Talk:Rocket Lab Electron

Orbital launch planned

News - May 21 to May 31. Something to watch. --mfb (talk) 21:56, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Y launched, in article. --mfb (talk) 19:11, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

The "Launch History" section describes the outcome of Flight No. 1 as "Failure", but Rocket Lab disagrees: their website calls the "Just a test" flight a "successful inaugural Electron test carried out on May 25, 2017." The reason appears to be that there was no payload, no fault with the rocket being tested, and all test goals being met: in particular, while reaching orbit would have been nice, that was not essential - the goal was to reach space, which was achieved. --115.188.58.71 (talk) 06:43, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I can see the motivation for them to call it successful, but they wanted to reach orbit and didn't do that. --mfb (talk) 09:48, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Well no, they didn't; that's kind of the point. On the whole it is correct to detail the ground telemetry problem, but calling that flight a failure when major mission goals were met is more than misleading.

Space missions generally have a set of 'boxes to be ticked' as NASA would put it (cf. NASA's Management Instruction 8621.1, "a failure is defined as not achieving a major mission objective.")

Like the Atea-1 launch, reaching space was Rocket Lab's mission goal for "Just Testing", the first launch. That first Electron was fuelled to reach orbit in order that the performance envelope would match a real payload mission, but there was no payload and no orbit plan; that is, Orbit was not part of formal Electron test goals - that would wait till the second launch ("Rocket Lab will target getting to orbit on the second test and look to maximize the payload the rocket can carry").

Compare calling John Glenn's "Mercury-Atlas 6" mission a failure because it was cut short at three orbits rather than the seven or more projected. But NASA's goal was simply to reach orbit, so this did not count as a mission abort. Gemini 8's truncated orbits, though, did count as a failed mission, because around fifty orbits were planned yet only six achieved - so a mission goal was not met. Likewise, Gemini 9-A was a failure on two counts: docking with the Agena was not achieved, nor was testing the AMU.

I'd suggest following (say) the NASA classification for moon missions: "successful", "partially successful", and "unsuccessful". But even on that basis, Flight No. 1 "Just Testing" was "successful" - the major goal was to collect mission data over the high-stress portion of spaceflight: "'It's a Test' is all about gathering data. There are over 20,000 channels collected during the flight." That indeed was achieved.

115.188.58.71 (talk) 11:46, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

RocketLab wanted to reach orbit, and it is what they sell to customers: Go to orbit. They didn't reach this goal. Sure, they took test data from the flight phase up to the destruction. So what?

If the Falcon Heavy maiden flight explodes 200 meters above the launch pad, should we call that a success as well, as it delivered data? --mfb (talk) 16:30, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

The short answer to both queries is yes. To properly answer both in order:

- Indeed, Rocket Labs wanted to reach orbit; but no customers paid for that till the second launch. The first launch accomplished the major mission goals. In particular, that "they took test data from the flight phase up to the destruction" was precisely a mission goal (so long as telemetry covered reaching Max Q) and orbit was not.

- As to the Falcon Heavy, Mr Musk asserts just that: “I hope it makes it far enough away from the pad that it does not cause pad damage. I would consider even that a win, to be honest”. This was half a year ago, 19th July 2017, speaking with Kirk Shireman (NASA director of the ISS program). One can see his point; there's no payload, only the data matters. But provided SpaceX writes that sentiment into the mission goals, such an explosion would be a mission success even in the absence of data.

More generally, I'm a little puzzled why the "Launch History" section of the article has "LEO" (Low Earth Orbit) in the "Orbit" column. Rocket Laboratories never gave orbit as a mission goal. Third party media like Space News called the launch termination a failure (to reach orbit), but to RocketLab orbit would simply be a side-effect of burning all the propellant; there was no payload to lose. --115.188.58.71 (talk) 19:27, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

No, if FH explodes just after leaving the launch pad we will call it failure as well. It doesn't matter that Musk was downplaying the probability that it gets so far. If something is programmed to reach orbit and doesn't reach any orbit it is a failure. --mfb (talk) 00:40, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

That's not so unreasonable; an outright kaboom means a launch system failure. And yet, when the re-usable Falcon 9 exploded on the pad, that was not actually a failed launch - it happened during a fuelling test - which shows how careful one should be about terminology. Furthermore, that failure illustrates Musk's point. The cost in time and money was so great that getting the launch vehicle far enough from the pad becomes a mission goal in itself. If that box is ticked then SpaceX could reasonably call the flight a win, or (like NASA) "Partially Successful". --115.188.58.71 (talk) 19:45, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

When it is a test flight, all data retrieved is valuable, even if it explodes in mid-air because the data tells the story of how the whole system behaves in real flight. And yes, if it explodes it would be labeled a failure, as it would not be their expectation. BatteryIncluded (talk) 02:49, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. If Electron would have said "we go to space and then blow up the second stage" it would have been a success, but they didn't plan to blow up the second stage. --mfb (talk) 04:54, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

