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.
It is safe to say SpaceX won’t be going for electric rockets anytime soon.
In a characteristically blunt reply on X, SpaceX frontman Elon Musk stated, “Unfortunately, electric rockets are impossible,” following reports that MSCI had assigned SpaceX its lowest possible ESG rating of CCC.
The assessment, issued just this past week, coinciding closely with SpaceX’s public market debut, placed the company on par with nations like Russia in sustainability scoring and cited significant risks in environmental, social, and governance areas.
MSCI flagged SpaceX’s exposure to rocket emissions and other operational impacts, alongside governance concerns such as concentrated control by Musk and limited shareholder protections. Musk’s terse comment directly addressed the environmental pillar, underscoring a core physical constraint that ESG frameworks often overlook when evaluating high-thrust industries.
Unfortunately, electric rockets are impossible
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) June 21, 2026
Electric propulsion systems do exist and are widely used in space. Ion thrusters and Hall-effect thrusters accelerate ionized propellant, typically xenon or krypton, using electric fields, achieving very high specific impulse, often exceeding 3,000 seconds compared to roughly 300–450 seconds for chemical rockets.
This efficiency makes them ideal for satellite station-keeping, orbit raising, and deep-space missions where low thrust over long durations is sufficient. SpaceX’s own Starlink satellites employ electric propulsion for these purposes.
However, launching from Earth’s surface demands something entirely different: enormous thrust delivered rapidly to overcome gravity and atmospheric drag. A typical orbital-class booster must generate thrust far exceeding its weight, often in the millions of Newtons within seconds.
Chemical rockets achieve this through exothermic combustion of dense propellants, producing high-mass-flow, high-velocity exhaust. Electric systems, by contrast, expel very small amounts of mass at extremely high speeds. Generating equivalent thrust would require impractical onboard power levels, massive energy storage or generation systems, and prohibitive added mass, rendering the approach infeasible with current or near-term technology.
Musk has previously expressed a similar sentiment, noting a desire for electric orbital rockets while acknowledging the inescapable requirements of Newton’s third law and energy delivery. The distinction is clear: electric propulsion excels once a vehicle is already in space; it cannot replace the high-thrust chemical phase required to reach orbit from the ground.
The episode illustrates broader critiques of ESG ratings. Proponents argue they incentivize better risk management and long-term sustainability. Detractors, including Musk—who has previously called ESG a “scam”—contend that such metrics can penalize essential activities when no practical alternative exists, potentially discouraging innovation in sectors like space access.
Elon Musk dubs the S&P 500 ESG as “outrageous scam” after Tesla gets booted from index
SpaceX has sought to mitigate launch-related impacts through reusability: Falcon 9 boosters have flown more than 30 times in some cases, dramatically lowering the manufacturing and emissions burden per kilogram delivered to orbit. Starship’s design further emphasizes rapid reusability and methane propellant, which can theoretically be produced via sustainable pathways.
Ultimately, Musk’s remark serves as a reminder that certain engineering realities persist regardless of scoring systems. As humanity expands its presence in space for communications, science, and exploration, balancing genuine environmental progress with technological necessity remains a central challenge.
ESG frameworks may evolve, but the fundamental limits of electric launch propulsion are unlikely to change soon.
Tesla just trademarked ‘MEGAPOD’ with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), its latest move in what seems to be a hint that the company is incredibly focused on its AI efforts and storage needs as compute increases.
The application carries serial number 99893717 and lists the applicant as Tesla, Inc., located at 1 Tesla Road, Austin, Texas 78725.
The filing remains in ‘live pending’ status, and it is a new application waiting for assignment to an examining attorney. It has not yet been published or registered.
Tesla just trademarked MEGAPOD
Summary:
“Modular data center hardware systems for artificial intelligence computing, comprised of computer servers, computer hardware for artificial intelligence processing, computer networking hardware, electrical power distribution units, and… pic.twitter.com/3l85DsKadl— Robin (@xdNiBoR) June 19, 2026
According to the official goods and services description in the application, Tesla describes ‘MEGAPOD’ as:
“Modular data center hardware systems for artificial intelligence computing, comprised of computer servers, computer hardware for artificial intelligence processing, computer networking hardware, electrical power distribution units, and cooling systems, sold as a unit; self-contained modular computing hardware systems for artificial intelligence workloads; integrated computer hardware platforms for artificial intelligence computing, namely, enclosures containing computer hardware, power distribution hardware, and cooling hardware, sold as a unit; downloadable software for monitoring, managing, optimizing, and regulating modular artificial intelligence computing hardware systems.”
This description specifies complete, self-contained modular units that integrate servers and specialized AI processing hardware with networking components, power distribution, and cooling systems. It also includes associated downloadable software for oversight and optimization of these systems. The language emphasizes hardware sold “as a unit” and enclosures that combine the necessary elements for AI computing workloads.
