I’m convinced that Rocket Lab and the other small launch companies are running pretty much at maximum launch cadence. They have a backlog of satellites to launch, not a dearth. SpaceX is keeping a lot of smallsat companies operating in space that otherwise would not have found access to orbit.

Most of us see Rocket Lab as a launch provider, but they also provide many other services and products, especially to smallsat companies.

The bad guy is not SpaceX but is worldwide governmental overregulation. This is why we lost Virgin Orbit, which was just ramping up its cadence.

For whatever it may be worth I don’t agree with that take but, then, it has long been my contention – going back a decade or more – that SpaceX’s cost to build and operate F9 is far lower than most imagine.

Oh, I agree with all of that.

I think SpaceX *has* aggressively priced its ride share missions prices, and that they *have* done it with a view to crimping the competition in the small-lift market. That’s tough, but that’s business. But it is also true, as we both seem to agree, that SpaceX can afford to do this (and avert any legal antitrust action) because their internal costs for launch are so low now that that they can still make a profit.

All credit to Peter Beck and his team for making good lemonade out of this lemon. SpaceX has effectively got a lot more customers into the orbital game, and some of them eventually get into a position where they can and want to pay for a Rocket Lab cab ride instead of a SpaceX bus ride. Perhaps that’s more $$$ than whatever Rocket Lab has lost to SpaceX in up front pricing on ride shares.

But, then, the Euros have only resorted to F9 rides for their government payloads in direst extremis.

That seems to be true, though even the limited number of EU institutional launches over the past three years has given the powers that be plenty of heart burn!

But Jeff did not specify which Europeans he had in mind. I was thinking of European commercial customers, too. I count a total of five European payloads (institutional and commercial) in 2025 so far, plus a smattering of European customers on ride share launches.

As for the long-term, a lot will depend on how EU states, both at Brussels and in their own governments, regulate all this going forward. Above all they obviously want to keep European payloads on European launchers to that extent that is possible. The problem is the lack of European launchers. If they must use an American rocket, Rocket Lab might well be preferable to SpaceX for some Europeans, but I wonder just how strong that preference is, if the price points are comparable. It’s a moot point until Neutron starts launching with some regularity….

More choices are always better than fewer. It will be interesting to see if SpaceX garners any availability and/or price competition in the rideshare arena from any of the new launch vehicles now anticipated to be coming on-line in the next year or so. If Stoke, say, can match or better SpaceX’s prices, rideshare could be a nice market for Nova when it reaches operational status. Nova wouldn’t be able to carry anywhere near as many individual sats on a single rideshare launch as can F9, but complete reusability might allow a higher rideshare cadence than SpaceX not too far into Nova’s operational life.

Richard M,

I re-read that Berger interview with Beck. Sir Peter tossed that “unsustainable” word out in a fashion that indicates he may suspect SpaceX of selling rideshare capacity at or below cost, but doesn’t actually know that to be the case. For whatever it may be worth I don’t agree with that take but, then, it has long been my contention – going back a decade or more – that SpaceX’s cost to build and operate F9 is far lower than most imagine.

Agree with your admonition to Jeff that the Euros are not going to find Neutron to be a promptly realistic alternative to F9. But, then, the Euros have only resorted to F9 rides for their government payloads in direst extremis. And, let’s face it, the Euros – even when the private sector is included – don’t actually do all that much launching even on their own rockets. In terms of actual numbers of launches, even if not of total launch mass, various private-sector Euro clients are already making non-trivial use of Electron. At least some of that business might move to Neutron even in its early, low-cadence days. We’ll just have to see.

I think this is another case where both things seem to be true. Just two weeks ago he took yet another swipe at SpaceX in his interview with Eric Berger, calling its low pricing on ride share missions “unsustainable.’ And yet it also seems to be true that he has also found a way to leverage SpaceX ride share customers into Electron launches after they mature their products,

European customers launch on SpaceX mostly because right now, it has the only spare launch capacity in the Western world — for medium lift, at any rate,

Neutron is a *very* promising launch vehicle, but the difficulty in regards to the issue above is that Neutron is not going to have much spare launch capacity for a few years, either, because it is going to take a while to get its launch cadence up, Peter Beck stated in September that Rocket Lab planned to launch Neutron three times in 2026, and five times in 2027. Now that the first launch is pushed back into 2026, it is probably safe to assume that the rest of this schedule gets pushed back a year, too. (Jacqueline Feldscher, “Rocket Lab’s Neutron Pad Is Open For Launch,” Payload, Sept. 2, 2025) A rocket that is only launching 5 times in 2028 is not going to have much in the way of slots for European payload customers to purchase, alas.

Meanwhile, Falcon 9 is launching about 3-4 times a week.

We have to be patient, I’m afraid. The Europeans will have to be, too.

Dick: That’s most interesting about Rocket Lab and SpaceX’s multi-payload missions. It indicates again the advantage to the satellite industry having multiple options with different prices. SpaceX is providing the lowest cost option with the least advantages. A good place to test. Rocket Lab then provides a more expensive deluxe service (at a still much lower price than in the past) for customers to use when they are ready.

It suggests there will be plenty of business for the newer rockets expected to come on line next year.

Sir Peter, based on public comments, seems to think SpaceX’s Transporter and Bandwagon missions have been a net plus for Rocket Lab. A number of companies have used Transporter or Bandwagon missions to put up prototype constellation hardware just to get it into space and try it out at a low price, then contract with Rocket Lab for multiple deployments of the constellation birds to bespoke orbits. This is apparently a course of action he actively encourages potential clients to pursue.

P.S. By the way, I just read that this was the 1000th cumulative satellite launched by a single booster.

“”Exolaunch………58 payloads””

“”SEOPS……..7 payloads””

“”Varda’s fifth re-usable capsule””

“”European aerospace company OHB…….8 payloads””
(Yes, even Europe continues to use the most reliable, REUSABLE launch system ever.)

Can you say “”Capitalism in Space!”

Yeah, Baby!