RocketLab "didn't plan to blow up the second stage"? Really? FAA protocols demanded that it be disposed of safely, orbit or not. Just when was up to RocketLab. As to "if it explodes it would be labeled a failure": nothing exploded. The range safety officer instructed the engine to stop thrusting, which is a very different matter, and in fact Peter Beck chirped that it had been a successful test of that! --115.188.58.71 (talk) 08:09, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

All the mission goals were fulfilled, yet flight's a failure? Anomalous. That flies in the face of normal practice, at least that of NASA. This was a launch test, not an orbital mission, despite media assuming that orbit was the goal, and despite the "Orbit = LEO" assertion by the article. That the range safety officer terminated the launch means nothing, once the launch stress testing is done. Disposing of stages by re-entry might as well happen at once rather than after some days of orbit. --115.188.58.71 (talk) 07:51, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

• "Telemetry glitch kept first Electron rocket from reaching orbit"
• "the launch had to be terminated due to an independent contractor’s ground equipment issue". -BatteryIncluded (talk) 12:52, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Examine my remark above that "Third party media like Space News called the launch termination a failure (to reach orbit)"; it's precisely those media reports which I complained of. Yes, there was a telemetry issue - but not with the rocket. Yes, orbit was not attained - but that was not a problem, for orbit was never a test goal; engine, staging and stress tests were complete and the crucial boost stage went without incident. Yes, had the vacuum engine continued burning orbit would have resulted - but the second stage would still have to come safely down from orbit, and it wasn't doing anything there. No payload, no problem. Once again, where all mission goals are complete, it's improper to call the flight a failure. --115.188.58.71 (talk) 19:20, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

" orbit was never a test goal". Yeah, right. I think we are done here. BatteryIncluded (talk) 20:04, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

If you believe otherwise, do please supply a reference. --115.188.58.71 (talk) 20:32, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

In the face of the references cited, you deny the rocket exploded. No competency shown from you. I am quite done with you. BatteryIncluded (talk) 22:40, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

My competency [sic] is not at issue. You have still supplied no reference to orbit as a mission goal of "Just Testing". A reference to the rocket exploding was not what was requested - not that either of your references above mention any such thing. --115.188.58.71 (talk) 01:46, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Right, the referenced cited are lies, Rocket Lab did not declare it a failure, and their rocket did not explode. You caught me. It is all a world wide conspiracy. BatteryIncluded (talk) 03:09, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Lies? The "referenced" [sic] simply don't support your claim the rocket exploded. Rocket Lab's website (About Us/History section) declared the flight a success: "On May 25, 2017, Rocket Lab made history with the successful launch of its first Electron rocket, 'It’s a Test' from Rocket Lab LC-1 in Mahia, New Zealand".

Personally I'm sure RocketLab were crossing their fingers for "Just Testing" to reach orbit: Electron is after all an orbital-class rocket. But they were not fixated on orbit: their chief rocketeer made it clear that the major goal was simply to collect data ("'It's a Test' is all about gathering data."). It was the second test which was to carry payload, not the first: and you still haven't supplied a reference for orbit being a mission goal of "Just Testing". --115.188.58.71 (talk) 04:11, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Official statement from Rocket Labs: "The failure was first indicated by the fact..." and: "We have demonstrated Electron was following its nominal trajectory and was on course to reach orbit,” said Peter Beck, Rocket Lab CEO. “While it was disappointing to see the flight terminated in essence due to an incorrect tick box." [1]. It is all there in Rocket Labs releases. You don't want to see them. I wonder if I am just argueing with a 12 year old troll. See ya.

"12 year old troll". Heh. I'm a retired engineer with a separate Physics degree including two papers in Astronomy and Astrophysics; also, my spelling is better than yours, Mr Troll.

To be clear: I'm not hostile to the notion that orbit was a formal mission goal, nor to the rocket having exploded; it's just that you have signally failed to supply the references I politely requested. Now, I have asked Rocket Lab what their mission goal list is, but I doubt they will release that - it's commercially sensitive. I've also asked if their launch procedures have changed since Atea-1, which they did not 'blow up'. Of course the Electron is a much bigger beast and the second stage carries fuel (the earlier rocket's second stage was just a so-called instrumentation dart). The company is now American-owned, which means the FAA might require Rocket Lab to 'blow up' an offending stage 2. I simply have no information, and neither do you: "terminated" doesn't necessarily mean "exploded". Since you haven't answered my request, I'll just have to ask RL myself. You might not be interested, but mfb might be. --115.188.58.71 (talk) 04:33, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

The references make it clear that they wanted to reach orbit. They did not reach orbit. We don't need more for the mission outcome. --mfb (talk) 05:36, 25 January 2018 (UTC) By the way: Competency is a proper English word, with the same meaning as competence. Before you try to make fun of the spelling of others, you might want to make sure you are doing it right. If you find an error in my comments, please tell me, I want to improve my second language.

