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.
Investor's Corner
New drone video shows Tesla’s Optimus Factory reaching a turning point
New drone footage shows Tesla’s dedicated Optimus factory steel frame nearing completion at Giga Texas.
Tesla’s dedicated Optimus factory at Gigafactory Texas is closing in on a finished steel frame, according to drone footage posted Thursday afternoon by longtime site observer Joe Tegtmeyer. In the video, Tegtmeyer said structural steel assembly is now about five column grids away from reaching the building’s north perimeter beam, putting the primary skeleton in its final stretch roughly six months after Tesla broke ground on the North Campus site in late March.
The Giga Texas Optimus Factory latest update … construction keeps moving fast!
Steel assembly is now only about 5 column grids from the north perimeter beam. Concrete is going in on the three upper floors, rebar is still being laid for more pours, and footing / grade-beam work… pic.twitter.com/qvFPvwnYzW
— Joe Tegtmeyer 🚀 🤠🛸😎 (@JoeTegtmeyer) September 17, 2026
Tegtmeyer’s footage shows concrete already going in on three upper floors while crews continue laying rebar and pouring grade beam footings at ground level. That kind of parallel work, steel rising at one end of the site while concrete sets at the other, is a scheduling approach Tesla used at the original Giga Texas building and appears to be repeating here to save time before the plant’s targeted 2027 production start.
Teslarati has tracked the building’s progress since Tesla confirmed construction was officially underway in May, when the first steel structure went up on what was then bare, reclaimed land. The facility is part of a more than 5.2 million square foot expansion of Giga Texas’s North Campus that Tesla has said will eventually run nearly the length of the existing vehicle factory, over 4,000 feet, while sitting somewhat narrower. Musk has pegged the long term output target at 10 million Optimus units a year once the line is running at full capacity, a volume that would dwarf the one million unit pilot line Tesla is standing up separately at its Fremont, California factory.
Tesla Giga Texas to feature massive Optimus V4 production line
The Texas facility sits alongside another major buildout on the same campus. Terafab, the joint Tesla and SpaceX chip fabrication plant that will eventually supply the silicon running Optimus units in the field. Housing robot assembly and chip production on the same grounds is a deliberate supply chain decision, cutting down on the shipping and lead time that would otherwise sit between the two.
Tesla has not given an updated timeline beyond its previously stated goal of bringing high volume Optimus production online at the site in the summer of 2027. Fremont’s smaller pilot line began mass producing the current Gen 3 robot in January, with that plant expected to build tens of thousands of units this year primarily to generate the real world data Tesla needs to refine the robot’s software before Giga Texas ramps up. Six months of visible construction progress, tracked almost entirely through Tegtmeyer’s recurring drone flights, gives the clearest outside look yet at how seriously Tesla is treating that 2027 deadline.
Investor's Corner
Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court
Tesla and SpaceX sue a small Illinois firm after cease and desist letters over Terafab.
Tesla and SpaceX are asking a federal judge to rule that their planned Terafab chip factory does not infringe a small Illinois company’s trademark, a request that arrives only after months of quiet negotiation broke down this summer.
The dispute traces to May 18, when Tesla filed three U.S. trademark applications for “Terafab” and “Tesla Terafab,” covering semiconductor chips and related chip making services. TERA-print LLC, a nanotechnology company that has held a federal trademark for “Tera-Fab” since 2021, responded five days later with a cease and desist letter. According to the lawsuit, first reported by Reuters, TERA-print argued that Tesla and SpaceX’s use of “Terafab” would confuse consumers familiar with its own trademark, which covers a desktop photolithography printer sold to researchers for sensor and bioengineering work.
What stands out in the filing is the timing of TERA-print’s own paperwork. One day before sending that cease and desist letter, on May 22, TERA-print applied to expand its existing registration to cover semiconductor materials, silicon chips, nanoelectronic devices and AI design services, categories it had not previously claimed. Tesla and SpaceX call that filing opportunistic in their complaint, noting it arrived two months after Tesla’s public Terafab announcement and just days after Tesla’s own trademark applications went in.
