Okay. All right. I think it was our RAM mic. My mic was on. Good afternoon, everyone. Thanks for sitting in here. We have Adam Spice, CFO of Rocket Lab. We'll run through a bunch of stuff today. Let's start with the launch side before we move to the space systems satellite side of things. We'll start with Electron. Maybe just talk about where we are in terms of your production cadence, launch cadence, how much capacity you have, where we could get to in terms of Electron. Yeah. Electron is our workhorse today on the launch side of the business. We've got Neutron coming to market, which I'm sure we'll talk about a little bit later. We've launched Electron 88 times. Last year, we launched it 21x. This year, upper 20s is probably the right way to think about the cadence. It's had a pretty good growth clip to it. We sized our factory and our infrastructure to do one launch per week. We're approaching a little bit more than half of that as we exit 2026. In order for us to double that again, we'd probably have to put some more factory footprint in place. I think we're pretty good from a pad perspective. We have three launch pads. We have two in New Zealand. We have one at Wallops. Across those pads, we're licensed to launch roughly 140x per year. We have a lot of launch capacity. Factories, we're going to need a little bit more, but Electron is a relatively small vehicle. Not a lot of heavy infrastructure. We could probably double production, probably take us two years, and probably cost us a few tens of millions of dollars, but not a lot. We think we're in a good spot. The demand has been continuing to grow. We've found new applications for the vehicle, most recently in the form of these HASTE missions for doing hypersonics R&D work, that's growing really quickly. That's probably the fastest-growing piece of the portfolio for Electron. We're also seeing a lot of growth, a tremendous amount of growth on the international side of Electron. As more and more questions have come around with regards to kind of availability of rideshare access on things like the SpaceX transporter missions. It just puts even more of a demand focus on Electron. We think that the growth is going to continue to be strong on Electron. The mix of HASTE versus non-HASTE, where it is today, where it can go to, what that means for price per launch. HASTE this year will represent around 20% of the total launches. Again, it's the fastest-growing piece of the portfolio. You can think about HASTE probably having a 30%-50% CAGR on it at this point, for the near term. The rest of the portfolio of Electron being in the 20% CAGR range. If you look at pricing. A HASTE mission averages around $10 million versus Electron commercial launches, which are more in the, call it, $8 million-$9 million range. We do have missions that are quite a bit higher than that. Not really anything lower than that in the backlog. We occasionally get higher mission ASPs when people come with late-breaking needs that we have to prioritize the customers are willing to pay for that. Yeah. Transition over to Neutron. Talk about where we are in terms of timeline there and the key gating steps from here to first launch. Yeah. Neutron, it's getting put through its paces in its components, like the subsystems of the rocket. Usually the longest pole in the tent of a rocket program is propulsion, and propulsion's progressing well. We've posted some videos recently showing full-duration hot fire tests with the engines gimbaling and so forth. We think we're in good shape there. We're now testing the vacuum-optimized upper-stage engine. That's doing well. Now what we do is basically, now the engines are, quote-unquote, working. You basically have to put them through what's called a run box, which is all the different conditions under which the engines have to operate, different fuel mixtures, relight temperatures, ambience, all the kind of stuff that affect the real-world conditions. That's just a matter of getting through all of those, and things are progressing well. If you think about the avionics, that's another typical risk pocket on a development program, but we're leveraging a lot of the electronics and avionics from Electron for Neutron. Pretty low risk there, and we feel good about where we're at. The infrastructure's in place, so the launch pad is ready to go. Factories are producing, engines, we're producing an Archimedes engine every eight days, which is the engine for Neutron. Those are just returning those so we can continue doing a lot of testing. I'd say the tanks and structures are the next work stream. That one, we had an issue in February on our booster tank, where we had a tank rupture. We got the tank up to the flight pressures, but we didn't get to the margin. We usually push beyond that. As we pushed beyond the 100% of flight pressures, then basically the tank let go. We ultimately root-caused that to be a manufacturing issue from a third party, and so now we're manufacturing the current and future tanks on our AFP or automated fiber placement machine. Should eliminate those workmanship type of issues. Clearly, I think the big risk item is we've got to get that tank back on the test stand and get it through its hydrostat and its cryostat. All of that right now is scheduled to be in the, call it, the August timeframe, and we're trying to pull that in a little bit into July. Everything right now is still pointing towards an opportunity to launch before the end of the year. Okay. How far have you built ahead? On Neutron at this point? I