News
Rocket Lab to build reusable Neutron rocket factory and launch pad in Virginia
Rocket Lab has selected Virginian island to host the first launch site, factory, and landing pad for its next-generation Neutron rocket.
In a move reminiscent of SpaceX’s Starbase Starship factory and launch sites, Rocket Lab plans to build and launch its Neutron rocket in more or less adjacent facilities within NASA’s Wallops Flight Facility and Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport on Virginia’s Eastern Shore. Rocket Lab estimates that this new facility will bring over 250 jobs to the area, including engineers, technicians, and support staff that will be working at the complex.
The 250,000-square-foot facility will support Neutron production, assembly, and integration within spitting distance of its first orbital launch site. The site will be Rocket Lab’s third main rocket development and production facility, joining a small factory and headquarters in Huntington Beach, California, and a more substantial Auckland, New Zealand factory. Rocket Lab’s Auckland factory is dedicated to manufacturing the company’s smaller Electron rocket, which (for now) is exclusively launched out of pads located on the north island’s Māhia Peninsula. Neutron’s Virginia manufacturing complex will be in close proximity to Rocket Lab’s lone American Electron launch pad (LC-2), which is also located at Wallops.
However, Electron is merely Rocket Lab’s first step into orbital rocketry Neutron, Rocket Lab’s next rocket, will be capable of launching at least 8 tons (~17,600 lb) into low Earth orbit (LEO). Borrowing heavily from experience with Electron, Neutron will be the first medium-lift rocket made primarily of carbon fiber composites.
Unlike Electron, though, Neutron is being designed from the ground up for partial reusability. Powered by its reusable Archimedes engines, Rocket Lab believes the Neutron launch vehicle will be ideal for satellite constellation launches but also be sized right to support a range of other missions, including deep space exploration and, potentially, human spaceflight. In practice, even though Neutron’s design is substantially different, the rocket is effectively a half-scale Falcon 9 with some noteworthy modifications. Both are two-stage rockets with expendable upper stages and reusable boosters and fairings. With fairing and booster recovery, Falcon 9 is able to launch about 16 tons (~35,000 lb) to LEO – twice Neutron’s 8 tons.
Neutron stands at approximately 131 feet tall (39.9 meters) and between 5 and 7 meters (16-23 ft) wide – more than twice the height and 4-6 times the width of Electron. Because of its size and performance, Rocket Lab expects Neutron to be a strong competitor with other large launch providers, including SpaceX. As far as cost per launch, Beck has declined to provide an estimate beyond stating that “ it would be a pointless exercise [if Rocket Lab] didn’t think that it would be very cost-competitive with anything that’s currently in the market or being proposed.” Currently, the company’s Electron rocket is sold for about $7-8 million per launch. SpaceX, their largest prospective competitor, has sold Falcon 9s for as little as $50 million, while executives have indicated that the rocket costs the company just $28 million for a launch with a reused booster and fairing.
Rocket Lab has received strong support from the Commonwealth of Virginia and the Virginia Economic Development Partnership is working alongside Accomack County, the Virginia Commercial Space Flight Authority (Virginia Space), and the General Assembly’s Major Employment and Investment (MEI) Project Approval Commission to help expedite the process. That support is one of the primary reasons Rocket Lab selected Virginia of all places to build its first Neutron hub. According to Rocket Lab, as part of the Commonwealth’s proposal, “$30 million has been set aside for infrastructure and operational systems improvements to the Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport where the Neutron launch site will be located, along with $15 million from the MEI Project Approval Commission in site improvements and building construction in support of Neutron.”
Shaun D’Mello, the company’s Vice President stated, “We’ve enjoyed a solid partnership with Virginia for years that will no doubt be strengthened with Neutron. We have a shared mission to develop Rocket Lab’s presence at the Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport into a strategic national asset that provides responsive, reliable, reusable space launch through Neutron and Electron, and breaking ground on the site soon is a significant and impelling step toward that future.”
A public target has not been set for the completion of the factory and launch site but Rocket Lab states that they “expect to begin construction promptly.” Neutron, scheduled to launch as earlier as 2024, has already generated some degree of demand, and the United States Space Force recently decided to invest $24 million in its development.
Rocket Lab revealed the news of Neutron’s first factory and launch site comes on the same day as the first orbital launch from Launch Complex 1’s new Pad B. To learn more about Pad B and Rocket Lab’s existing Electron launch facilities, click here.
Tesla had a petition protesting a recall to fix a potential issue with 2017-2023 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles’ headlights was denied, as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) disagreed with the company’s opinion of things.
The recall covers approximately 19,917 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles built from 2017 to 2023. Tesla initially submitted a noncompliance report for the headlights on these vehicles on March 15, 2024. Tesla then petitioned for an exemption from the fix, which violated FMVSS No. 108 (40 CFR 571.108), arguing that the “noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
🚨 Tesla was denied a petition by the NHTSA to avoid a recall of 19,900 2017-2023 Model 3 and Model Y vehicles.
