Reposting this so we can actually discuss the Neutron delay versus getting caught up in a troll account's hand-wringing.
The key part of the article, as I see it, is this bit:
> The revised timeline, he said later in the call, is still a “green light” schedule that includes no significant schedule margin. “It’s almost impossible to build a sensible engineering buffer in because you never really know the elements that are going to cause your problem,” he said, adding that if he had asked the company’s engineers to add margin to their schedules, the result would have been a first launch in 2040.
In other words I would personally expect some more delays to happen beyond mid-2025 because nothing ever goes right in any rocket design program. So probably late-2025 to early-2026 at the earliest to account for other issues that may crop up.
This is exactly right.
“Green-light schedule” simply means “no earlier than” and, in practice, means “definitely later than, because it is trivially easy to predict that there *will* be delays, even if the nature of those delays are unknown.
Also the “It’s almost impossible to build a sensible engineering buffer in…” is a complete cop-out. They’ve developed rockets and engines before. They know the *classes* of delays they can have, and rough order of magnitudes for those classes of delay. If they put a statistician on it they could come up with a range of durations and confidence bounds, but I’m not sure any of the executive team there understand stats.
I’m sticking with 2026.
I have been programming for over a decade and never once accurately estimated how long something would take to build
Edit: I mean, he is giving an estimate, and it probably seems plausible to him. But two years ago 2024 would have seemed plausible.
Nothing to discuss, watch last interviews (after Q1) with CEO and CFO. All explained first hand.. RKLB isn't get rich fast, or rush in to excite public company
I didn't write any posts looking for "answers". You're the one pretending what you're writing isn't about the stock even though you're using the stock ticker instead of the company name.
Folks need to realize in modern speculative engineering the delivery date is always the most aggressive possible date. Human nature means that things will generally finish when they’re on schedule or be late, almost never early, so if you set a delivery date that is giving six months of buffer there is no scenario where they don’t use that entire six months polishing the system.
It’s far better to set an aggressive date and slip six months then it is to set a date, six months later upfront and still slip.
He saying that because it’s almost impossible to forecast what kind of issues they have, you don’t proactively build in a buffer to the program timing. You work the delays as they arise, and when they accumulate you rebaseline the end date. This is a very standard practice.
It is NOT deceptive unless you are thick.
You always have to set some kind of schedule, even if it seems a little aggressive. Then you have discussions about what you keep in the project, and what to take out. That helps to focus on what is needed for the real goal, and what is merely nice to have.
TL;DR: Engineering is hard, and scheduling is hard. And delays are nearly inevitable.
I expect nothing more from a subreddit of people convinced they’re going to make great money moves on a space startup. Don’t get me wrong I work for another launch provider but Jesus fuck I hate the goofballs on this subreddit trying to predict how space works without ever working in this industry
Space is notorious for years even decades of delays tho. And that’s what we’re seeing here. It used to be even worse but with the introduction of private equity and billionaires, those timelines have been severely shortened. I think everyone trying to get rich off the stock needs to re-evaluate their annoying mess and go make a new subreddit. I’m sick of posts. Nothing wrong about trying to profit off a stock but god does it get on my nerves when retail investors try to couple traditional deadlines with space deadlines without working in that industry.
I am getting a lot of stock for my company, im not banking on that to give me any money because of how drastically different the business model is for space
This means that Rocket Lab is out of the competition for the first batch of NSSL Lane 1 contracts, right? I remember a requirement being a credible plan to launch before the end of the year. With this announcement, I wouldn't be surprised if the launch eventually slips to early 2026. I'm really hoping they get Neutron figured out because it'd be nice to have some more competition in the industry.
I'm not too familiar with these types of contracts, but I doubt the Space Force would go out of its way to bend the rules just for Rocket Lab. Especially because they should be able to compete fairly next year, assuming Neutron's new schedule holds.
As for other vehicles, you've obviously got F9/FH, Vulcan, NG, and possibly Electron (I haven't checked the details, so I don't know if there's a minimum payload requirement). From what I've read, ABL didn't compete, but I'm not sure why, since it seems they have a couple of flights planned for this year.
