Voyager Technologies (VOYG)
A Defense Contractor Wearing a Space-Station Call Option
Voyager is a defense & national security contractor with a growing space-systems business… plus an embedded, very real, very expensive call option on Starlab (a commercial space station meant to matter after the ISS fades into history).
If you price it like a normal space hardware name, you’ll miss what you’re actually buying.
If you price it like a normal defense contractor, you’ll miss what the market is really paying for.
So let’s separate the company into Cash, Core, and Call Option, then see if today’s price is paying you or charging you for the uncertainty.
1) The Numbers That Matter
Market cap: ~$2.11B
Enterprise value (EV): ~$1.73B
Cash & short-term investments: ~$413M
Total debt: ~$10.5M
LTM revenue: ~$157.5M
LTM gross margin: ~19%
LTM EBITDA: about - $73.8M (ugly)
Operating cash flow (LTM): about - $51.5M
Capex (LTM): about - $126.5M
Stock issuance (LTM): about $455M (this is why cash is fat)
Two immediate observations:
A) Voyager is net-cash-rich (right now)
EV is meaningfully below market cap because the balance sheet is loaded with cash. That matters because it buys time: time to execute, time to pivot, time to survive procurement delays, time to fund capex that would kill a weaker company.
B) The income statement is shouting “build phase”
Revenue is growing, but profitability is sliding:
Gross margin down vs FY2024.
EBITDA margin deep red.
SG&A ballooning.
Cash burn rising.
That combination doesn’t automatically mean “bad.” It means you are underwriting a trajectory, not a snapshot.
2) What Voyager Actually Does (And Why It’s Not a Pure “Space Stock”)
Voyager’s business mix is the key to the whole story.
From company disclosures and filings, Voyager operates across Defense & National Security, Space Solutions, and the Starlab platform (the station bet).
That is already a different animal than Redwire (RDW) (see my previous analysis on that stock here), which most investors mentally file under “space manufacturing + in-space infrastructure.”
Voyager is closer to a hybrid: defense-grade capabilities + space systems + platform ambition.
And the most revealing detail is this:
Voyager partnered with Palantir
Voyager and Palantir announced a strategic partnership to integrate Palantir’s software stack (Foundry/AIP) into Voyager’s defense and space operations, explicitly including Starlab-related workflows and operational systems.
That’s not a random press-release friendship bracelet.
It’s a signal about how Voyager wants to compete:
not just as a seller of hardware,
but as a systems + data + mission outcomes provider,
where software becomes the compounding engine.
This matters because the only “space companies” that deserve premium multiples are the ones that can scale without scaling factories.
3) Cash, Core, Call Option — The Framework That Keeps You Sane
Here’s the lens I’d use if I were writing an underwriting memo.
Layer 1: Cash (the part that prevents death)
Voyager has ~$413M cash and trivial debt today. That gives it oxygen.
But oxygen burns.
If you combine operating cash outflow (~$51.5M) and capex (~$126.5M), you’re staring at something like ~$178M/year of total cash drain at the recent pace.
That implies a ~2–2.5 year runway if burn stayed elevated.
Now, burn rarely stays constant. But this is the key: Voyager is spending like a company that believes something big is close enough to justify it.
And that “something” is almost certainly tied to scaling programs + Starlab readiness.
Layer 2: Core (the part that must become boring)
The core business is where you want:
repeatable contracts,
renewal cycles,
predictable margins,
a path to FCF positivity without “one more capital raise.”
But the current P&L says the core is not yet boring:
LTM EBITDA around -47% margin
SG&A margin huge,
and cash from ops worsening.
Here’s what does look like a real business:
Revenue is real and meaningful (mid-$100Ms).
Gross profit exists (not “adjusted,” not “pro forma,” actual gross profit).
Liquidity is strong (current/quick ratios are high).
This is not a meme stock balance sheet. It’s a build-phase balance sheet.
Layer 3: Call Option (the part the market is paying for)
Now we get to the reason VOYG can trade like a premium story even with negative EBITDA:
Starlab.
Voyager’s filings describe a joint venture structure for Starlab (including partner ownership details and governance).
Starlab is the kind of project that can:
turn a $150–300M revenue business into a multi-billion revenue platform if it works,
or become a capital sink that consumes the cash cushion if timelines slip.
This is exactly why sell-side long-term revenue curves can look absurdly steep (and in this case, they do).
A word of caution:
When you see out-year revenue forecasts that jump from hundreds of millions to billions, you’re no longer analyzing “a company.”
You’re analyzing a probability distribution.
4) The Valuation: What You’re Paying For
EV/Sales (LTM): ~11x
Price/Sales (LTM): ~13x
EV/Sales (NTM): ~8x
P/E doesn’t exist (loss-making)
At face value, that looks expensive.
But the market isn’t valuing Voyager like a steady contractor. It’s valuing:
the core business
a funded path to scale
Starlab optionality
“software leverage” narrative (Palantir partnership helps here).
Here’s the problem: optionalities are easy to buy and hard to hold.
Because the market makes you pay upfront, while the proof arrives late.
So your edge is not “believing in space.”
Your edge is knowing what has to become true for 11x sales to be rational.
5) The One Chart You Should Build in Your Head: Margin Trajectory vs Revenue Trajectory
Consensus implies something interesting:
revenue rising meaningfully into 2026–2027,
gross margin improving into the mid/high-20s,
yet EBITDA still negative (but improving).
This is coherent if:
they’re still ramping operations,
still hiring into programs,
still paying the fixed-cost “platform tax.”
The real question is not “when do they become profitable?”
The real question is:
When do incremental dollars of revenue become high-quality dollars?
Because there are two kinds of growth:
Growth that buys operating leverage
Growth that buys new overhead
Voyager’s current SG&A intensity screams “overhead expansion.”
That’s acceptable only if it’s buying a step-change in future scale.
Which brings us back, again, to Starlab and large program ramps.
6) Dilution: The Tax Nobody Mentions
Two dilution signals are embedded in the numbers:
Massive equity issuance (~$455M LTM)
Large stock-based compensation (notably rising in the cash flow add-backs)
This is normal for a newly public, build-phase company.
But it’s still a tax.
So here’s the honest framing:
If Starlab succeeds, dilution won’t matter.
If Starlab slips, dilution becomes the entire story.
That’s why the best investors treat early-stage “platform aspirants” like venture capital:
smaller sizing,
higher required return,
ruthless monitoring of milestones.
7) Catalysts & What to Watch
The real catalysts are structural:
What moves the stock up sustainably
Evidence that revenue growth is quality growth (repeatable, programmatic, not one-off)
Clear improvement in cash burn (or at least a credible flattening)
Starlab milestones: funding, partner execution, schedule credibility, customer traction
Expansion of the “software leverage” narrative into real measurable outcomes (Palantir stack deployed into workflows, not just logos)
What breaks the thesis
Capex remains high without clear step-ups in future capacity/returns
Margin improvement fails to show up even as revenue scales
Working capital deteriorates (DSO rising, cash conversion worsening)
Starlab timeline slips → the market reprices the option downward fast
8) So… Is VOYG a Buy?
I’ll answer:
VOYG is not a “cheap stock.”
It’s a priced story with a cash buffer.
The bull case is simple:
the core becomes boring,
margins stabilize and improve,
Starlab becomes a credible platform,
and the market keeps paying for optionality.
The bear case is also simple:
they burn the cash proving they can scale,
timelines stretch (procurement + physics always do),
and the market stops paying for the option before the option matures.
So the right question isn’t “do you believe in space.”
It’s:
Do you believe Voyager can convert today’s cash into tomorrow’s compounding cash flows before the market loses patience?
If yes, you treat it like a venture-style public equity: sized appropriately, milestone-driven, and monitored like a hawk.
If not, you wait—because the market will eventually offer you a better price if execution is messy (and execution is usually messy).
Final Thought
Voyager is a bet on a specific kind of future:
A future where “space” stops being a spectacle and becomes infrastructure. Where national security, communications, and orbital platforms blend into one continuous procurement engine.
And in that future, the winners won’t be the companies with the best rockets.
They’ll be the companies that can operate space like an enterprise system:
contracts,
uptime,
data,
mission outcomes,
and a balance sheet that survives the delays.
Voyager is trying to be that.
Your job is to decide whether the option is mispriced, or merely well-marketed.
Not financial advice. Educational analysis only.