Talk:Rocket Lab

New contract

Launches contracted for Moon Express: [1]. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 23:33, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Sources for improving the article

Here are a bunch of sources, some of them quite good, for potentially improving the article. Cheers. N2e (talk) 16:10, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

• http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11473933, July 2015. Launch site selection article, with cgi design overview, and animated video of launch from a beach spit location. "[L]aunch pad half the size of a tennis court."
• http://spacenews.com/rocket-lab-selects-new-zealand-launch-site/, from Space News, July 2015. More informative article on launch site, etc.
• http://www.3news.co.nz/nznews/greens-rocket-concerns-blasted-into-orbit-2015070211#axzz3ejE3xvpl, New Zealand Greens opposition.
• http://www.wired.com/2015/07/feds-big-problem-private-rocket-launches/, Wired, July 2015.
• http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-rocketlab-satellites-20150805-story.html, Aug 2015.
• http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/70995652/rocket-lab-satellite-launches-filling-up-fast, Aug 2015.
• http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/AK1508/S00363/rocket-lab-considering-an-additonal-launch-site-in-wairoa.htm,
• http://www.nbr.co.nz/ask-peter-beck
• https://www.google.com.au/maps/@-39.035173,177.4180311,9z, Google map of the Wairoa location. Proposed launch site is not directly at Wairoa, but about 20 km to the east at Onenui Station, on the southern tip of Mahia peninsula, which has no launch overflight limitations to the east.
• http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/afternoons/audio/201767483/wairoa,-gateway-to-the-galaxy, Wairoa mayor interview
• https://www.sprsa.org/sites/default/files/conference-presentation/Schneider-Rocket%20Lab%20general%20introduction%20%28reduced%20video%29.pptx, June 2015 presentation from SPRSA conference.
• http://www.nanalyze.com/2015/09/rocket-lab-carbon-fiber-rockets-powered-by-3d-printing/, September 2015.
• http://www.geekwire.com/2015/moon-express-and-rocket-lab-make-deal-for-lunar-landings-in-2017/, Moon Express has apparently booked several launches related to their Lunar mission interests, in 2017.
• http://spaceref.biz/commercial-space/moon-express-launch-contract-to-be-verified-by-google-lunar-xprize.html
• http://www.parabolicarc.com/2015/10/04/updated-list-smallsat-launch-vehicles/, Oct 2015.
• http://www.rocketlabusa.com/about-us/propulsion/rutherford/, a primary source, but probably okay for specs on their rocket engine.
• http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/70716001/rocket-lab-signs-deal-to-work-with-nasa
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=10&v=yEOCq6KcwXo, Rocket Labs video of their team, October 2015.

Company nationality

It is not clear in what way this is a US company or whether it always was a US company. The technical work all seems to be done in NZ. This needs to be explained.Royalcourtier (talk) 20:20, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Further, the company was founded by a New Zealander (Peter Beck, still the CEO / CTO) in 2006 - <https://www.rocketlabusa.com>. It was incorporated and registered as a company in New Zealand on 29 June 2006 and is still registered as such, with the headquarters shown as being in Auckland, New Zealand - <https://www.companiesoffice.govt.nz/companies/app/ui/pages/companies/1835428>.

Most of the backing companies are currently USA companies, and it has a base in the USA, but the company base remains in New Zealand, its first test launches are in New Zealand, and almost all of the senior staff listed on its website are New Zealanders - <https://www.rocketlabusa.com>. 121.75.117.10 (talk) 22:58, 25 May 2017 (UTC) mckee@paradise.net.nz 10:50, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

C'mon. New Zealand lover? I don't particularly hold any torches for either the USA or New Zealand. I'm happy to celebrate either - if warranted. I do care about accuracy, though. A few more points -

I can't track Rocket Lab anywhere on the US Register of Companies. Shouldn't it be there if it is one? (And, as above, the company is registered in New Zealand.)

