News
SpaceX’s Falcon 9 may soon have company as Rocket Lab reveals plans for Electron rocket reuse
The most prominent launcher of small carbon composite rockets, Rocket Lab, announced plans on Tuesday to recover the first stage of their Electron rocket and eventually reuse the boosters on future launches.
In short, CEO Peter Beck very humbly stated that he would have to eat his hat during the ~30-minute presentation, owing to the fact that he has vocally and repeatedly stated that Rocket Lab would never attempt to reuse Electron. If Rocket Lab makes it happen, the California and New Zealand-based startup will become the second entity on Earth (public or private) to reuse the boost stage of an orbital-class rocket, following SpaceX’s spectacularly successful program of Falcon 9 (and Heavy) recovery and reuse.
What is Rocket Lab?
Rocket Lab – headquartered in Huntington Beach, California – is unique among launch providers because they specialize in constructing and launching small carbon composite rockets that launch from the gorgeous Launch Complex 1 (LC-1) in Mahia, New Zealand. Their production facilities are located in Auckland, New Zealand, where they not only produce their own rockets but also 3D print Rutherford engines, the only orbital-class engine on Earth with an electric turbopump.
Electron’s 1.2-meter (4 ft) diameter body is built out of a super durable, lightweight carbon composite material that relies on custom Rocket Lab-developed coatings and techniques to function as a cryogenic propellant tank. It is powered by 9 liquid kerosene and oxygen (kerolox) Rutherford engines that rely on a unique electric propulsion cycle. The engine is also the only fully 3D-printed orbital-class rocket engine on Earth, with all primary components 3D-printed in-house at Rocket Lab’s Huntington Beach, CA headquarters. Pushed to the limits, a complete Rutherford engine can be printed and assembled in as few as 24 hours.
Currently, Rocket Lab is producing an Electron booster every 20-30 days and flies about once a month out of New Zealand. Since the first operational flight at the end of 2018 Rocket Lab has supported both commercial and government payloads. With a new launch complex (LC-2) coming online in Wallops, Virgina by the end of this year, they look to increase launch frequency, but also widen its market of customers. According to CEO Peter Beck, booster reuse could be a boon for Electron’s launch cadence.
“Electron, but reusable.”
In the world of aerospace, SpaceX is effectively the only private spaceflight company (or entity of any kind) able to launch, land, and reuse orbital-class rockets, although other companies and space agencies have also begun to seriously pursue similar capabilities. Rocket Lab’s announcement certainly brings newfound interest to the private rocket launch community. Reuse of launch vehicle boosters – typically the largest and most expensive portion of any given rocket – is a fundamental multiplier for launch cadence and can theoretically decrease launch costs under the right conditions.
Rocket Lab hopes, more than anything, that recoverability will lead to an increase in their launch frequency and – at a minimum – a doubling of the functional production capacity of the company’s established Electron factory space. This will allow for more innovation and give the company more opportunities to “change the industry and, quite frankly, change the world,” according to founder and CEO Peter Beck.
Unlike like SpaceX’s Falcon 9, propulsive landing is not an option for the small Electron rocket. In fact, cost-effective recovery and reuse of vehicles as small as Electron was believed to be so difficult that Beck long believed (and openly stated) that Rocket Lab would never attempt the feat. Beck claims that in order to land a rocket on its end propulsively – by using engines to slow the booster while it hurdles back to Earth in the way the Falcon 9 booster does – would mean that their small rocket would have to scale up into the medium class of rockets. As Beck stated, “We’re not in the business of building medium-sized launch vehicles. We’re in the business of building small launch vehicles for dedicated customers to get to orbit frequently.”
The main concern that Rocket Lab faces with the daunting task of not using propulsion to land is counteracting the immense amount of energy that the Electron will encounter on its return trip through the atmosphere. In order to return the booster in any sort of reusable condition they will have to decrease the amount of energy that the rocket is encountering which presents in the forms of heat and pressure from ~8 times the speed of sound to around 0.01 times the speed of sound. This decrease also needs to occur in around 70 seconds during re-entry and according to Beck “that’s a really challenging thing to do.” Beck went on further to explain that this really converts into dissipating about 3.5 gigajoules of energy which is enough energy to power ~57,000 homes.
Breaking through “The Wall”
When re-entering the atmosphere the energy that any spacecraft endures creates shockwaves of plasma which must be diverted away in order to protect the integrity of the spacecraft. An example of this can be seen during the re-entry of a SpaceX fairing half. Beck explains that “the plasma around those shockwaves is equal to about half the temperature of the (surface of the) sun” which can reach temperatures as high as 6,000 degrees fahrenheit. It also endures aerodynamic pressure equal to that of three elephants stacked on top of the Electron, according to Beck. His team refers to these challenges as breaking through “The Wall.”Beck explains that they will attempt to solve these problems differently using passive measures and aerodynamic decelerators.