guess, the production system is geared to do what? At this point, we're scaling the production system to be able to produce up to 4 Neutrons per year. Now at this point, we are already starting to build. We kind of refer to them as tails. This first flight is tail 1, then tail 2, tail 3. We're working on elements of tail 3 at this point. For example, on the engines, as we put the engines through their paces, we're getting to the point where we'll have that full set of 10 flight engines, because you need nine on the booster and you need one on the upper stage. Again, as I mentioned, we're in a position to roll an engine off every eight days. Doesn't look like engines will be any kind of a gating factor. Now that we're on the automated fiber placement machine for tanks, that shouldn't be a gating item. We really don't see anything that prevent us from ramping. You've got to be a little bit careful because, what we don't want to do is, we fly the first rocket and realize, oh, we probably want to change a few things for flight 2 and flight 3. Redo them. Yeah. We're building ahead to things we think are very low risk of having to be iterated, because we don't want to take a bunch of write-offs on in-process stuff. Okay. The plan for reusability. When do you test for reusability? When do you target reusability? I guess, how do you view the risk around the potential for reusability? We started working on reusability several years ago when we were looking to bring Electron into reusable form, right? Falcon 9 didn't start off as a reusable launch vehicle. They iterated their way to that. We were progressing down that similar path with Electron. Decided to prioritize Neutron development over Electron reuse, just because of the value in getting that rocket to market first. In the process, we've reentered 10 Electrons from space back into the atmosphere. We understand how the materials behave. The composites for Neutron are slightly different and ideally better than Electron for reentry purposes. Several missions that we reentered Electrons, we were actually testing out materials for Neutron on those missions. We've relit engines. We've done all kinds of things. We think we're in a pretty good position of having done this now 10 x on Electron to be in a good position where we're not really doing it for the first time. On Neutron. The plan right now is the first mission, its goals are to basically prove that the rocket can deliver mass to orbit, do a reentry of the vehicle, and then do a propulsive soft landing in the ocean. That rocket will basically sink to the bottom of the ocean. The second rocket, which we currently have planned for about 6 months after the first successful test launch, that one is planned to, again, in this case, deliver a payload, return through the atmosphere, and actually land on our barge. We're going to take that rocket, and we're going to use it for post-morteming, so that won't refly. The third tail is the one where we plan on launching it, bringing it back, and putting that back into service in one form or another, whether it's the full rocket or whether it's we have to replace some of the elements on the rocket, whether it's some avionics, some of the propulsion. Kind of increasingly get to full reusability over the course of the next few flights after that. How many boosters will you build? I think it depends on how successful we are at surviving reentry, right? I think right now, ultimately we can foresee a need for, say, a half dozen boosters in the fleet. Our goal is to be able to fly or is designed to fly up to 20 x. We've now seen Falcon 9s kind of do over 30 reflights, but different materials usage, like they're using stainless steel and aluminum tanks and so forth. Quite a bit different, actually. If we can get to the 20 flights, we think a fleet of six vehicles gives you the opportunity to fly quite a few times, approaching perhaps 100 x per year with a fleet of about six. If you have any kind of reasonable reuse model of, let's say, you fly your boosters now once every 30 days which is kind of where Falcon is right now. Okay. Let's transition over and talk about Space Systems, the bigger part of your business, see if it gets less attention. Less sexy. Yeah. What you're doing there is really interesting. Talk about all the capabilities you've kind of built out and acquired over the past couple of years and kind of where you are in terms of being very vertically integrated on the satellite side of things. Yeah, it's definitely been a journey. I mean, it's been a very conscious one. I kind of think back to when I interviewed with Peter Beck for this role about eight years ago. Actually, it's close to nine years ago now. I asked him what his vision was for the company. If he'd said, Oh, I'm out to build the most dominant small dedicated launch company on the planet," I would've said, Oh, that's interesting, but probably not big enough, right, as far as what he interested in. What he laid out at that time, he's been very, very consistent, is this vision of being an end-to-end space company where we started with small launch because it was actually doable. From a capital perspective and infrastructure, because we didn't have limitless capital like some other space companies that when you think about the people that we compete with, two of the richest people on the planet, right? They have a lot of access to capital. We started off with something that was doable, which was Electron. We achieved that, but he says, "I'm going to do Electron, and then very