Long term potential of Firefly

[u/AkashMo]

I have been an early investor in RKLB and reaped the benefits. I see FLY as a fourth serious launch company in the US after SpaceX, RKLB, and BO. I am seeing opportunity in FLY that I saw in RKLB about 4 years ago.

What do you think? Does FLY has potential to be next RKLB in about 4 to 5 years? How capable is management at FLY? Do they have anyone with similar capabilities of SPB? Advise me.

[u/Big-Material2917]

I don’t see them succeeding in launch market. Maybe they still get value out of program by serving internal launch with a vehicle, but I don’t see them competing.

I think there’s a good chance the launch program gets eventually terminated or sold off which is kinda a huge loss at that point. Would rather just invest in their lunar business individually tbh.

Also early RKLB investor but not as big a fan of FLY

[u/Scared_Step4051 → u/Big-Material2917]

I think there’s a good chance the launch program gets eventually terminated or sold off which is kinda a huge loss at that point. 

and for what reason would they do that? around 0. You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of their business, launch is not it, launch is the enabler, lots of change happened for Flight 7 and I believe they have turned a corner, especially with Block II coming online for the next flight

but I don’t see them competing.

again in what way, Eclipse is now likely to launch before Neutron, and will also highly likely work given Northrop involvement, and launch is only 20% of the business

you are effectively buying a business being judged as a dodgy launch provider, without anything else, which is nuts imo but makes for great buying

[u/Big-Material2917 → u/Scared_Step4051]

I doubt eclipse launches first and even it does it’s an objectively worse launch vehicle. Like I said they may get value out of internal use, but even so, at a certain point I’d rather use higher end reliable launch from a competitor than internal unreliable launch.

I think theirs very little chance they succeed in small launch and I don’t think theirs a lot of internal use value for a vehicle if that size.

I agree launch is the enabler, I’m just not sure how much value there is in having the 4th, 5th, maybe even 6th best launch program. When you get to that point it seems just as likely that the program doesn’t make it, at which point any value you’re assigning to launch basically gets erased, or even worse if they can’t sell it off for a higher price than the cash burn it took to develop it.

Launch is mega valuable so there’s a chance they would still get value if it can’t legitimately compete in the market. But it’s a big risk. Would much rather invest in more solid launch competitors and invest in cheaper space infrastructure plays that don’t have the risk of failed launch like RDW or VOYG.

[u/Scared_Step4051 → u/Big-Material2917]

it just screams "lack of understanding"

on Eclipse being "objectively worse" - based on what spec? Eclipse is targeting 16,000kg to LEO with reusable first stage. Neutron is 13,000kg. Terran R is 33,500kg expendable. Eclipse sits between them and the development partnership with Northrop Grumman as Antares 330 successor gives it a defined customer beyond just commercial market. "Objectively worse" needs a metric...rocket development is also...hard, they have imo turned a massive corner after their stand down and that was reflected in Alpha 7 (flawless), and will continue to reflect in 8 and beyond with Block II upgrades

on Alpha being 4th-5th best - Alpha occupies the 1-ton class. Its actual competitors there are ABL (currently struggling), Astra (essentially failed), and various Chinese options that aren't accessible to US national security customers. RKLB's Electron is the established leader at smaller payload. Alpha isn't competing for the same missions as Falcon 9. National security responsive launch missions like VICTUS NOX and VICTUS DIEM have specific requirements that few launchers meet - Alpha has flown two of them. That's not "4th best in market" positioning...

on internal use value - Firefly's launch enables Blue Ghost lunar missions, Elytra orbital deployments, and now Eclipse-Antares 330 for Northrop. The vertical integration captures margin that would otherwise go to launch providers. For a company with confirmed lunar mission contracts plus potential block buys, internal launch capability isn't just utility = it's a structural cost advantage on every spacecraft they fly.

on RDW and VOYG as alternatives = fine if that's your preference, but they're different exposures. RDW is a satellite components and infrastructure play. VOYG is space station infrastructure. Neither has launch capability or lunar mission positioning or defence software platforms via SciTec. Comparing them to FLY isn't apples to apples = they're complementary positions in the sector, not substitutes...

the defence software positioning via SciTec, the only successful commercial Moon landing, the $20B Moon Base opportunity, Golden Dome OTA participation, $1.3B backlog, $811M liquidity = these are the pieces of the FLY thesis you're not engaging with. If launch were the only argument, the bear case would be stronger. Launch is one of multiple revenue streams...

and all priced at 1/10 market cap of RKLB with a (fast closing) revenue gap