Elon Musk launches TERAFAB: The $25B Tesla-SpaceXAI chip factory that will rewire the AI industry
By June 10, TERA-print was threatening to sue for federal trademark infringement, false designation of origin and unfair competition, the complaint states. Rather than wait to be sued, Tesla, SpaceX and SpaceXAI met with TERA-print six separate times between June and August trying to resolve the dispute directly. Those talks collapsed, and the companies filed for declaratory judgment this week in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, asking a judge to find that “Terafab” does not infringe TERA-print’s mark before TERA-print can file a claim of its own.
TERA-print isn’t backing down. The company told PCMag it discussed a settlement with Tesla as recently as September 2 and feels misled by what it called Tesla’s professed interest in settling. Its CTO, Andrey Ivankin, said TERA-print holds a Defense Department contract to fabricate semiconductors and partially owns Mattiq Inc., an AI company built on TERA-print’s products, and that the company will vigorously defend its rights.
Tesla and SpaceX argue the overlap is superficial. Terafab is planned as a $16.8 billion complex spanning roughly 100 million square feet at the Grimes County site SpaceX confirmed last month, built to produce chips for Optimus robots, Tesla’s AI computing needs and SpaceX’s orbital data center ambitions, a scale and purpose the companies say no reasonable consumer would confuse with a tabletop lab printer. TERA-print’s product line has stayed focused on lithography tools for biological and sensor research since it registered its mark in 2021.
The trademark fight is the second legal dispute tied to the Terafab project in the past week, following a separate SpaceX suit aimed at keeping company records about the facility out of public view, as KBTX reported. Whether construction proceeds under the Terafab name now depends on a federal judge in Austin.
News
NHTSA just escalated its Tesla Cybercab investigation in a big way
NHTSA escalated its Cybercab audit into a sworn Special Order with a September 30 deadline.
Federal regulators have moved from asking Tesla questions about its Cybercab to demanding sworn answers. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issued a Special Order that requires a Tesla officer to sign an affidavit attesting to the completeness of the company’s responses, with a deadline of September 30.
The order builds on Audit Query AQ26002, which NHTSA opened on September 3, the same day Tesla began commercial Cybercab service in Austin. Teslarati covered that initial inquiry when it surfaced, noting the agency wanted to understand how Tesla certified a vehicle with no permanently attached steering wheel, pedals, or mirrors as compliant with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. A Special Order is a different tool and converts a fact finding review into a legally enforceable demand, the same mechanism NHTSA used against Tesla in 2023 during its Autopilot investigation.
Several of the 21 requests target a specific gap in Cybercab’s design. One asks whether Tesla used temporarily attached human controls at any point to help certify the vehicle, and if so, which standards depended on that equipment being present. Another quotes an existing rule directly: “The service brakes shall be activated by means of a foot control.” Cybercab has no foot pedal. NHTSA wants a detailed explanation of how the vehicle satisfies that requirement, and how it complies without the kind of exemption granted to Zoox in July under Part 555, the regulatory pathway built for steering wheel free vehicles.
The order does not claim Cybercab is unsafe or that Tesla broke a rule. It requires Tesla to explain, under oath, the reasoning behind decisions the company already made when it self-certified the vehicle. That distinction matters, but so does the exposure. Motor1’s reporting, summarized here, put potential civil penalty exposure as high as $139 million if NHTSA later finds the certification was flawed, on top of whatever criminal risk comes with a false sworn statement.
Tesla has not said publicly how it plans to respond. Cybercab is still carrying passengers in Austin through the Robotaxi app while the September 30 deadline approaches, and the company has continued expanding the vehicle’s footprint even as the regulatory question remains open. The Special Order does not pause any of that and just sets a date by which Tesla has to put its certification logic on the record, with a company officer’s name attached to it.
New drone video shows Tesla’s Optimus Factory reaching a turning point
Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court