It's been funded by several New Zealand Government grants, from the Callaghan Institute - <https://www.callaghaninnovation.govt.nz/grants/grant-recipients?combine=Rocket+Lab&op=Search&field_grant_type_tid=All&field_grant_dates_value%5Bvalue%5D%5Bdate%5D=&field_grant_dates_value_1%5Bvalue%5D%5Bdate%5D=)> - which is specifically concerned with New Zealand technical development

A New Zealand Government minister hailed the May test launch as "the first visible sign of a space industry in New Zealand" - <http://www.nzherald.co.nz/rocket-lab/news/article.cfm?o_id=600723&objectid=11862250>

Even a correspondent for Reuters from Cape Canaveral - <http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-space-rocketlab-idUSKBN16S1IK> - doesn't commit herself on the nationality of the company

As Royal Courtier says, "This needs to be explained." (talk) ~~~~ mckee@paradise.net.nz 7:15, 6 June 2017

Well... (a) The current parent company says it's a US company, (b) The domain name, rocketlab USA .com is a bit of a clue, (c) The New Zealand company "RocketLab Ltd", is now a subsidiary (see this). You might also find this interesting reading. Seems like access to US funding and to ITAR technology is part of the reason (see "For security reasons..." wording on this page). And, ROCKET LAB USA, INC. appears to be Delaware Corporation, file number 5357668 registered 26 June 2013 Snori (talk) 01:30, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Interesting. Thank you. However, at least in 2015, the USA company (formed 7 years after the original company) was actually majority New Zealand owned, "60.23% by Peter Beck the founder and a New Zealander based in Auckland, 2.27% by K1W1 No.8, a New Zealand-based investment company owned by Stephen Tindall, and 37.5% by Khosla Ventures a USA-based investment company" - <https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/order-paper-questions/written-questions/document/QWA_04372_2015/4372-2015-rt-hon-winston-peters-to-the-minister-for>. If this has not changed, both the original company and the "US" holding company are effectively New Zealand companies. There seem good reasons of finance/initial inspiration/expertise/engineering/pioneering launches to think so, whatever the label they choose at various times for security reasons or to attract the funding. Maybe the best label would be a "NZ/USA company"? (talk) ~~~~ mckee@paradise.net.nz 20:07, 6 June 2017

Yes, but it has changed. They took another $75 mil USD in March this year. This is a good source for this sort of data. That last round included parts from K1W1, so there's certainly plenty of NZ money in there - but I don't believe it's possible to accurately measure this. Snori (talk) 21:25, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the sources.~~~~ mckee@paradise.net.nz 11.24, 7 June 2017

Whatever the case, the opening phrase of the article “Rocket Lab is a US aerospace corporation with a New Zealand subsidiary” doesn’t seem an adequate description. I suggest instead “Rocket Lab is a private aerospace company, founded in New Zealand and now with a holding company registered in the USA and bases in both countries.” It has the virtue of being both accurate and less controversial. I also strongly suggest you include in the article the address of the headquarters in New Zealand. This is, after all, where the test flights are directed from - see <http://www.nzherald.co.nz/rocket-lab/news/article.cfm?o_id=600723&objectid=11863731> for the May 2017 flight. (talk) ~~~~ mckee@paradise.net.nz 8:13, 12 June 2017

Another way of looking at this is this: Rocket Lab was founded in NZ by a New Zealander. It remains owned by him, and operates primarily in NZ. For tax and regulatory reasons (i.e. to get past US government red tape for overseas contractors) it has a US-based holding company, still owned by the said New Zealander. Jaguar is a British company, based in the UK, but with Indian owners. No one calls it an Indian company. I suggest that it would be more accurate to describe Rocket Lab as a New Zealand aerospace corporation with a USA-registered holding company.203.80.61.102 (talk) 00:31, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Exactly, the article is very confusing and gives the impression it is both predominantly and historically an American company with a subsequent New Zealand presence, when it seems to be the other way round. From what I understand, the US headquarters was basically established as a flag of convenience to ease concerns about foreign involvement in US aerospace projects. In a 2017 article the company is described as having over 200 employees, with “most” being based at it’s Auckland (New Zealand) facility, and only “some corporate staff” at their LA headquarters, another article from 2017 describes this as between 10 and 20 (although it also mentions this number was soon to grow) <https://www.nbr.co.nz/article/10-things-about-rocket-lab-ck-203485> <https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-rocket-lab-headquarters-20170321-story.html> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.34.69.170 (talk) 02:05, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree, I've edited the lead to reflect this. Although I think it's much more than a flag of convenience that caused Rocket Lab's move to California. My understanding is that they needed American engine technology to reach orbit, Peter Beck has stated that they needed Silicon Valley investment, and lastly most of their launches will likely end up being from the United States. Grey Wanderer (talk) 19:49, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Looking at this recent edit;

Four issues;

1) "Rv, the source from rocketlab itself is more reliable," - False. Can you cite a single policy which would make a company's website more reliable than the NYT?

2) "this has been hashed out on the talk page" - Also false. Nothing in the section above indicates consensus for the current wording.

