News
DeepSpace: Rocket Lab bucks the saying that ‘space is hard’ with 4th Electron success
This is a free preview of DeepSpace, Teslarati’s new member-only weekly newsletter. Each week, I’ll be taking a deep-dive into the most exciting developments in commercial space, from satellites and rockets to everything in between. Sign up for Teslarati’s newsletters here to receive a preview of our membership program.
Rocket Lab continues to buck the adage that “space is hard” with its small but increasingly reliable Electron rocket. After a slight range hardware malfunction caused a launch abort just shy of orbit during Electron’s inaugural May 2017 launch attempt, Rocket Lab fixed the issue and returned to flight, successfully completing Electron’s first orbital launch in January 2018. On November 11th, 2018, the rocket completed its first truly commercial launch, placing seven various satellite into Low Earth Orbit (LEO), rapidly followed by Electron’s fourth successful launch on December 16th, barely one month later.
On March 29th, Rocket Lab completed yet another milestone launch for Electron, successfully placing its heaviest payload – an experimental ~150 kg DARPA spacecraft known as R3D2 – into an accurate orbit. Even relative to SpaceX’s barebones Falcon 1 launch campaign, which attempted five launches – two successfully – over a three year career, Rocket Lab’s Electron has progressed at an extraordinary pace, taking less than two years to complete its fifth launch and achieving its first launch success after just one attempt and eight months of flight operations.
Relentless progress
- To find a rocket with a comparable record of success less than two years after its first launch attempt, one must jump back more than half a century to the late 1950s and early 1960s, when Russia and the US were putting their industrial mights to the challenge of achieving spacefaring ‘firsts’. Almost all of those original vehicles – including Redstone, Atlas, Delta, Thor, Titan, and even Saturn V – were able to weather early failures and achieve extraordinary launch cadences just 12-24 months after their debuts.
- None, however, were developed as an entirely commercial rocket with almost exclusively private funds, although ESA’s Ariane 3 and 4 vehicles nearly fit the bill, with exemplary commercial track records and impressive acceleration from debut to high launch cadences.
- Incredibly, Rocket Lab has brought Electron from paper to its fourth successful launch in ~16 months on what can only be described as a shoestring budget relative to all past efforts, perhaps even Elon Musk and SpaceX.
- According to public investment records, the small US-based, New Zealand-operated company may have reached orbit for the first time with less than $100M, including ~$70M in equity investment and unspecified development funding from DARPA in the early 2010s.
- Rocket Lab’s Electron rocket is quite small, measuring 1.2 m (~4 ft) wide, 17 m (56 ft) tall, and 12,500 kg (27,600 lb) at liftoff, anywhere from a quarter to half the size of SpaceX’s Falcon 1, by most measures.
- Electron is capable of placing 150–225 kg (330–495 lb) into either a 550 km (340 mi) sun synchronous orbit (SSO) or a lower low Earth orbit (LEO).
- Electron is advertised with a commercial list price of around $6M.
- Aside from Electron’s industry-defying record of achievement, its R3D2 launch is impressive for another reason: the cost of the payload relative to the cost of launch. For a rocket on its fifth-ever launch, DARPA reportedly spent no less than $25M to fund the development of the experimental R3D2 smallsat, while – as mentioned above – the cost of Electron’s launch could have been as low as ~$6M from ink to orbit.
- In slightly different terms, Electron has now launched a payload that could be 4-5X more valuable than itself after just three prior launch successes and less than two years after beginning operations.
- While ~$30M would not be a huge loss for a military agency like DARPA (FY19 budget: $3.4B), DARPA’s trust in Electron demonstrates impressive confidence in not just Electron, but also Rocket Lab’s standards of manufacturing, operations, and mission assurance.
- Relative to a vehicle like Falcon 9 or Atlas V, Electron’s R3D2 mission would be comparable to launching spacecraft worth ~$250M to $500M after just five launches. Both larger rockets accomplished similar feats, but small launch vehicles are historically known for less than stellar reliability.
Go[ing] forth and conquer[ing]
- Put simply, Rocket Lab has managed to build what appears to be a shockingly reliable small launch vehicle with a budget that would make Old Space companies whimper, all while offering a potential cadence of dozens of annual launches at per-launch costs as low as $6M.
- While the cost-per-kg of a $6M Electron launch is still extremely high relative to larger rockets and rideshare opportunities, what Rocket Lab has achieved is nothing short of spectacular in the commercial spaceflight industry.
- If there ever was an actual ‘space race’ to fill the small launch vehicle void created by the growth of small satellite launch demand, Rocket Lab has won that race beyond the shadow of a doubt. There is still plenty of room for competition and additional cost savings from a customer perspective, but Electron is so early to the party that future competition will remain almost entirely irrelevant for the better part of 2-3 more years.
