Valued at trillions, SpaceX, who is the "only alternative"?

Original | Odaily Planet Daily (@OdailyChina)

Author | Azuma (@azuma_eth)

After the close of U.S. stocks on May 8, commercial space company Rocket Lab (RKLB) announced a Q1 2026 financial report that far exceeded market expectations.

The financial report shows that Rocket Lab’s revenue in the first quarter reached $200.3 million, a year-over-year increase of 63.5%, surpassing the expected $189 million; the second quarter revenue guidance was raised to $225 million to $240 million, well above analysts’ estimate of $205 million. Although an operating loss of $56 million indicates the company is still in a “burning money” mode, the adjusted gross margin has risen to 43% (compared to only 33.4% in the same period last year), which means that while expanding scale, the company’s unit economics are improving significantly — in simple terms, its “burning efficiency” has become higher.

Driven by the positive earnings report, RKLB surged nearly 7% after hours, with a 240% increase over the past year.

As SpaceX’s century-scale IPO gradually approaches, commercial space has become another hot mainline in the U.S. stock market, with capital beginning to assign internet-level valuation imagination to “rocket manufacturing.” Amid this wave, besides SpaceX, whose valuation is directly targeting $1.75 trillion to $2 trillion and whose pre-market shares are trading at a significant premium, Rocket Lab also positions itself as the “most SpaceX-like pure commercial space concept stock,” becoming a substitute option in many investors’ eyes.

SpaceX’s “Only Substitute”?

The reason for considering Rocket Lab as SpaceX’s current “only substitute” is that Rocket Lab is perfectly replicating SpaceX’s proven successful path — first using small rockets to establish a commercial closed loop and reusable technology, then using large rockets to optimize costs and capture core markets.

Electron: The Dominator of Small Rocket Track

In rocket manufacturing, PPT presentations are everywhere, but few companies can reliably send rockets to space. Currently, Rocket Lab’s “Electron” is the world’s only small launch vehicle capable of high-frequency, reliable commercial operations, and it is also the second most frequently launched rocket in the U.S., just behind SpaceX’s “Falcon 9.”

Electron’s “maturity” is reflected not only in dozens of launches and a high success rate but also in its landing technology. Rocket Lab has successfully recovered first stages from the sea multiple times and has even reused engines for launches. This engineering mastery of “recyclable” technology is the ultimate weapon that dominates the commercial space market like SpaceX.

Neutron: The Challenger to Falcon 9

If small rockets are Rocket Lab’s entry ticket, then the mid-to-large-sized rocket “Neutron” under development is its main engine to challenge a trillion-dollar market cap.

Neutron is not just a scaled-up version of Electron; from the start, it carried a strong “targeted” focus — aiming to catch up with Falcon 9. Falcon 9 remains the only commercially reusable mid-to-large rocket on the market, with SpaceX holding an absolute monopoly in this field.

The biggest significance of Neutron’s appearance is that it is expected to become the only second option in the world capable of competing with Falcon 9, although its designed payload capacity (about 8-15 tons) still lags behind Falcon 9, it attempts to leverage “latecomer advantages” to surpass its predecessor through engineering logic — with unique designs like HungryHippo fairings and Archimedes, Neutron aims to outperform Falcon 9 in fairing recovery and engine reuse efficiency.

• Odaily note: HungryHippo is Neutron’s biggest design highlight. Unlike SpaceX, which needs to recover millions of dollars worth of fairing debris from the sea after each launch, Neutron’s fairing is fixedly attached to the first stage, inseparable. When releasing the second stage, it opens like a “hippo mouth,” then closes after deployment, and lands back with the first stage for recovery. This means the fairing does not need to undergo complex sea recovery or post-assembly, allowing for land-based reuse.

Based on current disclosed test progress, Rocket Lab is rapidly narrowing the gap with SpaceX in the capability of mid-to-large launch vehicles.

“Rocket Building” plus “Satellite Manufacturing”: Recreating SpaceX’s Ecosystem Loop

Just like SpaceX has Starlink, Rocket Lab is also building its own “launch + manufacturing” dual-driven ecosystem. Rocket Lab’s “aerospace systems” business (covering satellite platforms, Starlight communications, solar arrays, etc.) now accounts for nearly 70% of total revenue. This means that even while Neutron is still in development, Rocket Lab can generate massive revenue from satellite component sales.

This “full industry chain” business model, before SpaceX’s public market debut, was almost unique to Rocket Lab.

Huge Valuation Gap: A Reflection and an Investment Opportunity

Currently, SpaceX’s primary market valuation has reached $1.75 to $2 trillion, while Rocket Lab’s market cap is just over $45 billion. The vast valuation gap objectively reflects the difference in their current positions, but this is precisely what makes the “odds” most attractive to investors.

In the current global commercial space field, only SpaceX can reliably achieve high-frequency launches, reusability, large payload capacity, and low costs. Falcon 9’s cost advantage has reached a level that makes most competitors despair, and this advantage is gradually creating a terrifying positive feedback loop — the cheaper the launch, the more launches, the more data, the faster the upgrades, and the cheaper the upgrades become… This scale, data, and rhythm-based moat makes many later entrants feel daunting.

However, Rocket Lab’s opportunity lies in the fact that Neutron is currently the most promising candidate to catch up with Falcon 9’s pace among reusable mid-to-large rockets. “The only choice after SpaceX,” just this label is already highly attractive. Once Neutron successfully conducts test flights, Rocket Lab’s valuation logic will shift from “a small rocket company” to “the world’s second platform capable of producing mid-to-large reusable rockets,” potentially capturing a large share of commercial orders from SpaceX — thus, the current market enthusiasm for Rocket Lab is largely a bet on Neutron’s success probability.

By 2026, when SpaceX breaks the trillion-dollar valuation ceiling, Rocket Lab, with a market cap only about 2.5% of SpaceX’s, has much greater upside potential.

Greatest Risk: “Neutron” Still Not Flying…

But there’s a major suspense — Will Neutron actually fly on time?

According to the latest disclosures, Neutron’s first flight is scheduled for late 2026, but historically, no new rocket has launched without delays. The harsh reality of space industry — PPT rockets ≠ real rockets.

Many rockets have never flown; many have exploded on the first attempt; many have failed due to cost control issues. Neutron has not yet had its first flight, and if its development progress stalls or the first flight is delayed, the current valuation will face severe testing, and even the best stories will struggle to continue.