3) Rocket Lab is clearly trying to have its cake an eat it. It wants to call itself American so it can get lucrative US contracts, and it wants to be in NZ because..... well because NZ is fricking awesome. I understand their motivation, but like most things found on corporate websites, its a bit of a fib.

4) Even if the bit about the NZ subsidiary is technically true, it's still way too much detail for the lead sentence. Obviously not appropriate the include it there. NickCT (talk) 18:26, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey that was me! I reverted your edit for a few reasons. Pardon me for thinking this had been hashed out here, between all the similar discussion about the Electron (rocket) on various pages I thought it had, I should have checked. However, I think since the old wording had been in place for three years, and that the issue had in fact been discussed here among other places, there was de facto consensus. In my opinion it was unwise to make the change without first checking. I think the version as it exists is more informative, obviously it's an American-New Zealand company, but it clarifies the relationship. I mean its headquarters is undisputedly in California after all. The New York Times isn't wrong, it's just that for basic company info like that I think it's ok to take the word straight from the horses mouth, although I don't have a policy to cite for you. Your third point is pure speculation, I'm not sure it even rises to the level of WP:OR, and this isn't the place to editorialize. Finally, It's not at all too much detail for the lead sentence, it's about as basic a fact about the topic as exists. Grey Wanderer (talk) 20:01, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

1) Wording being in place for a while is not an indication of consensus.

2) The wording has not been stable over the past 3 years. It's been changed multiple times.

3) What exactly would you propose I'd checked?

4) I'm not saying it's wrong to take the company's word for basic info. I'm saying if a company says "X", then an RS like the NYT goes with "Y", we go with "Y".

5) re WP:OR - Regardless of whether it's WP:OR, we still go with the more reliable source. We editorialize in the sense that we pick good sources over bad ones.

6) Not disputing the HQ is in cali. Many companies put their HQ in places that they aren't really based. Like Google placing it's EU HQ in Ireland, it's usually done for dodgy reasons (e.g. tax havens). It's a pretty common kind of corporate shenanigans.

7) re "not at all too much detail" - Can you find an example of where we talk about a company's subsidiaries in the company's lede sentence?

Anyway, listen, shall we simply RfC it? NickCT (talk) 02:50, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

I've addressed a lot of these points already. I think you're doing gymnastics to second guess a companies structure, when they've provided a clear answer in their FAQ. Please don't take personal offense at my criticism. Feel free to RfC it, although I think making two comments on the talk page within 24 hours isn't making enough of an effort beforehand as suggested by RfC. The best evidence I have is 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 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. The url of their website is even "www.rocketlabusa.com". If you're not convinced by all that then I then I don't know what else I could provide. I don't have much more to contribute to this discussion, but I'm sure other spaceflight editors (@Rowan Forest, @JFG) who have commented at Talk:Electron (rocket) and Talk:2018 in spaceflight will have something to input, you may want to check those talk pages out if you haven't already. Grey Wanderer (talk) 19:05, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't really disagree with a lot of your characterisations, but frankly, my concern is more just for what's a good source versus a bad source.

Company websites or FAQ's always have to be treated with a little suspision, b/c they exist mainly to promote the company. We can use them for basic information, but if there's different info in more reliable sources, we should go with the more reliable sources or at least work to explain the difference.

On a philosophical level, I'd agree that Rocket Lab will probably be more American if/when they launch from Wallops (an event, I'd probably try to attend BTW). I imagine, at that time, sources will be less ambiguous on their nationality. NickCT (talk) 18:02, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

I see where you’re coming from better now. I did try to improve the sourcing, adding a CNN article and some spaceflight specific publications, although perhaps none of them match the reputation of the NYT. It will be interesting to see how the media treats it come Wallops time, perhaps we should reevaluate at that point. Grey Wanderer (talk) 17:36, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTALBALL. We don't know they're going to launch. How bout this, we switch to New Zealand-American now. When they launch, we can switch to American? NickCT (talk) 00:33, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Even if they weren’t launching from Wallops they’d still be an America company. Grey Wanderer (talk) 20:32, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Alright. I'll draft an RfC. NickCT (talk) 12:39, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I’m a bit late to the party here, but this is really more of a questions for Grey Wanderer if you’re still around? I noticed in the course of this discussion you mentioned a couple of times that once their Wallops launch facility comes online, their rockets will then be both manufactured and launched entirely in the USA, I was just wondering if you have a source for this? or where you got the information from? Because it seems to contradict most of publicly available details that I could find.

