What counts as a space stock

“Space stocks” is a broad label that covers several different businesses. It includes launch providers that carry payloads to orbit, satellite manufacturers and operators, ground-station and software companies that run the networks, and the defense contractors whose products depend on space. The common thread is revenue tied to orbit, but the economics of each category are different, and that difference is the first thing to understand before you sort through any space pitch.

In Jason Simpkins’s “Galactic Supply Chain: 3 Stocks to Own for Generational Wealth” presentation, the picks are meant to sit across these categories. Rocket Lab (RKLB) is the launch and space-systems name, and it is the first reveal in the pitch. The other two companies, Voyager Technologies and Kratos Defense and Security Solutions, sit on the defense and ground-systems side. Together they are framed as the infrastructure layer of a space economy moving toward a trillion-dollar scale.

Launch, systems, and ground

The launch segment is the most visible. It includes companies that build and fly rockets, and it is capital-intensive, with revenue that arrives in lumpy batches as missions fly. Rocket Lab fits here through its Electron small-lift rocket and the larger Neutron vehicle in development. Space systems, meaning satellites and the components that go into them, is a steadier business, and Rocket Lab’s Photon satellite bus puts it in that segment too.

The ground-systems and software segment is quieter but increasingly important. As the number of satellites in orbit grows, someone has to track them, task them, and move their data. Kratos’s OpenSpace platform, which the pitch describes as a software-defined ground system, is aimed at exactly that job. And Voyager Technologies spans defense and space station work through contracts with NASA and the Missile Defense Agency. You can see how the whole sector fits together in our space stocks to buy guide, which walks through the main categories.

Why the sector got hot

The space sector’s recent popularity has a clear anchor: SpaceX. The company recently became public at a valuation of roughly $1.75 trillion to $2 trillion, and that single number has re-rated how investors think about every smaller space name. A credible operator that used to be valued on its own revenue now gets compared to a company worth nearly two trillion dollars, and that comparison is what powers most “space stocks” promos right now.

The nuance is that SpaceX’s valuation is driven by Starlink and by large compute deals with xAI, not primarily by launch. We covered how that dynamic shapes the SpaceX IPO story in our SpaceX supercycle piece. The point that matters for smaller names is that a SpaceX multiple does not transfer automatically, and the companies being pitched as “the next SpaceX” rarely have a Starlink-equivalent engine in their own revenue.

What to watch

The honest frame for this sector is that it contains real, credible businesses and a lot of optimism already priced in. Rocket Lab, Voyager Technologies, and Kratos are all legitimate operators with actual government contracts, which is more than many space promotions offer. The risk is on valuation: paying a SpaceX-inspired multiple for companies whose revenue is still ramping means the price has already absorbed a great deal of the good news.

For Rocket Lab specifically, the sources we reviewed did not include a current share price, so we are not going to invent one. The thesis is worth tracking, but the “2-10 times” framing in the promo is a re-rating bet, not a guaranteed outcome. The companies that compound revenue and land their big contracts will do well regardless of the multiple debate; the danger is paying that multiple before the revenue shows up. That distinction, between a good business and a good price, is the whole game in space stocks.

Sorting risk by category

One useful way to think about space stocks is to sort them by how far the revenue is from the customer. Launch providers and defense contractors like the names in this pitch already book real government contracts, which makes their risk a question of valuation rather than of business model. Operators and manufacturers with no flying product yet are a different category, where the risk is whether the business ever exists at all.

That is why the “infrastructure” framing Simpkins uses has genuine appeal. Companies that supply launch, ground systems, and defense hardware sit closer to revenue than the moonshot names, because governments are already paying for those capabilities. The tradeoff is that the market knows this, so the credible names rarely come cheap.

The result is a sector where the honest question is not whether space will grow, which it almost certainly will, but whether the price you pay today already reflects that growth. Sorting names by how much revenue is already booked, rather than by how exciting the narrative is, is the most reliable way to separate a reasonable entry point from a premium paid for a story.

NewsletterVetter is an independent publication. We receive compensation from some of the services we review through affiliate links. Nothing on this site is investment advice. Always do your own research.