The annual lists are starting to show up; at least the one at Ars Technica.
In other years, I've started off with "we know who #1 is; let's look at the rest." That still applies, but if you'll remember New Year's day's post about SpaceX setting yet another world record for successful launches in a year, you might appreciate a little extra. I get the independent daily newsletter Payload, and they included a year by year graphic showing orbital launches for the world since '22. It's on their website. I added a little detail for 2025 that I'm pretty sure is larger in numbers than in prior years, but similar in overall look. I added lines for SpaceX's portion of US launches and a total for China and the rest of the world.
So let's look at the rest. Ars Technica / Eric Berger Rank them this way:- SpaceX
- Blue Origin
- Rocket Lab
- ULA
- Northrop Grumman
- Firefly
- Stoke Space
- Relativity Space
- Astra
- Phantom Space and Vaya Space
The source piece also shows their status vs. last year. For example, Blue Origin is up two, switching places with ULA. Instead of just copying what Eric Berger thought, I'm going to inject my own opinions. After all, Top 10 ratings of anything are nothing but an opinion topic.
Rocket Lab (higher than Ars)
My first disagreement with Berger is I make Rocket Lab #2 instead of Blue, Rocket lab seems to me to have had a better year, with the only drawback to them compared to Blue is that their Electron rocket is for smaller payloads than New Glenn. Bigger is fine, but New Glenn had two flights and Rocket Lab had 18 missions that were completely successful. Not quite "every other week" (26) but better than New Glenn.
Rocket Lab has now gone nearly three dozen launches without a failure. The company also continued to make progress on its medium-lift Neutron vehicle, although its debut was ultimately delayed to mid-2026, at least.
Additionally, Rocket Lab continued its ascendance as a spacecraft company. It played a key role in supporting Firefly’s Blue Ghost lander at the beginning of this year, and in November, its two ESCAPADE vehicles were safely switched on after launch, beginning their journey to Mars.
Blue Origin (same as Ars)
Blue Origin had a very good year. They finally got New Glenn off the ground with two successful test flights. Suddenly making the list of "contenders" that they've never been on. The bigger success is probably the second flight that not only successfully made orbit, like the first, but recovered the booster on their recovery drone ship.
This section would not be complete without copying the joke that Eric Berger stuck in his first paragraph:
This is the biggest mover on the list, leaping from No. 4 on the list to No. 2, and this is, of course, because Jeff Bezos’ company sent Katy Perry into space. (They could have achieved No. 1 had they not brought her back).
Northrop Grumman (higher than Ars)
This puts Northrop Grumman higher than ULA in my rankings because I think they had a better year.
Only one other US company had a successful orbital launch in 2025, and it was Northrop Grumman. In April, the company’s Minotaur IV rocket carried a payload into orbit for the National Reconnaissance Office.
The ding against them is that they're still depending on SpaceX for launches of their Cygnus cargo missions to the ISS because although they're committed to and working on their Antares 330 rocket, it's behind schedule. Meanwhile, they increased the size of the Cygnus to what they're calling Cygnus XL.
As an interesting side note, Northrop also provides solid rocket boosters for ULA’s Vulcan rocket and NASA’s Space Launch System (SLS) vehicle.
United Launch Alliance (lower than Ars)
I think that ULA had a disappointing year. They were saying they'd get up to 10 Vulcan missions and had one.
In late 2024, the company’s CEO, Tory Bruno, told reporters that ULA aimed to launch as many as 20 missions in 2025, with roughly an even split between the legacy Atlas V launcher and Vulcan. Now, it’s likely that ULA will close out 2025 with six flights—five with the Atlas V and just one with the Vulcan rocket that the company is so eager to accelerate into service.
On the one Vulcan flight there was a problem with a solid rocket booster. There's persistent speculation that investigation is what grounded the Vulcan.
Firefly (same as Ars)
Firefly had a wonderful start to the year.
The year 2025 started out with a bang—a good one—for Firefly. In January, the company’s Blue Ghost lander launched on a Falcon 9 rocket and subsequently landed on the Moon. This was an extremely impressive achievement, as Firefly became the first private company to complete a fully successful soft landing on the Moon.
Unfortunately that was their end of success in 2025. They have been working on their Alpha rocket and had one launch that failed to put its payload in orbit. That was in April. In September they were working toward a second launch when the vehicle blew up on the launch pad. Perhaps the fact that Firefly is the contractor working on the Antares 330 launch vehicle for Northrop Grumman is why that vehicle is late.
In the next few places, we're dealing with companies that have no history that I'm familiar with so I'll just leave this section to Eric Berger at Ars.
Stoke Space
All I really know about Stoke is some things published about their concepts of a launch vehicle and some neat pictures. They seem well-funded and will probably have a real launch within a year or two.
Relativity Space
All I really know about them has probably been superceded by now. They were bought by former Google CEO Eric Schmidt and it seemed he was intent on building power stations in space to run AI systems in space.
Astra
They're said to be working on a rocket in the payload range of Rocket Lab's electron, 600kg to LEO.
Phantom Space and Vaya Space
Unlike the previous two, I've never heard of either one of these. Eric said they're here for only two minor reasons: To do a "Top 10" list, he needed two more, and the two of them are sharing a launch complex, SLC-13, at Cape Canaveral Space Force Station.
Hey, if it's good enough for the big guys in the business, it's good enough for us.
Stoke Space's novel rocket engines for steering thrust without gimballing engines. More info here. Image credit: Stoke Space


Stokes has the potential to be a big competitor. Not SpaceX big, but SpaceX is in a class by itself. The novel ring engine thingy is actually a rather brilliant idea.
ReplyDeleteNow if someone could get a functioning aerospike engine running...
That pic of Stokes' engines was posted here in '23 and was around for a while when I got it. They did a test much like the "Hoppy" tests that SpaceX did in Boca Chica back around that time.
DeleteThe obvious trade is they get the differential thrust vector from the radial separation of the engines, which means the diameter of the upper stage has to accommodate that by being, well, however big they come up with. Along with the larger diameter, comes more weight, and I just have the feeling (no numbers) that it's not going to be a massive improvement.
Physics is such a bitch, isn't it? TANSTAAFL
So what is the story with New Zealand? Seems unlikely that they are doing this on their own. -
ReplyDeleteNew Zealand = Rocket Lab. AFAIK, the only launch company down there.
DeleteCome to think of it, they got it wrong in that chart, which says 17, while the text at Ars said 18 missions. Unless one mission was from somewhere else.
in my spare time (24/7) I watch the market very closely, so your evaluation is highly valued.
ReplyDelete