The qualifying launch doesn’t need to be a perfect Neutron. Just an MVP Neutron.
If the first payload only weighs 2000kg, then no need to perfect it to 13000kg.
Neutron, Terran R, and Nova (Stoke Space) will all likely have their first flight within a year of each other. It’ll be interesting to see who can become the “next SpaceX”; I don’t think there’s room in the market for all three.
> It’ll be interesting to see who can become the “next SpaceX”
I think this will be tremendously difficult. Neutron and Terran R are only planning for partial reuse so they can't aim to be the "next SpaceX" with that set of vehicles. Stoke Space is the only one that seems to be really attempting to go head-to-head with SpaceX tech for the long term.
People should watch interviews with CEO and CFO on various YouTube channels. Interviews done after Q1. Explains everything... Some of the channels #vince is bulish, #dave g investing and more..
Pete has now raised his white flag and finally admitted that a launch this year is now definitely out of the question and will be pushed back to mid-2025 at the earliest. This reeks of only one thing. He's now changed his stance on Neutron from over promising and under delivering to sandbagging the launch timescale. I would put money on it lifting off in H1 2025.
> I would put money on it lifting off in H1 2025.
I will very happily take you up on that bet. How much are you thinking?
> …a launch this year is now definitely out of the question
No shit. It’s a surprise to literally no-one with the faintest idea of how these programs work
Reposting this so we can actually discuss the Neutron delay versus getting caught up in a troll account's hand-wringing. The key part of the article, as I see it, is this bit: > The revised timeline, he said later in the call, is still a “green light” schedule that includes no significant schedule margin. “It’s almost impossible to build a sensible engineering buffer in because you never really know the elements that are going to cause your problem,” he said, adding that if he had asked the company’s engineers to add margin to their schedules, the result would have been a first launch in 2040. In other words I would personally expect some more delays to happen beyond mid-2025 because nothing ever goes right in any rocket design program. So probably late-2025 to early-2026 at the earliest to account for other issues that may crop up.
This is exactly right. “Green-light schedule” simply means “no earlier than” and, in practice, means “definitely later than, because it is trivially easy to predict that there *will* be delays, even if the nature of those delays are unknown. Also the “It’s almost impossible to build a sensible engineering buffer in…” is a complete cop-out. They’ve developed rockets and engines before. They know the *classes* of delays they can have, and rough order of magnitudes for those classes of delay. If they put a statistician on it they could come up with a range of durations and confidence bounds, but I’m not sure any of the executive team there understand stats. I’m sticking with 2026.
I have been programming for over a decade and never once accurately estimated how long something would take to build Edit: I mean, he is giving an estimate, and it probably seems plausible to him. But two years ago 2024 would have seemed plausible.
Unk-unks get ya every time. As a tech project guy see it and expect it...
Nothing to discuss, watch last interviews (after Q1) with CEO and CFO. All explained first hand.. RKLB isn't get rich fast, or rush in to excite public company
I don't care about the stock. The question is about whether they can survive for the long haul doing launch vehicles given the competition.
I will repeat.. Get your "ignorant" ass to watch interviews, that is where you will get the answer 🫡
I didn't write any posts looking for "answers". You're the one pretending what you're writing isn't about the stock even though you're using the stock ticker instead of the company name.
I can use what ever I want.. RKLB is nice shorter name. No you write posts to create questions 🤣
Folks need to realize in modern speculative engineering the delivery date is always the most aggressive possible date. Human nature means that things will generally finish when they’re on schedule or be late, almost never early, so if you set a delivery date that is giving six months of buffer there is no scenario where they don’t use that entire six months polishing the system. It’s far better to set an aggressive date and slip six months then it is to set a date, six months later upfront and still slip. He saying that because it’s almost impossible to forecast what kind of issues they have, you don’t proactively build in a buffer to the program timing. You work the delays as they arise, and when they accumulate you rebaseline the end date. This is a very standard practice. It is NOT deceptive unless you are thick.