For example the launch sites section of their website states that their New Zealand launch facility (‘Launch Complex 1’) can presently accommodate 120 launches per year, and that work on a second launch pad at this facility is currently underway. However their US Wallops site (‘Launch Complex 2’) will only support a maximum of 12 launches per year.

And then in regards to manufacturing, this article seems to indicate that rocket manufacturing is split between both New Zealand and the US, with the actual rocket engines being built in the Huntington Beach facility, while the rocket body, fuel tanks and final assembly takes place in a New Zealand facility, along with most of the R&D. 2A00:23C8:268C:8801:684A:CD5A:82EE:11AF (talk) 23:23, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree with NickCT in that I think adding "with a New Zealand subsidiary" to the lead sentence reads like a tortuous compromise rather than an effective and brief description. The New Zealand connection is interesting, and deserves to be covered at length in the article. But you can't fit it in the lead sentence. If you need a nationality adjective in the lead sentence (similar companies do have such adjectives), then the facts dictate that it has to be "American". From reading the RFC and other prior discussion, I don't believe that there is consensus on this extension to the lead sentence. So I am going to edit it. -- Tim Starling (talk) 04:37, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

@Tim Starling: - Coming back to look at this w/ fresh eyes; the question of nationality is obviously a little more complex and nuanced than for other companies. I think w/ nuanced topics like this, good guidance might be to avoid trying to get into it in the the lead sentence. Perhaps we should just not have any national identifier?

I think the current infobox does a great job of accurately describing the situation by saing "founded = New Zealand", "headquarters = US". That seems like the honest and accurate description. If we did really want to us national descriptors in the lead, perhaps we should say something like that? NickCT (talk) 14:19, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Grey Wanderer - Reviewing your edit; I'm happy if you want to revert back to the long standing consensus lead (i.e. as seen here), but you reverted back to a non-consensus lead. Either we mention US and New Zealand (i.e. the conensus), or we mention neither. NickCT (talk) 19:54, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

I think including "with a New Zealand subsidiary" in the lead sentence is the status quo, not the consensus. This wording has been criticised by three different editors on the talk page, so I don't think there is consensus support for it. One problem with it is that it downplays the importance of the New Zealand connection below what the facts support. The New Zealand company is not merely a subsidiary. Calling it a subsidiary misses the point. Note that Rocket Lab also has a Canadian subsidiary, should we give that equal weight? The only way to fairly deal with the New Zealand connection is to explain it at length. -- Tim Starling (talk) 23:33, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

@Tim Starling: - The closer of the RfC pretty clearly laid the what they saw as the conensus wording. I agree that the "subsidiary" wording is bad. But tortured wording is better than wrong wording. And calling it just "American" is wrong and misleading.

What do you think about no wording (i.e. not mentioning either in the lead sentence)? I saw your comment re "If you need a nationality adjective in the lead sentence..." and agree that most other pages have a descriptor, but is that a rule? Not to point to other stuff but no descriptor on Virgin Orbit or Copenhagen Suborbitals. NickCT (talk) 02:55, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I would be happy with having no nationality adjective. I think there's a bit too much detail in the lead paragraph about launches and vehicles. Maybe we can remove some of that to make room for a few words about New Zealand. -- Tim Starling (talk) 05:10, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeah agreed. It could be cleaned up. NickCT (talk) 16:09, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

NickCT, I think the key part of the consensus was to maintain Rocket Lab's primary description as "American" per the RfC and the previous reasoning I laid out: Rocket Lab's website's self-description (the url and about section), the fact that it’s a public traded and registered American company, and it’s headquarters location in California. I have no strong opinion about where to include the New Zealand, but would generally suggest it be mentioned further down in the lead with something about its founding and being the primary launch site. Since you were the strongest proponent of describing the company as New Zealand when you asked for the RFC, I thought it was important to hold you to a result that was the opposite of the one you sought, assuming you remembered that RfC when you removed “American." As Tim says, several editors have questioned including New Zealand in the first sentence so it seemed unnecessary to revert Tim's removal of it, if you wish to restore it please do. I leave it to you, Tim, and others to figure out where it is appropriate to mention New Zealand. Grey Wanderer (talk) 01:31, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Grey Wanderer - Just to correct something you said there, I was a proponent of calling it a US-New Zealand company (i.e. mentioning both). The part of the consensus you like may be the "American" description, but the summary offered by the closer of the RfC was clearly for mentioning both.

