Other Guided Missile and Space Vehicle Parts and Auxiliary Equipment Manufacturing (NAICS 336419)

A Histometrics industry primer for public- and private-market investors

1. Overview

This industry makes the parts and auxiliary equipment that go into guided missiles and space vehicles — everything except the complete vehicle, the propulsion unit, and the standalone guidance electronics. Think airframe structures, interstage and separation systems, nose cones and payload fairings, heat-shielding and composite structures, and the ground and launch support gear that surrounds a missile or rocket. NAICS (North American Industry Classification System) code 336419 is the "everything-else" bucket within the missile-and-space-vehicle family. [1]

Why an investor cares: this is a supplier tier sitting underneath the big prime contractors. Demand is almost entirely driven by the U.S. government — missile procurement, missile defense, hypersonics, and national-security and commercial space launch — which as of 2026 is in a multi-year spending upcycle. The parts makers who hold "qualified" (certified sole-source) positions on long-lived programs earn durable, high-margin, multi-year revenue. [11][7]

Public vs private ways in: there is now one clean public pure-play — Karman Holdings (NYSE: KRMN), a merchant supplier of missile and space structures. [7] Beyond that, exposure is either indirect (through the diversified prime contractors and materials suppliers) or private, because most of this supply chain is family-owned machine shops and private-equity-backed roll-ups. Tickers, valuations, and fund routes are in Sections 4 and 10.

2. What it is and how it's structured

In scope (336419): guided-missile and space-vehicle parts other than engines/propulsion — airframe assemblies, structural and aerodynamic components, interstage and stage-separation systems, payload protection and deployment systems, thermal-protection and high-temperature composites, and auxiliary/ground-support equipment. Establishments here also build prototypes of these parts. In practice, this includes missile and spacecraft structural assemblies, airframes and aeroshells, payload and equipment housings, separation mechanisms, control surfaces, deployment hardware, thermal-protection and ablative structures, complex machined parts, cable assemblies, and electromechanical assemblies. The product boundary can be non-intuitive: an inertial-navigation unit is outside 336419 even when installed in a missile, while its structural enclosure or mounting assembly may be inside it. [1][19]

What it explicitly excludes (name the neighbors):

• Complete missiles and space vehicles → NAICS 336414 (Guided Missile and Space Vehicle Manufacturing). This is where the prime integrators' final-assembly plants sit.
• Propulsion units and propulsion parts → NAICS 336415. All solid rocket motors (SRMs — the propellant-loaded engines that push a missile), rocket engines, and their parts are counted here, not in 336419.
• Standalone navigation and guidance systems → NAICS 334511 (Search, Detection, Navigation, Guidance systems).
• Research establishments that do not produce prototypes → NAICS 541715.
• Aircraft parts → NAICS 336413; complete aircraft → 336411. [1]

That boundary matters enormously for investors: when you read "the U.S. missile industry," most of the headline dollars and the famous supply-chain bottleneck (solid rocket motors) live in 336414/336415, not here. 336419 is specifically the non-propulsion parts and structures slice.

Operating model. Operations are typically high-mix and low- or medium-volume rather than conventional mass production. Suppliers work from prime-contractor drawings or jointly engineer a component, build tooling and qualification articles, pass material, destructive, vibration, thermal, shock and other acceptance tests, and then transition through prototype, low-rate and mature production. Documentation, configuration control, serial and lot traceability, special-process qualification and security controls are part of the product. Long qualification cycles and the cost of recertifying an alternate supplier can make a qualified position sticky, but the same program specificity can strand tooling and capacity if a program is delayed or cancelled.

Ownership mix. Three overlapping layers:

1. Prime contractors (Lockheed Martin, RTX/Raytheon, Northrop Grumman, Boeing, L3Harris) that make much of their own missile/space structure in-house — but those captive plants are usually classified under 336414 or other codes, not counted in 336419's statistics.
2. Independent merchant suppliers — vertically integrated parts makers that sell to every prime. Karman is the flagship; most others are private. [7]
3. A long tail of small precision machine shops, forging/casting houses, and composite fabricators, many family-owned or private-equity-held.

