News
Rocket Lab assembling first reusable Neutron rocket hardware
Rocket Lab appears to have made significant progress since revealing the state of hardware development for its next-generation Neutron rocket in a September 2022 investor update.
At the time, the company shared photos of early work on prototypes of smaller Neutron structural elements, as well as progress building the giant molds that will be used to ‘lay up’ the rocket’s carbon fiber composite tanks and airframe. Rocket Lab also showed off acquisitions of some of the supersized manufacturing equipment that will be used to build the giant rocket, as well as the beginnings of a dedicated Neutron factory in Virginia.
Four months later, photos shared by CEO Peter Beck show that Rocket Lab has progressed to full-scale carbon fiber hardware manufacturing. In December 2022, Beck shared a photo of a full-size Neutron tank dome in the middle of production. A month later, Beck shared a photo of work on both halves of a Neutron booster tank dome. Measuring around seven meters (23 ft) wide, the latter component is already on track to become one of the largest carbon fiber structures ever prepared for a rocket once the halves are joined. And once two more halves are built and assembled, Rocket Lab could soon be ready to start testing full-scale Neutron tank hardware – a crucial milestone for any new rocket.
The update that's rolling out to the fleet makes full use of the front and rear steering travel to minimize turning circle. In this case a reduction of 1.6 feet just over the air— Wes (@wmorrill3) April 16, 2024
Announced in March 2021 and properly unveiled in December 2021, Neutron is a partially-reusable two-stage rocket designed to launch up to 15 tons to Low Earth Orbit (LEO) using liquid methane and oxygen propellant. Neutron measures 42.8 meters (140.4 ft) tall and up to seven meters (23 ft) wide. Its stout, ballistically-optimized design means that it’s simultaneously 40% shorter and up to 190% wider than SpaceX’s workhorse Falcon 9 rocket.
Design differences aside, Neutron is the first rocket that has been obviously designed as an answer to Falcon 9, which has become one of the most prolific, cost-effective, and routinely reusable rockets in the world over the last five or so years. Depending on how much Rocket Lab can sell Neutron for while still breaking even, Neutron has the potential to give Falcon 9 a serious run for its money – or at least force SpaceX to lower its prices. Like Falcon 9, Neutron will have a reusable booster, a reusable payload fairing, and an expendable upper stage. Its booster will also have nine (Archimedes) engines and the upper stage will be powered by one engine. At liftoff, Neutron will produce up to 674 tons (1.49M lbf) of thrust to Falcon 9’s 770 tons (1.7M lbf).
Unlike Falcon 9, Neutron’s similarly-sized reusable fairing is integral, meaning that it will stay permanently attached to the booster. But despite the added mass of the integral fairing and the rocket’s significantly shorter layout, Rocket Lab says that Neutron will be able to launch up to 13 tons (~28,700 lb) to LEO if the booster lands on a barge downrange. Using the same approach with a deployable fairing, Falcon 9 has launched up to 16.7 tons (~36,800 lb) to LEO. That 23% performance gap may seem significant, but the reality is that only SpaceX’s own Starlink and Dragon missions have ever needed Falcon 9 to launch more than 13 tons to orbit.
If Neutron can consistently launch ~25% less payload than Falcon 9 to all Earth and near-Earth orbits, virtually every commercial launch contract that’s currently a SpaceX shoo-in could be within reach of Rocket Lab within several years. The challenge, of course, is building Neutron and making sure the ambitious rocket and its clean-sheet Archimedes engine work as expected and can be reused as easily as Falcon 9.
The company is attempting to get there with its far smaller Electron vehicle, but Rocket Lab has never reused a rocket. And five and a half years after Electron’s debut, the company has never launched more than nine times in one year. SpaceX is about to reuse a Falcon booster for the 140th time and launched 61 times in 2022 – a lead that may prove almost impossible to close. There’s also the fact that the size gap between Rocket Lab’s rockets is so extreme that Neutron could likely launch a fully-fueled Electron into orbit.
But again, SpaceX serves as a demonstration that what Rocket Lab hopes to achieve is not impossible. SpaceX went directly from Falcon 1 (about twice as large as Electron) to Falcon 9 V1.0 (about 30% smaller than Neutron) after just two successful launches of the smaller rocket. Electron has successfully launched 29 times since May 2017 and Rocket Lab is already learning about reusability through the smaller rocket. The challenges facing Rocket Lab are huge, but Neutron still remains the most promising SpaceX competitor currently in development. Kicking off full-scale Neutron tank testing just 2-3 years after the rocket was revealed would only reiterate its strengths. Stay tuned to see how much Neutron progress Rocket Lab can make in 2023.
Elon Musk flew under the radar with his recent purchase of a $1 billion energy company, according to Federal Trade Commission (FTC) documents.
Transaction number 202612350 listed Tesla and SpaceX frontman Elon Musk as the acquiring party and CF APR Super Holdings LLC as the seller, with New APR Energy, LLC as the acquired entity. The deal, which closed without public announcement, came to light on May 14.
BREAKING: Elon Musk acquires Jacksonville power company APR Energy in a deal valued at more than $1,000,000,000.00.
— Polymarket Money (@PolymarketMoney) July 15, 2026
Analysts inferred the deal’s scale from minority stakeholder disclosures, including one report of a 5 percent interest sold for approximately $50.4 million. Fortress Investment Group had purchased APR’s assets in late 2024, rebranded the operation as New APR Energy, and subsequently transferred ownership to Musk.
APR Energy specializes in rapidly deployable power infrastructure. The company maintains one of the world’s largest fleets of mobile gas and diesel turbines, with more than 1.1 gigawatts of generation capacity. Its modular units, which are often trailer-mounted, enable turnkey installations ranging from 20 MW to over 500 MW.
APR provides full engineering, procurement, construction, operation, and maintenance services for behind-the-meter power plants, serving everything from data centers, utilities, and industrial clients.
The firm has expanded aggressively to meet surging demand, recently adding turbines and deploying over 100 MW for a major AI hyperscaler. Its solutions bridge critical gaps where grid interconnections face delays of two to five years, according to Yahoo.
The acquisition means something more for Musk. As he continues to expand projects in artificial intelligence, especially xAI, his AI venture, there is a greater need to supply energy-intensive supercomputing clusters, including the Colossus project, with what they need: reliable and high-capacity power.
Ownership of APR provides immediate access to flexible generation assets that can be deployed adjacent to data centers, reducing dependence on a strained infrastructure. It also complements Tesla’s energy storage business, so Musk will be able to pull from his own entities to address the rapid scaling demands of AI training and compute.
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
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
Tesla has to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