quickly thereafter, once I prove that that works, I'm going to basically start building out the capabilities to build satellites in a very vertically integrated way. Because ultimately my goal with Rocket Lab is not to just be a launch company, but I actually want to have my own assets on orbit that I generate recurring revenue from, because that's the real goal here. There's a lot of parallels. We see what SpaceX has accomplished. They've just done it very, very quickly and very successfully. Partly because they've had such great access to capital. They also had phenomenal engineering execution as well, but we share the same goal. In order to do that, we kind of started off and we literally got in a conference room with all of our key people and said, Okay, we're now going to start building satellites. We literally did block diagram explosions of what is a satellite, and all the way from things like attitude direction and control, to in-space propulsion, to solar power, and batteries, and tanks, and so forth. We said, Okay, where are the real choke points in all of this? We started breaking them down and say, well, if you want to have a satellite orbit, you need to be able to do pointing and stabilizing, so let's go order some reaction wheels and star trackers and sun sensors. We called up Doug Sinclair, that owned Sinclair Interplanetary. They were the leader in the smallsat element of the market, and said, "We want to order some of these reaction wheels. He said, Okay, well, you'll get them about 12 months from now and they're going to cost you X. Pete's like, well, that's not going to work. Right? If new space is going to live up to the growth potential that we all see for it, we've got to do things in a very different way. Let's just buy them, and then we did that. We bought Sinclair. That was our first acquisition. They were making about 150 reaction wheels a year. Last year, we shipped over 2,000 reaction wheels, right? We tend to buy these small, very capable, proven heritage products and then apply the Rocket Lab kind of production capabilities and scale them pretty aggressively. That's kind of how we've gone about kind of a methodical way of picking apart all the pieces. We started with reaction wheels and star trackers and sun sensors. We basically bought a software company that controls those elements of the spacecraft called ASI. We bought a separation system company that makes the devices that separate the satellite from the rocket. We bought a solar company called SolAero that makes the solar panels. Solar is one of the most expensive and important parts of a satellite: the materials. We just continued to build off of that. Most recently, we acquired a company called Motiv that makes solar actuators, so basically the things that help your solar panels deploy when they get on orbit. Very important piece, because if those hinges and actuators fail, then your mission fails. Done. We're very careful about picking things that de-risk each mission. Right? Things like solar, but we also kind of just don't assume that we have to buy these things. For things like radios, we've actually developed and manufacture our own radios. You may have seen, we announced a new product called Gauss, which is an in-space electric propulsion system. We could have gone out and acquired an EP company, rather than that, rather than spend a couple of hundred million dollars and pay off some VCs, Pete said, give me $15 million in 18 months and I'll go do it myself, that's exactly what we did. We've got the luxury of not having to buy everything that we need. We can actually develop it ourselves as well. It's been a combination of inorganic, working our way into all the key subsystems on a satellite. Most recently we, well, not most recently, but the new addition to our capabilities, last summer, we acquired a company called Geost to get the payload capability. You can think of a satellite bus as being kind of the functional chassis of a satellite, and the payload makes it do a specific thing, whether it's taking a picture, communicating. In this case, with Geost, it's an infrared sensor for doing missile warning, missile track. Each satellite's got a different payload to meet its application. Now we've forayed into making the payloads as well. Now we can provide a complete solution to the customer. The embodiment of that is for SDA Tranche 3, tracking layer win that we got late last year for $816 million. That basically now we provide the full solution. It's our bus, it's our payload. Hopefully down the road, those satellites launch on Neutron, so we can kind of get that full value chain of going all the way from satellite design, manufacturing, launch, and then ultimately, again, when we own our own constellation assets, operate those on orbit. You didn't mention Mynaric. Yeah. That's a big one. That's a big one. Yeah. Mynaric. Mynaric. Sorry. Yeah. Everyone pronounces it differently. I thought I had it right. Mynaric makes optical terminals. Basically those are the devices that sit on the satellites and let the satellites talk to each other through high-speed, very secure optical links. If you think about any constellation of size going forward is likely to have these optical links versus RF links. It's a very key foundational capability. It also gives us a beachhead in Europe. Europe is a very protected market. They will only buy American when they have to buy American. Unless you have a presence there where you're actually considered a European supplier because you make it on the ground