· 个股论点

分析$FLY与诺斯罗普合作开发中型火箭的潜力,认为其风险回报优于$RKLB。

涉及标的:

中文翻译

自从我在 Reddit 发帖后,很多人询问我的 $FLY 投资论点,现在分享如下: Firefly 是一家像 $RKLB 这样的火箭公司,正在开发可重复使用的中型运载火箭。 目前唯一存在的竞争对手是 SpaceX。 他们目标在 2026-2027 年实现,如果成功,公司市值将重估至 300-700 亿美元,较当前(44 亿美元市值)增长 1000-2000%。 更多细节: 300-700 亿美元的市值估算基于 $RKLB 的估值倍数,且仅假设中型运载火箭业务成功。(我忽略了其他业务板块和当前超过 10 亿美元的订单积压)。 在中型运载火箭业务上:预计年收入约 9-13 亿美元,在可行的发射节奏(8-12 次)下,毛利率为 30-40%。猎鹰系列火箭的定价支持这一预期。 所以现在唯一的问题是,FLY 能成功吗? 在 Firefly 最近一次发射失败后,股价下跌 50%,市场已经计入了未来失败的风险。看空者指出 Alpha 火箭的失败代表了执行风险。然而,他们完全错误地定价了这种风险... 他们应该问的问题是:诺斯罗普 (Northrop) 和 Firefly 能否共同成功? 这是美国最大的航空航天国防承包商之一诺斯罗普,与一家市值仅 40 亿美元的发射公司之间的联合开发 (Co-development)。 诺斯罗普此前曾拥有自己的中型运载火箭,但不得不终止。诺斯罗普之前的发射器 Antares 230 在俄罗斯 2022 年入侵乌克兰之前运行正常,随后供应链被切断。 然而,诺斯罗普面临生存问题:它无法再制造自己的第一级火箭。因此,为了节省时间,他们寻找一家拥有现成推进系统和结构的美国合作伙伴:Firefly。 -> 动机:Firefly 的 Miranda 发动机提供了即插即用的替代方案,可立即构建中型运载火箭。 现在你拥有一枚在 2026-2027 年可由 Firefly 货币化的中型运载火箭(因为诺斯罗普持有该公司股份),只需使其可重复使用,这是最难的部分。 但诺斯罗普不仅仅是“帮忙”。它在各个方面结构性地降低了风险。诺斯罗普的系统加上 Firefly 的新太空发动机,占据了稀缺且高需求的护城河(美国可重复使用中型运载火箭),这已通过 TacRS 和超过 10 亿美元的订单积压以及美国“金穹”防御系统催化剂得到验证。 因此,购买 Firefly 的风险回报比是合理的,前提是公司在中型运载火箭上成功并建立巨大的护城河,成为下一个 SpaceX。 (我的投资组合中也有 $RKLB,但我认为由于中型运载火箭已与诺斯罗普合作存在,成功实现可重复使用中型运载火箭的机会高于正常水平。) 显然,Rocket Lab 实现可重复使用中型运载火箭的成功概率更高,但这已经反映在其 320 亿美元以上的市值中,相比之下 Fly 的市值仅为 44 亿美元。 我认为 $FLY 在当前估值下是一个有趣的 10 倍潜力股,前提是它能在未来一两年内成功。另外,我只是真的很喜欢火箭。 我还让 Grok 计算了概率,因为 XAI 由火箭人 (Rocketman) 本人拥有。 输出: 到 2027 年底,Rocket Lab 有 90% 以上的机会实现可重复使用中型运载火箭飞行(可能在 2026 年中),得益于其先发优势、经过验证的执行力和内部控制。 Firefly/诺斯罗普达到 75-80% 的概率,得益于诺斯罗普的遗产,但受限于 Firefly 较新的运营记录。额外的一年缩小了差距——如果 Antares 330 按时飞行且 Miranda 发动机规模化,Firefly 可能在 2027 年底匹配或超过 Neutron 的节奏。 如果两者都成功(这是一个巨大的假设),RKLB 的市值可能重估至 600 亿美元,$FLY 可能重估至 400 亿美元,只是因为太空 TAM(总可寻址市场)因国家安全风险和企业部门建设而迅速增加,可能只需再等一年。

英文原文

People have been asking for my $FLY thesis since my Reddit post, so here it is: Firefly is a rocket company like $RKLB, and is developing a reusable medium-lift rocket. The only one that exists is SpaceX. They target 2026-2027, and if they succeed, the company would re-rate to a 30-70B market cap, 1000-2000% from here (4.4B MC) More details: The 30-70B marketcap estimate is priced off $RKLB multiples, and only on medium-lift working. (I'm ignoring other business segments and current $1B+ revenue backlog). In a year with medium-lift: ~$0.9–1.3B revenue, with 30–40% gross margins at workable cadence (8–12 flights). Falcon-class pricing support this. So now the only question is, can FLY make it work? After Fly's individual company latest launch failure, the stock dropped 50% and the market is already pricing in the feature of failure. The bears are pointing to Alpha's failures for execution risk. HOWEVER, they're pricing the risk in completely wrong... The question they should be asking is, whether both Northrop + Firefly can make this work? This is a CO-DEVELOPMENT between Northrop, one of America's largest military contractors for Aerospace with some tiny $4B marketcap launch company. Northrop literally had its own medium-lift rocket before but they had to sunset it. Northrop’s prior launcher, Antares 230 worked before Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine, then the supply chain was cut off. However, Northrop faced an existential problem: it couldn’t build its own first stage anymore. So they went looking for a U.S. partner with ready-made propulsion and structures for the sake of time: Firefly. -> Motivation: Firefly’s Miranda engines offered a plug-and-play replacement to immediately build a medium lift launcher. And now you have a medium lift launcher in 2026-2027 that Firefly monetizes (because Northrop took a stake in the company), just need to make it re-usable, which is the hard part. But Northrop doesn’t just “help.” It structurally lowers risk across every aspect across the board. And Northrop’s system + Firefly’s new-space engines hits a scarce, high-demand moat (U.S. medium-lift with reuse), already validated by TacRS and a $1B+ backlog + US golden dome defense system catalyst. So, risk reward of buying Firefly on the company succeeding on Medium-Lift Launcher and developing a huge moat to be the next SpaceX, is decent. (I also have $RKLB in my portfolio too, I just see the opportunity of succeeding in reusable Medium Lift to be higher than normal because it medium-lift already existed with Northrop). Obviously Rocketlab has a higher probability of success achieving reusable medium lift, but that's already priced into its 32B+ marketcap, compared to a 4.4B Fly marketcap. I just find $FLY to be an interesting 10x moonshot at this valuation in the chance it works in the next year or two. Also I just really like rockets. I also had Grok calculate the odds since XAI is owned by Rocketman himself. _ Output: By end-2027, Rocket Lab has a 90%+ chance of achieving reusable medium-lift flights (likely by mid-2026), driven by their head start, proven execution, and in-house control. Firefly/Northrop reaches 75–80% probability, bolstered by Northrop’s legacy but tempered by Firefly’s newer operational track record. The extra year narrows the gap—Firefly could match or exceed Neutron’s cadence by late 2027 if Antares 330 flies on time and Miranda engines scale. In the event they both get it to work (big if), RKLB could re-rate to $60B marketcap, and $FLY could re-rate to 40B marketcap, just because of TAM of Space rapidly increasing from national security risks and corporate sector buildout, just might need to wait another year.

在 X 上查看原推 ↗