Hello, and welcome to Rocket Labs Fourth Quarter and Full Year 2025 Earnings Conference Call [Operator Instructions] As a reminder, this conference is being recorded. It is now my pleasure to introduce your host, Morgan Connaughton, Vice President, Marketing and Communications at Rocket Lab. Thank you. You may begin.

Thank you. Hello, and welcome to today's conference call to discuss Rocket Lab's Fourth Quarter and Full Year 2025 financial results, business highlights and other updates. Before we begin the call, I'd like to remind you that our remarks may contain forward-looking statements that relate to the future performance of the company, and these statements are intended to qualify for the safe harbor protection from liability established by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. Any such statements are not guarantees of future performance, and factors that could influence our results are highlighted in today's press release and others are contained in our filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Such statements are based upon information available to the company as of the date hereof and are subject to change for future developments. Except as required by law, the company does not undertake any obligation to update these statements. Our remarks and press release today also contain non-GAAP financial measures within the meaning of Regulation G enacted by the SEC. Included in such release and our supplemental materials are reconciliations of these historical non-GAAP financial measures to the comparable financial measures calculated in accordance with GAAP. This call is also being webcast with a supporting presentation, and a replay and copy of the presentation will be available on our website. Our speakers today are Rocket Lab's Founder and Chief Executive, Sir Peter Beck; as well as Chief Financial Officer, Adam Spice. They will be discussing key business highlights, including updates on our launch and Space Systems programs. We will discuss financial highlights and outlook before we finish by taking questions. So with that, let me turn the call over to sir Peter.

Thanks very much, Morgan. So I'm going to start today by stealing some of Adam's thunder and sharing some of the financial highlights upfront. We had a new annual revenue record in 2025 coming in at $602 million, which represents 38% growth year-on-year compared with 2024. We also had a record quarter in Q4 with revenue coming up at $180 million, which was up 36% from Q4 last year. At the end of Q4, our backlog sat at a record $1.85 billion, which is up 73% from the same time in 2024. And finally, we also achieved record gross margins in Q4 at 38% GAAP and 44% non-GAAP. As you tend to say on launch day, that's greens all across the board and a great result. It comes down to one thing, and it's simply relentless execution from the Rocket Lab team across our launch and Space Systems programs. Here are some highlights from that execution. I won't labor on these now as we'll go into more detail in the up-and-coming slides. But ultimately, we launched and signed a record number of electron missions and led the way on hypersonics testing with haste and achieved some significant qualification and development milestones on Neutron. On the Space Systems front, we were awarded the largest contract in Rocket Lab's history, successfully delivered the ESCAPADE mission in Mars for NASA, and we had record growth across all of our Space Systems component businesses. On acquisitions, we welcomed Geost in 2025, which officially marked our entrance into payloads and followed this up in Q1 2026 with the acquisition of Optical Support, Inc., which further strengthens our optical systems offering. We also expanded our machining and manufacturing footprint with the acquisition of Precision Components Limited, which actually just closed today and will ultimately support continued…

Thanks, Pete. Fourth quarter 2025 revenue was a record $180 million, coming in at the high end of our prior guidance range and representing an impressive year-over-year growth of 36%. This strong performance was driven by significant contributions from both of our business segments. Sequentially, revenue increased by 16%, underscoring the continued momentum across the business. Our Space Systems segment delivered $103.8 million in revenue in the quarter, reflecting a sequential decrease of 9.1%. This decline was primarily stemmed from our Satellite Platforms business and our Solar businesses, both of which continue to perform exceptionally well despite the time-to-time programmatic nonlinearity of revenue recognition under ASC 606 and related subcontractor progress. We're fortunate that the growing diversification across Space Systems and Launch can often provide more predictable top line growth despite underlying volatility at the individual product line level. This was one of those quarters where strength in Launch Services more than offset the declines in Space Systems, generating $75.9 million in revenue, representing an 85% quarter-over-quarter increase due to the increase from 4 to 7 launches during the period, including 1 HASTE mission. On a full year basis, 2025 revenue was $602 million, an impressive 38% growth year-on-year. Now turning to gross margin. GAAP gross margin for the fourth quarter was 38%, at the center of our prior guidance range of 37% to 39% and an increase of 100 basis points quarter-over-quarter. Non-GAAP gross margin for the fourth quarter was 44.3%, which was also in line with our prior guidance range of 43% to 45% and an increase of 240 basis points quarter-over-quarter. The sequential improvement in gross margins was primarily driven by an increase in Electron fixed cost absorption due to the increased launch cadence within the quarter, paired with increased contribution from our higher-margin Space Systems components…

[Operator Instructions] Our first question comes from Andres Sheppard with Cantor Fitzgerald.