- According to CEO Peter Beck, the company’s ambition is to sustain monthly Electron launches in the nine remaining months of 2019. Flight 6 hardware is likely already on its way to Rocket Lab’s Mahia, New Zealand Launch Complex 1 (LC-1).
Mission Updates
- The second launch of Falcon Heavy – the rocket’s commercial debut – is still scheduled to occur as early as April 7th, but a slip to April 9-10 is now expected. The massive rocket’s static fire – the first for a Block 5 Falcon Heavy – is set to occur as early as Wednesday, April 3rd.
- After Falcon Heavy, Cargo Dragon’s CRS-17 resupply mission is firmly scheduled for April (April 25th), while the first dedicated Starlink launch is now NET May 2019.
- In late May, SpaceX could launch Spacecom’s Amos-17 spacecraft, effectively free to the customer as part of a settlement following the tragic Amos-6 Falcon 9 anomaly that destroy the rocket, satellite, and large swaths of the LC-40 pad in September 2016.
Photo of the Week
The Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan (OTPP) stands to reap one of the most extraordinary returns in pension fund history thanks to a bold 2019 investment in SpaceX.
According to a recent report from The Globe and Mail, the Toronto-based fund invested roughly $300 million CAD (~$220 million USD at the time) in Elon Musk’s space company as its inaugural deal through the Teachers’ Innovation Platform.
At SpaceX’s anticipated $1.75 trillion IPO valuation, set for a mid-June debut on Nasdaq under ticker $SPCX, that stake could now be worth up to $11.6 billion USD. This would represent a roughly 50x return and easily become OTPP’s most successful single investment ever.
The fund manages $279 billion in assets for approximately 346,000 working and retired teachers in Ontario, potentially delivering an average boost of around $33,500 per member if fully realized.
SpaceX has filed its S-1 and plans to price shares at $135 each, aiming to raise a record $75 billion in what would be the largest IPO in history, surpassing Saudi Aramco. The company reported $18.67 billion in revenue for 2025, driven primarily by Starlink satellite internet growth and NASA contracts, though it continues to post significant losses tied to ambitious R&D in Starship and AI initiatives.
Important pieces moving forward include:
- Starlink Expansion: The satellite broadband service is scaling rapidly, targeting global connectivity, especially in underserved rural and remote areas. This segment offers massive recurring revenue potential as numbers climb.
- Starship and Reusability Leadership: SpaceX’s fully reusable Starship aims to slash launch costs dramatically, enabling frequent missions, Mars ambitions, and lucrative government/defense contracts. Success here could unlock exponential growth.
- AI and Diversification: Recent moves, including ties to xAI, position SpaceX in high-growth AI infrastructure, broadening beyond traditional aerospace.
- Validation Scrutiny: While the $1.75 trillion target excites investors, analysts like Morningstar value the company closer to $780 billion, citing high multiples (around 90x trailing revenue) and execution risks. A 180-day lockup period will prevent early investors like OTPP from selling immediately post-IPO.
The irony has not been lost on observers. Ontario’s government previously canceled a Starlink rural internet contract amid political tensions involving Musk, yet the pension fund’s savvy investment, made when SpaceX was valued around $33-36 billion, and Starlink was nascent, delivers outsized gains independent of politics.
For OTPP, this windfall strengthens its already solid 111 percent funding ratio and underscores the value of patient, innovation-focused capital allocation.
For SpaceX, the IPO marks a new chapter: greater transparency, access to public markets for talent retention and growth capital, and heightened pressure to deliver on its multi-planetary vision.
All eyes are fixed on whether SpaceX can justify its lofty valuation through sustained execution. For Ontario teachers, the returns are already stellar, but SpaceX, like other Musk companies in the past, has plenty of things to prove. Perhaps the most ideal person for the job is at the helm, hoping to bring the company to a massive valuation.
In a notable shift for electric vehicle perceptions, Tesla has emerged as a standout performer in the latest iSeeCars longevity study, which analyzed over 174 million used vehicles.
The data reveals that Tesla models have a 4.6 percent chance of reaching 250,000 miles, matching the industry average of 4.8 percent and tying for sixth place among 32 brands. This positions Tesla ahead of many established names, including Subaru (2.3 percent, roughly half of Tesla’s rate), Nissan (2.4 percent), Mazda, BMW, Mercedes-Benz, and Porsche.
Toyota leads with an impressive 17.8 percent likelihood, followed by Lexus (12.8 percent), Honda, and Acura. Yet Tesla’s result stands out for a relatively young EV brand. Experts attribute this to the inherent simplicity of electric powertrains: fewer moving parts mean no oil changes, timing belts, or complex engine components that typically fail in internal combustion vehicles.
Fewer things to maintain means fewer things to break, and ultimately, fewer things to go wrong.
