. So, no, we can't. That would get that would get super confusing if we started calling things protons. Yeah, but we love our subatomic particles and we'll keep we'll keep naming stuff after them for sure. A little bit geeky like that.
I like it. Pete, you have a innate ability to break down concepts into a rudimentary way so people can really comprehend and digest. How feasible are data centers in space? do believe dealing with customers like StarCloud is is closer than real reality than people are really giving credit for. I know I personally was skeptical, you know, six months to a year ago when people were starting to bring this up. And so it's it'd be interesting to to hear you with your experience and obviously the recent partnerships that you've been signing.
Yeah. So I think I think that undoubtedly there will be some data centers in space because it makes a ton of sense for kind of sovereign and strategic reasons. I mean you know you you you just think about you know there there's requirements for hardened data centers down here on Earth. And so you know one one obvious solution to that is to put them in orbit. It's pretty hard to tamper with something when it's in orbit. So I I think for a number of strategic and security reasons there will be data centers in orbit. Now, I'm not sure if I'm ready to subscribe to the all compute is going to leave the planet and go into space because I think for that to happen, it's purely an economic kind of judgment. And if you if you you know if you fix the current electricity price on on Earth and the current you know efficiency of compute and then you float the the the the constraint of of launch cost and you assume that that changes by an order of magnitude or so then you can kind of squint and say yes data centers in orbit are the are the obvious solution. They're all going to go to orbit. But I mean this is purely an economic decision and if you if you just tweak those knobs a little bit and say that okay electricity prices on earth decrease and efficiency of compute increase then I think the economics of putting everything into orbit it becomes far more challenging but nevertheless you know we we've certainly got a dollar each way. So if if it turns out that, you know, I'm wrong there and all compute goes to orbit, then we've got plenty of plenty of irons in the fire and great products to be able to support that.
That's that's that's good. And speaking of irons in the fire, yeah, seven new products that you guys were showing today in the in the call. And and also, you know, potentially Adam can answer on this piece. I know there's a lot of people out there, you know, talking about spectrum and I know you answered a question on the call today about spectrum. You guys are obviously focusing on laser laser terminals. Do you believe there's a a recency bias for people wanting to continue in the spectrum world and spend so much in the spectrum world? And do you think people are really downplaying laser communications? And and if you if you think so, what what do you want those people to know?
Yeah. No, that's your question, Adam.
I don't know. I I I think that there certainly is a I'd say a it seems like a a land race right now to get spectrum, right? I think people are assuming that things are going to continue to be done the way they have been done historically. You know, are there things that could be done, you know, in a very different way that kind of get around the constraints that spectrum ownership currently dictate? It's it's possible. you know, I've I've heard rumor, you know, throughout I spent 25 years in the semiconductor industry before coming over to Rocket Lab and so I I still kind of keep my ear to the ground there and there's rumor that people are working on some pretty interesting things that could make unlicensed spectrum bands usable you know for for things that now are require spectrum. So yeah I mean and never underestimate the progress that can be made by these clever folks in the semiconductor world you know in managing the RF signal chain in such a way where they could get you know amazing things to come out of it. So it's possible it certainly is possible I think that's it's seems like that's a bit of a ways out there and you know we've got some very smart people who are making spectrum buys at the moment right we're we're betting that this that the kind of the current way is going to continue. I mean for for us I mean we've always we've been very clear that you know ultimately we want to be in the constellation you know we want to own our own constellation operate and generate the recurring revenue from that. What we haven't said is like you know what is that what does that application look like because not all applications are the same when it comes to need for owning spectrum and so forth. You know obviously there's applications you know in things like you know earth observation don't require spectrum ownership. There's likely, you know, even communications type of applications for, you know, government customers that wouldn't necessarily require you to own the spectrum. You could basically leverage spectrum that's already owned. So I think it's it's it's an open area, but certainly something that we spend a lot of time thinking about. Because clearly, you know, our whole end-to-end space strategy and mission is yet to be fulfilled, right? We're we're picking off the pieces as we go along. You know, launch being we think the most difficult one to to to to master is one that we've gotten, you know, pretty far along on with Neutron. we'll think we'll have everything that we need. And then on the space system side, you see us continually chipping away at all the really key fundamental technologies. And I, you know, and again, like we mentioned on the call today, not all of those have been solved, you know, by buying things. We develop things internally. So, I think that that degree of of freedom because we have such a strong engineering culture allows us to really kind of not be intimidated or kind of get pushed down one one path versus another. I think everything's on the table every time we make one of these decisions. And you know, hopefully that continues to be the case.