I didn’t mean to imply otherwise. I was only pointing out that you were the main advocate for including “New Zealand” in the first sentence at all. The American part seems absolutely necessary per the RfC. I don’t think there is any responsibility to remove the American adjective if the New Zealand one goes. If you’re looking for better language (I also agree it’s a bit wordy) the talk page is the place to do it, consensus language should stay in place until something better is agreed upon. Grey Wanderer (talk) 23:57, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Tim's comment that the consensus language is tortuous. Frankly, I'd prefer not reverting to the consensus language for that reason. It would be nice to think that maybe we can come up with better consensus language, which is what I attempted to do by removing the descriptors all together. That's an example of looking for wording that would satisfy everyone's concerns. Perhaps you could try something similar? NickCT (talk) 02:55, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

@Grey Wanderer: - You awkwardly split my thread above. You stated once again that the consensus was to include "American". That's inaccurate. The consensus was to include BOTH descriptors. Look at the wording the closer pointed to. NickCT (talk) 16:09, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Like I said, definitely describing the company as American was the important take away from the RfC. Obviously we disagree on that. Until a new consensus is clear or a new RfC is opened I will insist on keeping that description. If you want to add back the New Zealand subsidiary part I have no problem with that, but I leave it up to you. Grey Wanderer (talk) 23:57, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Tim Starling - Just as a funny aside for you both; even the sources are confused on the nationality. The Gauardian put out an article first calling it "A New Zealand commercial space company", then, later in the same article, calling it "The American-New Zealand company". NickCT (talk) 03:09, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

looks like a deliberate and accurate description to me. In that article it's only the New Zealand subsidiary (a New Zealand company) that’s getting in trouble with the NZ government, so that is what the article refers to. It’s the same as if there was a separate Wikipedia page about the NZ subsidiary that described that company as a New Zealand company. In general, I am wary of non-spaceflight journalistic sources. I rarely read an article in those without some type of error. Grey Wanderer (talk) 15:17, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

@Grey Wanderer: - Where are you getting that the article is about the subsidiary? That seems like some confirmation bias on your part. The article doesn't say "subsidiary" anywhere. It just talks about "Rocket Lab". Not "Rocket Lab's subsidiary".

Anyway, Tim and I both seem happy with no descriptor. You want to be difficult and insist on going back to the tortuous language? NickCT (talk) 16:09, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

The article you linked. Yes I think it absolutely needs to include American per the RfC you requested. I think we’re going around in circles again. If you open a new RfC or seek consensus another way to change it I will support whatever is decided. I don’t have anything else to say until that happens. Grey Wanderer (talk) 23:57, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Alright, well I've gone back to the consensus language. I guess we'll have to RfC again if we're going to remove this stick from the mud. NickCT (talk) 14:27, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good. I want to be clear, I am not insisting the tag about a New Zealand subsidiary be added back. That is up to you. Grey Wanderer (talk) 17:52, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

History, and Atea-1

The claim by this section that Rocket Lab Ltd. was not "the first private company in the Southern Hemisphere to reach space" because that could not be validated by telemetry downlink, is immaterial.

There was telemetry, but it was not a downlink - it went to a satellite, which is how the location of the payload dart's descent to the sea was determined. Cf. http://www.astronautix.com/a/atea-1.html, where one may read: "Payload recovery – A GPS transceiver used the Inmarsat B satellite constellation to communicate the launch vehicle"

It is this, as well as the known performance of the boost stage (which benefited from telemetry) that permits deduction of the payload apogee being above the Karman line.

The entire tone of the article is deprecating in a manner which makes one wonder about the motives of such edits.

Go away New Zealand lover! We don't want no New Zealand lovers on WP....

But seriously, that wording struck me as odd too. I'm going to read the source...

P.S. Please finish your posts with ~~~~ to sign them. NickCT (talk) 12:53, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Ok. So here's a source that seems to support the telemetry downlink claim. NickCT (talk) 12:57, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, the reporter (Karen Graham) seems to believe there was no telemetry downlink. Likewise, the claim of no downlink telemetry was expanded on by Chris Gebhardt, as reported on May 24, 2017 by NASASpaceflight.com. Both reporters seem to have misinterpreted "no telemetry downlink" as meaning "no telemetry at all".

I'd defer to the assessment of Astronautix ("The standard Atea-1 featured an in-house developed avionics package, recovery systems for land or sea, power supply and payload-avionics interface"). While there was no telemetry downlink to the ground station, there was a telemetry uplink from the launch vehicle to an Inmarsat-B satellite which allowed tracking by GPS.