3. How big it is

Per U.S. federal statistics, 336419 is a small, tightly concentrated niche — which understates the true economic footprint (see caveat):

Derived from the payroll and headcount figures, average pay is roughly $114,000 per worker (2023) — high, reflecting engineers, skilled machinists, and cleared technical staff. The concentration ratios tell the story: four firms take about 69% of revenue and the top twenty essentially all of it. HHI (a standard concentration measure where higher = more concentrated) of 1,378.8 puts it in the moderately concentrated range, and the CR4/CR8 figures confirm a handful of firms dominate. [2]

The undercount caveat (important here). These federal business statistics materially understate the real "missile-and-space-parts" activity, for three structural reasons:

• Captive production. The primes fabricate much of their own missile/space structure in-house, and those establishments are classified under the complete-vehicle code (336414) or by their primary product — not counted in 336419's $2.37 billion.
• Definitional carve-outs. Propulsion (336415) and guidance electronics (334511) — huge dollar categories — sit in other codes by design.
• Primary-code assignment. Thousands of small machine shops and composite fabricators that supply missile programs are classified under their main product (e.g., machine shops, aircraft parts), not here.

So 336419's 7,042 workers are the merchant-supplier core, not the whole missile-parts economy. Also note this is a near-monopsony: the buyer is overwhelmingly the U.S. government (directly or through primes), so the "market size" is really a slice of the defense and space budget, not consumer demand. [11]

Sizing caution. The most common misreporting is to call a broad missile, satellite-manufacturing or "space economy" total the size of 336419. That is incorrect. NAICS classifies establishments by primary activity, not consolidated companies, programs or every product made at a plant. The code excludes complete vehicles, propulsion, guidance systems and pure R&D, while broad space-economy figures include launch services, satellite communications, ground equipment, data and consumer services. Company segment revenue, federal space budgets and global satellite revenue are demand indicators — not measurements of this industry's shipments or market share.

4. The investable universe

Public pure-plays are scarce; most of the supply chain is private. The cleanest match to 336419 is Karman.

Prime contractors (indirect exposure — missile/space parts are a slice, not the whole): Lockheed Martin (LMT), RTX (RTX), Northrop Grumman (NOC), L3Harris (LHX, which owns Aerojet Rocketdyne on the propulsion side), Boeing (BA). Owning these gives missile/space exposure heavily diluted by other businesses. [4][6]

Space-vehicle-parts side (public): Rocket Lab (RKLB) and Redwire (RDW) build space structures and components alongside launch/satellite work.

Major private and other owners:

• Prime captive divisions (private within public parents): Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control, RTX/Raytheon (Tucson), Northrop Grumman missile products.
• Private-equity roll-ups: Karman itself was built by Trive Capital (which still holds majority voting power post-IPO) by combining Aerospace Engineering Corp. and AMRO Fabricating, then bolting on precision-machining, nozzle, and composite acquisitions. [9][10] Other PE sponsors active in this tier include AE Industrial Partners and Arlington Capital.
• Defense-tech startups adding new content (Anduril, Ursa Major, Castelion) — venture/private, mostly on the propulsion and new-missile side. [4]

If you want a single-name proxy for this exact industry, KRMN is it; everything else is either diluted (primes), tiny (AIRI), or private.

