Connect with us

News

SpaceX’s Falcon 9 may soon have company as Rocket Lab reveals plans for Electron rocket reuse

Following in SpaceX's footsteps, Rocket Lab wants to become the second company in the world to reuse orbital-class rocket boosters. (USAF/Rocket Lab)

Published

7 years ago

on

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 Flight 6 stands vertical at Rocket Lab’s spectacular Launch Complex-1 (LC-1), located in Mahia, New Zealand. (Rocket Lab)

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.

A photo of Rocket Lab’s production facility located in Auckland, New Zealand shows multiple first stage Electron boosters during the production process. (Rocket Lab)

“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.

Advertisement

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.” 

Electron is pictured here during its first three successful launches. (Rocket Lab)

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.

Rocket Lab has detailed plans to recover and re-fly Electron’s first stage to support increased launch frequency for small satellites. (Rocket Lab/Youtube)

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.”

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement
Related Topics:

Space Reporter.

Advertisement
Comments

News

Tesla Cybercab gets crazy change as mass production begins

Tesla has officially kicked off mass production of its groundbreaking Cybercab robotaxi at Giga Texas, and the first units rolling off the line feature a striking transformation that’s turning heads across the EV community.

Published

17 hours ago

on

April 25, 2026

By

Credit: TechOperator | X

Tesla Cybercab has evidently received a pretty crazy change from an aesthetic standpoint, as the company has made the decision to offer an additional finish on the vehicle as mass production is starting.

Tesla has officially kicked off mass production of its groundbreaking Cybercab robotaxi at Giga Texas, and the first units rolling off the line feature a striking transformation that’s turning heads across the EV community.

VIN Zero—the very first production Cybercab—showcases a vibrant champagne gold exterior with a high-gloss finish, a dramatic departure from the flat, matte-wrapped prototypes that debuted at the 2024 “We, Robot” event.

This glossy sheen is a pretty big pivot from what was initially shown by Tesla. The company has maintained a pretty flat tone in terms of anything related to custom colors or finishes.

A specialized clear coat or process delivers the deep, reflective gloss without conventional painting. The result is a premium, mirror-like shine, and it looks pretty good, and gives the compact two-seater a more luxurious and futuristic presence than the subdued matte prototypes.

Photos shared by Tesla community members reveal VIN Zero in a showroom-like setting at Giga Texas, highlighting refined panel gaps, large aero wheel covers, and the signature no-steering-wheel, no-pedals interior optimized for full autonomy.

The open frunk in some images offers a glimpse of practical storage, while the overall build quality appears more polished than that of test mules.

This glossy evolution aligns with Tesla’s broader production ramp. After the first unit in February 2026, the company has shifted to volume manufacturing, with dozens of units already spotted in outbound lots. CEO Elon Musk and the team aim for hundreds per week, paving the way for unsupervised FSD robotaxi networks that could slash ride costs to pennies per mile.

The Cybercab holds Tesla’s grand ambitions of operating a full-service ride-hailing service without any drivers in its grasp. Tesla has yet to solve autonomy, but is well on its way, and although its timelines are usually a bit off, improvements often come through the Over-the-Air updates to the Full Self-Driving suite.

Continue Reading

News

Tesla confirms Cybercab with no steering wheel enters production

Published

20 hours ago

on

April 25, 2026

By

Tesla has confirmed today that its steering wheel-less and pedal-less Cybercab, the vehicle geared toward launching the company’s autonomous ride-hailing hopes, has officially entered production at its Giga Texas production facility outside of Austin.

The Cybercab is a sleek two-door, two-passenger coupe engineered from the ground up as an electric self-driving vehicle. It features no steering wheel or pedals, relying instead on Tesla’s advanced vision-only Full Self-Driving system powered by multiple cameras and artificial intelligence.

The minimalist cabin centers on a large display screen that serves as the primary interface for passengers, creating an open, futuristic space optimized for comfort during unsupervised rides. A compact 35-kilowatt-hour battery pack delivers exceptional efficiency at 5.5 miles per kilowatt-hour, providing an estimated 200-mile range.

Additional innovations include inductive charging compatibility and a lightweight design that enhances aerodynamics and performance.

Production at Giga Texas builds on earlier prototypes and initial units completed earlier in 2026. The facility, already a hub for Model Y and Cybertruck assembly, now ramps up dedicated lines for the Cybercab.

This shift to volume manufacturing reflects Tesla’s strategy to scale affordable autonomous vehicles rapidly.

By focusing on a dedicated platform rather than adapting existing models, the company aims to keep costs low while prioritizing safety and reliability through continuous AI improvements.

The Cybercab’s debut in production carries broad implications for urban mobility. As the cornerstone of Tesla’s Robotaxi network, it promises on-demand, driverless rides that could slash transportation expenses, reduce traffic accidents caused by human error, and lower emissions through its all-electric powertrain.

Accessibility features, such as space for service animals or assistive devices, further broaden its appeal. Regulators and cities worldwide will soon evaluate its deployment, but the vehicle’s design already addresses key hurdles in scaling unsupervised autonomy.

Challenges persist, including full regulatory clearance and building charging infrastructure. Yet this production launch signals momentum. With Cybercabs poised to roll out in increasing numbers, Tesla edges closer to a future where personal ownership meets shared fleets of intelligent vehicles.

The start of Cybercab production is more than just a new vehicle entering mass manufacturing for Tesla, as it’s a signal autonomy is near. Being developed without manual controls is such a massive sign by Tesla that it trusts its progress on Full Self-Driving.

While the development of that suite continues, Tesla is making a clear cut statement that it is prepared to get its fully autonomous vehicle out in public roads as it prepares to revolutionize passenger travel once and for all.

Continue Reading

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.

Published

2 days ago

on

April 24, 2026

By

(Photo: Hector Perez/YouTube)

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:

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:

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.

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.

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:

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:

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.

Continue Reading