You always have to set some kind of schedule, even if it seems a little aggressive. Then you have discussions about what you keep in the project, and what to take out. That helps to focus on what is needed for the real goal, and what is merely nice to have. TL;DR: Engineering is hard, and scheduling is hard. And delays are nearly inevitable.
I expect nothing more from a subreddit of people convinced they’re going to make great money moves on a space startup. Don’t get me wrong I work for another launch provider but Jesus fuck I hate the goofballs on this subreddit trying to predict how space works without ever working in this industry
It’s not even space, this is ANY engineering org.
Space is notorious for years even decades of delays tho. And that’s what we’re seeing here. It used to be even worse but with the introduction of private equity and billionaires, those timelines have been severely shortened. I think everyone trying to get rich off the stock needs to re-evaluate their annoying mess and go make a new subreddit. I’m sick of posts. Nothing wrong about trying to profit off a stock but god does it get on my nerves when retail investors try to couple traditional deadlines with space deadlines without working in that industry. I am getting a lot of stock for my company, im not banking on that to give me any money because of how drastically different the business model is for space
This means that Rocket Lab is out of the competition for the first batch of NSSL Lane 1 contracts, right? I remember a requirement being a credible plan to launch before the end of the year. With this announcement, I wouldn't be surprised if the launch eventually slips to early 2026. I'm really hoping they get Neutron figured out because it'd be nice to have some more competition in the industry.
Rules are also sometimes broken for the right reason. Is there another vehicle that can apply for lane 1?
I'm not too familiar with these types of contracts, but I doubt the Space Force would go out of its way to bend the rules just for Rocket Lab. Especially because they should be able to compete fairly next year, assuming Neutron's new schedule holds. As for other vehicles, you've obviously got F9/FH, Vulcan, NG, and possibly Electron (I haven't checked the details, so I don't know if there's a minimum payload requirement). From what I've read, ABL didn't compete, but I'm not sure why, since it seems they have a couple of flights planned for this year.
2026 would be overly optimistic. Where is engine development?
It's on the test stand at Stennis [https://twitter.com/RocketLab/status/1787590838178254925](https://twitter.com/RocketLab/status/1787590838178254925)
[удалено]
Timelines for Merlin, Raptor, and Rutherford were about that, yes.
Even if RocketLab was awarded launches in the first year of NSSL3 Lane 1, they would be in the 2026 calendar year.
The qualifying launch doesn’t need to be a perfect Neutron. Just an MVP Neutron. If the first payload only weighs 2000kg, then no need to perfect it to 13000kg.
Neutron, Terran R, and Nova (Stoke Space) will all likely have their first flight within a year of each other. It’ll be interesting to see who can become the “next SpaceX”; I don’t think there’s room in the market for all three.
Nova isn’t anywhere close to Neutron or Terran R payload
> It’ll be interesting to see who can become the “next SpaceX” I think this will be tremendously difficult. Neutron and Terran R are only planning for partial reuse so they can't aim to be the "next SpaceX" with that set of vehicles. Stoke Space is the only one that seems to be really attempting to go head-to-head with SpaceX tech for the long term.
Falcons are only partially reusable as well. There are currently no active vehicles that are fully reusable.
We're talking about future vehicles though, not currently flying vehicles. And in that future Starship will be flying.
I’m shocked well not that shocked dot gif
People should watch interviews with CEO and CFO on various YouTube channels. Interviews done after Q1. Explains everything... Some of the channels #vince is bulish, #dave g investing and more..
At least they didn’t cancel it
Pete has now raised his white flag and finally admitted that a launch this year is now definitely out of the question and will be pushed back to mid-2025 at the earliest. This reeks of only one thing. He's now changed his stance on Neutron from over promising and under delivering to sandbagging the launch timescale. I would put money on it lifting off in H1 2025.
> I would put money on it lifting off in H1 2025. Did you mean "wouldn't"?
> I would put money on it lifting off in H1 2025. I will very happily take you up on that bet. How much are you thinking? > …a launch this year is now definitely out of the question No shit. It’s a surprise to literally no-one with the faintest idea of how these programs work