I must respectfully disagree: you do. Sure, RL wanted orbit. So what? That mission termination is not what RL wanted is not the be-all and end-all. Children want the moon, but do not (generally speaking) get there. The question is not what rocketeers want, but what they need. That has been codified in PERT and critical path analysis since the NASA moon missions. The problem is that we simply don't know whether the early mission 'termination' pushed back the critical path. I will keep you informed if RL responds.

Regardless, I don't want you to revert "failure" to "success" in the 'outcome' column, even though my best information is that every technical goal was met, and I think I can prove that. What I would prefer is that some recognition be given to changing the classification to the one NASA used - "Successful/Partially successful/Unsuccessful". That changes the focus to the tasks achieved, which is more useful.

As to BatteriesIncluded's bone of contention, I've yet to find any reference to an explosion in any reference so far. On the other hand, it doesn't matter how the mission was terminated so long as it was done safely. On the gripping hand, something must have changed since I last covered this in the engineering press years ago, before I retired. Rocket Laboratories' head honcho, Peter Beck, must have developed a new launch termination system, because he has cheerfully remarked that it too needed testing, and he could cross that off his To Do list.

Whatever this new system is, since they are now US-owned RL must comply with US law. The relevant part is 14 CFR [Code of Federal Regulations] parts 400 et seq. A "Launch accident" this was not, for there was no impact outside the zone limits. However, what happened on Flight 1 was certainly a "Launch incident", i.e. "an unplanned event occurring during the flight of a launch vehicle... involving a malfunction of a flight safety system..." That is not too serious; but if the range safety officer had not killed the bird, it might have resulted in a "Mishap", which depending on the threshold severity level could easily be the end of the company. I vehemently suspect that is one reason Mr Beck wants a test of the range safety system to be part of the "plan". He might be able to argue that the third party's telemetry dropout should not count as 'unplanned', and nor should the range safety termination test.

Afterword: your admonition to make sure you are doing it right is ironic considering that BatteriesIncluded had accused me of being a 12-year-old troll. As to calling him out on spelling... I had in mind 'referenced' for 'references', not 'competency' for 'competence'.

If you are serious about improving your second language: Latin sic, "just as" draws attention not just to errors but any surprising usage, such as 'competency'. I'm aware that "Competency" is a proper English word, but 'competence' is used at least eight times more often, cf. Google Ngram viewer. More importantly, context is everything and that variant is usually found in Legal or Human Resources contexts, where if you call someone 'incompetent', you are inviting a lawsuit; but say they 'lack competency', and you can piously declare that you merely highlighted a lack of training.

If you were wondering how a hairy engineer dragging his knuckles on the ground is acquainted with such things, the simple answer is that I am also an old man who has read many things in a long life. I should perhaps add that although English is my native tongue I don't have an English degree. But for various reasons I do hold, besides my BSc and BE, a BA degree in linguistics and modern European languages, and a BA(hons) in French. --115.188.58.71 (talk) 08:27, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

d and s are next to each other, a typo is much more likely than a lack of knowledge how to spell the word. My last comment here, this is getting silly. --mfb (talk) 11:19, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Not silly enough for you to avoid making a fuss. And whether a typo or not, it was still a careless error.

Meanwhile, Flight 1 remains categorised as a failure when Rocket Lab insists otherwise. That remains anomalous, not least because it is not the practice elsewhere in Wikipedia. The Ariane 5 article, for example, classifies a launch as "Failure", "Partial Failure", or "Success".

Now, I would argue even that is not satisfactory. The second Ariane 5 launch for example, is called a "partial failure", although every major mission goal was achieved including the payload (three satellites) successfully reaching orbit. There was one anomaly (excessive roll torque), fixed by subsequent repositioning turbine exhausts of the Vulcain engine, but that did not affect mission outcome. Even more glaring is the outcome of the latest Ariane 5 launch, VA241. Just like Flight #1 of the Electron, telemetry was lost. This was also termed a 'partial failure', not ideal but better than the "Failure" of "Just Testing".

As it happened, the VA241 launch carried real payloads whose orbit was a major mission goal. Fortunately, ESA is not required to follow FAA rules. Sure enough, telemetry or not, the payloads reached nominal orbit. V-101 and VA241 launches were a complete success, despite the anomaly. Under such circumstances, calling that even a "Partial Failure" violates not merely the 'mission goal not met' standard, but common sense.

