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
News
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 faces wrath of the Texas skies
SpaceX pushed Starship Flight 13 to Friday, blaming weather instead of the previous engine issues.
SpaceX called off Thursday’s launch attempt of Starship Flight 13, pushing the mission to Friday because of weather tied to Tropical Storm Bertha. The company confirmed the delay on X, noting “Now targeting Friday, July 24 for Starship’s thirteenth flight test, due to weather. A key objective for the flight test is to get clear imagery from the ground of Starship’s heatshield as it flies at a higher dynamic pressure during ascent, which won’t be possible with today’s weather conditions.”
This is the second delay for Flight 13 in two weeks. SpaceX first tried to launch the mission on July 16, but the countdown ended in an automated abort at T-0 when four of Super Heavy Booster 20’s 33 Raptor engines failed to ignite. Musk said at the time that two Raptors would need to be removed and replaced, as Teslarati reported. The company spent the following week destacking Ship 40 and Booster 20, swapping engines, and running leak checks before restacking the vehicle on Pad 2 Wednesday night, according to Spaceflight Now’s live coverage.
Unlike the engine problem, Thursday’s delay has nothing to do with the hardware. SpaceX wants clean footage of Starship’s heat shield captured from the ground as the vehicle flies through max dynamic pressure, something the storm’s cloud cover over South Texas would not allow. The company said visibility should improve for Friday’s attempt, with the same 90 minute window opening at 5:45 p.m. CT.
Flight 13 will be the second outing for the V3 versions of Starship and Super Heavy, following their debut on Flight 12 in May. The mission carries 20 production Starlink V3 satellites, the first time SpaceX has flown operational satellites rather than mass simulators on Starship. Six of those satellites are fitted with cameras to inspect the heat shield from a different angle during ascent, giving engineers a second data source beyond the ground imagery the weather is currently blocking.
Booster 20 will attempt a boostback burn and a splashdown landing burn in the Gulf of America, while Ship 40 follows a suborbital trajectory toward a landing in the Indian Ocean. The flight plan largely mirrors Flight 12, though the booster will run a more aggressive ascent burn after max Q this time, and the ship’s heat shield includes load sensing tiles meant to measure stress at the higher dynamic pressure SpaceX is targeting.
If Friday’s attempt succeeds, Flight 13 could be the last suborbital test in the program. SpaceX is already looking to push for an orbital flight on Flight 14.
Tesla stock (NASDAQ: TSLA) endured one of its sharpest single-day declines in years on July 23, tumbling approximately 14.5 percent and closing near $320 after opening the session around $374. The drop erased more than $140 billion in market value amid heavy trading volume and left the shares at multi-week lows.
The sell-off followed the company’s second-quarter 2026 results, released the previous evening. Tesla reported record revenue of $28.2 billion, up 26 percent year over year, driven by a Q2-record 480,126 vehicle deliveries. Energy storage deployments also rose strongly.
Tesla (TSLA) Q2 2026 earnings results: miss on EPS, beat on revenue
Yet profitability disappointed sharply. Operating income fell 57 percent to $398 million, compressing the operating margin to just 1.4 percent. Non-GAAP earnings per share came in at $0.33, well below the roughly $0.53 analysts had expected. Free cash flow turned negative by $1.1 billion as capital expenditures surged 142 percent to $5.8 billion, largely tied to accelerated spending on artificial intelligence, robotics, and autonomous systems.
The losses on capex were expected, as Tesla said it would be spending heavily in 2026.
Investors also reacted to lingering uncertainty surrounding key product timelines. During the Earnings Call, management reiterated ambitions for Robotaxi deployment and the Optimus humanoid robot, but offered limited new concrete milestones, renewing questions about execution pace that have long accompanied Tesla’s ambitious roadmap.
The magnitude of the decline places it among Tesla’s more severe one-day percentage losses since its 2010 initial public offering. Historically, the two largest single-day drops (split-adjusted) remain September 8, 2020, when shares fell 21.1 percent amid broader market volatility and valuation concerns, and January 13, 2012, with a 19.3 percent plunge during the company’s early growth struggles.
Other notable declines include an 18.6 percent drop on March 16, 2020, at the onset of pandemic-related market turmoil. Thursday’s move ranks roughly ninth on the all-time list but stands out as the steepest in more than a year.
Despite the short-term pain, Tesla’s long-term trajectory has repeatedly recovered from such volatility. The latest results underscore both the strength of its core automotive and energy businesses and the near-term costs of heavy investment in next-generation technologies.
Elon Musk clapped back at France’s decision to withhold the approval for Tesla’s Full Self-Driving (FSD) Supervised system, projecting a clear and blunt message to French Transport Minister Phillippe Tabarot, after he publicly rejected the technology in its current form.
Tabarot outlines several concerns with Tesla Full Self-Driving in a detailed video statement, where he said, “The safety trade-offs are not yet sufficient to authorize it as it currently stands,” he said. He emphasized that FSD is not a true self-driving system and that the driver remains fully responsible.
Key issues Tabarot also brought up included allowing speeding when surrounding traffic exceeds limits and what he believes are insufficient guarantees of driver attention during complex urban maneuvers such as lane changes, intersections, and roundabouts.
Delaying the approval of FSD in France will cost lives
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 22, 2026
While acknowledging technological progress and France’s support for autonomous innovation, Tabarot stressed that deployment must prioritize road safety. He noted ongoing technical discussions with Tesla, the Netherlands, and other European partners, with further ecosystem meetings planned for the fall.
Musk’s rebuke highlights the human cost of regulatory caution. Tesla’s latest safety reports provide compelling data supporting accelerated adoption. In the most recent 12-month period, vehicles using FSD (Supervised) recorded one major collision per approximately 5.1 million miles driven, dramatically better than the U.S. national average of one crash per 698,000 miles.
Even Tesla vehicles driven manually with active safety features outperform the average by a wide margin. These figures come from billions of real-world miles of telemetry, showing FSD vehicles involved in far fewer incidents than both manual Teslas and the broader U.S. fleet.
Critics argue Tesla’s comparisons require careful scrutiny regarding reporting thresholds and fleet demographics, yet the data consistently positions FSD as a potential lifesaver. With road fatalities remaining a leading cause of death worldwide, Musk contends that proven safer technology should not face prolonged bureaucratic hurdles.
France’s measured approach reflects the broader European regulatory caution, which many, especially Musk, have been critical of in the past. However, as autonomous systems from Tesla and competitors like Waymo demonstrate superior safety in independent studies, pressure is mounting for harmonized approvals.
Musk’s warning carries the belief that every month of delay may equate to avoidable tragedies on European roads.
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 faces wrath of the Texas skies
Tesla stock tumbles after earnings, one of its sharpest single-day declines