5. How the money works

Owners here make money by winning and holding qualified positions on long-lived weapons and space programs, then producing at rising volumes as those programs ramp. The economics that matter:

• Backlog and book-to-bill. Backlog is contracted future revenue; book-to-bill (new orders ÷ revenue billed) above 1.0 means the order book is growing. Karman ended its 2025 year with about $801 million of backlog on ~$471 million of revenue — multi-year visibility. [7] Air Industries reported a book-to-bill of 1.34 — orders coming in a third faster than it ships. [16]
• Program content × build rate. Revenue is roughly dollars of your parts per missile or vehicle multiplied by how many the government buys. When procurement quantities jump (as in FY2026), qualified suppliers ride the volume up.
• Contract mix drives margin. Cost-plus contracts reimburse costs plus a negotiated fee (typically 8–12%) — low risk, capped upside. Fixed-price contracts pay a set amount — the supplier keeps the savings if efficient (12–18%+) but eats overruns. [20] Northrop Grumman reports that cost-type contracts normally carry less unanticipated cost risk but lower margins, while fixed-price contracts offer greater margin opportunity and greater exposure to labor, material and execution overruns; its 2025 Space Systems sales were 58% cost-type and 42% fixed-price. [23] Lockheed reports cost-reimbursable work was approximately 40% of its 2025 sales. [24] Merchant suppliers with sole-source parts have pricing power: Karman runs an adjusted EBITDA (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization — a cash-profit proxy) margin of 30.8% on a 40.3% gross margin and 15.5% operating margin (2025). [7][21]
• Qualification lock-in = the moat. Once a part is flight-qualified on a program, re-qualifying a second source is slow and costly, so incumbents keep the position for the program's life (often decades). That's why a small shop can be strategically critical.
• Capacity utilization and the surge. In a ramp, suppliers add shifts and lines; the government sometimes funds that capacity directly (see Section 7). Utilization and volume, not price, drive incremental margin.
• Long-cycle working capital. Revenue is recognized over the life of multi-year contracts, tying up inventory and unbilled receivables. Thinly capitalized sub-tier shops can become the pacing item for the whole chain — "sub-tier financial fragility" governs delivery speed as much as the primes do. [17]

Segment-level margin benchmarks. Reported public-company margins illustrate the range but are not an estimate for 336419 specifically. Northrop's broad Space Systems segment earned an 11.0% operating margin on $10.771 billion of 2025 sales. [23] Lockheed's Space segment generated $13.029 billion of sales and $1.345 billion of operating profit (10.3% margin), while its Missiles and Fire Control segment generated $14.450 billion and $1.989 billion respectively (13.8% margin); both segments contain extensive activity outside 336419. [24] Ducommun's Electronic Systems segment earned a 17.8% operating margin and Structural Systems earned 12.8% (2025). [22] Specialist economics can be considerably better or worse than these averages depending on proprietary content and execution.

6. What drives demand

Demand is a function of the federal budget and geopolitics, not the business cycle:

• Munitions procurement and replenishment. Stockpiles drawn down by support to Ukraine and Israel are being refilled under multi-year procurement contracts. The FY2026 budget put $6.4 billion toward critical munitions (plus ~$2.1B to execute the multi-year ramp), with defense reconciliation adding roughly $25 billion for munitions and supply chain — including plus-ups to JASSM-ER (Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile — Extended Range) and LRASM (Long-Range Anti-Ship Missile). [11][13][14]
• Hypersonics. DoD (Department of Defense) requested about $13.4 billion in procurement and RDT&E (Research, Development, Test & Evaluation) for hypersonic programs in FY2026 — new systems that need new structures, thermal protection, and composites, squarely 336419 content. [12]
• Space systems. The DoD FY2026 request included $34 billion in procurement and R&D for space-based systems and funding for 11 national-security and Space Development Agency launches. [27] The FY2027 request proposes $71.1 billion for the Space Force (124% above the FY2026 enacted level), including $21.6 billion for Space Control — though these are proposed amounts subject to congressional action. [28]
• Missile defense expansion. Programs like PAC-3 (Patriot Advanced Capability) interceptors and homeland missile-defense initiatives keep interceptor build rates climbing. [11]
• Space launch cadence. National-security and commercial launch (SpaceX, United Launch Alliance, Rocket Lab, Blue Origin) plus satellite constellations drive demand for fairings, separation systems, and structures on the space side. [7] The FAA reports that licensed commercial launches and reentries grew by more than 900% over the preceding decade, with approximately 200 operations expected for full-year 2025. [29] The Satellite Industry Association reported 296 commercially procured satellite launches deploying 4,434 satellites in 2025, with global satellite-manufacturing revenue of $20.4 billion; U.S. firms manufactured 83% of commercially procured satellites launched that year. [30]
• Civil space (mixed outlook). NASA's FY2026 enacted funding was $24.438 billion, while the FY2027 request proposes $18.829 billion. Within that proposal, Exploration rises from $7.783 billion to $8.514 billion, while Science falls from $7.250 billion to $3.894 billion and Space Operations falls from $4.175 billion to $3.047 billion. The mix matters more to component suppliers than NASA's headline budget. [31]
• Great-power competition. The strategic backdrop (China, Russia) underwrites sustained, bipartisan defense budgets — the structural tailwind behind all of the above.