For that reason it's worth insisting that NASA's approach is better. These launches should have been called, at minimum, a "partial success". --115.188.58.71 (talk) 02:55, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Discuss the Ariane launches on Ariane pages. VA241 reached orbit as planned (it was not a failure), but with wrong orbital parameters (it was not a success). --mfb (talk) 03:10, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Already done. The discussion here was to point out the inconsistency. Since you raise the point, those 'incorrect orbital parameters' merely involve some rescheduling. V-101 and absolutely VA241 remain a success, say not only ESA but also payload principals - viz. SES, NASA, and Yahsat: "SES confirms that the spacecraft is in good health, all subsystems on board are nominal, and the satellite is expected to meet the designed life time", and "We are pleased to know that the satellite is healthy, and that the necessary steps are being taken to ensure the original mission is fulfilled." --115.188.58.71 (talk) 03:42, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

2nd flight

Will there be a second flight or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.4.84.69 (talk) 10:44, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

There will be more flights, but so far no launch dates are announced. --mfb (talk) 13:02, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Second launch successful, three cubesats, 21 January 2018, UTC 01:43. ----115.188.58.71 (talk) 06:00, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Comparison with Vanguard

This is roughly 2/3 the length and diameter of the Vanguard rocket, and two stages instead of three. Yet its payload to LEO is an order of magnitude larger. It would be interesting to know why--does the higher specific impulse explain it? or are there other reasons as well? Is there an article that explains this (either on Wikipedia or elsewhere? Mcswell (talk) 02:47, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Decades of advances in rocketry. Vanguard had specific impulses of 230-260, Electron has 300-330. The computers and various other electronic components are smaller and more powerful, all the structural elements can be built lighter and so on. Vanguard was designed to barely make it to orbit, performance was not the important point. --mfb (talk) 17:55, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Needs some photos

This article really needs some photos. If Rocket Lab releases any under a CC by SA license, great. If not, someone could take a good screen grab, and follow the WP:FAIRUSE rulz to get a single good photo in the article. (as I guide, I just had to do this recently for the SpaceX BFR, 'cause unlike their ITS lanch vehicle, SpaceX have released NO photos of BFR under a license that Wikipedia will accept. No I know it can be done.) N2e (talk) 03:56, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Apogee kick motor

Is the apogee kick motor a synonym for (third) or upper stage? BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:51, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

It is a tiny third stage. --mfb (talk) 16:27, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Country of origin

With all due respect to all the effort done in New Zealand to develop and launch this rocket, Rocket Lab is not a New Zealand company. As written on the company's wiki page, it's a U.S. company (headquarters in California) with a wholly owned N.Z. subsidiary. I suggest just removing New Zealand from the first sentence. I'm not sure what to do regarding the "Country of origin" in the sidebar, since the rocket is actually developed in both countries. Merkhet (talk) 09:46, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

The more I dig into this, the more I think the United States should be the country of origin, though admittedly it’s complicated. Certainly the case seems stronger to me since Rocket Lab is an American company, the electron engines are manufactured there, and they apparently intented to launch at multiple U.S. spaceports. Does full final rocket manufacturing always occur in New Zeland? Can anybody shed some light on this? Grey Wanderer (talk) 21:32, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Found a source that asserts the “main production facility” is in California. Went ahead and changed the infobox. Grey Wanderer (talk) 03:13, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Space.com calls it an American company: [2], and the Verge calls it "US-based startup": [3]. Rowan Forest (talk) 14:38, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

This was already discussed awhile back, the conclusion was that the rocket is listed under the country that manufactures it, not the company that launches it or supplies the engines. For example, Russia supplies the engines for Atlas V, but it is not categorized as a Russian rocket. ArianeSpace is a European company that launches Soyuz, but that doesn't make it a European rocket. As Electron is manufactured in NZ, it is a NZ rocket despite Rocketlab being a US company, and the Rutherford engines being built in the US. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.55.54.42 (talk) 18:31, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Your thoughts, @JFG:, @N2e: ? Thanks, Rowan Forest (talk) 19:38, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

For what it’s worth it seems like we have better information now than the last time this was discussed. It’s not just the engines either, the guidance system and electronics are also American made, there may be other components. With the Wallops launch announcement it was reported that components will be shiped from New Zeland and the final rocket assembly will take place in the United States. I also think that when determining rocket manufacturer, engines should be given a lot of weight, they after all are the hardest part of a rocket to make, determine rocket family and in this case the Electron is even named after them. But on the flip side I get the impression that it was mostly designed in New Zeland and just needed American tech to work. Is it possible to list a dual country of origin, but count the launch under the U.S total? Grey Wanderer (talk) 21:12, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

My own sense is that, in many manufactured goods, not just the Electron rocket, parts and major subassemblies are made across many borders of traditional nation states. Our job in writing verified statements about such in Wikipedia is simply to say what we can source.

It could be that the whole "single country of origin" construct that is semi-enforced by that particular infobox ({Infobox rocket ...}) is simply an anachronism, one that we will have to (gradually) get over as various rockets are made of parts from various countries. Cheers. N2e (talk) 01:07, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree in that if the company (and components) is multinational, we could just say that, and add that the company is based in US. -Rowan Forest (talk) 01:15, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps there is a different convention in regards to rockets, but to me ‘country of origin’ makes more sense as a reference to where something was originally developed (in this case New Zealand), rather than wherever it happens to be manufactured. For example, would you describe the iPhone’s country of origin as China, or as a Chinese Phone?

