What Do Rocket Lab Q2 2026 Earnings Reveal About the Company’s Expansion?

Key Takeaways

• Record Q2 revenue reached $234 million, led by a much larger Space Systems contribution.
• Backlog reached $2.36 billion as launch and spacecraft awards expanded contracted future work.
• Neutron and the proposed Iridium acquisition could extend Rocket Lab from hardware into recurring services.

What the Rocket Lab Q2 2026 Earnings Show in the Numbers

Rocket Lab reported the strongest quarterly revenue in its history for the three months ended June 30, 2026. The company’s Q2 2026 financial results reported approximately $234.1 million in revenue, up 62% from $144.5 million in Q2 2025 and approximately 16.8% from Q1 2026. Backlog reached a company record of $2.36 billion. Those figures place Rocket Lab at a substantially different scale from the launch-focused company that entered the public markets in 2021.

The composition of that revenue is more revealing than the headline growth rate. Rocket Lab’s Q2 Form 10-Q and investor presentation report approximately $189.5 million of Space Systems revenue and $44.6 million of Launch revenue during Q2 2026. Space Systems consequently generated about 81% of total quarterly revenue. During Q2 2025, Space Systems produced $97.9 million and Launch produced $46.6 million. Space Systems revenue nearly doubled year over year even though launch revenue remained close to the comparable 2025 level.

That shift reflects years of expansion into spacecraft manufacturing, satellite components, solar systems, separation systems, flight software, optical communications, payload capabilities, and mission operations. Rocket Lab’s business model is no longer dependent on Electron launches to produce most of its revenue. A customer can purchase a component, a satellite platform, a complete spacecraft, launch services, mission operations, or a combination of those offerings.

Profitability improved on several measures, although Rocket Lab remained loss-making under generally accepted accounting principles. Rocket Lab’s financial statements show gross profit of approximately $84.6 million in Q2 2026. The company recorded a GAAP net loss of approximately $49.3 million, compared with $66.4 million in Q2 2025. Basic and diluted net loss per share improved from $0.13 to $0.08. Adjusted earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization remained negative at approximately $8.8 million.

Operating expenses show how much Rocket Lab is spending to support the expansion. Research and development expense reached approximately $82.4 million during Q2, with selling, general, and administrative expense of approximately $59.7 million. The company attributed part of the sequential increase to integration of Mynaric and continued investment in the Neutron development program.

Rocket Lab also strengthened its liquidity substantially during the six months ended June 30, 2026. Its SEC filings show approximately $1.53 billion of gross proceeds from at-the-market equity offerings during that six-month period, before approximately $16.7 million of related issuance costs. Cash and cash equivalents stood at approximately $2.13 billion at June 30, with current and non-current marketable securities and restricted cash bringing the broader liquidity figure used in the investor presentation to approximately $2.4 billion.

That capital provides substantial funding capacity for Neutron development, acquisitions, manufacturing expansion, launch infrastructure, inventory, and other corporate purposes. It also illustrates the financial scale required to pursue several expensive programs simultaneously.

The financing comes with dilution. Rocket Lab reported approximately 598.2 million common shares outstanding at June 30, 2026, compared with approximately 543.6 million at December 31, 2025. Equity issuance has helped finance growth and strengthened the balance sheet, but investors evaluating per-share value need to consider the expanding share count alongside revenue and backlog growth.

The financial picture is consequently more complex than a single record-revenue figure suggests. Rocket Lab has reached a scale where Space Systems contracts are generating substantial revenue, government and commercial bookings are extending visibility, and launch demand is filling future manifests. At the same time, the company is funding an expensive medium-lift rocket program, integrating acquisitions, expanding manufacturing, increasing inventories, and preparing for a proposed corporate combination far larger than anything it has attempted before.

Space Systems Has Become Rocket Lab’s Largest Business

Rocket Lab remains strongly associated with Electron, but the financial statements now describe a company dominated by Space Systems revenue. Space Systems generated approximately $189.5 million of Q2 2026 revenue compared with $44.6 million from Launch. During Q1 2026, Space Systems generated approximately $136.7 million. The sequential increase came from satellite platforms and components, including greater contribution from optical communications following the Mynaric acquisition.