7. Regulation

This is one of the most heavily regulated corners of manufacturing:

• Export controls. ITAR (International Traffic in Arms Regulations) and EAR (Export Administration Regulations) tightly restrict who can handle missile/space technology and data — a compliance burden and a barrier to foreign competition. USML Category IV covers launch vehicles and guided missiles, while Category XV covers spacecraft and related articles; export jurisdiction also reaches controlled technical data and, in some circumstances, disclosures to foreign persons in the United States. [32] Commerce also imposes rocket-system end-use and spacecraft licensing controls. [33]
• Contracting rules. FAR/DFARS (Federal Acquisition Regulation / Defense supplement) and CAS (Cost Accounting Standards) govern how cost-type contracts are priced and audited.
• Cybersecurity. CMMC (Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification) is now required across the defense industrial base to keep contracts. The CMMC-related DFARS rule became effective November 10, 2025 and added pre-award and post-award cybersecurity requirements; noncompliance can mean remediation costs, loss of award eligibility, withheld payments, termination, suspension or debarment. [34]
• Security clearances for facilities and personnel gate who can even bid.
• Industrial-base support (a tailwind, not just a cost). Under the DPA (Defense Production Act) Title III, the government invests in supplier capacity — e.g., $32.7M and a separate $27.3M award in late-2025/2026 to expand solid-rocket-motor component production and second-source critical inputs. Uncle Sam subsidizing plant expansion is unusual and favorable for incumbents. [18]
• Domestic-sourcing and environmental rules. Buy-American/specialty-metals rules, plus environmental regulation of energetics and materials (perchlorate, PFAS), constrain the supply base.

8. Competitive dynamics and consolidation

The market structure is distinctive: one dominant buyer (the Pentagon), an oligopoly of primes, and a fragmented sub-tier now consolidating.

• Two decades of consolidation thinned the base — on the adjacent propulsion side, solid-rocket-motor suppliers shrank from six firms to two (Northrop Grumman and L3Harris/Aerojet Rocketdyne), creating the bottleneck now dominating defense-industrial-base debate. [5][6] The parts/structures tier (336419) is similarly concentrated (CR4 ≈ 69%). [2]
• Merchant roll-ups. Private equity is consolidating the fragmented parts tier into scaled suppliers — Karman's build-and-buy playbook (composites, machining, nozzles, high-temp resins) is the template, and its IPO validated the model. [9][10]
• Vertical integration vs. merchant model. Primes can in-source parts, but qualification lock-in and capacity limits keep independent suppliers essential; the government actively wants a broader base, funding second sources (e.g., Raytheon backing Northrop and Nammo for the Mk 72 motor). [4]
• New entrants. Defense-tech firms (Anduril, Ursa Major) are pushing into propulsion and new-missile content, reshaping a long-static supplier landscape. [5]
• Supply-chain opacity. GAO reports that DoD relies on a network of more than 200,000 suppliers but has limited visibility into much of the lower-tier origin of materials and parts. [35]

Net: high barriers to entry (qualification, clearances, capital), a protected incumbent position once qualified, and a government that both concentrates the market and periodically forces new competition into it.