there. We now have a very modern, capable factory with several hundred people over there pumping out optical terminals, and there's an opportunity for us to produce other existing Rocket Lab products in that factory and be branded Europe. I think not only does it bring key foundational technology, but it brings market access with it as well. We're actually very, very excited about that deal. I think acquisitions have been a big part of our strategy for growth, and I think they'll continue to be. Again, we just look at any way it's possible to grow the business as fast as possible. Are there any, you talked about on PWSA being able to kind of do the entire thing, are there any missing pieces you feel like in terms of what you still need from a sat perspective? I would say at this point, the piece that we still rely on third parties for, anytime we have a reliance upon third parties, it's uncomfortable. One thing that we've learned in this market is if you build a dependence on your supply chain, it's going to burn you at some point, right? It's really on the RF signal chain part where we are relying on third parties. We use third parties for our beam steerable antenna arrays, for our modems, for our antennas, for those kinds of elements of that, the encryption boxes. Over time, I think you'll find us kind of in-source a lot more of those capabilities. Okay. Fortunately, they're out there. For most of the elements that we would need to bring in-house, these are not billions of dollars. These are tens of millions dollars, if not maybe hundreds of millions of dollars of acquisitions and/or internal development. You talked a little bit about PWSA, but what about SBI? How you're participating there at this point, space-based interceptor. It's an exciting but admittedly early opportunity, right? I kind of view that opportunity as a little bit of a risk on risk, where you put risk money up to prove that you can get through a couple technical hurdles or technical gates. If you get through those, there's some level of reimbursement for that R&D that you put at risk, which then lets you take an even bigger bite at the apple in the next phase. Ultimately, if you get through all those phases, and you keep getting some kind of return on that risk R&D. Not a lot. That's not where the money to be made is. Ultimately, if the program was to go into production, which would require the whole congressional budget approval to get through, which has all the political risk dynamics associated with it, there's potentially a very big prize at the end of that. We're partnering with Raytheon on that program. Each company brings its unique strengths and capabilities. We think we're well-positioned. We are fortunate we have got so much of what we need to deliver for that program already kind of in-house. The incremental cost for us to go support these kind of things is relatively low. For us, I kind of view it as a nice option on a big opportunity that doesn't require a huge amount of P&L burden at this point. If the program continues, I think those R&D investments are going to increase, and that'll take a little bit more scrubbing and scrutiny. We're excited about the opportunity. We think we've got the best partner you could partner with there in Raytheon. We think it could be a really big kind of needle-moving program for the company over the next several years if it comes through. You talked about the ultimate goal here is to put up your own constellation and have a business, capture the economics around that. What kind of timeline are we looking at before that becomes potential reality? Thoughts on what kind of business that would go to serve at this point? Well, I think we're pretty fortunate in that on the Launch Services side of the business, you get to see a lot of different business models, right? What I've seen come and go over the last eight years has been pretty interesting. If you were to rewind the clock to 2018, 2019, a lot of excitement was around new space business models of putting Earth observation satellites up to count cars in Walmart parking lots. See how low oil tankers were sitting in the water to see how much oil. All that kind of stuff. None of those things really developed, right? It was supposed to be for insurance markets, after hurricanes, earthquakes, and all kind of stuff, but that really didn't develop. What really did develop was government, right? Government has become the hockey stick for our business in a lot of ways, both domestic and international governments. If you think about applications out there, the biggest opportunity, the biggest TAM, has historically been on the communication side of things, right? We've all seen how Starlink has grown pretty dramatically. That type of application is probably out of our wheelhouse at this point, just given the amount of capital it would take to do that, and we think that it's probably pretty well addressed between what Amazon is doing, what SpaceX is doing. There are different verticals within comms that could end up being more attractive. They're a little bit more protected, if you will. More actionable. Part of what we have to align, too, is the fact that whatever we do from a constellation perspective, it's going to be serviced by Neutron. You have to align Neutron capacity availability with when you want to deploy your own stuff, right? Right now, if you look, we're booking Neutrons for customers. Right? For third parties. Ultimately, we want to use Neutron for our own needs, but if you look at our announced cadence