The Wall is something that Beck and his team have been trying to tackle for some time now. Since the Electron began operational flights at the end of 2018 data has been collected to inform the problem solving process. In total Electron has successfully completed 7 flights, with its 8th scheduled to occur within the coming days. Beck explains that flights 6 and 7 featured data collection done through 15,000 different collection channels on board of Electron. The upcoming eighth flight will feature an advanced data recording system nicknamed Brutus. This new recording system will accompany Electron on the descent, but will survive while the booster breaks up as usual. It will then be collected and the data will be evaluated and used to further inform the decision making process for how to best help Electron survive its fall back to Earth.
Catching rockets with helicopters
Once Rocket Lab breaks through The Wall and effectively returns Electron without harm, the booster will need to be collected before splashing down into corrosive saltwater. This was demonstrated to be done via helicopter which according to Beck is “super easy.”
An animation depicts a helicopter leaving a dedicated recovery vessel to capture the Electron booster after it deploys a parafoil and begins gliding. The helicopter will intercept the booster’s parachute using a hook and will then carry the booster back to the recovery vessel, where technicians will carefully secure it.
The entire goal of recovering a booster is to be able to reuse it quickly. Beck explains that since Electron is an “electric turbopump vehicle…in theory, we should be able to put it back on the pad, charge the batteries up, and go again.”
Although this goal is ambitious, it is one that – if achieved – will significantly impact the launch community in very positive ways. Not only will the option of rapid reusability open up, but so will opportunity for more agencies to engage in the world of satellite deployment. The Electron currently costs anywhere between $6.5 – 7 million per launch to fly. If the production cost of a new booster is removed space becomes attainable for many more customers.
Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.
News
Tesla Summon got insanely good in FSD v14.3.2 — Navigation? Not so much
There were two new lines of improvements in the release notes: one addressing Actually Smart Summon (ASS), and another that now allows drivers to choose a reason for an intervention via a small menu during disengagement.
Tesla Full Self-Driving v14.3.2 began rolling out to some owners earlier this week, and there are some notable improvements that came with this update.
There were two new lines of improvements in the release notes: one addressing Actually Smart Summon (ASS), and another that now allows drivers to choose a reason for an intervention via a small menu during disengagement.
Overall operation saw a handful of slight improvements, especially with parking performance, which has been the most notable difference with the arrival of FSD v14.3. However, there are still some very notable shortcomings, most notably with region-specific signage and navigation.
Tesla Assisted Smart Summon (ASS) improvements
There are noticeable improvements to ASS operation, which has definitely been inconsistent in terms of performance. Tesla wrote in the release notes for v14.3.2:
“Unified the model between Actually Smart Summon, FSD, and Robotaxi for more capable and reliable behavior.”
As recently as this month, I used Summon with no success. It had pulled around the parking lot I was in incorrectly, leaving the range at which Summon can be operated and losing a signal while moving in the middle of the lot.
This caused me to sprint across the lot to retrieve the vehicle:
It was pouring when I left the gym so I tried to Summon my Model Y
It turned the opposite way and drove out of range, stopping here and forcing me to walk even further across the lot in the rain for it 🤣One day pic.twitter.com/iD10c8sriB
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) April 5, 2026
Unfortunately, Summon was not dependable or accurate enough to use regularly. It appears Tesla might have bridged the gap needed to make it an effective feature, as two tests in parking lots proved that Summon was more responsive and faster to navigate to the location chosen.
It also did so without hesitation, confidently, and at a comfortable speed. I was able to test it twice at different distances:
🚨 Tesla FSD v14.3.2 ASS testing part 1
This was a significant improvement than recent tries using ASS. The parking lot was pretty empty but getting it to come to my location in one singular motion and maneuver was encouraging. https://t.co/vF7TS48GGV pic.twitter.com/sYt8tyHgNn— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) April 23, 2026
Tesla Full Self-Driving v14.3.2 ASS testing part 2 https://t.co/lxfWfnLUxf pic.twitter.com/2R0r3ohI3M
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) April 23, 2026
I plan to test this more thoroughly and regularly through the next few weeks, and I avoided using it in a congested parking lot initially because I have not had overwhelming success with Summon in the past. I wanted to set a low baseline for it to see if it could simply pull up to the place I pinned in the Tesla app.
It was two for two, which is a big improvement because I don’t think I ever had successful Summon attempts back-to-back. It just seems more confident than ever before.