Although this all appears to be a bit of a moot point anyway, as according to an October 2018 article on their website, mass production and final assembly of the Rocket now takes place in a newly opened facility in Auckland New Zealand, so surely this is the more applicable choice now anyway? <https://www.rocketlabusa.com/news/updates/the-future-of-rocket-manufacturing-rocket-lab-unveils-new-high-volume-production-facility/> 82.34.69.170 (talk) 07:28, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Is it moot? Rocket Lab founder and CEO Peter Beck claims the Electron “is a U.S launch vehicle” and that the company "secured significant Silicon Valley capital, and it doesn’t make sense to build value like that in a New Zealand company", This recent (also October 2018) arstechinia report by Eric Berger claims Rocket Lab’s main production facility is in Southern California. Rocket Lab itself claims that it is “an American company with headquarters in Los Angeles and a wholly-owned New Zealand subsidiary.” The rockets are only American flagged, although there is also a fern representing NZ. When they launch from Wallops later in 2019 the U.S. will be the only country that produces and launches all components of the rocket in addition to being the legal home of the company. If you're not convinced by all that then I then I don't know what else I could provide. It may have been developed in New Zealand, but my understanding is that it took American engine technology to make it to orbit. Grey Wanderer (talk) 19:28, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Future Launches Restructuring

Do you need to mention "planned" for the mission status if it is a future launch? I can't find a similar style on other launches pages. Thoughts? UnknownM1 (talk) 06:07, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

• I would also add that the Future Launches page should probably be updated to match the general format, such as ordering it Date, Vehicle(n/a here), Launch Site, Payload, Orbit, Customer. Flight Number, Outcome, and Mass are shown on the Past Launches. I wanted to ask before changing it. UnknownM1 (talk) 06:12, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Since I never heard back, I went ahead and changed it. You can read the history page to see my exact changes but I essentially reordered the columns and removed flight numbers from the Future Launches section. UnknownM1 (talk) 14:22, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Image of Rocket

Apologies about the images being removed. They were my fault for not checking and understanding the Wikipedia Image rules extensively. They were all non-free images, either from Rocket Lab themselves or from a screenshot of the second launch. If anyone has a picture or can acquire a free license from Rocket Labs, can you please upload it to Wikipedia as a free picture? That or if anyone has a rendering of the rocket, that would also work. Thanks! UnknownM1 (talk) 14:20, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Don't worry, folks are continuously keeping an eye out for freely licensed images, but given the remoteness of the launch site and thus-unwillingness of the company to release images under a compatible license, it may be some time before an image becomes available. Unfortunately, these circumstances to not reach the threshold of allowing non-free images. — Huntster (t @ c) 18:37, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Flight 1 Partial Failure?

Since the rocket performed correctly and the issue was ground based error, should "It's a Test" be considered a Partial Failure instead of a total Failure? UnknownM1 (talk) 14:38, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

@UnknownM1: No. The rocket did not reach orbit, therefore it's a launch failure; root cause does not matter. — JFG ^talk 12:56, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Wow that was a long time coming. Thank you lol UnknownM1 (talk) 15:23, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Payload Mass

Can anyone find any info on payload mass? I can't find specifics. Should we take it out if there are no exact numbers and move that info into the description box? UnknownM1 (talk) 16:26, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

It is included and referenced both in the infobox and in the "Intended usage" section. BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:52, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Not payload capacity but actual payload mass, as in the TBA box UnknownM1 (talk) 17:06, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't get it. The rocket has a lift capacity range, and the actual payload mass depends on each a particular launch. BatteryIncluded (talk) 18:58, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

BatteryIncluded, UnknownM1 is proposing to eliminate the payload mass column from the launch table. Was that part of the confusion? — Huntster (t @ c) 20:22, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Oh, he means the tables at the "Launch history". Yes, I looked for that info time ago and could not find any. I'd take the column off. BatteryIncluded (talk) 20:41, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I kind of agree that including the payload mass box for the launch table isn't really useful. I tried to do this with the Still Testing launch, came up with conflicting data, and eventually just scrapped my effort. This will eventually get even more difficult when the rocket launches whole clusters of potentially different microsats. — Huntster (t @ c) 18:35, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah I can understand why the cluster satellite masses may be harder than a set individual payload. UnknownM1 (talk) 23:55, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

It may become a recurrent situation, creating a consistently blank column. So yes, I'd delete that column. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 00:13, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

New Launch Sites

Should a launch pad chart be added, as well as launch site references, for the two additional launch sites, KSC and PSCA, from the Rocket Lab website? UnknownM1 (talk) 15:35, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Not until we have actual information about the sites. Right now, they are just possible expansion sites. Who knows if they will actually be used. — Huntster (t @ c) 16:03, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

A future launch pad at Wallops Flight Facility / MARS was recently announced; dropping others. — JFG ^talk 12:58, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

And a second launch pad or "Pad B" at Rocket Lab Launch Complex 1 in Mahia, New Zealand — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2406:5A00:D86C:ED00:ACA9:78B8:EF7A:DE54 (talk) 11:06, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Rocket logo?