Note that such Inmarsat-B services are no longer available to Rocket Lab (because closed down at the start of this year) but back in 2009 the Inmarsat-B services included voice, telex, and data services at 9.6 kbaud as well as high speed data services (up to 128 kbaud). This is easily enough to relay GPS co-ordinates. 122.57.120.63 (talk) 09:48, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Ok. Here's a second reporter who said the same thing. And another. Clearly these folks got their information from somewhere. Honestly, I don't really care about the technicalities of an "uplink" versus "downlink". All that really matters here on WP is whether information is verifiable (it doesn't even really matter if it's true or not). This info looks verifiable. NickCT (talk) 11:18, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Any idea on how Atea is pronounced? Simple a-te-a seems most probable, but it could be an-te-a as in Portuguese. No amount of googling has proven successful. Konstantin Kosachev (talk) 12:24, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Alrigth, alright, a simple check with Māori_language#Long_vowels indicated that it must be a long aaaa: aaaa-te-a. Konstantin Kosachev (talk) 12:42, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Future vehicles?

I thought I had seen some sources on vehicles after Electron, or planned vehicle enhancements to Electron. Can't find them now, and the article seems strangely quiet about this.

Anyone have decent sources for the future? Cheers. N2e (talk) 05:28, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I suspect there is a more powerful version of the Electron, because Moon Express has signed for 2 more Rocket Lab Lunar launches (apart from MX-1E) called MX-2 and MX-3, which have a mass of 600 kg each. Problem is the Electron has a max payload capacity of 225 kg. BatteryIncluded (talk) 23:33, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

@BatteryIncluded:and @N2e Rocket Lab introduced a new vehicle called the "Photon", it is like a "kick stage", but Rocket Lab seems to make it seem like another vehicle they produce. [2]. Do you think this will count as a launch vehicle, or something else. It seems to be a satellite bus. Thanks, this is so cool! Thanks. 173.52.238.41 (talk) 23:48, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Rocket lab is an "American" company? A "New Zealand-American" company?

The consensus is to support Staszek Lem's update to the article, which added this footnote:

As of 2018, the company is structured as follows. The "ultimate holding company" is Rocket Lab USA Inc. registered in the United States. The subsidiary is Rocked Tab Limited, a NZ Limited Company.

Cunard (talk) 00:02, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

---

Rocket lab describes itself as an "American" company (Company's FAQ). Most reliable sources describe it as a combination of a "New Zealand" and an "American" company (NYT, Reuters, Gunter's, Fast Company). How should we describe it? 12:55, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

---

• American-New Zealand company or New Zealand based, American funded company- As nom; there are probably a number of "US/New Zealand" combination wordings that could work. Whatever the wording, we shouldn't be parroting the company's description of itself as we are now doing. NickCT (talk) 12:55, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

  I think I agree with NickCT. the secondary sources should be given more weight than primary sources. we could even add a bit about this discrepancy. Cliff (talk) 05:33, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

  Most secondary sources describe it as an American company. See below. Grey Wanderer (talk) 15:29, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

  Agree with all above, secondary sources should be given more weight than primary ones. New Zealand based, American funded sounds good to me, but I'm sure there are other ways of conveying this as well. PraiseVivec (talk) 11:13, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

  Except it’s not based in New Zealand, and Americas role is much larger than just the funding. Most of the rocket is made in California and part of why the company moved was to use US technology. The article is currently sourced with numerous secondary sources describing it as only an American company. Most secondary sources describe it as “American” not New Zealand. I’d don’t really agree with how Nick has framed the question. Grey Wanderer (talk) 15:29, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I disagree, and find three of the links provided misleading. Most Secondary sources refer to Rocket Lab as an American company, especially spaceflight specific publications. The Reuters link doesn’t even mention Nationality, Gunters is a personal webpage and doesn’t meet the criteria for a Reliable Source. The fast company link is outdated article by a business magazine and not a spaceflight specific publication so I don’t know why we would give it weight over the more reliable publications currently cited. All this is in addition to primary evidence from the company itself such as 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 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. The url of their website is even "www.rocketlabusa.com". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grey Wanderer (talk • contribs) 15:41, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

References

re "The Reuters link doesn’t even mention Nationality" - The headline of the article says New Zealand's Rocket Lab. How is that "not even mentioning nationality"??? NickCT (talk) 18:04, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Sorry didn’t read the headline, what about the other issues I brought up? Grey Wanderer (talk) 20:25, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm not going to look at them. You described my links as "misleading" b/c they didn't "even mention Nationality". In fact, they did. Meanwhile, the references you offered (e.g. Ars Technica), which you said described the company as American, do not. Do you see that you are criticizing others for doing things they are not doing, while you engage in the exact behavior you're being critical of?