The shift fits a broader change in satellite production. New Space Economy’s satellite manufacturing analysis examines how constellation programs have pushed parts of satellite manufacturing toward repeatable production rather than one-off spacecraft construction. Rocket Lab has positioned itself directly in that market through standardized platforms, components, and larger production contracts.

Government programs have become an important source of that work. On August 4, 2026, Rocket Lab announced a $397 million Flatellite contract under the U.S. Space Force Space-Based Airborne Moving Target Indicator program. Rocket Lab said the contract covers development, launch, and operation of multiple Flatellite spacecraft, with an option for additional spacecraft included in the announced value. Neutron is designated as the planned launch vehicle.

The structure of that award illustrates the commercial logic behind Rocket Lab’s integration strategy. Instead of selling a satellite bus and leaving launch and operations to separate companies, Rocket Lab can potentially receive revenue from spacecraft development, production, launch, and mission operations under one program. A contract of that type can put several Rocket Lab business units to work for the same customer.

Rocket Lab also disclosed contracts totaling more than $160 million for three geostationary spacecraft, including two intended to provide space-domain-awareness capabilities for U.S. Space Systems Command. These programs take Rocket Lab beyond much of its earlier low Earth orbit manufacturing work and broaden the range of spacecraft classes it can pursue.

Backlog provides a clearer measure of contracted future work. Rocket Lab reported approximately $2.36 billion in Q2 ending backlog, up from approximately $2.2 billion at the end of Q1. The company expects approximately 45.5% of the Q2 backlog to be recognized within 12 months, with the remaining 54.5% expected beyond that period.

The Q2 presentation divided backlog by segment and customer class. Space Systems represented 60% and Launch represented 40%. Commercial customers represented 57%, with government customers representing 43%. That combination gives Rocket Lab exposure to government programs without making government work the majority of reported backlog.

Backlog is not the same as collected cash or earned profit. Revenue recognition depends on contractual performance, production progress, delivery schedules, options, milestones, and other terms. Large satellite programs can also make quarterly bookings irregular. Rocket Lab acknowledged that large spacecraft and multi-launch awards can produce uneven backlog changes because individual contracts can be sizable relative to the overall total.

New Space Economy’s vertical integration analysis describes Rocket Lab as pursuing selective integration across launch, spacecraft, components, and mission services rather than simply reproducing another company’s structure. The Q2 financial results fit that description. Rocket Lab can sell individual products to independent customers and can also combine products when a customer wants a complete mission.

That flexibility may matter financially. A slowdown in Electron mission recognition does not prevent a satellite production program from generating revenue. A satellite customer can buy Rocket Lab components even if another company launches the spacecraft. Neutron customers may purchase launch without buying a Rocket Lab satellite. Integration can create internal sales opportunities without requiring every customer to buy the entire package.

Launch Demand Has Expanded Beyond Electron

Launch revenue was lower in Q2 2026 than in Q1, but newly signed contracts point to substantially more future launch activity. Rocket Lab reported more than $437 million in launch contracts signed during Q2 and after quarter-end across Electron, HASTE, and Neutron. The company said 26 new launches were booked, taking its total launch backlog above 90 missions, the highest level it has reported.

The distinction between quarterly launch revenue and launch bookings matters. Revenue reflects missions and contract performance recognized during a particular accounting period. Bookings represent future work. A quarter can consequently produce lower launch revenue at the same time that demand for future missions rises.

Electron remains Rocket Lab’s established orbital launch product. Its value proposition centers on dedicated missions for payloads that benefit from control over launch timing, orbital destination, or mission design. The company has expanded that launch heritage into additional government work through HASTE, a suborbital vehicle derived from Electron technology.

On July 27, 2026, Rocket Lab announced its $266 million Space Force HASTE contract covering a multi-launch program for suborbital missions. The company describes it as its largest launch contract announced to that date. The award reinforces HASTE’s position as a separate government-oriented use of technology derived from the Electron launch system.

Responsive space provides another example of how launch and spacecraft activities can combine. Rocket Lab’s VICTUS HAZE mission launched after 16 hours and 42 minutes of notice. The company reported completing spacecraft commissioning approximately 38 hours after launch authorization and completing the planned on-orbit pursuit activities well ahead of the mission deadline.

The mission is commercially relevant because Rocket Lab supplied the launch vehicle, Pioneer spacecraft, and spacecraft operations. New Space Economy’s responsive space analysis places such missions within the wider government interest in reducing the interval between mission authorization, deployment, and operational use.