Not pushing it, but just for clarification, why was the logo removed from the page? From what I am aware of, the Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy pages include the logo and the other rocket pages that don't have a particular rocket logo do not. The image of the Electron logo is part of the rocket's information. Is it a problem of ascetics or something else? Cheers! UnknownM1 (talk) 04:23, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Falcon 9 has the logo because it was released by SpaceX to the public domain (aka, released from copyright). Falcon Heavy page does not have a logo. The Electron logo is copyrighted, and Wikipedia dictates that the use of copyrighted images in articles must be minimized, and eliminated entirely if freely licensed images are also available. — Huntster (t @ c) 04:53, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Ok that makes sense. Just curious for future reference. Thank you! UnknownM1 (talk) 05:01, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I uploaded the wordmark as it is just a wordmark and does not meet the threshold of originality. – XYZt (talk  |  contribs) – 03:32, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

@XYZtSpace: Looks good! Should be fine. Now all we need is someone to take a picture of the thing and we're set. UnknownM1 (talk) 03:59, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

@UnknwonM1: Fac-tory-o just made a lovely render of the rocket. – XYZt (talk  |  contribs) – 01:28, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Add a History section?

It seems like the page is a little lax overall on some important information, but the biggest issue is that it is missing the history of the rocket's development. Is there any source or information that an be used to create a section for the history of the rocket's development and use? Cheers! UnknownM1 (talk) 23:20, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, Support. I was looking for when Electron development project was announced or when the rocket high level design was fixed. - Rod57 (talk) 18:20, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Date breaks

The launch history section needs to have breaks in the date section between the year and the time. Easier too read and see and expands the chart a bit so that it is a bit wider. Cheers! UnknownM1 (talk) 19:02, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I seriously disagree. Reading is not improved, and it doesn't expand the chart...it would make it taller, not wider. As it is, if the browser window is too narrow (or too low resolution), the time will wrap anyway in a more natural way. — Huntster (t @ c) 03:32, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Rocket Lab takes off from Launch Complex 1 "Still Testing".jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. Community Tech bot (talk) 13:21, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Notice: discussion about Electron's country of origin

Editors may be interested to participate in the ongoing discussion at Talk:2018_in_spaceflight/Archive_2#Electron_country_of_origin. — JFG ^talk 14:20, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Bar graph - Y-axis labels problem

The bar graph in the "Launch history" section needs a label on the Y axis. By all the goats in Kerry, I can't figure what it is supposed to represent, but it is now 7. Rowan Forest (talk) 15:20, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

The X axis? The one where we have the labels 2017, 2018, 2019? --mfb (talk) 20:49, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

No. The Y axis. Assuming it is number of flights, how can it be 0.5 increments? Rowan Forest (talk) 15:43, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

The 0.5 increments are due to a bug in the graphing module. Somebody has fixed it in a development version, but the work is not finished. — JFG ^talk 19:11, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

New second stage

It looks like its partner, Lockheed Martin is developing a new second stage for the Electron rocket:
"Lockheed Martin will use the funding to establish launch operations from Sutherland as well as develop what it calls the Small Launch Orbital Maneuvering Vehicle (SL-OMV), an upper stage that will be manufactured by Moog in the U.K. to place up to six six-unit cubesats into orbit. Lockheed didn’t disclose the vehicle that will launch from Sutherland, but industry sources have identified the vehicle as Rocket Lab’s Electron. Lockheed Martin made a strategic investment in Rocket Lab in 2015." Source: [4].

SL-OMV is a propulsive tug for secondary payload deployment focused on Venture Class Launch Vehicles (VCLV) vehicles. The SL-OMV is designed to launch on VCLV with a capacity of 150 kg or greater. [5]. But it seems unofficial for inclusion in Wikipedia? Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 22:08, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Second stage or replacement for the kick stage? --mfb (talk) 00:41, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Flight name v. payload name

As it is now, the tables show the flight name under the payload's name, which are not the same. I suggest to write the flight name under the flight number in the first column. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 21:28, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

@Rowan Forest: Thanks. Please see my comment below. Mission names may actually now be vehicles names. "Flight name v. payload name v. Electron Vehicle Naming" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Electron_(rocket)#Flight_name_v._payload_name_v._Electron_Vehicle_Naming OkayKenji (talk) 03:45, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Launch History and Future Launch Section