9. Risks

• Single-customer / budget risk. Revenue depends on federal appropriations. Continuing resolutions (stopgap budgets), shutdowns, and program cancellations can stall orders regardless of demand. Concentration on a few programs magnifies this.
• Fixed-price overrun risk. On fixed-price work, cost inflation or execution problems come straight out of margin (Boeing booked billions in fixed-price defense losses in 2024). [20]
• Supply-chain fragility. Specialty metals, castings/forgings, high-temperature composites, and single-source inputs (ammonium perchlorate had just one U.S. source as recently as 2020) can gate delivery. Lockheed identifies rare-earth minerals, aluminum, titanium, specialty steel, carbon fiber and advanced microelectronics as important inputs and notes shortages, long lead times and price escalation have affected its supply chain. [18][24] Ducommun similarly reports using aluminum, titanium, steel, carbon fibers and electronic assemblies, with occasional single-source or customer-directed suppliers. [22]
• Labor. Cleared, skilled machinists and engineers are scarce and aging. For context, the broader four-digit aerospace-products industry reported an annual mean wage of $99,120 across all occupations in May 2023, with architecture and engineering, production, program management, procurement and quality roles all material. [36]
• Customer-is-competitor. The primes are both the main customers and potential in-sourcers of the same parts.
• Valuation and sentiment risk (public route). Defense-tech names carry rich multiples; KRMN has been volatile (a ~37% drawdown off its highs), so entry price matters. [8]
• Demand normalization. Much of the current surge is replenishment- and conflict-driven; sustained de-escalation could slow the munitions ramp, though multi-year contracts cushion the near term.
• Substitution risk. Redesign, prime-contractor insourcing, vertical integration, additive manufacturing and migration of value from mechanical hardware toward electronics and software all pose longer-term threats. Qualification protects an incumbent only while the program and design survive. Reusability may lower recurring hardware consumption, and smaller standardized spacecraft may commoditize some structures even as total unit volume grows.

10. How to invest and the outlook

Public routes

• Pure-play: Karman Holdings (KRMN) is the closest listed proxy for 336419 — a scaled merchant supplier with ~$800M backlog and ~31% adjusted-EBITDA margins, but a rich valuation and a still-controlling PE sponsor. [7][8][9][21]
• Diversified / smaller: Ducommun (DCO) for structures-plus-electronics with growing missile content; Air Industries (AIRI) for a micro-cap parts play (thinly traded). [15][16]
• Materials & components: Howmet (HWM), Park Aerospace (PKE), Moog (MOG.A), Curtiss-Wright (CW), Hexcel (HXL).
• Space-parts side: Rocket Lab (RKLB), Redwire (RDW) — though with greater development, contract-estimation and financing risk.
• Prime-contractor exposure (diluted): LMT, RTX, NOC, LHX, BA.
• Funds: aerospace-and-defense ETFs (exchange-traded funds) such as ITA (iShares U.S. Aerospace & Defense), PPA (Invesco), and XAR (SPDR) hold the primes plus some suppliers; space ETFs (e.g., ARKX, UFO) add launch/satellite exposure. These spread single-program risk but dilute the specific 336419 theme.

Private routes

• Private equity is the dominant owner of this supply tier (Trive, AE Industrial Partners, Arlington Capital and peers); access is via PE funds, co-investments, or secondaries.
• Direct M&A / supplier ownership — many targets are family-owned machine shops and composite fabricators; the consolidation wave means active buy-and-build opportunities. The most attractive acquisition targets often combine sole-source or source-controlled positions, high switching costs, funded backlog, multiple programs and reusable process capability. The danger is buying a "platform" whose earnings are actually one customer, one drawing and one production lot.
• Venture into defense-tech startups (Anduril, Ursa Major, Castelion) adding new missile/propulsion content — higher risk, earlier stage.