Thinking of like moon landers, especially with the the mode of acquisition fresh in mind, NASA administrator Jared Isaacman recently mentioned that he wants landers hitting the moon's south pole on a monthly cadence starting at the beginning of 2027. with Rocket Lab's extensive knowhow and now with Motive in your tool belt as well paired with the proven flight software that took Firefly's Blue Ghost to the moon last year in 2025. How difficult would it be for Rocket Lab to pivot into moon landers? Like I'm sure it's not just a matter of, you know, slapping some legs on an Explorer bus or something like that, right? Is it how like how much of a pivot would that be especially with with Motive now in house?
I mean it at the risk of sounding arrogant like because landing on any other celestial body is not trivial but I I have high confidence that if we decided to do that we would absolutely do that. It has we have to view it in the in the context of where where is that taking us into into what into what area? And and I guess you know we've we've kind of shied away from these these kind of traditional programs because they tend to be somewhat unstable. They change around with different administrations and then you know you're going to the moon then you're going to Mars and then back to the moon and then so on and so forth. So so we feel the the better play you know better place for us to play right now is is to provide all of this stuff to these guys and if it turns out to be an interesting market that has some longevity then you know you can you know bet your ass we're in there but but right now I think we we're probably better placed to to support others and and yeah I mean I don't think that's how I see it then
Yeah no I don't I don't we've ever looked at that market as being a huge TAM. And it's all about growing ourselves into increasingly large TAMs. I mean, as you can see, kind of the trajectory of our revenue growth. I mean, to move the needle, we got to do increasingly large things. And that doesn't feel like the most obvious next large thing for us to do. Although, as Pete said, you know, from an engineering discipline perspective, I have no doubt that we could do it if we chose to go kind of bite that off. But, yeah, it doesn't seem like it's the next best thing for us.
That's a a pretty Mars-shaped answer if you ask me.
Even for Mars, I think we're trying to be pretty selective, right? I mean,
Totally. Totally. We we've we're going to, you know, obviously we're making a play for the the MTO opportunity, which could be meaningful and exciting and everything else. But I think, you know, I don't think you've ever seen if you you know, in the eight years I've been here at Rocket Lab, we've not had the the kind of the obsession to just go to Mars to think about colonizing things and kind of have these big grandiose ideas because everything here has got to be commercial. I mean, that's the one thing I think it's pretty unique about Rocket Lab is everything that we do is is is commercial. Yeah yeah Pete's got you know you got your Venus thing which is you know you're I would say your one exception even that you're funding yourself.
So as a as a corporation we still we stay very very very tight to you know how do we make money? How do we make more more money and then more money after that?
Beautiful. I have a follow-up question regarding since we are on a topic of Mars a little bit. Is that okay Scott?
Oh Scott then sure go ahead. take take that as a yes.
So my question is and it's touching a little bit on on the newest acquisition and I hope you can you know lend a little bit of light into that but looking at the three founders for Motive you have a CEO who was the Mars Phoenix and Curiosity robotic arm work expert. You have a VP of ops who worked on the Mars Pathfinder or Cassini and I think every major Mars rover robotic arm program that there is. You had the VP of business dev who spent 11 years at JPL designing extreme environment motion control for for rovers. So collectively they've touched essentially every major US Mars surface robotics program over the last 25 years. You layer that onto Rocket Lab's existing Mars portfolio. you know, your your Mars, your Escapade twins, your components on Insight, Perseverance, Ingenuity, and your very vocal and active MTO or MTN bid. And it starts to look like a deliberate Mars consolidation play. Is the strategy to dominate US Mars heritage regardless of which specific NASA Mars contract you win? And does owning Motive change your Mars pitch?
That's a great question. So I think well it definitely changes the Mars pitch a little bit because we we've brought you know as you point out incremental experience and capability on board for sure. And I think I think you know going back to what Adam said previously it's like we're very focused on the commercial opportunities and you know the the the MTO is a great example of what we believe to be a really commercial opportunity. I mean if you think about anything that goes to Mars whether it's humans or infrastructure or landers needs comms. So it's not like we've chosen one really narrow unique specific niche to go down. It's like well no you know everything that goes there needs comms and needs comms relays. So you know that that's that's kind of the the fundamental infrastructure for anything in Mars. Now I mean I think everybody knows I've got a little bit of a soft spot for planetary sciences and we always have you know one cool mission in the clean room at any one time. And I think that's important for a number of reasons. I mean, they obviously have to be commercial. They have to be strategic, but but also it's it's great for the team like you know, everybody wants to to to work on or be part of any of these any Mars missions and things like that. It's great for recruiting. It's great for morale. So, you know, having a NASA meatball on something that's going to Mars in the clean room, we just try to always have something like that. And but you know, to Adam's point before, it has to be commercial and strategic.
And I think you take that a little further. I mean, the one thing that that I focus more on with this Motive deal is I I don't really even think about Mars and robotics as much. I thought in the context of what was really interesting and attractive for me is that, you know, just like we acquired PSC back in 2021, planetary systems corp that does the separation systems, you can have a great rocket, you have a great satellite, if you don't deploy the spacecraft properly, the mission's lost, right? And so we wanted to control that risky element of the mission. And so very similarly here, we get SATA, right? So we get these these solar array deployment mechanisms where you know we've all seen satellites that fail to deploy their solar or their antennas and you've got a botched mission. Now we've further just derisked that and it allows us to sell more bundled solutions to our customers that already buy solar you know solutions from us and now they can buy the solar plus the the SATA and so forth. So for me there's a very clear commercial kind of kind of focus point for me. So I think the Mars stuff, all things Pete said, super interesting, very sexy, very motivating for the team. But for me, it just kind of further fleshes out kind of how we just can put this whole platform solution together for our customers and derisk their missions and and ultimately derisk our own missions going forward when we when we own the infrastructure that that we're going to build.
Yeah. Yeah, I mean when we took over SolAero you know they would they would do a cell and a panel and then you know now we can do a cell a panel an array a hinge a gimbal everything so a complete power solution right down to a battery even so you know the SATAs that Adam's talking about were were you know one of the last elements of that that power chain if you will.
So, does a Motive acquisition solve the the SATA supply bottleneck for your own spacecraft production or is it the robotics capability, the bigger prize?
No, it's both. It's both. I mean the SATAs you know that that's definitely an important device an important piece but but also you know and and the thing is that that that if you can build a you know a robotic actuator that can survive in Mars and then you go to that same team and say hey we've got this wing in low earth orbit can you build a build an actuator it's really not that much of a challenge so you know you start off with a team that can do anything and then you ask it to do simple things then you know it generally works out pretty well.
And as a Canadian, I'm not thrilled that you're moving in on the robotic arm space, but I'll give you a pass. But I figured I'd touch on Flatlight. You know, there was a really big announcement and I haven't heard too much since then. I was just wondering if you could maybe give a little status update. You still kind of building production capacity for that or or where things stand.
Yeah, I mean that's that's obviously our high volume spacecraft platform and and you know there's a team that's beavering away on on that to make sure that you know that that is a a product that's that's ready for prime time when it's when it's time.
I was also wondering if you could give us a little bit more info on the new silicon solar cells. What makes them super unique? I felt like that kind of didn't get the attention it deserved perhaps.
Yeah, I mean well we we looked at you know firstly at mega constellations and just about every mega constellation uses a silicon cell and you know obviously we're we're you know the team is world experts in in super high efficiency cells and and that that's that's all all great. But you know one of the biggest challenges with a silicon cell is you know obviously their their efficiency is lower. But actually the the number that really matters is their efficiency at end of life and this is where this is where silicon really falls down because you know at end of life their their efficiency drops right off a cliff. So you know that forces you into you know really large arrays because you have to when you design a solar array you have to account for the performance at the end of life not performance at the beginning. So you either need really large arrays or really short lifetimes. So and this has been one of the challenges with silicon all along and one of the reasons why you know other other other substrates are used. So you know we set the team you know a task is like okay how do you how do how do you avoid that you know that that that kind of really you know disastrous end of life number and that's what the problem that's the problem we set them to go and solve and they went and solved it. So, it, you know, like anybody can go and go and grab a, you know, a silicon roofing tile and and say it's good for space, but actually the the nuance of that is is is, you know, the radiation damage and getting a a number at end of life that that is kind of makes a constellation make sense.
Can I have a follow-up on on this one?
I was recently visited by a subscriber who is in who actually has a German solar cell manufacturing startup and he he was telling me a little bit about he he said somehow that currently the math is not mathing if you want to build like a giga constellation from the current silicon technology. and he said that there's a lot of R&D going into like maybe getting the kilowatt price below 100 to maybe $80 per per kilowatt for like full arrays. And I I was wondering like how do you see this dynamic in in the market with the with the with the sales? Like are you are you researching still how to make a cheaper product or you're happy with with what you have currently on the market?
No, no, no. So so the the the design objective to the to the solar team was you know the obviously the high the high performance but also the the most you know absurd price that they can they can manage. So they are they're definitely looking into into you know other other substrates and other technologies that are even cheaper. But you know the the environment of space is kind of difficult as I mentioned before but the the the other it's you it's like anything in in space like it's a giant engineering compromise and if you if you have a low efficiency cell then you then you necessitate really high you know you large area wings and large area wings if you're in low earth orbit of course you still have drag so you have a lot of drag so then you need a bunch of EP to keep you in in in orbit and the right station keeping And if you've got a bunch of EP, then you need a bunch of power to run the EP. So you need more solar cells. And you have more solar cells, you have more drag, so you need more EP. And on and on it goes. So then you end up raising your orbit. And you raise your orbit into a to up to 1,000 km where there's less drag, but now you've got huge radiation. So now you've got a huge radiation, a much shorter end of life in your silicon, and on and on and on it goes. So you know, it's it's it's not just that simple. there's there's many kind of levers that you have to trade here to you know to solve that problem. So I know there's a very long-winded way of answering your question but the answer is yes.