Does anybody thing we should create a Wikipedia list article dedicated to Rocket Lab launches (like SpaceX)? Because as Rocket Lab launches get more frequent, putting all the launches on this page may become messy. (so to future proof, should we create a Wikipedia list article) Link to website saying Rocket Lab will launch every week. Hence each year there may be up to 52 launches. Over two years there may be up to 100 launches. Sorry if I sound like I am complaining. 173.52.238.41 (talk) 02:54, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Sure. When they start launching and there is information to show. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 09:14, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Rough guideline: When the tables become longer than the rest it gets time to make a separate list. --mfb (talk) 09:30, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Concur with the other two. However I think there could be some work on improving this list initially as more launches come out, such as adding a chart for the new launch sites and improving the information for each launch. Cheers! UnknownM1 (talk) 15:47, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you.(to everyone) 173.52.238.41 (talk) 21:22, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Adding more information for some launches. Thanks for your help! OkayKenji (talk) 00:29, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Started Draft:List of Electron (rocket) launches OkayKenG (talk) 17:17, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Flight name v. payload name v. Electron Vehicle Naming

Per Rocket Lab tweet here https://twitter.com/rocketlab/status/1072291177221615617?lang=en , and https://www.rocketlabusa.com/assets/Uploads/NASA-ELANA19-Presskit-December2019.pdf (page 2, last par) it looks like the "Electron vehicle" itself is the one who's named, not the flight. I'm not really sure if this is a reliable source though. So we may have to edit the page to reflect that "naming" is after the "Vehicles". (although per PDF says "Previous Rocket Lab designations, ‘It’s a Test’, ‘Still Testing’ and ‘It’s Business Time’, doubled as both mission and vehicle names." ) OkayKenji (talk) 03:45, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

More sources, per https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7Kr3664hJs&feature=youtu.be&t=241 , the host of Rocket Lab launch says "...rocket lab also names each electron launch vehicle individually..." OkayKenji (talk) 06:35, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm thinking on how we can put this into the article. Any ideas?OkayKenji (talk) 05:29, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't particularly matter as long as it's clear. They are unusual as they have names for their missions outside of the flight number. I would suggest keeping the status quo unless there is a more pressing need for it. Cheers! UnknownM1 (talk) 18:37, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks! OkayKenji (talk) 19:26, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I know we had this discussion before but...

I am confused (probably just me) about the differences between the payload, mission name, and Electron vehicle names. For example, the most recent launch on the 5th of May 2019 had three payloads "SPARC-1 Falcon ODE Harbinger". And the name per what we have on Wikipedia is "That's a Funny Looking Cactus". However, per Rocket Lab they say its the "STP-27RD mission" souse.

Here's the press kit. On the press kit cover it says "LAUNCHING ON ELECTRON VEHICLE six: 'thats a funny looking cactus'" where as in the opening paragraphs it states "The STP-27RD mission is Rocket Lab’s fifth orbital mission and the company’s second launch in 2019." So it suggested that what we have here on Wikipedia is Electron Vehicle names and not necessarily mission names. I know that on Wikipedia we do not use official names (yeah I know that policy is on article titles). It might be misleading to some readers that they see "name" and believe that its the name of the mission, which it is not (based on facts), I am not sure on the augment of "Recognizability" though.

Here's a list of tweet/articles: [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], so these tweets sort of say that some people do says that the "name" is the mission name and not vehicle name.

In short: My question is, what do we mean by using "Name"? Is this a "pressing need" to change this? Maybe like 'Rowan Forest' suggested before we could put the names in the flight number section? (sample below)

Sample

Flight No. "Electron Vehicle Name" [11] Date/time (UTC) Launch site Payload Destination Customer Outcome 5 "Two Thumbs Up" 28 March 2019, 23:27 Mahia LC-1 Radio Frequency Risk Reduction Deployment Demonstration (R3D2) LEO DARPA Success text 1.^ "Electron Vehicle Name" indicates the name that Rocket Lab assigns to their Electron rockets, and does not necessarily indicate the name of the mission or the payloads on board.

(btw you may see that OkayKenji had a similar talk before, I am that user, so to be clear we are 'one' user, (trying to emphasize this is not Wikipedia:Sock puppetry, my reason see Userpage))

Thanks for reading though this. 173.52.238.41 (talk) 04:38, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

This can be quite confusing indeed. The company tends to give a name to each Electron flight, but it's unclear whether they mean it as a vehicle name or as a mission name. The distinction is kind of moot because their rockets are not reusable, so one vehicle = one mission. Payload names are clearer: the latest flight carried three payloads, each with their own name, and they were organized as a common mission by the Space Test Program (STP), hence STP-27. I would be in favor of the proposed layout, with the vehicle name associated to each flight number. I'd place the name in a separate column for clarity, though. — JFG ^talk 14:38, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Oh wait, the name is already in a second column next to the flight number. Nothing to change then. I'll just add "STP-27RD" to the payload description. — JFG ^talk 14:41, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Okay, now I understand. So for like the launch in December of 2018, under payload it should be like "ELaNa-19 (ALBus ANDESITE CeREs CHOMPTT CubeSail DaVinci ISX NMTSat RSat-P SHFT-1 Shields-1 STF-1)" (already made the change) Thanks! 173.52.238.41 (talk) 19:25, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Exactly. — JFG ^talk 19:35, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Discussion Related to this Article