Adam, maybe I want to start with the backlog. I'm wondering if you can maybe help us build drill a bit deeper in it. And maybe remind us what is included in here, does this include the 40% of revenue from SDA Tranche II 10% of maybe the Tranche III? And what are you including from Neutron and Electron here?

I don't know how much you caught that -- so the -- all of the SDA contracts were added to backlog. So what remains for SDA Tranche II transport layer is still in the backlog. Obviously, what's been recognized as revenue is no longer there. Through the end of Q4, we hadn't recognized any of the Tranche III contract awards. So all of that value is currently in backlog, and that will start to convert into revenue and come out of backlog obviously in that process. As far as Neutron is concerned, I think we've spoken before that we have several flights that are representative in our Launch backlog that's reflected in our filings. So hopefully, that answers your question on backlog composition.

Yes. That's helpful. And maybe just as a follow-up. So on Neutron, with the shift to Q4 now with the first launch, how should we think about cadence? Will you still target maybe 3 launches within the first 12 months after the first one? How confident are we in the development of the second tank and wondering if maybe we should expect any step-up in CapEx now with the second tank in production.

And I can answer a couple of those and maybe you and summer as well. Andres, so with respect to the tank, I think it's well understood what needs to be done there. And we had built a lot of the second stage tank on the machine. So that really solves that problem. And the way to think about just sort of follow-on flights is it's not quite as dire as like moving all of the follow-on flights 12 months or to the first flight because as you've seen in the presentation, we're already building flat out additional Neutron tail numbers. So it will probably be a slightly faster convergence into subsequent flights because none of the other hardware that's qualified as being halted, obviously, it's just that tank and the AFP machine enables us to build a tank just way more rapidly than with a hand lay process. So I think we'll be in better shape there.

Yes. And Andres, I guess with regards to your question as far as CapEx and so forth related to the second tank that's replacing the first 1 that ruptured I mean the benefit now, as Pete said, of being on the AFP is not only can we produce it faster, but the actual cost to produce that second tank is quite low. The first tank was expensive because as Pete mentioned earlier, it was a hand-laid up tank. It took a long time, this will be much quicker. And also, since we've now commissioned the AFP, we're really just talking about variable costs related to the tank materials, more than anything else because the existing labor is already kind of in the model. So there won't be any increased CapEx and the impact to R&D as a result of the tank failure is actually not -- the tank itself is actually not that significant.

Our next question comes from Edison Yu with Deutsche Bank. .

Wanted to ask a question on space data centers. And I think you had alluded to a lot of interest. I think it's obviously become a topic in the industry. Can you give us a sense on how these kind of early discussions are going with potential customers interested in doing this? And is it realistic to see some type of Rocket Lab content in a space data center, let's say, within the next 2 or 3 years?

So thanks for the question. So I think, look, we're early with data centers. If you look at some of the models, there's a number of things that sort of have to come into focus before they become the logical choice versus terrestrial. But we never want to miss an opportunity and we've been developing the silicon arrays and power solutions for a while now focusing on mega constellations and there's high-volume power applications. But if you stand back objectively and you think about what are all the challenges with putting data centers in orbit, it boils down to really 3 things. One is cost and cadence of Launch to be able to make the model close. And then 2 is heat rejection through various means. And 3 is just sheer power, like there's a gigawatt of electricity, electrical power. So solar arrays of multi kilometers in scale are what's needed. So we wanted to make sure that whether they leave this Earth or not, there'll be Rocket Lab logos all over that stuff. So as far as I'm aware, there's nobody else has a silicon solution quite like we've developed.

Understood. And to your point on heat rejection, I guess, the rate eater, is that a capability you have in-house that you need to develop over time? Or is that something inorganic? Just curious on what needs to be kind of technically done there.

Yes. I mean, look, all of that spacecraft have radiators, I mean, you generate heat, you have to reject it. So there's various kind of ways of doing that piping heat around the spacecraft radiator. So I don't see that as a huge technical challenges just on the scale, that scale required hasn't been achieved before. So that's the challenge there. But to be clear, I mean, I don't foresee us building massive AI data centers any time soon, but those who are at least experimenting with it and looking to go down that path, I think we have a lot of compelling solutions.

Got you. If I could just sneak one quick one in. In terms of just the discussions, can you give us a sense of like the flavor of customers? Are these kind of new customers, nontraditional customers kind of exploring this idea with you?

Yes. I mean we have to be a little bit careful here, but I would say that there's certainly more nontraditional looking at this kind of solution than traditional players.

Our next question comes from Ronald Epstein with Bank of America.

This is Alex Preston on for Ron. So I know you talked a little bit about progress on the Mynaric acquisition, but I was a little more interested maybe broadly in the environment in Europe and more generally, right? It seems like there's a growing appetite for, call it, indigenous launch in national security space capabilities. And I'm interested if you sort of see this trend yourselves or how you see this developing. I know Pete mentioned no other small launch provider has really succeeded in the last year, but it's still, I think, focus for a lot of people.

Alex, it's a great question. Look, one of the reasons why we like Mynaric and why we think it's important, Europe and Europe more in general, is exactly that point is that -- there's a lot of space nations there that have very little capability with giant aspirations and really short time frames. And I think it's always everybody's desire to build domestic capabilities. But the reality is, if you want to stand up these kind of capabilities really, really quickly. You don't have the decades that it takes to build often these sovereign capabilities. They're very specialist often equipment and facilities and also intellectual property and knowledge. So we see Europe as a great opportunity for us and a real expansion beachhead we can provide solutions at the component level. We can provide solutions at the complete system with respect to a satellite. We can provide launch, and you've seen even European space agencies procure Launch from us now. And once we have a footprint in Europe proper, being eligible for participating in your European programs becomes possible. So I think it is -- it's a great opportunity. There's literally billions and billions of dollars of well-funded government programs underway right now, and the time lines associated with those are conducive or, I would say, not conducive necessarily always to creating sovereign capability.

Got it. And then I guess it would sound like the attitude is still broadly constructive from what you said versus maybe Europe starting to get a little more distant from U.S.-based providers?

No, I think it's very constructive. I think naturally Europe is looking to create sovereign capability, but often also the conversations we've had, they're very pragmatic and realistic that the capability they're looking to create takes a long time. So working with, for example, a Rocket Lab Europe is a great way to move forward.

And just real quick, would you characterize is that the same on launch as you went on Space Systems where I think there's a bit more existing indigenous capability in Europe already.

Yes, they're certainly giving it a good college try but not having tremendous success, I would say, -- but that is just how difficult launch is. But I think launch is just so strategically important. You can build all the satellites you want, but if you can't put them in all, but it's kind of pointless. So this is the reason why you have the European Union and ESA launch vehicles that on the face of it aren't that commercially competitive, but they will never go away because the nations need access to orbit. So, I would expect to see that persist for some time and continued investments made in -- into Launch for the -- for Europe. But in saying that everyone is pragmatic and if you need to get stuff all but then pick up the phone.

Our next question comes from Erik Rasmussen with Stifel.

Yes. Maybe just back on Neutron. I appreciate the sort of the update on cadence. And it sounds like with the pushout, naturally, you continue to sort of build out some of those more capabilities in just Neutron infrastructure around Neutron. But post sort of test flight, and we think that sort of Q4 and if it's late Q4, I don't know the timing, but what you think then that first revenue flight? What do you think the timing around that could be? And also when considering that, that probably needs to have a higher level of reliability. And then with that, are you still targeting this as a recovery mission?

Erik, thanks for the question. So the timing of Flight 2 will always depend on the results of Flight 1. If flight 1 goes swimmingly, then the time to get the second vehicle on the pad, we'll endeavor to make it short as possible. If the things to fix this kind of things to fix. But nominally, the timing remains consistent to what we've kind of talked about. And the vehicle will be outfitted with all of its kind of requirements for Flight 1 even for a down range lending, we'll attempt to do the reentry and landing burden space it down. Once again, if all that goes well, then the next one we would intend to slip a barge under. If we pull drive it into the ocean, then we'll probably go to a Flight 2 and get that soft landing right before we go and put infrastructure under that, could be costly to them if we damaged.

Great. And maybe just on Electron. You had a nice launch campaign in 2025, 21 successful launches. What does the manifest and internal planning suggests or this year? And then maybe just the mix between your standard Electron missions and HASTE?

Yes. I mean I'm not sure how much we've disclosed about that. But I mean, certainly, this year, we're looking for more launch than last year. As you saw the bookings and manifest are bulging and we're being in electrons out every sort of 11 or 13 days now. So that's going extremely well. But I'll pass over to Adam, if he wants to comment on -- you want schedule for the year.