New Disengagement Categories
This is a really good idea from Tesla, but there are some issues with it. The categories you can select are Critical, Comfort, Preference, and Other.
I think the reasons why people choose to take over would be a better way to prompt drivers, like, “Traveling Too Fast,” “Incorrect Maneuver,” “Navigation Error,” would be more beneficial.
I say this because it seems that how we each categorize things might be different. For example, I shared a video of an intervention because the car had navigated to an exit to a parking lot and put its left blinker on, despite left turns not being allowed there.
I disengaged and chose Critical as the reason; it’s not a comfort issue, it’s not a preference, it’s quite literally an illegal turn, and it’s also dangerous because it cuts across several lanes of traffic and is 180 degrees.
I chose to label this Navigation error as “Critical” while testing FSD v14.3.2
Here’s why:
✅ This intervention wasn’t “preference,” as the maneuver FSD routed was illegal
✅ If a police officer saw this maneuver, it would result in a ticket https://t.co/znhHb4haAo pic.twitter.com/bZOiLwWmQa— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) April 23, 2026
Some said I should not have labeled this as Critical, but that’s the description I best characterized the disengagement as.
Categorizing interventions is a good thing, but it’s kind of hard to determine how to label them correctly.
Inconsistency with Regional Traffic Patterns
Tesla Full Self-Driving is pretty inconsistent with how it handles regional or local traffic patterns and road rules. The most frequent example I like to use is that of the “Except Right Turn” stop sign, which has become a notorious sighting on our social media platforms.
In the initial rollout of v14.3, my Model Y successfully navigated through one of these stop signs with no issues. However, testing at two of these stop signs yesterday proved it is still not sure how to read signs and navigate through them properly.
🚨 Tesla FSD v14.3.2 attempts the “Except Right Turn” stop sign: https://t.co/W5MjAybaNK pic.twitter.com/P6oeUsk4PN
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) April 23, 2026
Off camera, I approached another one of these signs and felt the car coming to a stop, so I nudged it forward with the accelerator pedal pressed.
This helped the car go through the sign without stopping, but I could feel the bucking of the vehicle as the car really wanted to stop.
Musk said on the earnings call earlier this week that unsupervised FSD would probably be available in some regions before others, including a state-to-state basis in the U.S.
“It’s difficult to release this like to everyone everywhere all at once because we do want to make sure that they’re not unique situations in a city that particularly complex intersection or — actually, they tend to be places where people get into accidents a lot because they’re just — perhaps there’s — and like I said, an unsafe intersection or bad road markings or a lot of weather challenges. So I think we would release unsupervised gradually to the customer fleet as we feel like a particular geography is confirmed to be safe.”
This could be one of those examples that Tesla just has to figure out.
Highway Operation
Full Self-Driving is already pretty good at routine roadway navigation, so I don’t have too much to report here.
However, I was happy with FSD’s decision-making at several points, including its choice not to pass a slightly slower car and remain in the right lane as we approached the off-ramp:
🚨 Tesla FSD v14.3.2 highway operation: generally happy with the performance here, especially behavior near the exit
Love that the car got over in the right lane after its final pass, and stayed there as the off ramp was approaching https://t.co/qVRVhg6XGR pic.twitter.com/1ELwHf2XKS— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) April 23, 2026
Better Maneuvering at Stop Signs
Many FSD users report some strange operations at stop signs, especially four-way intersections where there is a stop sign and a line on the road, and they’re not even with one another.
I experienced this quite frequently and found that FSD would actually double stop: once at the stop sign and again at the line.
This created some interesting scenarios for me and I had many cars honk at me when the second stop would happen. Other vehicles that had waved me on to proceed through the intersection would become frustrated at the second stop.
FSD seems to have worked through this particular maneuver:
🚨 Tesla FSD v14.3.2 with a singular stop at the correct spot
No double stopping anymore in my experience https://t.co/Wd0TaNjc1R pic.twitter.com/CdQPvJHaAM
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) April 23, 2026
FSD should know to go to the more appropriate location (whichever provides better visibility), and proceed when it is the car’s turn to move. The double stop really ruined the flow of traffic at times and generally caused some frustration from other drivers.
News
Tesla plans to resolve its angriest bunch of owners: here’s how
Since the rollout of the AI4 chip in Tesla vehicles, owners with the last generation self-driving chip, known as Hardware 3, have been persistent in their quest for a solution to their issue: they were told their cars were capable of unsupervised Full Self-Driving. It turns out the cars are not.
Tesla has a plan to make Hardware 3 owners whole after CEO Elon Musk admitted that those with that self-driving chip in their cars will not have access to unsupervised Full Self-Driving.
The company’s strategy is so crazy that it is sort of hard to believe.