A Tesla is twice as likely to reach 250,000 miles as a Subaru⁰⁰“No engine, no oil changes, no timing chains, no fuel injectors, and far fewer moving parts overall”⁰⁰https://t.co/k8iJwbzrrp
— Tesla North America (@tesla_na) June 8, 2026
This design advantage helps Teslas defy unfounded skepticism about battery longevity and overall durability, two things that have plagued the company from outsider perspectives without much proof.
The iSeeCars reliability ratings further bolster Tesla’s case. The Tesla Model S earns a strong 7.9/10 reliability score, ranking No. 1 out of 35 most reliable electric cars. It boasts a predicted average lifespan of about 154,419 miles (around 16.9 years) and a 21.9 percent chance of hitting 200,000 miles.
Tesla, as an electric car brand, also scores 7.9/10 overall, securing the top spot among electric vehicle manufacturers in several luxury and segment categories.
Real-world examples reinforce the data. High-mileage Teslas, including Model S vehicles exceeding one million miles, demonstrate that EVs can endure when properly maintained. Owners report minimal mechanical issues beyond typical wear items like tires and brakes, which regenerative braking often extends.
Tesla Model 3 hits quarter million miles with original battery and motor
This performance challenges narratives around EV reliability, especially amid mixed reports from other sources like Consumer Reports or regional inspections. iSeeCars‘ massive dataset emphasizes long-term durability over short-term defect rates, painting Tesla as a leader in sustainable, high-mileage ownership.
For buyers prioritizing longevity and low maintenance, Tesla’s results signal strong value. While no brand is flawless, factors like driving habits, climate, and software updates matter—the numbers suggest Tesla belongs among the elite for those seeking vehicles built to last.
As EV adoption grows, this iSeeCars data underscores Tesla’s engineering edge in creating enduring, future-proof automobiles.
Tesla owners have long griped about the wireless phone charger in the Model Y and other vehicles. It often turns smartphones into miniature ovens rather than reliably topping them up.
Software engineer and Model Y owner Michał Gapiński tackled this issue head-on with a clever DIY upgrade, swapping the cooled wireless charger pad from the China-made Model YL in for the one that came standard in his vehicle.
There are several key differences between the U.S.-built Model Y’s wireless charging pad and the one that Tesla has been installing in the Model YL. The one installed in U.S.-built vehicles lacks active cooling and relies on basic heat dissipation, leading to rapid temperature buildup during charging. In contrast, the Model YL integrates a small fan for active cooling.
Will it fit? Fingers crossed, I want a first YL charger deployed in the regular juniper pic.twitter.com/wWDqSNFVkW
— Michał Gapiński (@mikegapinski) June 2, 2026
This design maintains lower temperatures even in warm ambient conditions, though it does not support faster Qi2 charging on iPhones. The connector matches exactly, making physical swaps feasible on compatible consoles, but coding is required to enable full functionality.
Owners in the U.S. have complained about the wireless charging pad, with many reporting that overheating is fairly common. Within 20 or 30 minutes of placing a phone on the wireless charging pad, many have reported overheating messages on their phones, which halt charging and essentially turn the pad into a fancy place to rest your phone.
Many owners have opted to simply plug their phones into a charging cord. Tesla has acknowledged the problem by releasing several solutions for owners, including a relatively new feature that allows you to simply turn off the charging and simply act as a holder for your phone while driving.
Gapiński said that he sourced the cooled pad affordably from China, and it cost under $200 for the part.
He removed the existing console charger, swapped in the new unit, confirming a perfect connector fit, and handled the trim differences. Since the parameter isn’t fully secured, he enabled it through custom coding outside official Toolbox.
Connector is identical, she fits, now time to code it. https://t.co/Y9idgDrpCq pic.twitter.com/uwwgq6blg7
— Michał Gapiński (@mikegapinski) June 2, 2026
The fan activates quietly, blending with AC and seat cooling. He reported the installation was effective and the wireless charging pad worked perfectly; it even kept the phone cool as it stayed at just 86 degrees Fahrenheit. Many times, the wireless charging pad will bring the phone’s temperature well above 100 degrees, sometimes even being relatively hot to the touch.
The retrofit worked, no issues. First Model Y with a cooled wireless charger! No QI2/faster charging on the iPhone but it does not boil the phone even when it is 30 degrees outside.
The fan kicks in, it is not audible especially with the air conditioning and seat cooling. The… https://t.co/JOyR8Tb1Yo pic.twitter.com/kJcYhQIlYq
— Michał Gapiński (@mikegapinski) June 2, 2026
This retrofit highlighted an elegant, owner-driven solution to a factory shortcoming. It is expected that Tesla will begin installing the cooled charging pads into new cars in the U.S. soon, and hopefully, it will offer some sort of retrofit service or kit to owners here who want to use the charging pad effectively.
For those who love to tinker, it’s an accessible upgrade, proving that innovation thrives beyond the production line.
SpaceX IPO set to provide massive $11.6B windfall for teacher pension plan
Tesla skeptics will hate what this new reliability study says