Rocket Lab expanded that concept on August 10 with the announcement of GHOST, or Global Hypersonic and Orbital Spaceport Technology. The GHOST launch system is designed around containerized launch infrastructure, ground-support equipment, rockets, and range systems that can be transported to different locations. Rocket Lab Launch Complex 4 at the Pacific Spaceport Complex in Kodiak, Alaska, is planned as its initial installation, with two pads and an operational debut targeted for 2027.

GHOST broadens the product being sold. Rocket Lab is no longer limited to selling transportation from permanent pads. It is also attempting to package part of the physical and operational launch infrastructure so missions can be supported from additional locations.

Electron, HASTE, and Neutron address different portions of the launch market. Electron serves small orbital payloads. HASTE serves suborbital test missions. Neutron is being developed for larger commercial, government, constellation, and exploration missions. Having three products increases the number of customer requirements Rocket Lab can pursue, but it also raises the amount of manufacturing, infrastructure, certification, and operational work that management must coordinate.

The launch backlog offers evidence of demand, but future revenue depends on execution. Electron needs to maintain mission reliability and cadence. HASTE needs continuing government demand. Neutron must complete development and become operational before its contracted missions can generate the full economic benefit expected from the program.

Neutron Has Become Rocket Lab’s Main Execution Test

Neutron connects many of Rocket Lab’s expansion plans. The reusable medium-lift rocket is intended to open missions too large for Electron, support commercial constellations, compete for U.S. national-security launches, carry Rocket Lab-built spacecraft, and potentially deploy future Iridium satellites if the proposed acquisition closes.

Rocket Lab’s August 10 Q2 investor presentation showed substantial first-flight hardware in production and testing. The company reported more than 400 Archimedes engine hot-fire tests, Stage 1 assembly work, Stage 2 integration, thrust-module integration, and preflight testing of the reusable Hungry Hippo fairing. Rocket Lab said Stage 1 tank production was aligned with a target of delivering Neutron to the launch pad during Q4 2026.

The schedule requires careful qualification as of August 11, 2026. Rocket Lab had previously targeted Neutron’s maiden launch for Q4 2026. Its August 10 Form 10-Q retained the Q4 target for delivery of the vehicle to the pad but stated that the window for an end-of-year launch was narrowing. The company said exact launch timing would depend on first-stage qualification and other important tests scheduled later in 2026. A Q4 2026 launch therefore remains a target rather than a confirmed launch date.

The program experienced a significant test setback earlier in 2026. A Stage 1 tank ruptured during a hydrostatic qualification test on January 21. Rocket Lab’s Neutron test update said there was no significant damage to the test structure or surrounding facilities and that another tank was already in production.

Rocket Lab subsequently reported that its investigation traced the failure to a manufacturing defect at a tank join in the manually produced structure. The company shifted subsequent tank production to automated fiber placement and made a design change intended to provide additional margin and improve manufacturability. The revised program schedule moved the planned maiden launch from the earlier 2026 timetable toward the end of the year.

New Space Economy’s Neutron market analysis places the vehicle between dedicated small launch and larger established launch services. That market position gives Rocket Lab access to payload classes and constellation deployments that Electron cannot economically serve.

Demand has begun forming before operational service starts. On August 10, Rocket Lab announced a dedicated Neutron launch for Kepler Communications. The company also has multiple confidential Neutron missions under contract, including a May 2026 agreement involving five Neutron launches and three Electron launches scheduled across the 2026-2029 period.

The Space Force Flatellite contract also specifies planned Neutron launches. Rocket Lab has secured additional government opportunities that could use the vehicle after certification and development milestones are satisfied.

Neutron could change Rocket Lab’s economics if the vehicle reaches a reliable operating cadence. A Rocket Lab-built spacecraft could use Rocket Lab components, launch on Neutron, and be operated by Rocket Lab. That arrangement would allow the company to capture a greater share of spending associated with one mission.

The relationship also works in reverse. Neutron could launch spacecraft built by other manufacturers, preserving Rocket Lab’s ability to serve customers that do not want an integrated mission provider. That distinction helps prevent vertical integration from turning every Rocket Lab business unit into a requirement for every customer.