I'm not going to debate that kind of behavior. It's pointless. NickCT (talk) 12:21, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Well I made a mistake by reading the article, not the headline. I apologized right away when corrected. I really am trying to operate in good faith here. You made this an argument about the quality of sources and then cited a personal webpage. When I pointed it out you ignored me and appear to be trying to turn this into a debate about my “behavior.” In my opinion you also framed this AfC on biased if not outright false premises. I think this will be my last comment as I don’t want to engage in a back and forth, full of personal attacks. Since you’ve been blocked twice before for engaging in that very thing, albeit several years ago, I think it’s best if we let others decide this, as it’s too heated for clear thinking, at least from my perspective. Grey Wanderer (talk) 00:56, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

See? Right there. You accused me of "ignoring" you, right after ignoring my point about Ars Technica. You also said you didn't want to engage, then immediately dredged through my block log to try to dig up dirt.

Think you're being clever? I can guarantee you're not. NickCT (talk) 20:33, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

• I would lean towards calling it as "American-New Zealand" or as "US-New Zealand" company. I don't think "New Zealand based, American funded" is an appropriate description, as American involvement goes beyond just funding. The reliable sources are almost evenly split between calling it as plain American or some combination of American and Kiwi. However, since roughly half the sources use New Zealand to characterize the nationality, we cannot call the company as American.

Spaceflight-specific publications seem to mostly stick to one description, but the preference varies between publications. Space News and Spaceflight Now [3][4][5] frequently describe Rocket Lab as "U.S.-New Zealand" company. Space.com describes it as a California-based company. [6][7][8] Spaceflight Insider also favours a similar description, sometimes describing it as a U.S. company with a New Zealand subsidiary [9][10][11], sometimes as Los Angeles-based [12][13] or as U.S.-based [14]. NASASpaceflight has described Rocket Lab as U.S.-based once, but it often avoids attributing a nationality to it.

Other publications switch between descriptions in differrent articles. The New York Times has called it a "U.S.-New Zealand company", but also as an American company. BBC sometimes calls the company American [15][16] and sometimes as "New Zealand's Rocket Lab" [17][18]. Washington Post has called it Los Angeles-based, but also as New Zealand-based. WSJ has called it as "U.S.-New Zealand startup" and U.S.-New Zealand company, but also as "California-based" [19][20]. CNBC has described it as "New Zealand and California-based" [21][22], Tech Times called it "United States-New Zeland [sic] launch company" and NZ Herald has called it Kiwi-American company. —Gazoth (talk) 19:42, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

• This is a non-problem. The current wording is " “an American company with headquarters in Los Angeles and a wholly-owned New Zealand subsidiary." Unless someone can show some technical evidence for legal objections based on a company letterhead or something, that seems sufficiently informative for the curious and unobjectionable to the uninterested. The rest looks to me like angels chasing each other round and round on the head of a pin. JonRichfield (talk) 06:37, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

  I thought the whole angels chasing things was the point of WP? NickCT (talk) 11:49, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

• (Summoned by RFC bot): IMO the official information trumps whatever "secondary sources" say. Therefore I added the following footnote into the lede:

  " As of 2018, the company is structured as follows. The "ultimate holding company" is Rocket Lab USA Inc. registered in the United States. The subsidiary is Rocked Tab Limited, a NZ Limited Company.

We have quite a few companies registered on some desert island for tax purposes while operating in a "normal" country. Therefore the really important question is not to find a proper sticker (official description suffices), but to describe what amount of operation is where and properly attribute the activities, whether to RL USA or to RL NZ. In particular, where is its design facility and manufacturing facilities (the article speaks about " new manufacturing fac", implying the existence of the old one(s)). Is RL USA doing something beyond fundraising and other managt stuff? Staszek Lem (talk) 19:28, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I expanded the article a bit, partially answering some of my questions, and I hope you will continue adding important info (quick browsing the internets shows there is much to write left). That's all folks; I am not interested in the subject. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:09, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

• Agree with Staszek Lem - Official companies should generally trump sources, Many thanks Staszek Lem for updating the article. –Davey2010^Talk 20:27, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
• No change needed per JonRichfield and Staszek Lem. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 01:48, 03 May 2019 (UTC)
• No change needed snow is falling. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 23:41, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
• No change needed - It's okay as is. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:28, 10 May 2019 (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.