The NHTSA found that the vehicles’ headlights may exceed maximum lighting levels. Tesla argued it was inconsequential and did not require a recall. pic.twitter.com/m8Jmm1teLL
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 16, 2026
The NHTSA disagreed, stating that Tesla’s conclusion that the headlights do not increase any risk was not an opinion it shared. The agency said it disagreed with Tesla’s assumption that glare is not increased to surrounding traffic. This issue could be highlighted even more in certain weather conditions.
Tesla will be required to remedy the issue, the NHTSA ruled:
“In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that Tesla has not met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 108 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Tesla’s petition is hereby denied, and Tesla is consequently obligated to provide notification of and free remedy for that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.”
The issue here appears to be the angle of the headlights and the brightness they emit during operation. The NHTSA report states that:
“Tesla’s headlamp supplier, Marelli Automotive Lighting, tested 25 right-hand and 25 left-hand lamps, and for this sample, found the maximum photometric intensity measured in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone was between 136.2 cd and 230.1 cd for the right-hand lamps and between 117.5 cd and 160.3 cd for the left-hand lamps. According to Tesla, these tests revealed that the photometric intensity of the right-hand and left-hand headlamp lower beam on the subject vehicles may measure as much as 230.1 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone, exceeding the maximum photometric intensity by 105.1 cd. Additionally, Tesla states that a left-hand lamp tested by a Transport Canada recognized laboratory measured a maximum of 171.27 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone. Despite these measurements exceeding the allowed photometric maximum of 125 cd, Tesla believes that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.”
Tesla also argued at some points that the headlights had not been deemed responsible for any complaints, accidents, or injuries related to the noncompliance.
Lifestyle
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
The NTSB confirmed the driver, not Tesla’s FSD, caused the fatal Texas house crash.
The National Transportation Safety Board released preliminary findings Wednesday confirming that a Tesla driver, not the vehicle’s software, caused a fatal crash in Katy, Texas in June. The driver, 44-year-old Michael Butler, had engaged Full Self-Driving Supervised mode on Rose Hollow Lane, a residential street with a 30 mph speed limit, before manually overriding the system by pressing the accelerator pedal all the way to 100%. Data recovered from the 2025 Tesla Model 3 showed the vehicle was traveling over 70 miles per hour when it struck a home and killed 76-year-old Martha Avila, who was inside. Weather was clear, the road was dry, and it was daylight.
Texas man charged in fatal Tesla crash where he blamed Autopilot
Butler told authorities he had passed out at the wheel. But security camera footage obtained by the NTSB told a different story, and showed the car accelerating through an intersection before leaving the road entirely. Police also found that Butler’s phone had Google searches including the terms “Tesla FSD not aggressive enough 2026” and “Tesla FSD too timid,” raising serious questions about how he was using the system before the crash. Butler has since been charged with manslaughter. The victim’s family has filed a lawsuit against both Butler and Tesla, alleging negligence.
The NTSB findings aligned directly with what Tesla VP of AI Software Ashok Elluswamy had already stated publicly on X in the weeks after the crash, writing that “the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100%.” The data confirmed his account.
Yup. In this case, the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100% of the accel pedal in this residential area. They reached a speed of 73 mph during the crash, and had the accelerator pressed even after the crash.
— Ashok Elluswamy (@aelluswamy) June 22, 2026
Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli responded to rumors of an imminent bankruptcy that was reportedly being mulled after a report stated the automaker was working with the firm AlixPartners to iron out its next steps.
The company felt a massive loss on Wall Street yesterday, as the report essentially pushed the stock down as much as 55 percent on Tuesday.
The report, published initially by Eletric-Vehicles.com, claimed Lucid was essentially in dire straits and was told by AlixPartners, a commonly used restructuring advisor, to either take shares private or file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.
Lucid’s head of Communications, Nick Twork, immediately challenged the report and stated the company “has sufficient liquidity to carry its operations well into next year.”
Now, the company’s CEO is chiming in as well, stating that the report is “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Napoli said:
“Lucid is not considering bankruptcy or a transaction to take the company private. Those reports are false. The Board did not explore either scenario. Period.
As disclosed in our most recent quarterly filing, Lucid has sufficient liquidity to fund its operations well into next year.
We work with outside advisors to improve operational performance and execution. They are not advising Lucid on a take-private transaction or bankruptcy, and any suggestion that they have recommended either course of action to management or the Board is false.
My priority is clear: turn this company around. That is where the leadership team and I are focused.
I look forward to providing a full update during our quarterly earnings call on August 4th.”
🚨 Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli calls rumors of financial issues “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Read his full remarks here: https://t.co/t3Pg1NHvzy pic.twitter.com/LvHUPhO4Qf
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 15, 2026
It seems pretty clear that Lucid is confident things will be okay, and, to be honest, they should not have much to worry about, especially considering the company has been backed by the Saudi Public Investment Fund (PIF) for years. It has solid financial backing, and its sales, while weak, are pretty much right on par with a company of this age.
Lucid also sent a Cease & Desist letter to the publication for their report.
Lucid shares have rebounded nicely and are up nearly 21 percent at the time of publication. As soon as the company dispelled the rumors of bankruptcy yesterday, the stock began to climb back toward more reasonable levels.
Tesla has to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