Execution remains the central uncertainty. Launch vehicles commonly encounter schedule changes during qualification and integrated testing, and a successful maiden mission would not automatically establish a reliable commercial cadence. Neutron must demonstrate performance, mission reliability, manufacturing repeatability, launch-site operations, and eventually the reuse characteristics underlying its economic case.

The Iridium Agreement Would Change Rocket Lab’s Business Model

Rocket Lab’s proposed acquisition of Iridium Communications would alter its business more extensively than any completed acquisition to date. Rocket Lab announced on June 29, 2026, that it had entered into a definitive agreement to acquire Iridium in a cash-and-stock transaction valuing Iridium at an implied enterprise value of approximately $8 billion.

Under the Iridium transaction terms, Iridium shareholders would receive $27 in cash plus Rocket Lab shares calculated under a collared exchange formula for each Iridium share. The transaction has a notional value of $54 per Iridium share. Rocket Lab also disclosed commitments for a $3.6 billion 364-day senior secured bridge term loan facility from Deutsche Bank and Wells Fargo.

As of August 11, 2026, the acquisition remains proposed rather than completed. Rocket Lab’s August 10 SEC filing continues to describe the combination as a pending transaction. Iridium also described the pending Rocket Lab acquisition in its July 22 Q2 financial results. The companies continue to expect closing in mid-2027, subject to Iridium shareholder approval, regulatory approvals, financing arrangements, and other closing conditions.

Iridium would add a business category Rocket Lab does not presently have at comparable scale: recurring satellite communications services. Rocket Lab makes money primarily from launch, spacecraft, components, engineering work, and mission services. Iridium operates a global satellite communications network with established subscribers, spectrum rights, commercial services, and government customers.

At the time the transaction was announced, Iridium supported more than 2.55 million active subscribers. The transaction materials reported $871.7 million of Iridium revenue for 2025 and approximately $495 million of operational EBITDA under Iridium’s definition. Those figures describe historical Iridium performance and should not be treated as Rocket Lab financial results before the transaction closes.

The acquisition would also bring globally coordinated L-band spectrum rights. Spectrum is difficult to replicate through ordinary capital expenditure because international and national regulatory processes govern how radio-frequency resources may be used. Iridium’s spectrum position is consequently part of the strategic value Rocket Lab assigns to the transaction.

New Space Economy’s Rocket Lab-Iridium analysis examines how the combination could connect launch, satellite production, network operations, and communications services. The proposed structure would give Rocket Lab exposure to revenue generated after spacecraft enter operation, rather than concentrating revenue primarily around manufacturing, delivery, and launch.

Another possible benefit is internal demand. Satellite networks eventually require replenishment and replacement spacecraft. A combined Rocket Lab and Iridium could potentially manufacture future spacecraft internally and reserve Neutron launch capacity for deployment. Rocket Lab has already said that Neutron capacity would be reserved for deployment of Iridium’s next-generation constellation after completion of the transaction.

That arrangement could create a self-reinforcing demand cycle. Network operations would create spacecraft requirements. Spacecraft requirements could create manufacturing activity and internal launch demand. Neutron could provide deployment capacity. New satellites could then support communications services that generate recurring revenue.

The economic case remains conditional because the transaction has not closed. Regulatory approvals, shareholder approval, financing, integration costs, debt levels, equity issuance, operating compatibility, and future investment requirements could materially affect the result. Rocket Lab and Iridium remain separate companies as of August 11, 2026.

The proposed acquisition makes Rocket Lab’s direction easier to identify. The company is seeking a larger share of the economic activity associated with operating assets in space, rather than limiting itself to building the hardware that other operators use.

Government Contracts Are Reshaping Rocket Lab’s Scale

Government business has become an increasingly visible part of Rocket Lab’s contracted work, but the company’s reported backlog remains split between government and commercial customers. Government customers represented 43% of Q2 backlog, compared with 57% for commercial customers.

Rocket Lab is increasingly competing for programs that combine spacecraft production, launch, payload integration, and mission operations. The $397 million Flatellite award is one example. Rocket Lab is scheduled to develop and operate multiple spacecraft and use Neutron for their deployment, subject to program execution and the contractual terms. An option for additional spacecraft is included within the announced contract value.

The geostationary satellite awards provide another example of expanding program size and spacecraft complexity. Entering geostationary satellite manufacturing gives Rocket Lab access to programs outside the lower-orbit markets where much of its previous spacecraft production has been concentrated.