Please see Talk:List of Electron rocket launches if interested. Its about what information to remove from this page, after the creation of the list article. OkayKenG (talk) 01:54, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done OkayKenG (talk) 05:44, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Updated information on the ISP of the second stage: it is 342 not 333. As seen in this video — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mixania (talk • contribs) 20:24, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Reusability

Electron's first stage is not reusable, that is why I deleted that template. Today's announcement stated that they will begin to collect data to see if it is possible to deploy a parachute that could be intercepted by a helicopter. It is an announcement of a concept not yet in development. Rowan Forest (talk) 23:26, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

When they actually work on it we can list it as "In development". --mfb (talk) 00:48, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Maybe HurricaneMichael2018 (talk) 04:02, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I wonder if this counts as development or testing: guided reentry, no parachute yet: [12], [13]. Rowan Forest (talk) 23:48, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

I think it is good enough. They work on it. --mfb (talk) 07:50, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Launch outcome graph: "Scheduled" vs. "TBD"

Where is the difference? If "TBD" means we don't know when it will launch, how can launches be assigned to years, especially as far out as 2022? I only see one launch with a launch date - ANDESITE, 1 March. --mfb (talk) 12:48, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

• Agreed, should be removed and replaced with only Scheduled, in line with every other article. UnknownM1 (talk) 14:53, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
• @Mfb: The TBD and all the data on the table comes from List of Electron rocket launches. Rocket Lab does not have a payload manifest for far into the future, but all launches have references supporting they will be launched on said page. Also in terms of announced dates; CE-SAT I Mark IICE-SAT II, Circle 1, Flock-x × 20–25, MCNAIR, and MX-1E II are the only ones where we don't have any dates (or years) for them. They were all in future 2019 launches but now that is 2020 they have been moved to future 2020 launches. All others have references supported when they will be launched including the 2022 launch. OkayKenji ^{(talk page)} 22:02, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

So we can move them all to scheduled? Or all to TBD apart from ANDESITE? The current groups look completely arbitrary. ANDESITE is the only one that is different. --mfb (talk) 02:50, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, also do you think it was too early for the list of launches to be moved out of Electron (rocket) page? OkayKenji ^{(talk page)} 18:59, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Also btw Monolith is also like ANDESITE which will be launched from LC-2 in Q2. OkayKenji ^{(talk page)} 20:19, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• ELeNa 19 Cropped.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:07, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

"Gold Mission Success coin" -- a more reliable source of pricing information?

Pricing info on rocket launches can sometimes be hard to come by: Rocket Lab's site has a "Book my Launch" button, but that takes you to a form to email them for more information, not a pricing guide. However, they do have a swag shop, and one item, the Gold Mission Success coin - Dedicated mission, has the eye-popping price of $7.5 million. Reading the description, it's clear what's going on here: the coin is said to be "free with the purchase of a dedicated launch on Rocket Lab's Electron vehicle." From this, I think we can derive that the price of a dedicated launch is $7.5 million. Moreover, changes to the price of this coin (or even it disappearing off the site) could be a leading indicator that the launch price has changed. So I think this would be a useful reference to add for the price of an Electron launch, even if it's not explicitly saying "this is the cost of a dedicated launch." Rwald (talk) 19:27, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 3 March 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

---

Electron (rocket) → Rocket Lab Electron – WP:NATURALDAB -- uses manufacturer+model designation, like SpaceX Dragon, Boeing 747, IBM Personal Computer / Ford Mustang / etc. -- 65.93.183.33 (talk) 16:41, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). 2pou (talk) 17:50, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• Created a full discussion since this was moved in January 2020 (Special:Diff/936685117), and then moved back two weeks later (Special:Diff/938804109). Establishing an agreed consensus here will be better than via RM/TR. -2pou (talk) 17:50, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

intro - poor wording

The second paragraph of the intro claims the failure to reach orbit was

Due to a glitch in communication equipment on the ground, due to it still being a test flight called "It's a Test"

Is the second part not redundant/misleading? It suggests the root cause of the glitch was that it was part of a test called "It's a test". This doesn't really make sense IMO, and the RL source did not prescribe the failure to inherent risks in testing at all; "it terminated due to a data loss time out, which was caused by misconfiguration of telemetry equipment owned and operated by a third-party contractor"

If it's really necessary to include the fact that the first launch was a test, it seems like better wording would be something like

The first rocket was launched on 25 May 2017 in a test flight called "It's a test",[19] reaching space but not achieving orbit due to a glitch in communication equipment on the ground.[20][21] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwb71 (talk • contribs) 17:21, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

References

Was "Catch Me If You Can" a partial aerial capture failure or an unplanned ocean recovery success?

With "Catch Me If You Can", the helicopter was waved off and the attempt to catch it never made. It, however, did make a successful ocean landing and the rocket was recovered.

74.64.128.191 (talk) 20:49, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Number of launches

This page claims that Electron has launched 45 times, yet Rocket Lab's website claims 46. Any idea which is correct? Lomicto (talk) 23:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC)