[[Home|🏠]] <span style="color: LightSlateGray">></span> [[Interviews]] <span style="color: LightSlateGray">></span> February 10 2025 **Insider**: [[Peter Beck]] **Source**: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V54mWqnM8zQ **Event**: [2025 SmallSat Symposium](https://2025.smallsatshow.com/) **Date**: February 10 2025  🔗 Backup Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V54mWqnM8zQ ## 🎙️ Transcript >[!hint] Transcript may contain errors or inaccuracies. As I was thinking about this presentation and what I should put forward here, instead of the typical shameless company plug that I might normally do, I figured I’d do something a little bit different. This Christmas, I was reminded by my teenage children that, in fact, Dad is no longer cool—he’s just old. I don’t do TikToks, and I don’t even have Snapchat. But it did remind me that I’ve been in this business for over 20 years now, and maybe I should take a look back at some of the things that have happened. So, yep, this is my view of the space industry as it sits today. I reserve the right to be completely and totally wrong, and let’s all agree that we won’t go back in a year’s time and look at any of this because I think it’s probably going to be embarrassing. Nevertheless, I thought it might be fun to have a look at this and see what we all think. I’ll start with something that’s obviously very close and dear to me: the state of launch within the industry. One thing that’s a little peculiar is that there have never been more rockets in development or flying, nor has there been a higher launch cadence than ever before—which is super cool. But the flip side to that is there’s also never been so much constraint on the supply of launch. It’s a crazy time—when we’re launching and doing things more than ever before, yet there’s still more demand than we’ve ever seen before. Obviously, small launch has well and truly been solved. Some of you who have attended this conference for years will remember the list that came out annually of small launch vehicles in development. I think it peaked at around 145 at one point. Electron has been very successful in this space, and small launch is well and truly a solved problem. But on the non-solved problems, both competition and capacity in the medium launch category are much needed. We’re trying to address that with Neutron, and others have vehicles in development, but there’s one dominant provider. There needs to be a bit of balance restored to competition and opportunities. If you look at the number of constellations and spacecraft that require launch, there’s still a deficit in that medium-class vehicle. My next point is not meant to be controversial—please, to all my European friends and colleagues, don’t take offense—but the best way I can summarize it is that it feels like Europe thinks it’s 2015 when it comes to launch. There are a number of small launch vehicles in development, much like in 2015, and there seems to be a reluctance to move into reusability. It still feels very much like a government-dominated domain. If we roll the clock back to 2015, it feels eerily similar. This isn’t meant as a criticism, but every time I go to Europe and talk to colleagues there, it feels like I’ve gone back in time. We’ve seen super-heavy launch vehicles arrive at the pad, which is awesome. But I also remind everyone that while they are great for certain purposes, they don’t solve every problem. When rideshare missions first came out, many thought that would be the end of small launch. In fact, it wasn’t at all. Small launch has continued to grow, and every year we sign more deals and conduct more launches. Different requirements need different solutions—whether you have a 300 kg satellite or a 5-ton satellite, putting it on a rocket that lifts 100+ tons isn’t helpful if you need a specific orbit. I think of it like an A380 versus a private jet. Electron is at the private jet end of the spectrum, while super-heavies are the A380s. Both have distinct purposes and needs, and one doesn’t replace the other. Still, it’s incredibly exciting to see. One thing we’ve felt and seen is that having your own launch site is more important than ever. When we built the Mahia Peninsula launch site in New Zealand, many thought we did it because I’m a New Zealander and liked it there. But in reality, we built it to be in complete control of our launch cadence and meet demand. Government ranges are getting congested, and if you map out all the required launches, you can see why we also went to Wallops. We made some compromises to try and solve the launch cadence problem. Other space companies have realized both the advantages and disadvantages of owning their own launch site. Moving on, as a company, we also do a lot of satellite work, so I want to touch on the state of satellite manufacturing. The biggest takeaway for me is that the default in spacecraft is now "lots." A few years ago, when Planet Lab launched 300 spacecraft, it felt like a massive number. Now, 300 is normal—nobody bats an eye. It’s when you start talking about 3,000 or 30,000 that people take notice. This shift creates supply chain issues. Rocket Lab is highly vertically integrated, not because we have a religion about it, but because the supply chain often isn’t there. Many suppliers are small shops doing exquisite work, but scaling is incredibly difficult. Basic infrastructure like ERP and MRP systems is expensive, creating a "valley of death" between small and large scale. To cross it, we’re seeing more pure-play component companies emerge, focusing on scale. More standardization is also happening. I’ve challenged my team to have "one of everything" in stock at all times—whether it’s an Electron rocket or a reaction wheel—so we can ship immediately. That’s normal in other industries but hasn’t been in space due to scale constraints. Others are following this model, which is great. Now, I’m straying into areas I’m not an expert in, but looking at applications from space, two key areas dominate: Earth observation and communications. Earth observation demand keeps growing, yet new startups aren’t appearing as they did five or ten years ago. Investors often ask, "Where is the multi-billion-dollar scale?" Some companies have scaled well, but the expected massive market hasn’t quite materialized yet. Communications, on the other hand, is all about internet and direct-to-device services. This requires enormous scale—building and launching hundreds or thousands of satellites. Traditional players are struggling against disruptors who can deploy infrastructure at lower costs and faster speeds. This leads to the question: Are future space companies even "space" companies? To be competitive, you need your own rocket, in-house satellite manufacturing at scale, and the ability to launch relentlessly. The line between a space company and an applications company is blurring. Regarding funding, the SPAC frenzy was wild. Many companies went public that shouldn’t have—if you don’t have a product or revenue, you probably shouldn’t IPO. Some companies turned to IPOs as a last resort because they couldn’t raise private capital. The public markets have now filtered out the winners and losers. That said, the space industry benefited enormously from that capital influx. It allowed well-organized teams to make major progress. Funding markets are picking up again, but investors are more discerning. It used to be that having a SpaceX CV and an idea was enough to raise money. Not anymore. Now, investors demand real execution and substance. On U.S. space strategy, space remains a priority for the administration, which is great. There’s a stronger focus on value for money and execution. Legacy players reliant on cost-plus contracts may face disruption, while innovative firms taking on risk and executing well will see major opportunities. Defense spending is also growing, with large programs like the SDA playing key roles. At Rocket Lab, our business is 50% defense and 50% commercial, but when you break down our commercial customers, over half of them are defense-driven too. That sector is only going to expand. Looking ahead, I predict consolidation among legacy players and medium-sized companies as the industry becomes more commercially driven. China will continue investing aggressively in space, making the sector more politically contested. Unfortunately, I also expect one or two rocket companies to fail this year—it happens nearly every year as the bar for entry keeps rising. Mars will get significant attention, and while I’d love Venus to get more focus, we’ll see real steps toward a human footprint on Mars. Overall, I’m incredibly bullish on 2025. The industry is scaling rapidly, and there are tremendous opportunities ahead. It’s going to be an exciting year for everyone in space. With that, I’ll hand it back over and, as I said, reserve the right to be completely wrong about all of this. But I hope everyone enjoyed my view on the industry. [Music]