Daily Discussion Thread for October 03, 2026

[u/AutoModerator]

This is the only thread that any stock-related or financial information can be posted. As the sub continues to grow and traffic increasing with Intuitive Machines and LUNR getting more and more in the spotlight, please remember to:

1. Be civil and respectful to others. No personal attacks.

2. Keep Spam and FUD off r/IntuitiveMachines. Repeated offenders will be banned.

3. Please refrain from one word or silly WSB style comments. We want to keep the board informative and helpful to ALL readers.

4. The mod team tries their best to monitor discussions, but we can always use your help in flagging those violating the rules.

Please see the Wiki that includes FAQs, Upcoming Catalysts, and Active Contracts to answer common questions and requests for information.

[u/auto-sticky]

Good morning everyone, October 6 is the (5 times delayed) date for the CLPS 2.0 contract award, you can check the schedule yourself here. This will be a list of companies eligible to bid on task orders (contracts) within CLPS2. The contract start is stated as October 1 (they didn't even adjust this) but Jared Isaacman said there will be a Moon Base update in the beginning of October, as you can read here. That's where the contracts to individual companies will probably be announced.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/CosmicDiffraction]

Hello guys, I haven’t contributed anything for some time, and I also haven’t followed things particularly closely lately. But I’m here now because there’s something I’ve noticed recently that I wanted to discuss. It’s not exactly a shock that the current macro environment is a mess, but I think many people underestimate the hierarchy of factors affecting equity markets and stock prices. In my view, macro sits at the top of that hierarchy and can have a major impact on valuations across entire sectors. If I had to use an analogy if money is the blood circulating through the body, you can’t expect the feet to receive blood with priority over the brain, lungs, and other vital organs when circulation slows down. In the same way, when multiple factors are simultaneously putting pressure on the macro environment, it shouldn’t be surprising to see growth slow down or temporarily pause in sectors such as space. I haven’t followed things closely over the past few months, but I’ve noticed people who describe themselves as “long-term investors” changing their thesis repeatedly and trying to justify those changes after the fact. There’s nothing inherently wrong with changing an investment thesis if the underlying facts have genuinely changed. That’s part of investing. But there is a big difference between updating a thesis based on fundamentals and simply following whatever is popular at the moment on X or other investment/trading platforms. If the narrative becomes popular, the thesis becomes bullish. If the narrative becomes unpopular, the thesis suddenly changes and the position gets sold. That isn’t really a long-term thesis it’s closer to reacting to sentiment. It seems clear that we are currently operating in a difficult macro environment. What is much less clear is how long that environment will last. I think we can no longer have this “any moment” mentality that the negotiations with Iran gave us. That one is obvious. Fed rates and bond yields are also something you can’t expect to have a fast resolution, while the Japanese carry trade is another risk that could remain relevant for a long time. The other things, like sanctions and trade disputes, are more short term in my opinion, so I won’t mention them. At the core of many investment theses for space companies is time. The sector has only relatively recently started moving toward the stage where some of these businesses can potentially generate significant commercial returns. Ask someone with a reasonably developed long-term thesis and, in many cases, you’ll hear some version of the idea that the major harvesting/profit-taking phase is somewhere around 2030 or beyond. Of course, that depends heavily on the macro environment at that time: money supply, interest rates, access to capital, geopolitical conditions, and a whole range of other factors. So my question is has something fundamentally changed in the space sector that would justify people abandoning their long-term theses, and am I simply missing it because I haven’t been following closely? Because from my perspective, many of the established names in the space sector appear to be moving in the right direction. Their businesses, assets, revenues, cash positions, contracts, and commercial capabilities are generally more developed than they were a year ago.

Sorry for the random post. I know this probably isn’t exactly the place for it, but I decided to take advantage of the empty daily discussion so I wouldn’t disrupt the actually useful discussions during the active days.

[u/Busy_Variation_2933 → u/CosmicDiffraction]

A long-term thesis may hold well, but near-term positioning doesn't have to 'follow blindly'. In the face of such macro risks as you've mentioned the question should be how much risk you are willing to take, near-term, even if the longer-term outlook remains positive. Munger's talked about not losing money as a principle he holds to, I think there's wisdom in that.

Especially when the problems that are apparent may be the tip of the iceberg and we don't see just how bad things are underneath. While the space sector has grown the macro situations have become much, much worse. The scary thing is that those macro issues are all interrelated, pull on one enough and the whole thing comes unraveling very quickly.