of one launch this year, three launches next year, and five launches the year after that, you really start talking about 2029 before we'd actually have capacity of our own to start leveraging as Neutron really starts to scale. It wouldn't really make sense for us to start thinking about deploying stuff on other people's rockets, right? This is really focused on Neutron's availability. Neutron is very important for a lot of reasons. It's not only important for our Launch Services business, but it's very important for our own constellation ambitions as well. It's absolutely a focused investment for us. We watch these other markets develop, like will the direct-to-device market become big and real? Will other applications that develop that our people are working on right now. One thing we've seen is Earth observation is a real market. It's a relatively small market, but it's real, and it's growing. Comms is absolutely real, and we've seen examples of that with, again, how SpaceX has been growing, but there's other parts of that market. Now you've got secure government comms as an opportunity as well that's presenting itself and, as we've seen Starshield turn a government procurement of satellites into a service procurement kind of model. Which is pretty exciting. We think there's lots of different ways to pursue the application side of the business. We haven't even talked about, I'm sure on your list, one of those opportunities that people are talking about is space-based data centers, too. Yeah. The new shiny object, literally. I wasn't necessarily going to go there, but I wanted to ask about SpaceX and their transition to Starship and away from Falcon, and most of their big chunk of their Falcon capacity has been going for Starlink f or themselves. It hasn't actually been. Yeah. We don't really know ultimately the plan with Falcon from here, but in a potential world, they launch Starlink on Starship, and that frees up capacity from Falcon to sell into the marketplace. How do you think about that? What impact that potentially could have on Neutron and pricing in the market? If you look at what SpaceX is really chasing from an opportunity set, I don't think that being in the merchant launch business is the best ROI for their focus. If you think about the audacious plans they have around Starlink and around space-based data centers, taking other people's freight to orbit is probably not the best use of their time, right? Sure. There's been a lot of rumors and speculation about whether Falcon 9 stays on the market for merchant capabilities or not. If it doesn't, we never counted on Neutron not having a Falcon 9 competitor. The probability that that capacity that's currently being used for Starlink deployments would be made available to the merchant market doesn't seem like the most probable outcome. It seems more like if and when Starship works, they've obviously focused that on Starlink and also on the space-based data center opportunity. The merchant market becomes less and less of a focus for them. For us, our approach has been, because access to capital's been different, we've taken this crawl, walk, run approach where we've been selling picks and shovels as far as hardware to other satellite manufacturers to build out our own capabilities. In the process of selling satellite subsystems to our satellite manufacturing competitors, we've built out our capacity and our technology portfolio. Same thing on launch. We've proven out our launch capability, and we've had our customers basically pay to develop that launch infrastructure and launch capabilities, which ultimately both of those things we'll use for our own needs. SpaceX didn't really need to do that as much because of their access to capital, but now given where they're going, again, I think it's seeming like that Neutron's going to have a very nice spot in this market going forward once we can actually get it to a point where it can scale rapidly. Which again, it's going to take a few years, but we have our plans well in place to be able to scale that vehicle pretty quickly. As Neutron comes online, what impact will there be to your margin profile, your cash flow? You're going to build out boosters. How does that play into the cash flow side? Fortunately, because it's a reusable launch vehicle, you actually end up building the greatest number of boosters early in the program. Yeah. Assuming success on those boosters, you're not putting them in the bottom of the ocean. Each time we build a booster, it's about $50 million. If you assume that, I mentioned before, you have a fleet of, say, a half a dozen of these boosters, that's about $300 million of capital equipment, if you will, that you're building out. From a pad perspective, again, we've got the pad built out. Over time, would we need to build out more pad infrastructure to support the volume increases? Yes. If you think about the timing, it takes about two years to build a new launch pad at an existing launch facility, and it costs about $100 million. On Neutron, we were able to have our government partners co-invest with us to about 50% of that. If you assume $50 million-$100 million per pad and two years lead time, so let's say we had to build two new pad infrastructures and six boosters, you're really looking at around $0.5 billion type of investment, which is quite manageable in the context of the opportunity that we're looking at f or that vehicle. The margin progression? Margins, it's a function of success on getting to reusability, right? The vehicle that is currently planned to launch at the end of this year, that's an R&D vehicle. No revenue associated with it. A lot of the R&D is already in the rear-view mirror on that when it launches. The second tail that we talked about, that'll be revenue associated with it, but either kind of neutral to negative margins on that one, on that first customer-paying mission. By the time you get to reusability, then the question's going to be, okay, well let's say the third vehicle that we fly lands successfully on the barge and is reused. Well, at that point, depending on how we work with the auditors to get the treatment on that vehicle, that may also have been a fully expensed tail. In which case, after that, the COGS isn't burdened with the booster anymore. At some point, you're going to get your model to the point where let's say that we're all in agreement that the vehicle's proven that it can fly 20x. Then you're amortizing a $50 million booster over 20 missions, and the margins really become much more predictable, and I think predictably towards our model of 50% non-GAAP gross margin. There'll be a journey along the way, and there's going to be some volatility because at some point, you may have agreed that you're going to try to amortize this booster over four flights, and maybe it flies 8x, right? You fully amortized a booster over four launches, and you get free boosters essentially for the next four missions. There will be some volatility, but what we're looking to do is probably break out Electron and Neutron separately within our Launch Services. You can see that. You can see the steady progression of Electron, and you'll see that progression as well, the volatility associated with the Neutron. You can form your own opinions about where margins will end up. As you think about the future state of the business, maybe not thinking about putting up your own constellation. That seems a bit out there, but the Launch Services versus Space Systems piece. Space Systems larger today, more backlog, but how do you think about the relative growth profile of the two parts of the business, looking out beyond maybe the next year or two? Well, if you think, again, in the three- to five-year type of horizon, we think there's a 20%-30% CAGR on Electron from where we're at today. Again, let's say if we're launching, pushing towards, let's say somewhere in the 25-28 launches this year on Electron, and you apply that 20%-30% CAGR to that, and ASPs continue to drift up. Could that be, call it a half billion to billion-dollar business in the next three to five years? Yeah, I think there's potential for that, particularly as international governments look to do more of what the U.S. has been doing. Now, Neutron, I mentioned that 135 cadence. Well, I think that once you can get that vehicle to be launching, let's say a couple dozen times a year, which could be in that same timeframe, and those come along at kind of $50 million-$55 million. ASPs. You're talking about another billion-dollar contribution from that. I think we've been historically conservative on forecasting ASPs, hopefully there's some upside to that, particularly, who knows what the Falcon 9 dynamics are at that point in time. The Space Systems business has the biggest TAM in front of it, right? That's the one where we've got pretty broad exposure to kind of a rising tide, raising all ships thing, where we sell into everybody who's playing into these major programs globally. That business has got a lot of big opportunities in front of it. I would say that I still see Space Systems being bigger than Launch. I think the mix between Launch and Space Systems will probably. Today, it's 70% Space Systems, 30% Launch. Could I see it getting closer to maybe 60/40 or 55/45 in favor of Space Systems? Yeah, I can see that, but I think the growth is still going to be, I think in the near term, stronger on Space Systems until Neutron really kind of hits its stride. Okay. Then in terms of capital, future capital needs, you talked about the investment on Neutron that's out there. You've had a lot of success with the ATM in terms of raising capital. How do you think about potential future capital needs? Obviously, you've been a very active acquirer, just how you're thinking about that and your preference for using the ATM program. The stock's been done very well. How do you think about future funding needs and how you might go about that? Yeah, I would say with the capital that we had exiting Q1, and what we've talked about around needs for Neutron, we really don't need to raise any more capital for Neutron or even our Space Systems business. It's really all about inorganic. It's like we want to have plenty of dry powder to go acquire strategic assets. Of which there are quite a few out there. I think that we're continuing to look for more needle-moving kind of things. I think historically, if you look at the deals we've done, they've been very strategic, vertical integration plays, bringing really unique capabilities into the portfolio, but they haven't been financial deals. Where we're acquiring a lot of revenue and cash flow. I think as we continue to evolve as a company, I think we're going to start to put more of those kind of deals in focus, because it's really now about how do we get true scale into the business, and there are some inorganic ways of doing that. We want to be well-positioned to be able to capitalize on those. Okay. Well, we're about out of time. I think it's a good place to end. Adam, thank you for the time. Thanks, David. Thank you.