Okay. Okay. Awesome. And do you have contact with like because you you you said that the solar cells were for space space-based data centers like you're you're getting ready for that and do you have ongoing conversations with customers from from this and how do you feel that that market is for this type of constellations?
Well, I think I think everybody would agree we're very early in that both as a even as a concept. So, so naturally, you know, we we if we're bringing a product to market, we want to bring one that's relevant. So, you know, we're not just going to create something in isolation. But we have a, you know, the solar team are, you know, literally the world experts in in space solar. So, they they they know all these constraints. Sometimes I think they know too much because a little bit of arrogance and the things you don't know is sometimes useful. But but anyway you know they're they're you know they're trying to solve this problem in you know in the best the best way they can and and it may be silicon it may be a it may be a different a different substrate but at the very least for the scale that that's been contemplated immediately you know we've got a lot of products that will suit that suit that application well.
Maybe I'll hop in with a question for Adam. Just kind of curious about the the recent capital raise and the structure with the collar is kind of interesting and also you've gone up to you know a lot more cash than you ever have previously. Is that kind of you know a good time for it or what's your thinking behind some of those moves?
Yeah, like I think we were we're focused really on making sure that we've got dry powder to really be in in a position to take advantage of opportunities when we see them. you know, we come across deals from time to time that are competitive and sometimes we're competing with people that have much you know, deeper pockets than we do. Some of our traditional kind of space and primes in particular. So, for us, we never want to be caught flatfooted. We found ourselves in the past in deal situations where we, you know, we had to go get like, hey, the deal will be contingent on getting financing, which, you know, if you spend any time dealing with banks, you'll realize that they're they're never really there when you need them to be, right? you only they'll only lend you money when you don't need it, not when you do need it. And even getting bridge financing can really put a you know throw a monkey wrench into the into the process. So we just never want to be flatfooted or or caught on our heels with with these kind of things. Yeah, I think we've been very fortunate. We talked about on the call today that we've been you know we raised money starting at like eight bucks even the stock was like at five, right? And so we did the capped call on that to get us up to eight. And now we're, you know, the the the cap on the most recent structured ATM is $86.11, I think, was the number. So, like, I think we've been very very fortunate to be raising capital, increasingly attractive prices. And, you know, you know, hopefully, you know, we look back at this $86 cap price on a structure call. And I I'm as you know, remorseful about raising money at $86 than I was when I raised it at eight, right? cuz I look back and one of the things that I you know we we all beat ourselves up over here. It's like you know it was you know raising at eight was I mean it was the thing to do with it was the right thing to do at the time but now I was like think wow like raise $8 versus 80 bucks it's like the world is really has changed for us and I think you have to change with it. And so we're trying to be more creative and
Also just again, you know, the old saying, you know, you want to be lucky. Well, you know, be lucky. It's when opportunity meets preparedness, right? And I think we've been very fortunate that we've always been very well capitalized, right? When we look at the ability that we took the Virgin Orbit factory over in Long Beach, that might be the best deal that we ever did, right? That's what's really enabled us to really push hard and fast on Neutron. And I think we were probably a little bit naive that we could have gotten to where we are now without doing a deal like that and we just happen to have the capital on hand and others didn't and so it put us in a really good spot to go kind of steal that asset really. And it's been a phenomenally strategic deal and so we look to do more of those.
Yeah. I want to I thought of that. So, you guys are a phenomenal team and I don't know, I'm sure people have probably told you this before, but I look at you guys and I call you guys the Thanos of space because you're collecting all the stones that kind of rule the universe. So you guys have this beautiful, phenomenal team that continue to dance really well. The M&A pipeline kind of remains full, but you also make sure that the internal engineers, if it's something like you stated like Gaus or whatever, that you can build inhouse for magnitudes less, like you're going to go ahead and do that. Is there any other things that have recently come through that you're like, 'No, we're not going to pay that. We're actually going to do that for way less.' And then second, what else are you guys missing? I mean, you've got the robotics now. You've got so many other things. I mean, what other choke points do you guys really have to collect all the stones in the universe?
Well, I think payloads are something that we're always looking at because, you know, he who owns the payload owns the mission. So that's something we're always looking at. And you know, I definitely when we're looking at these technologies, we're certainly evaluating really closely could we do that for cheaper and the answer is almost certainly every time yes but in the time frames that we need is very rarely no like Gaus was an easy one. We could definitely develop that in the time frame we needed. But you know something like solar that had 40 years of R&D and investment that would take a long time to get there.
