"Maritime Launch Services earned its first operating profit in the second quarter of 2026, as its launch-pad lease with the Department of National Defence (DND) delivered its first full quarter of revenue at Spaceport Nova Scotia, the Halifax-based company’s Aug. 14 filings show.

Revenue for the three months ended June 30 was $5.6 million, against nothing a year earlier, and net income was $3.2 million. After a decade of fits and starts mostly due to financial constraints, the launch site under-development near Canso, N.S., has begun paying its own way."

Another 319M shares get unlocked on August 20th for early investors and insiders.

​Given the volatility around the previous unlock, is it better to buy a tranche now or wait until after the 20th to see if we get a dip? How are you guys playing this?

https://preview.redd.it/0h76j85uf1kh1.png?width=1208&format=png&auto=webp&s=9359dd02be577e672d8dc718f858e04b7126c8a0

Commercial space is no longer just government-led exploration — it's fast becoming a legitimate institutional asset class, and Goldman Sachs even calls this the "Second Space Age." Lower launch costs, flooding private capital and a wave of public listings are pushing the space economy to be a brand new industrial pillar. Check out SpaceX's latest shareholder structure that lays this whole shift out clearly. The 20D performance of top star tech names like SPCX, ORCL and MSFT here is pretty wild.

https://preview.redd.it/ar48fbrqpsjh1.png?width=712&format=png&auto=webp&s=bc9b7bd2350a00865df486c38a7b858f51d36924

Metric	RKLB - Rocket Lab Space System	LUNR - Intuitive Machines Space Systems	YSS - York Space Systems
Total revenue	$234.1 mil	$206.2 mil	$92.5 mil
Space Sys revenue	$181.3 mil	$166.7 mil	$92.5 mil
Cost of SS revenue	$117.4 mil	$119.3 mil	$70.4 mil
SS gross profit	$63.9 mil	$47.4 mil	$22.2 mil
SS gross margin	35.3%	28.4%	23.9%
SS revenue / total revenue	77.5%	80.9%	100%
Period-end backlog	$2.36 billion	$1.76 billion	$592 mil
New bookings / awards disclosed	>$1 billion	$1.22 billion	Not disclosed
Q2 Bookings/Awards	~$374 mil (implied)	$920 mil	~$42 mil (implied)
Book-to-bill from disclosed bookings	1.6x	4.5x	0.46x

Credit goes to u/VictorCalifornia for making the initial observation after last week's earnings reports. I just added $YSS - York Space Systems. $YSS missed their guidance and revised their sales lower, but it's interesting to compare the 3 space systems segments of the companies side-by-side.

*^(RKLB and LUNR have additional "Service" revenue streams (Launch for RKLB and NASA Lunar for LUNR. YSS revenue is 100% space systems.)

Hello reddit, I follow the company GomSpace. They started out in Denmark, and got listed in Nasdaq Sweden some years ago.

End of 2025 the received this: GomSpace A/S: GomSpace Secures 50MSEK Contract with Leading European Defense firm - No one on the forum I follow have been able to share who the contract is with. No name of the firm, no country.

Early this year some guys on forum i use (Nordnet, trading platform) found out that Ukraine would build their own smallsat constellation in order to have communication all over Ukraine, and not to be dependent on Elon Musk satellite systems.

Then in April, the information was sent to the market: GomSpace A/S: Danish company GomSpace and Ukrainian company STETMAN launch Joint Venture in Ukraine to develop sovereign satellite communication capabilities - But the size of this contract has been kept secret.

So we don't know if the 50MSEK is a part of this, or for something else.. So I wonder if any of you guys in here, would have an idea of this and maybe could share some insight or knowledge.

