CSomebody on X just turned the private space business into a family tree.
MA family tree or a leaderboard?
CMichael Spencer posted it on X. He says SpaceX is twelve years ahead of Rocket Lab.
MTwelve years? Based on what, launch cadence?
CBy his ranking, Rocket Lab is four years ahead of Firefly. Firefly is three years ahead of Stoke.
MSo it's a made-up gap ladder.
CIt's a way to see who's actually flying and who's still in the garage.
MBut ahead isn't a technical measurement.
CSpaceX lands boosters and flies them again. That's a real gap.
MRocket Lab doesn't land boosters, but it reportedly launches more than most countries.
CExactly. That's why he puts Rocket Lab four years behind SpaceX.
MYou can't put a number on culture and engineering.
CSo the gap doesn't exist? Come on.
MThe gap is real. The number is a guess.
CFine. But the ranking tells you who to watch.
MIt tells you who the poster likes.
CFirefly just had a good run. Stoke is still pre-launch.
MStoke is reportedly designing a fully reusable second stage. That could leapfrog.
CIf it works. SpaceX had that on paper for years.
MAnd Rocket Lab is chasing reusability too. So the gaps shift.
CSure, but SpaceX is not standing still. The gap widens.
MUnless Starship eats the whole market.
CThat's the point. Who's second matters.
MMy problem is the post mixes founding dates and current capability.
CHe lists founding order too. By his list, SpaceX was founded four years before Rocket Lab.
MFounding order says nothing about execution.
CNo, but time in the game compounds.
MTell that to every failed space startup from the 90s.
CThose companies didn't have launch revenue.
MSo the ranking is really about money?
CAnd flight heritage. SpaceX has a much longer list of launches.
MRocket Lab has a fraction of that, and they're pouring money into Neutron.
CIs that a bad thing? You have to spend to close a gap.
MThe launch business is brutal. Cash flow decides who survives.
CThat's why a gap matters. It protects the leader.
MOr invites competition. The FAA and range limits cap everyone.
CNow you're making the case for more launch sites.
MWe're not doing a government episode.
CBut government is the silent partner in every launch.
MFine. The ranking should include regulatory drag.
CNow you're ranking regulators?
MNo, I'm saying the gap isn't just engineering.
CTrue. But the top spot isn't close.
MToday. Five years ago people said the same about SpaceX.
CFive years ago SpaceX was already flying crew.
MAnd Rocket Lab was still a small launcher.
CSo you agree the gap was real then.
MI agree there is a gap. I don't trust the exact number.
CThe number is the fun part. Twelve years feels about right.
MFeels isn't analysis.
CYou want a peer-reviewed gap study?
MI want a metric. Reusability, cadence, revenue per launch.
CThen you'd still get SpaceX on top.
MYes, but the gap to Rocket Lab might be five years, not twelve.
CMaybe. That's a fair fight.
MSo the ranking is directionally right, numerically made up.
CI'll take directionally right over boring.