Yes, Erik. So I think consistent with prior discussions, we see good growth opportunities in Electron. And when I say electron, I mean Electron and HASTE. So I think you'd expect increase in both standard Electron launches plus growth in the HASTE side of the business. We've normally point people towards kind of 20% growth, I think is a pretty kind of I would say a reasonable estimate for where we see this business growing over the near and intermediate to maybe long term. So I would say we've certainly given the production team direction to produce significantly more rockets in 2026 than in 2025. And as Pete mentioned on the call earlier, we booked over 30 Electron launches in '25. And we always get turns orders. So look, I think if you kind of nominally assume a 20% growth in kind of the Launch business, excluding Neutron, of course, I think that's probably a pretty good place to be.

Our next question comes from Trevor Walsh with Citizens.

Peter, maybe first for you, some of your prepared remarks around the OSI acquisition made it sound like that was even further enabling you with the customer as far as just attractiveness for your services and your capabilities, even though it sounds like from the announcement that OSI was actually already in the chain of suppliers with Geost. So is the customer that focused really then, can we assume on just the vertical integration aspect? Or is there also just capabilities, functionality features of that acquisition from a systems perspective that are also attractive? Just trying to gauge kind of how you think customers are really looking at this, if that makes sense.

Yes. No, that's a great question, Trevor. And to be fair, the customers probably don't care that much, other than the fact, what they really care about is, does this sensor arrive on time at a cost and a performance capability that they've never seen before. And that's what we're delivering. And in order for us to be able to guarantee we deliver that, the most critical element of many of these optical systems are, in fact, the optics, bringing and owning that optics in-house really, really drives certainty for us around cost and schedule and innovation. And it's -- yes, they were a supplier to Geost, that's for sure. And when we acquired the Geost business, the first thing we sat down with the leadership team there and said, right, we are the critical supply chain elements that might trip us up and been able to deliver really disruptive and affordable parts or programs for our customers, and this was the #1 thing. I think this makes us very unique amongst the other suppliers of payloads who are outsourcing optics. And it is the most expensive, the most longest lead item in any of these explicit optical payloads. So it was important to own it.

Terrific. Super helpful. Adam, maybe just a quick follow-up for you. for your prepared remarks commentary around the backlog and how Tranche III is going to -- sounds like it's maybe conservative in terms of what's going to be recognized in that first 12-month period. Can you just maybe walk us through a little bit of the puts and takes of how -- what's, I guess, influencing that Tranche III rev-rec? Is it just customer timing of when they want deliverables? What's the -- just give us maybe one level deeper, that would be terrific.

Yes. So I think we've articulated previously that typically when you win one of these programs, you can recognize revenue kind of like 10% in the first 12 months after award, then 40% in the second 12 months, 40% in the third 12 months, in the last 12 months, it's about another 10%. So you got a pretty kind of normal bell curve. What I would say is that with -- what really gates our ability to kind of move faster is really our subcon deliveries, right? So would really either kind of helps us accelerate and get through these gates and milestones and rev-rec quicker is our subcons ability to deliver on time. And so I think that, that all goes back to what Pete was talking about earlier and the importance of vertical integration. So to the extent that we can just own more of the platform, we have greater control. And that allows us to have more predictability to how we kind of time revenue recognition and so forth. So I would say that a big job for us in 2026 is across our engineering and production teams is to really make sure we stay on top of what parts are still coming from third parties, make sure that they stay on their deliverables so we can kind of, again, get the program accelerate as much as possible and get more of that revenue recognized. So again, we go into it pretty conservative. I think what we've -- what -- if you look at the pure conversion at 37%, I think that was mentioned earlier of backlog converting, I mean, obviously, a portion of that is Launch but the portion that's related in Space Systems. Some of that is coming from the components and subsystems completely unrelated to SDA Tranche II and Tranche III. But what is in there for Tranche III is, again, assuming some pretty conservative delivery dates from our subcons, and hopefully, we can work with them to do better.

Our next question comes from Ned Morgan with BTIG.

Actually got Andres on, I don't know what happened there, but all good. I wanted to ask about Space Systems. It seems like it came in a little bit weaker than what consensus might have expected at first. So, I just wanted to know the puts and takes there. I know you explained it, but why might have consensus gone a little bit ahead here in the quarter?

Yes. I don't know that consensus does a great job in breaking out the various pieces of the business, even differentiating much between Launch and Space Systems. And then certainly within Space Systems, I'm not sure they really look at between kind of our platforms business versus the subsystems business. So one of the things I mentioned this in my prepared remarks, is that it is difficult to I would say -- I mean you can't -- to the extent that you can control the execution for your rev-rec requirements under ASC 606. It just depends on how well your subs are executing, right? And how tightly you're working with them to make sure they stay on track. And to your best efforts, I think we've all seen in some fairly public venues customers of these programs talking about how there's been some snags in the supply chain, including from those, for example, like from the optical terminal providers. And so if you look at what we do is we continually look for ways, as Pete mentioned, to just reduce any kind of dependency on third parties as much we can. That's why if you look at Electron, how vertically integrated that vehicle is Neutron will be very similar. We're getting that way more and more with our Space Systems platform offerings where very little is still, I would say, outsourced to third parties. So it's really just a function of, again, you work with them and get them to deliver as aggressively as you possibly can, while not sacrificing quality or cost where we can. So yes, I wouldn't read too much into the granularity that people may have expected from our Space Systems business because 1 of the benefits that we have now from being -- having such a diversified businesses, we really just look at the top line, how can we deliver that sequential growth of the business and sometimes more of it's going to come from Launch. And sometimes the word is going to come from Space Systems and within Space Systems, platforms can have a great quarter and components can be weak and vice versa. And then just gets that much better, and we'll have that many more tools at our disposal when we have Neutron coming online, which is why, obviously, getting that first flight off is so important, why we're all looking so forward to that.

Yes. No, that's super helpful. I guess to stick with you. I mean, around the 2 acquisitions that were just announced, are there any financials that you can give any kind of color as to what they were doing on a performance basis? And I guess, just how much cost we might be able to see taken out as a result of them being brought in-house?

Yes. Our pipeline is always kind of interesting. It's got a mix of kind of more needle-moving deals from a financial perspective as far as revenue contribution and so forth. These particular deals really much more strategically around, again, vertical integration, reducing risk versus, I would say, providing big access to large external third kind of TAMs, if you will, or adjacent markets. So these are really more, I would say, reducing some margin stacking and also just taking greater control over the programs. So I wouldn't say there's not a, I would say, a material amount of revenue contribution that's going to move the needle from the deals that we just announced. Clearly, Mynaric is -- would be a different story if and when that deal gets approved because that would come with a significant backlog and revenue opportunity. And again, our pipeline also has lots of other deals that have a mixture of just, again, elimination of margin stacking and in some cases, also more meaningful revenue contribution. But these 2, I don't think you need to change your models at all for the impact for these 2 relatively small deals.

Our next question comes from Guatam Khanna with TD Cowen.

I was wondering on the Neutron tank failure. Have you guys -- are you high certainty that it was that manual layup process. And therefore, the new process is not going to have the same anomaly? Or is the study still ongoing of what happened?

Yes. No, we undertook a complete pastry analysis, and we're able to find the piece of tank that caused the initiation of the failure. We're able to reproduce the results through analysis and then also through coupon testing as well. So no, we're very, very confident. We understand that value extremely well.

Okay. That's great to hear. And then you mentioned some areas where you'd like to take more in-house vertical integration. Can you describe some of those product areas that might be of interest?

Yes. I think if you look across the space craft these days, the areas that we still don't have 100% control of are starting to get smaller and smaller. We have a great RF team, but I think that's an area and we will look to bolster. And we'll seek opportunities to add scale where possible. But I think -- this is just going to be bread and butter for us to constantly make sure that we don't get stung with suppliers that aren't able to deliver for us and continue to vertically integrate. But as Adam pointed out, our M&A pipeline is pretty full, and there's a range of opportunities there from these kind of things that important, don't add huge revenue bottom lines, but they kind of guarantee revenue because we're not going to miss milestones. But they're ranging through to some real needle movers that are much more transformational and as Adam also pointed out, we're always making sure that we have plenty of capital reserves to go and do those more meaningful acquisitions.

Our next question comes from Ryan Koontz with Needham & Company.

I want to ask about backlog, Adam, your commentary there as you think about the opportunities ahead over the next, say, 12, 18 months? Obviously, the SDA has been very, very active. And how you think about the composition of your backlog relative to DoD versus commercial, just in terms of the next 12, 18 months?

Yes, all fortunate spot, where traditionally, government business has not really been ever viewed as a hockey stick. I think for us since we're coming in, in such a disruptive way -- and were disruptive, but also the whole architecture where you've gone from Geo to Leo and the number of satellites that are required to support that architecture has just been so strong. We've got so many things that are pushing us in the back as far as kind of where the opportunities are. But I'd say, overall, we've got really big commercial opportunities that we continue to chase even though for me, I was given the choice of chasing a government hockey stick or a commercial hockey stick, I would take the government hockey stick because even though they may not be as dynamic in some cases at a program level as commercial, they always pay their bills. They're pretty clear cut how you work with them. And in that government market, we're just competing with people that seem to be fighting with their hands tied behind their backs, right? So we move much more quickly. We have a lot more tools at our disposal because of our vertical integration. So I love the mix as it's trending towards government. I do think it's also very comforting to have this big commercial hockey stick opportunity out there as well. But I would say that it's -- the pipeline -- when you look at the pipeline of kind of business opportunities, forget the M&A side, it's a pretty balanced set of opportunities between commercial and government. I mean I'll let Pete kind of provide his view, but it seems like we don't just have a choice of kind of taking one fork or the other in the road where we can try to think about how do we take both of those things. And I think we've done a pretty good job balancing, but maybe Pete want to speak about that.

I think you've said it perfectly, Adam. Yes, Mike, I can't add anything better than that.

Great. Maybe just a quick follow-up. As you think about Golden Dome and timing and PWSA fitting into that architecture, any updated thoughts on your role there or opportunities when you think that emerges as a truly viable business opportunity for you?

Yes. I think Golden Dome is quite a complex one is obviously, it's a huge program, but it's -- a lot of it is also classified. So it's very difficult to discuss too much. But I would say that in multiple fronts, I think we are well positioned to have a good chunk of this, whether it be launch or satellites, optical terminals, a lot of the optical payloads, the SDA, when the Tranche III SDA win is a clear missile track payload, which is very complicated pallet obviously and critical for the Golden Dome. So as that program formulates and continues to grow, I think we're pretty key piece of that foundation.

Our next question comes from Michael Leshock with KeyBanc Capital Markets.

I wanted to ask a longer-term question on a potential future Rocket Lab, satellite constellation, just given some of the recent announcements across the industry. And as you mentioned in the presentation, the significant growth in satellites that's expected over the next decade, have there been any changes to your approach on a future constellation of your own or what potential applications you may target? Or is this still a longer-term growth opportunity that really won't be a priority until Neutron is launching consistently?

Yes. Thanks for the question, Michael. I think what's kind of call here is that you've all heard me say that it's going -- space is going to get blurry. It's going to be difficult to determine what is the space company and what is something else company. And that continues -- that thesis really continues to firm now that you look at data centers and all these other kind of opportunities that are growing in space. It's like it is -- the large successful companies are going to be blurry. Are they going to be a space company, are they telecommunications company are they data services company. And your point is really accurate until kind of Neutrons online, and we have multi-ton reusable launch capability. I think that's the time that we can really lean into deploying infrastructure. But in saying that, we're not sort of sitting back and sitting on our hands, thinking about what we could do. I think you can see in just about every avenue, we at least have knowledge or components or exposure. When I say revenue every kind of opportunity that potentially being thought about or used in space today. So it's still too early, Michael, but it's not on a day that doesn't go by where there's not an internal discussion about it.

Great. And then maybe on the Stage 1 tank rupture, I don't know if I missed it, but how fast can you produce the second tank now with the new AFP machine? And then will that get even faster as you repeat this process over time?

God, look, it's ridiculous. The AFP machine is just is totally ridiculous. I can't remember the exact time line to lay out a dome. But we measure a dome manufacturer on the AFP in days. Actually, the longer pole in the tent dear for a tank manufacturer is not actually laying up and curing the components. It's the joining of the various domes and tanks and barrels together and all the tabs and details of baffles and all those kinds of things actually take the time, but a new tank, we're talking months here not for a complete tank. But from an actual manufacturing of the oral components, it's ridiculously fast. And also that to Adam's point, it's like now that it's all automated, really the only cost of the raw material that's going in there.

Our next question comes from Jan Engelbrecht with Baird.

I'd like to get your -- just go back on PWSA and just get your sort of your high-level thoughts about that program. It does seem like your focus will shift more towards the tracking layer given that's really impressive when the Geost acquisition, just how you're thinking about the future of that for Rocket Lab. And then also just we've heard a lot of government reports being issued on the transport layer piece, like how difficult would it be for a commercial variant like Starshield with MILNET to sort of act as the transport area. It seems like there's a lot of things that would stand in the way of that because a commercial Starshield orbits at much lower altitudes than the transport of tracking layer. So there would be a lot of redesign work. But I'll stop there and just to get your overall thoughts there.