Thank you

**1/** I think Terafab may be the clearest example of the narrative problem inside $SPCX.
SpaceX wants Terafab to eventually produce ONE TERAWATT of compute hardware every year.
Incredible ambition.
But now forget the presentation and read the SEC disclosures.
**2/** The SEC asked SpaceX to disclose:
• Terafab’s development timeline
• major milestones
• anticipated capex
• material terms of Intel’s involvement
SpaceX’s response: those timelines, milestones and capital expenditures are not yet available.
**3/** SpaceX also disclosed its arrangement with Tesla is essentially a general framework.
Specific Terafab projects still require separate negotiation, separate agreements and Board approval.
Neither Tesla nor Intel is obligated to remain involved.
**4/** SpaceX even disclosed it may never enter definitive agreements for the collaboration.
So compare the headline with the underlying reality:
Headline: ONE TERAWATT/YEAR.
Reality: no final scope, disclosed schedule, milestones or total capital requirement.
**5/** That isn’t a semiconductor manufacturing plan yet.
It’s a promise looking for a plan.
Now compare that with TSMC, which plans $165B of U.S. investment across advanced fabs, packaging, R&D and the supplier ecosystem needed to actually manufacture at scale.
**6/** TSMC’s Arizona operation already employs 3,000+ people. Its broader expansion is expected to require 40,000 construction jobs plus tens of thousands of high-tech jobs.
And this is TSMC—a company built around semiconductor manufacturing for decades.
**7/** SpaceX has \~22,000+ employees across the ENTIRE company.
Those people already support Falcon, Dragon, Starship, Starlink, Starshield, launch sites, satellites, ground infrastructure, xAI, Colossus, AI, data centers and telecom.
Who staffs Terafab?
**8/** A leading-edge fab needs process integration, lithography, etch, deposition, yield, metrology, equipment, chemical/gas, ultrapure-water, facilities, electrical, controls, packaging and maintenance talent.
These aren’t generic engineers you move over from Starship.
**9/** A rocket engineer does not become a leading-edge semiconductor yield engineer because management says “vertical integration.”
And even Intel—with decades of fabs, patents, suppliers and process knowledge—still tells investors how brutally difficult the economics are.
**10/** Intel says leading-edge nodes require enormous capital, continuous yield improvement and enough wafer volume to justify the economics.
It has even warned that without a major outside customer, it could pause or stop pursuing its next-generation 14A node.
**11/** Think about that.
INTEL is saying semiconductor economics still matter.
Yet the $SPCX narrative asks investors to jump from:
“We need more AI chips”
to:
“Let’s vertically integrate leading-edge semiconductor manufacturing.”
Those are not remotely the same thing.
**12/** Buying ASML machines doesn’t create TSMC.
Building a cleanroom doesn’t create TSMC.
Hiring a few hundred engineers doesn’t create TSMC.
The moat is institutional knowledge: thousands of process steps executed repeatedly at high yield, utilization and competitive cost.
**13/** Making a chip is not the achievement.
Making MILLIONS of advanced chips economically is.
Yield is the product.
And then you have to improve that process every generation while competitors with decades of experience are doing the exact same thing.
**14/** This is my broader issue with $SPCX.
Every new promise gets treated as another future monopoly instead of another claim on capital, talent and management bandwidth.
Starship. Mars. Starlink. xAI. Orbital compute. Terafab.
Execution risk keeps stacking.
**15/** At some point, “vertical integration” stops explaining the strategy and starts disguising organizational sprawl.
Different industries have different talent pools, supplier networks, learning curves, physics, economics and failure modes.
Rocket excellence doesn’t erase that.
**16/** Could Terafab eventually succeed? Absolutely.
That isn’t the investment question.
Why should investors capitalize Terafab’s future economics TODAY when SpaceX itself says the specific projects, timelines, milestones and capital requirements aren’t determined?
**17/** That’s my problem with a \~$1.8T $SPCX valuation.
The market keeps treating long-term ambitions as if they are already de-risked assets.
Terafab isn’t TSMC.
Today it isn’t even a fully disclosed fab program.
It’s a one-terawatt promise on a framework agreement.
**18/** Eventually someone has to:
build the fabs,
staff them,
achieve yield,
fund the capex,
run them at scale,
and prove the return on capital.
The cult sees the destination.
I want to see the execution plan.
Short $SPCX.

They will launch 14-16 in September. 10 launches booked with a launch every 1-2 month, probably mostly falcon 9. Anyone know how this will get us to 45 sats by early 2027 ?

SPCX trade card · OptionWhales daily thesis

I'll check for catalyst context before writing.# Someone Wrote a Cheque They Can't Get Out Of Until 2028

At 3:24 p.m. Eastern on August 12, one order printed in SpaceX options that had nothing to do with the next earnings report, the next lockup tranche, or the next month. Someone appears to have sold 3,500 January 2028 calls struck at $250, collecting roughly $8.89 million in premium at an average of $25.39 per contract. The stock was $148.02 at the time.

Sit with the time horizon for a second, because it's the whole story. This contract does not expire for roughly seventeen months. Whoever is short it has agreed — for a fee received today — to deliver stock at $250 at any point until January 2028. That is not a view about the next print. It's a view about what a fair price is for the *right* to own SpaceX at $250 over the entire span in which the company's public-market narrative gets settled.

Two caveats belong up front, not buried. The buyer/seller classification here carries low confidence, so read the seller label as the most likely reading rather than a confirmed one. And direction, separately, is bearish-leaning — a sold call is a position that does not want the stock above the strike, regardless of anything else in this article.

Why the Strike Is the Interesting Number, Not the Premium

$250 is 69% above where the stock traded when this printed. And SpaceX has already been there — nearly. The company went public at $135 per share on June 12, closed at a record high of $211.39 on June 16, and now trades around $140. The stock closed down 16.4% in one session in late June, shaving off most of its IPO gains, and by August 4 it was quoted at $125.33, a market cap of roughly $1.65 trillion.

So $250 is not a fantasy strike. It's a level the stock came within striking distance of eight weeks earlier. The delta on this contract is 0.43 — in plain terms, the market treats it as close to a coin flip whether SPCX is above $250 by January 2028. Selling something the market itself prices near even odds is not a lottery-ticket sale. It is taking the other side of a genuinely contested question.

The Volatility Number Is Doing Most of the Work

The implied volatility on this trade is 67%. Compare that to what the stock has actually been doing. Measured close to close and annualised, SPCX realised 95.3% volatility across its listed life — but three sessions in the opening fortnight carry most of that: +17.58% on 12 June, +17.90% on 15 June and −17.95% on 22 June. Excluding the listing period, realised volatility over the last 20 sessions was 59.4%, and over the last 10 sessions 55.0%.

That gap is the mechanical logic of a call sale: 67% implied against roughly 55–59% realised means the option was priced for more movement than the stock had recently delivered. If you believe the IPO-week chaos was a one-off and the newer, calmer range is the real SPCX, then $25.39 per contract is expensive. Note the direction of the reasoning — this doesn't require a bearish forecast at all. It requires only a belief that SPCX's long-dated options are priced above the stock's settled behaviour.

What Leans New, and Why "Leans" Is the Right Word

The 3,500 contracts represent about 75% of the prior-close open interest of 4,678 at that strike — and we measured that figure, it isn't a gap in our data. If this were closing, roughly three-quarters of everything standing at $250 would have to have unwound in a single afternoon. That's possible, and this is not proof, but it leans toward a new position.

There's circumstantial texture: ahead of SpaceX's first earnings report, options positioning was heavily skewed toward calls, largely because of one unusually large call position struck at three times the stock's value. That was a different strike, but it establishes that this options chain already hosts oversized single-name positions — which cuts both ways for the open/close question rather than settling it.

What We Are Explicitly Not Claiming

We do not know the motive, and a proven new short call would not tell us. Someone short 3,500 calls at $250 may hold SpaceX stock and be renting out upside they don't expect to use. They may be hedging a private-market or pre-IPO position invisible to any public feed. They may be one leg of something we cannot see. And the supply picture is real and dated: lock-up restrictions affecting early investors, executives and other insiders began expiring on August 6, two days after the company's first quarterly results, with 7% share unlocks set for around Aug. 21 and again Sept. 10. A seventeen-month option straddles all of it.

What can be said cleanly: a large, bearish-leaning position was established against a level the stock has already flirted with, at a volatility level above the stock's recent realised movement, on a clock that doesn't stop until 2028. What it earns is a different question entirely, and not one this print answers.

*This is analysis of publicly observable options activity, not investment advice. Options carry substantial risk, including total loss of premium and, for short positions, losses exceeding the initial credit. Do your own research.*