Tesla has an established history of developing and commercializing modular hardware systems. Its Megapack product line, for example, consists of utility-scale battery energy storage systems designed as containerized units for grid applications. The MEGAPOD filing follows a similar pattern of protecting a name for modular, integrated hardware platforms, this time focused on artificial intelligence computing infrastructure.
This could be an early move, especially as Tesla did not have trademark rights to the word ‘Cybercab,’ the name of its self-driving, ride-hailing-focused vehicle.
Trademark applications of this type allow companies to secure priority rights to a name for defined categories of goods and services. The USPTO examines applications for compliance with legal requirements, including distinctiveness and absence of conflicts with prior marks. If the application proceeds successfully through examination, publication, and any opposition period, it could result in a federal trademark registration providing nationwide protection. This is what Tesla’s obvious intention is with ‘MEGAPOD.’
Public reports and analysis suggest MEGAPOD could represent modular, container-style AI computing pods designed for easy deployment. These would bundle servers, AI accelerators, power systems, and cooling into self-contained units suitable for distributed AI workloads. This approach aligns with Tesla’s announced AI compute strategy.
In March 2026, Elon Musk outlined plans for “Digital Optimus” (also referred to as Macrohard), a joint Tesla-xAI project for AI agents capable of handling complex digital tasks. The plans include running these agents on Tesla’s AI4 hardware in parked vehicles as well as dedicated compute units installed at Supercharger stations, which collectively offer substantial unused electrical capacity.
What is Digital Optimus? The new Tesla and xAI project explained
A modular hardware platform like the one described in the ‘MEGAPOD’ filing would support scalable, rapid deployment of such distributed compute resources. It could complement Tesla’s other AI infrastructure efforts, including the Dojo supercomputer used for training models and the development of AI systems for autonomous driving and robotics, by enabling edge or regional AI inference without reliance on traditional centralized data centers.
Investor's Corner
SpaceX is launching a secret spacecraft that could change how things are made in space
SpaceX’s secret disk-shaped Starfall capsule is targeting a market no reentry vehicle has cracked.
SpaceX is targeting Tuesday, June 23 for the first flight of Starfall, a reentry capsule the company has developed almost entirely in private. The Falcon 9 launch window opens at 6:43 a.m. ET from Space Launch Complex 40 at Cape Canaveral Space Force Station, with a backup window available the same time on June 24. SpaceX has made no public announcement about the vehicle, only providing launch details. Everything known about it has come through FAA and FCC regulatory filings.
What makes Starfall different starts with its shape. Rather than the traditional cone used by Dragon and every other cargo return capsule in operation, Starfall is a flat disk that measures roughly 10.2 feet (3.1 meters) wide and just 2.5 feet (0.75 meters) tall, and weighing 4,630 pounds (2,100 kg) and capable of returning up to 2,200 pounds (1,000 kilograms) of payload from orbit. The disk geometry maximizes structural efficiency and payload volume relative to mass, and the heat shield mechanically jettisons just before splashdown, allowing recovery teams to retrieve both the capsule and the shield separately from the Pacific Ocean.
The difference with Starfall from existing competitors, such as Varda Space Industries, which has largely built the orbital manufacturing market and returns heavy payloads per flight is that Starfall’s specification is roughly 30 times more per mission, and is designed to be mass-produced and launched on either Falcon 9 or Starship. That combination of volume and launch access is something no standalone startup can replicate, and it puts SpaceX in direct competition with the companies that currently pay it to reach orbit.
SpaceX to launch military missile tracking satellites through new Space Force contract
The intended market is orbital manufacturing: pharmaceuticals, protein crystals, semiconductors, and advanced optical fiber that physically cannot be produced in the presence of gravity. FAA documents describe Starfall’s long-term purpose as building a “self-sustaining commercial in-space manufacturing market” and as a potential successor to the industrial capabilities of the International Space Station, which is set to retire in the late 2020s. Military rapid global cargo delivery is a parallel application under active discussion with the Pentagon.
The reason some industries seek manufacturing in space comes down to gravity. On Earth, gravity causes materials to settle, separate, and deform during production. In microgravity, those constraints disappear.
SpaceX’s already controls launch access, which means it currently functions as the landlord for every competitor in the orbital manufacturing return space. Starfall converts that landlord position into vertical ownership, and it would no longer just carry other companies’ capsules to orbit, but rather operate the capsule, own the return logistics, and capture the service revenue directly. Viewed alongside Starlink, Colossus, and the xAI merger, Starfall fits a consistent pattern: SpaceX identifying infrastructure layers that others depend on and moving to own them outright. Orbital manufacturing return is the next layer on that list.
If Tuesday’s reentry, parachute sequence, and recovery demonstration goes as planned, the second FAA-approved test flight follows. A successful pair of demos would position SpaceX to begin offering Starfall as a commercial service, likely first to pharmaceutical and materials science customers before scaling toward the military and broader manufacturing segments.
Elon Musk responds to SpaceX’s ESG rating and says its rockets won’t go electric
Tesla just trademarked MEGAPOD: here’s what it is