I mean we could dig out about this for days, Jen. So yes, it was intentional for us to move up the value chain, if you will. Not the transport layers elementary by no means is a entry, but it's an order of magnitude more difficult and more valuable to be able to doing the tracking stuff. And the tracking stuff is critical for things as things develop for Golden Dome and other kind of programs. So that's the high-value stuff where you want to be, that there's really only a few people in the nation that can successfully execute on. With respect to the transport layer going away, I mean we haven't heard or seen any evidence to that. Obviously, there's a lot of discussion about other providers. But the whole point of the SDA program is kind of all of the spacecraft are integrated very closely with each other, even though they're from other providers, there's a set of requirements that we all must meet for interoperability. So I think your point is a good one. It becomes more difficult to have interoperability when you have something that's quite different. But it will be interesting to see how it all shakes out. But I think for the tasks that SDA is trying to achieve, to me, at least, it makes more sense to have a dedicated transport layer and then the other layers, of course, tracking and then custody and so on, on top of it.

Very helpful. And then just a quick follow-up, if I may. I want to be respectful of the Mynaric deal, let that play out as it will, but on optical terminals, sort of at which point, and again, hoping like it works out well here, but at which point do you potentially look at not maybe an alternative supplier of OCTs or does Geost or the new acquisition, OSI have any capability that you could look towards developing these optical terminals over time?

Yes. So Geost has developed some optical terminals. And obviously, we have the optics now in-house as well. But there's just it's incredibly difficult to do. And as we look across the landscape of all of these optical terminal suppliers, of which there's really only 3, Mynaric just stood out as the absolute best with respect to technology. Now they're stuck at other things like running their business, but they make the best terminals. So to go out and develop your own terminal, yes, totally feasible. It's just a time thing. And it would just take longer to do that than it would to acquire.

Our next question comes from Jeff Van Rhee with Craig-Hallum Capital Group.

This is Daniel Hischman on for Jeff Van Rhee. On Mars Telecommunication Orbiter, the $700 million, $750 million there about wondering, it looks like earlier this week, NASA put out an RFP for Mars Telecommunications Network. So a little bit of a name change there. It sounds like that might be a multi-satellite architecture where previously, they were just looking at that one single orbiter. But what can you tell us just about how the competition and market lines positioning for that's been evolving?

Thanks, Jeff. Great question. Yes, so the MTO, as you pointed out, there's a slight change there to network. And as more infrastructure is built on Mars, then, of course, the network will need to be created. The MTO was always intended to be the first of water to come. Look, obviously, we think we're well positioned here. There's -- we have the experience. We have a lot of the capabilities and a lot of the demonstrated capabilities, but I think we'll put our best foot forward there. And of course, others think they can do the job, too. That's the great thing about competition and we'll see who wins.

And then Adam, one for you just on the gross margins, which obviously are growing tremendously, I think, what, 8 points up in 2025. And then the guide for Q1 '26 has those stepping back down a few hundred bps and you called out the Space System mix shift, is there anything persistent about that mix shift either in terms of the new business coming online potentially with the SDA transport layer that it's going to have some persistent margin pressure? Or should we be assuming in our models that we'll be getting right back to that more normal cadence of a few hundred bps of expansion as we get back into the later half of the year?

Well, I think gross margin is a -- there's a lot of things that are going on underneath the surface there. So as we continue to grow, there's a call -- a question earlier from Erik about the Electron launch cadence, so I mentioned a 20% launch growth in that. To the extent that we can do better than that, which I think there's opportunities to grow faster in 2026, then that's going to be a positive upward bias to margin. These larger, longer-term programs like SDA Tranche II and Tranche III, they typically come in at relatively at the low end of our gross margin mix, but they have really good operating margin kind of characteristics to them or contribution margin because of the fact that there isn't a tremendous amount of incremental R&D that's kind of outside of the programs. So I would say that in a quarter where you've got a lot more contribution from the big programs like Tranche II and Tranche III, that will put downward pressure, offset hopefully by growth from -- increase in the Electron contributions. The Components business has a quite interesting range of margins. You have some products in there that are more towards, say, 30 points in non-GAAP gross margin, other ones that are kind of north of 70 points of non-GAAP gross margin. So there's a widespread and mix is hard to predict that far out in the year. I mean I do think there will be a supportive trend towards gross margin, but I think it's difficult to really get a lot of granularity kind of much more than, I'd say, maybe 1 or 2 quarters out. But overall, I think as we continue to kind of grow that components mix of the business, more Electron in the…

Our next question comes from Suji Desilva with Roth Capital.