Since the rollout of the AI4 chip in Tesla vehicles, owners with the last generation self-driving chip, known as Hardware 3, have been persistent in their quest for a solution to their issue: they were told their cars were capable of unsupervised Full Self-Driving. It turns out the cars are not.
Tesla owners with HW3 finally get their answer: https://t.co/CSZTKKkWXx
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) April 22, 2026
During the Tesla Q1 earnings call on Wednesday, Musk finally clarified what the company’s plans are for Hardware 3 owners, what they will be offered, and what Tesla will have to do internally to prepare for it.
The answer was somewhat mind-boggling.
Musk said:
“Unfortunately, Hardware 3 — I wish it were otherwise, but Hardware 3 simply does not have the capability to achieve unsupervised FSD. We did think at one point it would have that, but relative to Hardware 4, it has only 1/8 of the memory bandwidth of Hardware 4. And memory bandwidth is one of the key elements needed for unsupervised FSD.”
He continued, stating that HW3 owners would have the opportunity to trade their cars in at a discounted rate in order to get the AI4 chip:
“So for customers that have bought FSD, what we’re offering is essentially a trade-in — like a discounted trade-in for cars that have AI4 hardware, and we’ll also be offering the ability to upgrade the car, to replace the computer. And you also need to replace the cameras, unfortunately, to go to Hardware 4.”
Obviously, Tesla has a lot of people to work with and make this whole thing right. Musk was adamant that HW3 would be capable of FSD, and now that the company has finally admitted that it is not, there are some things that could come of this.
There has been open talk about some sort of class action lawsuit against Tesla. The promises that Tesla made previously could be considered a breach of contract or even false advertising, and that’s according to Grok, Musk’s own AI program.
Musk went on to say that Tesla would likely have to establish new microfactories to effectively and efficiently replace HW3 computers and cameras:
…So to do this efficiently, we’re going to have to set up, like kind of micro factories or small factories in major metropolitan areas in order to do it efficiently. Because if it’s done just at the service center, it is extremely slow to do so and inefficient. So we basically need like many production lines to make the change.”
This is going to be an extremely costly process, especially if Tesla has to buy real estate, properties, and equipment to complete this work. Additionally, there was no wording on pricing, but Musk never said it would be free. It will likely come with some kind of price tag, and HW3 owners, after being left hanging for so long, will have something to say about that.
Elon Musk
SpaceX just got pulled into the biggest Weapons Program in U.S. history
SpaceX joins the Golden Dome software group, deepening its role in America’s most expensive defense program.
SpaceX has joined a nine-company group developing the core operating software for the Golden Dome, America’s next-generation missile defense system. According to a Bloomberg report, SpaceX is focused on integrating satellite communications for military operations and is working alongside eight other defense and artificial intelligence companies, including Anduril Industries, Palantir Technologies, and Aalyria Technologies, to build software connecting missile defense capabilities.
The Golden Dome concept dates back to President Trump’s 2024 campaign, and on January 27, 2025, he signed an executive order directing the U.S. Armed Forces to construct the system before the end of his term. The system is planned to employ a constellation of thousands of satellites equipped with interceptors, with data centers in space providing automated control through an AI network.
FCC accepts SpaceX filing for 1 million orbital data center plan
Space Force Gen. Michael Guetlein, director of the Golden Dome initiative, has described the software layer as a “glue layer” that would enable officers to manage and control radars, sensors, and missile batteries across services. The consortium is aiming to test the platform this summer.
Trump selected a design in May 2025 with a $175 billion price tag, expected to be operational by the end of his term in 2029, though the Congressional Budget Office projected the cost could reach $831 billion over two decades.
The Golden Dome role is only the latest in a string of military wins for SpaceX. As Teslarati reported, the U.S. Space Force awarded SpaceX a $178.5 million task order on April 1, 2026 to launch missile tracking satellites for the Space Development Agency, covering two Falcon 9 launches beginning in Q3 2027. That came on top of more than $22 billion in government contracts held by SpaceX as of 2024, per CEO Gwynne Shotwell, spanning NASA resupply missions, classified intelligence satellites through its Starshield program, and military broadband.
The accumulation of defense contracts, now including a seat at the table on the most expensive weapons program in U.S. history, positions SpaceX as the dominant infrastructure provider for American national security in space. With a SpaceX IPO still on the horizon, each new contract adds weight to what is already one of the most consequential companies in aerospace history, raising real questions about how much of America’s defense architecture will depend on a single private operator before it ever trades publicly.
Tesla Summon got insanely good in FSD v14.3.2 — Navigation? Not so much
Tesla plans to resolve its angriest bunch of owners: here’s how