Private-market diligence. Critical items include funded versus unfunded backlog; fixed-price versus cost-type work; program phase; estimate-at-completion history; customer-owned versus supplier-owned intellectual property; qualification and requalification cost; sole-source status; material escalation clauses; contract assets and inventory; capital expenditure needed for rate increases; CMMC and export-control posture; clearance requirements; and change-of-control provisions. Government-contract transfers also matter: an asset acquisition can require government novation, whereas a stock purchase generally does not when the same contracting entity and assets remain in place, although ownership issues may still require a formal agreement. [37]

Near-term drivers and outlook (forward-looking). The structural setup is favorable: multi-year munitions procurement, a hypersonics build-out, missile-defense expansion, and a rising space-launch cadence all point to years of volume growth for qualified suppliers, with the government even funding capacity through DPA Title III. [11][12][18] Backlogs and book-to-bill above 1.0 support that view. [7][16] The offsets are budget/appropriations timing, single-customer dependence, execution risk on fixed-price work, and — for public buyers — valuations that already price in a lot of the good news. For most investors, the practical exposure is Karman as the pure-play, the primes and ETFs for diversified defense/space, and private equity for the deeper supply chain.

---

Sources

1. U.S. Census Bureau. 2022 NAICS Definition — 336419 Other Guided Missile and Space Vehicle Parts and Auxiliary Equipment Manufacturing. 2022. https://www.census.gov/naics/
2. U.S. Census Bureau. County Business Patterns (2023) and Economic Census / Concentration statistics (2022), NAICS 336419. (Histometrics ground-truth federal dataset.) https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/cbp.html
3. U.S. Small Business Administration. Table of Small Business Size Standards (NAICS 336419 = 1,050 employees). 2023. https://www.sba.gov/document/support-table-size-standards
4. Breaking Defense. "Raytheon awards Northrop, Nammo solid rocket motor development contracts." 2025. https://breakingdefense.com/2025/04/raytheon-awards-northrop-nammo-solid-rocket-motor-development-contracts/
5. Flight Global. "US manufacturers ramp solid rocket motor production amid surging munitions demand." 2025. https://www.flightglobal.com/defence/us-manufacturers-ramp-solid-rocket-motor-production-amid-surging-munitions-demand/160476.article
6. SpaceNews. "Northrop Grumman says industry ready to scale solid rocket production." 2025. https://spacenews.com/northrop-grumman-says-industry-ready-to-scale-solid-rocket-production-with-longer-contracts/
7. StockTitan / Karman Holdings Inc. Form 10-K and 8-K annual results (FY2025 revenue $471.5M, backlog $801M, segment mix). 2026. https://www.stocktitan.net/sec-filings/KRMN/
8. StockAnalysis.com. Karman Holdings (KRMN) statistics & valuation (market cap, LTM revenue, shares). 2026. https://stockanalysis.com/stocks/krmn/statistics/
9. PR Newswire / Trive Capital. "Trive-Backed Karman Space & Defense Completes Successful IPO" (IPO ~$506M, Feb 2025). 2025. https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/trive-backed-karman-space--defense-completes-successful-ipo-302407060.html
10. PrivSource / Trive Capital. Karman add-on acquisitions (Systima, Five Axis, MG Resin, TMX, AAE Aerospace). 2025–2026. https://www.privsource.com/
11. Congressional Research Service. FY2026 Defense Budget: Funding for Selected Weapon Systems (R48860). 2026. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R48860
12. DefenseScoop / Arms Control Association. FY2026 hypersonics procurement and RDT&E ($13.4B request). 2025–2026. https://defensescoop.com/2025/06/26/air-force-arrw-procurement-funding-fy26-budget-request/
13. Breaking Defense. "Reconciliation revealed: How the Pentagon plans to spend all $152 billion in FY26." 2026. https://breakingdefense.com/2026/02/reconciliation-revealed-how-the-pentagon-plans-to-spend-all-152-billion-in-fy26/
14. U.S. House Committee on Appropriations. FY26 Defense Appropriations summary (critical munitions $6.4B). 2026. https://appropriations.house.gov/
15. Ducommun Inc. Form 8-K quarterly results (FY2025 revenue, Electronic Systems missile/space growth). 2025. https://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?action=getcompany&CIK=0000030305
16. Air Industries Group / StockAnalysis.com. FY2025 results (~$48M revenue, backlog $120M, book-to-bill 1.34; Tenax merger). 2025–2026. https://stockanalysis.com/stocks/airi/
17. War on the Rocks. "The Primes Aren't the Real Bottleneck in U.S. Weapons Production" (sub-tier financial fragility). 2025. https://warontherocks.com/
18. GlobalSecurity.org / SpaceNews. "Department of War Invests $32.7M to Accelerate Solid Rocket Motor Component Production"; PacSci EMC $27.3M DPA Title III award. 2025–2026. https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2025/12/mil-251223-dod01.htm
19. IBISWorld. NAICS 336419 — Other Guided Missile and Space Vehicle Parts and Auxiliary Equipment Manufacturing (classification & examples). 2026. https://www.ibisworld.com/classifications/naics/336419/other-guided-missile-and-space-vehicle-parts-and-auxiliary-equipment-manufacturing/
20. Industrials IB. "Defense Contract Types: Cost-Plus, Fixed-Price, and Their Impact on Margins." 2025. https://ibinterviewquestions.com/guides/industrials-investment-banking/defense-contract-types-cost-plus-fixed-price-margins
21. Karman Holdings Inc. Form 10-K (FY2025). SEC EDGAR. 2026. https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/2040127/000204012726000014/krmn-20251231.htm
22. Ducommun Inc. Form 10-K (FY2025). SEC EDGAR. 2026. https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/30305/000162828026011952/dco-20251231.htm
23. Northrop Grumman Corp. Form 10-K (FY2025). SEC EDGAR. 2026. https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1133421/000113342126000003/noc-20251231.htm
24. Lockheed Martin Corp. Form 10-K (FY2025). SEC EDGAR. 2026. https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/936468/000162828026004195/lmt-20251231.htm
25. U.S. Census Bureau. County Business Patterns 2022, NAICS 336419. https://data.census.gov/table/CBP2022.CB2200CBP?codeset=naics~336419&g=010XX00US
26. Redwire Corp. Form 10-K (FY2025). SEC EDGAR. 2026. https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1819810/000181981026000029/rdw-20251231.htm
27. Department of Defense. FY2026 Budget Request Overview. 2025. https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/defbudget/FY2026/FY2026_Budget_Request_Overview_Book.pdf
28. U.S. Space Force. FY2027 Budget Summary. 2026. https://www.spaceforce.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/4465543/budget-request-directs-record-3388-billion-to-air-force-and-space-force-to-meet/
29. Federal Aviation Administration. Commercial Space Operations Discussion. 2025. https://www.faa.gov/blog/clearedfortakeoff/elevating-safety-rocket-launches-and-reentries
30. Satellite Industry Association. 2026 State of the Satellite Industry Report. 2026. https://sia.org/affordability-productivity-drive-historic-satellite-industry-growth-satellite-industry-association-releases-29th-annual-state-of-the-satellite-industry-report/
31. NASA. FY2027 Budget Request Summary. 2026. https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/fiscal-year-2027-budget-request-summary.pdf
32. U.S. Department of State, DDTC. USML Category Guide. https://deccs.pmddtc.state.gov/deccs?id=ddtc_search&q=itar
33. Bureau of Industry and Security. Export Administration Regulations, Part 744. https://www.bis.gov/regulations/ear/744
34. Defense Acquisition Regulations System. CMMC DFARS Rule Notice (effective November 10, 2025). 2025. https://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/dars/archive/2025/change_notices.html
35. Government Accountability Office. Defense Industrial Base Report (GAO-25-107283). 2025. https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-25-107283
36. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics, NAICS 3364 Aerospace Products (May 2023). https://www.bls.gov/oes/2023/may/naics4_336400.htm
37. Federal Acquisition Regulation. FAR 42.1204, Applicability of Novation Agreements. https://login.acquisition.gov/far/42.1204