Just real quick on the Electron launches. Are there any ASP trends to not add on any tailwinds in the second half? Or are they fairly steady next couple of quarters?

I think that we're going to continue to see a march towards, I'd say as we increase more of the mix towards HASTE, that's helpful to the ASP. I think margins are relatively consistent because even though HASTEs are priced higher, there's a lot more mission assurance and other things go along with them. So absolute dollars are higher. The gross margin percentage is relatively consistent across HASTE and Electron. And then -- so I would say, overall, we've seen a very nice expansion in ASP over the last several years because of the increased mix from HASTE, and I don't see that changing. In fact, we continue to grow that subsegment of the business quite nicely. And again, I just given the things that Pete has talked about earlier regards the Golden Dome and the importance of the hypersonics test capabilities, that's a really strong area of growth for us going forward. So I think overall, a positive bias towards higher ASP per launch. just as we've seen over the last several years.

Okay. And a follow-up question maybe is for Pete. Pete, maybe you can reflect on versus a few years ago to get to the launch cadence, the customers' payload readiness was something that was variable. Has that changed? Has the nature of the customers changed where you can feel more comfortable that you can hit a 11- to 13-day cadence? Is it just a higher number of customers coming in that you can kind of load them off? Or just any color there would be helpful.

Yes. Thanks, Suji. I would just say that we've probably got better at looking like a duck where it's just on a glassy pond and it looks normal and there's legs flat out underneath it. And with a higher cadence gives us the ability to move customers around. So I would say that, that's just the reality of the Launch business, payloads are ready until they're not. I think we've just got way better at managing those customers having more rockets integrated, ready to go and managing that. So it's great to hear that it looks smooth, but behind the scenes, as everyone's flat out, mixing and matching and making sure that it all looks smooth on the outside.

Our next question comes from Kristine Liwag with Morgan Stanley.

This is Justin Lang on for Kristine. Pete, can you just back on the Neutron time line, how do you not run into the Stage 1 tank issue? Would the program have met the earlier goal of getting to the pad here in 1Q? It sounded like from your earlier comments, there was a good volume of qualification work completed in the quarter. So, just trying to assess whether there are other factors that play in this new time line or are really isolated to the Stage 1 tank issue?

Yes. Thanks, Justin. It's kind of hard to say because when the tank let go, like the reverberation went through the test stand and the entire business. So at the moment that happened, everybody just stopped what they were doing and a lot of sense to get on to the tank to figure out what went wrong. So we moved a lot of resources around from lots of parts of the business. So I'd have to go back and have a look and see if we played everything forward with what that time line would have looked like. But sort of hard at this point because we had an anomaly.

I would add one more thing to that. I think if there's a silver lining to the tank anomaly is the fact that because of what happened, it just has given the other kind of subsystem teams, the opportunity to really kind of fully exercise all the demos, if you will, much more than they could have under the compressed time schedule we were working towards. So in some ways, the tank letting go will create certainly a lower risk test flight when that happens later this year. So I think yes, it's -- nobody is ever happy when you have an anomaly. It's something that wasn't planned and certainly wasn't anticipated, but I think it does help us bring down the overall kind of risk stance of the program as we move towards that first test launch.

Got it. That makes sense and helpful. And Adam, actually, just one for you back on the SDA award. Curious if you could speak a little bit more to the cash profile in particular and how that lines up against the revenue build curve that you sketched out earlier?

Yes. So actually kind of interesting with these types of programs because of the way that you do the accounting and the rev-rec so under ASC 606, you -- we model these things, though, you always have to be in a positive cash position. So you -- when you kind of work out your milestones and how you're flowing out dollars to your subs and so forth and spending money in the program internally, you always need to be in a position of positive cash in order to be able to recognize revenue along the way. And so this program is consistent with that. We've gotten some questions as to whether or not the partial government shutdown has impacted our customer, in this case, ability to pay as they know. In fact, we got a very large payment from that customer. So the money is still flowing and everything seems to be green lights right now.

There are no further questions at this time. This does conclude the program, and you may now disconnect. Everyone, enjoy the rest of your day.