Voyager Technologies (VOYG)

The Take — A real defense-propulsion growth story inside a valuation that's already priced past the blue-sky case. Don't own it here.

The operating momentum is genuine. FY26 revenue guidance went from $225–255M in March to $275–305M in August (+66–84%). Q2 bookings were a record $113M (2.1× book-to-bill), and backlog reached a record $336M. The Astrobotic deal brought a $298M NASA lander award, and the Anduril propulsion deal shows the Pueblo plant has customers. Defense propulsion is a real bottleneck in U.S. munitions, and Voyager is one of the few new entrants with capacity coming online. I give the core business a generous path: revenue 4.2× to $1.23B by 2035 and a 12% steady-state EBIT margin, with SBC expensed. That margin is above what Kratos or Mercury earn and close to Curtiss-Wright/BWXT economics.

The cash math is the problem. The core business is still losing money: H1 FY26 clean operating loss was about $87M on $88M of revenue, and corporate cost alone was $46M in FY25. Free cash flow was −$155M in FY25 and −$140M in H1 FY26. Even on my base path the core doesn't generate positive FCFF until 2031, and it absorbs ~$600M of reinvestment through 2035. Discounted at an 11.8% WACC, the core is worth $465M. Explicit-period FCFF has a negative PV, so 123% of core value sits in the terminal value. That is a flag, not a comfort.

Starlab is an option, and on today's facts it's worth less than zero. If NASA picks Starlab (I assume ~$1.0B of Phase-2 funding, launch 2030, $1.2B/yr of revenue at 40% EBITDA margins by 2035), the whole project NPV at a 13% project rate is about −$54M. The remaining ~$2.6B of build cost eats the operating value. If NASA picks someone else (Axiom and Vast are further along in hardware), Voyager's 67% share of another ~$250M of spend before exit is a pure loss. At a 40% win probability, Starlab is worth −$108M to VOYG holders. For the price to work, Starlab would need to be worth ~$1.27B to Voyager (~$1.9B for the whole station). That is a certain win at well above blue-sky economics.

Reverse DCF: to reach $25.93 at my base growth path and base Starlab, the core needs a ~33% EBIT margin forever. That's software economics for a solid-rocket-motor shop. Holding a 12% margin, it needs 2.5× my growth rates every year. Even with a 16% margin and a guaranteed Starlab win, the core must grow at 1.9× base. My blue-sky case gets 1.6× growth, a 16% margin, a 2029 launch and a $1.6B/yr station, and it still lands at $24.46, below the price. The market is paying for a strategic-scarcity narrative ("one of the only U.S. commercial stations plus new SRM capacity"), not for cash flows.

This is the first build; there is no prior valuation. Street: 8 Buy / 2 Sell, mean target $44.50 (range $21–55). The Street is valuing it on EV/sales multiples. I am valuing it on cash.

Call: AVOID / SELL. No new money above the bull case ($10.69); value support isn't until single digits (prob-weighted $6.31). Holders: sell into strength, especially any NASA-decision or contract-award spike back toward the $31–33 late-September range. If you insist on exposure, treat it as a venture option capped at ≤0.5% of capital and accept that the base case is worth a sixth of the price. Q3 FY26 print Nov 2 after close, the first quarter with Astrobotic. The gross-margin step to ~17% is the tell. Defined-risk expression: Dec-18 or Jan-15 $30/$35 bear call spread. Dec IV is ~78–88%, and the mid is about $0.60–0.70 credit on $5 of width, but the chain is thin (zero open interest, very wide quotes), so work limit orders at the mid or skip it. Covered calls at $30–32 strikes for holders who won't sell outright. Never short it naked. Float is ~53M shares, and one NASA "Starlab selected" headline could gap it 30–50%.