Rocket Lab also formally established Rocket Lab Germany GmbH on August 10, 2026. The company says the subsidiary is pursuing opportunities that could lead to satellite bus, payload, spacecraft component, assembly, integration, and testing capabilities in Germany, alongside launch services for European customers. The manufacturing expansion remains prospective rather than an already completed large-scale production operation.

Mynaric gives Rocket Lab an existing industrial presence in Germany. Rocket Lab completed its acquisition of the Munich-area optical communications company during Q2 2026. The combination adds laser communications terminals and related engineering capabilities to Rocket Lab’s component portfolio.

Rocket Lab’s international plans reflect a wider movement toward regional and sovereign space capabilities. European governments increasingly place value on domestic access to spacecraft, components, communications, and launch capacity. Rocket Lab Germany gives the company a corporate platform from which it can pursue programs requiring or preferring European production.

Commercial customers remain equally important to the financial case. The launch backlog includes constellation operators and confidential customers, and Space Systems sells products into commercial spacecraft markets. That customer mix reduces dependence on any single procurement channel.

The combination of commercial and government demand is one reason Rocket Lab can pursue integration without requiring one customer category to support every business unit. Government programs may purchase complete mission packages. Commercial satellite companies may buy only launch. Another customer may purchase reaction wheels, solar products, optical terminals, or spacecraft manufacturing without using a Rocket Lab rocket.

Q3 Guidance Points to More Revenue but Continued Investment

Rocket Lab expects another record-revenue quarter for Q3 2026. Its August 10 guidance calls for revenue between $250 million and $265 million, with year-over-year growth expected in both Space Systems and Launch. The midpoint of the range is $257.5 million. These figures remain forecasts rather than completed results.

Gross-margin guidance is lower than the Q2 result. Rocket Lab expects GAAP gross margin of 29% to 31% and non-GAAP gross margin of 35% to 37% during Q3. Management attributed the expected reduction largely to product mix. A quarter containing a greater contribution from lower-margin spacecraft-platform work can produce more revenue without producing a proportional increase in gross profit.

Operating expenses are also expected to remain high. Rocket Lab forecasts Q3 GAAP operating expenses between $143 million and $149 million and non-GAAP operating expenses between $121 million and $127 million. Adjusted EBITDA is expected to remain negative at between $17 million and $23 million. Stock-based compensation is expected to fall between $18 million and $20 million.

Those forecasts reinforce an important distinction between revenue growth and near-term profitability. Rocket Lab is adding revenue at a fast rate but continues to spend heavily on Neutron development, spacecraft manufacturing, inventories, infrastructure, acquisitions, integration work, and the proposed Iridium transaction.

Cash flow illustrates the cost. The Q2 presentation reported negative GAAP operating cash flow of approximately $84.1 million during the quarter and purchases of property, equipment, and capitalized software of approximately $26 million. Under Rocket Lab’s non-GAAP definition, quarterly free cash flow was approximately negative $110.1 million.

The spending includes production inventory, Neutron hardware, launch infrastructure, and the Return on Investment recovery vessel. Some expenditure creates assets or capabilities intended to support future revenue, but the cash has to be committed before those benefits can be demonstrated.

Rocket Lab’s liquidity gives it more room to absorb that spending than it possessed during earlier phases of its development. The company nevertheless faces multiple large capital demands at the same time. Neutron needs to reach flight. Manufacturing needs to support a larger backlog. Acquired companies need to be integrated. Future satellite programs require working capital. The proposed Iridium transaction could require substantial debt and equity financing.

The central financial question has consequently moved beyond whether Rocket Lab can grow revenue. Q2 provides substantial evidence that it can. The harder question is whether revenue growth, manufacturing scale, launch operations, and potential recurring applications revenue can eventually produce enough cash generation to justify the capital being committed.

What the Q2 Results Mean for Rocket Lab’s Direction

Rocket Lab’s Q2 2026 results provide a clear picture of a company moving beyond the economic limits of dedicated small launch. Electron remains commercially and strategically useful, but it no longer defines the company’s financial scale.

Space Systems now provides most quarterly revenue. Neutron is intended to open larger launch markets. GHOST extends Rocket Lab’s launch offering into deployable infrastructure. Flatellite and geostationary contracts move spacecraft manufacturing into larger programs. Rocket Lab Germany creates a path toward European industrial participation. The proposed Iridium acquisition would add an operational satellite network and recurring communications revenue.

Each expansion can potentially reinforce another part of the company. Spacecraft contracts can create launch demand. Launch capacity can make spacecraft proposals more competitive. Components can be sold both internally and externally. Satellite operations can create future spacecraft-replacement demand. A communications network can generate recurring revenue after deployment.

That integration also creates concentration of execution risk inside Rocket Lab. A delay in a stand-alone product affects one product line. A delay in a deeply integrated system can affect several planned revenue streams. If Neutron moves later than expected, launch revenue is deferred and missions relying on Neutron may require schedule changes. If spacecraft production falls behind, manufacturing revenue and associated launch activity can both move. If a large acquisition takes longer to integrate, management attention and capital remain committed for longer.

The Q2 earnings release shows management accepting that complexity in exchange for access to larger markets. Rocket Lab stated that, when post-quarter contracts were included, it had entered into more than $1 billion of new contracts across launch and Space Systems during Q3 by the time Q2 results were announced on August 10. The $2.36 billion Q2 backlog was already a record before several post-quarter awards were considered.

That provides contracted demand, but execution will determine the economic result. Revenue growth alone cannot establish whether the strategy succeeds. Gross margins, cash flow, capital requirements, dilution, debt, Neutron reliability, satellite production performance, and acquisition integration will become more informative as Rocket Lab grows.

Summary

Rocket Lab entered Q2 2026 with a growing launch and spacecraft business and ended the reporting period with record revenue, record backlog, a substantially strengthened balance sheet, and a much broader collection of contracted programs. Revenue reached approximately $234.1 million and backlog reached approximately $2.36 billion. Space Systems supplied about 81% of quarterly revenue, demonstrating that Rocket Lab has already moved well beyond dependence on Electron launches.

Launch demand remains commercially important. Rocket Lab reported more than $437 million of newly signed launch contracts during Q2 and the post-quarter period, taking launch backlog above 90 missions. Electron, HASTE, and the developing Neutron vehicle now address different customer requirements rather than relying on one launch product.

Neutron is the operational bridge between Rocket Lab’s established businesses and several of its largest ambitions. Hardware production and testing have progressed, with Stage 1 tank production aligned with a Q4 2026 target for delivery to the launch pad. As of August 11, 2026, Rocket Lab continues to seek an end-of-year maiden launch, but its latest regulatory filing says the launch window is narrowing and exact timing depends on qualification work scheduled later in 2026.

The proposed Iridium acquisition would extend the model much further. As of August 11, 2026, the transaction remains pending and is expected by the companies to close in mid-2027 if required approvals and other closing conditions are satisfied. If completed, it would add an operating communications network, globally coordinated spectrum, millions of subscribers, recurring service revenue, and an internal source of future spacecraft and launch demand.

Rocket Lab’s direction can now be described as an attempt to participate across more stages of the commercial space value chain: components, spacecraft, launch, mission operations, and potentially communications services. The Q2 results demonstrate that the spacecraft and components portion of that model is already producing most company revenue.

What remains unproven is whether the expanding structure can produce sustained positive cash flow at scale. Rocket Lab is financing several expensive programs simultaneously and continues to report GAAP losses. Its Q3 guidance anticipates higher revenue but lower gross margins and another adjusted EBITDA loss.

That tension defines Rocket Lab after Q2 2026. Contracted demand, revenue growth, liquidity, launch bookings, and spacecraft production provide evidence of a company gaining scale. Neutron development, continuing cash consumption, equity issuance, acquisition integration, and the proposed Iridium transaction raise the financial and operational demands at almost the same pace.

The next stage of Rocket Lab’s development will consequently be measured less by whether it can announce another large award and more by whether it can turn its record backlog, launch manifest, spacecraft production programs, Neutron investment, and potential communications assets into repeatable operating cash flow.

[meta keywords=“Rocket Lab Q2 2026 earnings, Rocket Lab financial results, Rocket Lab revenue, Rocket Lab backlog, Rocket Lab Space Systems, Rocket Lab Neutron, Electron rocket, HASTE rocket, Iridium acquisition, Rocket Lab Flatellite, SB-AMTI, Rocket Lab Germany, GHOST launch system, Rocket Lab launch contracts, commercial space industry”]