Photon, satellite bus

Is Photon notable enough to have its own article, or should we just expand the section that's here is this article? OkayKenji ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:45, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I'd say Photon might eventually deserve its own article, but not yet. However, I am going to remove one sentence from the current description. At the end, the article says First Light does not have its own propulsion system. But earlier, it says it was used as, and is based on, a kick stage. That's inconsistent. The reference does have a table listing "none" under propulsion, but that reference is based on a Rocket Lab statement which makes no mention of this (other than noting its use as a kick stage.) I think we're better off without that sentence until we have a clearer description to cite. Fcrary (talk) 22:39, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Unnecessary details on Electron launches

I've just deleted the text on the "The Owl's Night Begins" (Dec. 15, 2020) and "Another One Leaves The Crust" (Jan. 21, 2021) launches. I don't think an article on Rocket Lab should list off every single Electron launch. Especially notable ones (first flight, first successful flight, a failure or a return to flight) might make sense. But otherwise this information belongs in the Electron article or the list of Electron launches. That's what we do with other articles on launch service providers and articles about their launch vehicles. I just don't see how the two I removed are sufficiently notable to belong in the article about the company. Fcrary (talk) 00:29, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

History

Well, Starship SN20, I don't really know how to format Rocket Lab's history section, is it good now? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:06, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

The formatting, yes. Cleanup (such as removing a bunch of dead links) is still necessary. @CactiStaccingCrane Starship SN20 (talk) 10:55, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Alright, thanks! I have also made this template for our project that you can see above. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 10:56, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

I think now we should focus at seeing whether the citations are reliable or not. I will remove all poorly cited information, then rewrite. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:38, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

I will take care of Grammar and Style. Starship SN20 (talk) 21:00, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Please create new article about the Rocket Lab mission to Venus

Currently, it's only included, not even as a separate dedicated section, under section "Trading as a public company (2021–present)". Added some info about it to 2022 in science (previously next to another project related to SETI publishing their plans) like so:

13 August – Rocket Lab describes its self-funded plans in detail, first announced in early 2020, to send a probe to Venus, likely in 2023, to search for life in the planet's cloud layer, where other scientists reported the potential detection of biosignature-levels of phosphine in late 2020 and thereafter.

I have uploaded images from the study you could use in that article here: Commons:Category:Rocket Lab mission to Venus.

In the study, I could not find a mention of phosphine and whether the probes would be able / are intended to measure it.

The other missions listed under List of missions to Venus#Under development all have their own articles.

At most, I would help slightly improve / expand / copyedit the article. Help may also be requestable at pages like WP:WikiProject Spaceflight and WP:WikiProject Astronomy.

Once the article exists, its lead could be transcluded here in a new section dedicated to the mission.

It could for example be called Rocket Lab mission to Venus or Rocket Lab Mission to Venus.

References

Prototyperspective (talk) 12:10, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

RfC : What national identifier in the lede sentence?

The following discussion 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.

---

Four years ago there was an RfC surrounding what national identifier to use in association with this company in its lede sentence. Recently, there seems to be a consensus that the language arrived at in that RfC is not great. This new RfC is an attempt to see if we can come to conensus on new, clearer language.

Here are possible options for what national identiefier to use to describe this company in the lede sentence.

• Option A - Status quo. Maintain the last RfC's indicated language (i.e. "American aerospace manufacturer ... New Zealand subidiary")
• Option B - Describe as an "American" company
• Option C - Describe as a "New Zealand" company
• Option D - Describe as an "American-New Zealand" or "US-New Zealand" company
• Option E - Describe as "founded in New Zealand and headquarted in the US"
• Option F - Don't use a national identifier in the lead sentence. Explain national identity further on in the lead.
• Option G - Describe as a "multinational" company

Please tell us what you think below! If you could format your response in the following way, it would be helpful. NickCT (talk) 17:47, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support Option C - This option is great KiwiForLife (talk) 13:01, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
• Support Option A, B - These are the good answers TeamAmerica-FYeah (talk) 13:02, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
• Support Option D, E, G - I support the nationality "fluid" positions. AllGetAlong (talk) 14:02, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
• Support Alternative - Call it North Korean! DearLeaderNK (talk) 13:03, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks in advance for your input.

---

Threaded discussion

• Pinging past commentators. Tim Starling — Grey Wanderer — Jtbobwaysf — Robert McClenon — KarasuGamma — Lembit Staan — Cunard — Gazoth — JonRichfield: NickCT (talk) 17:50, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
• D>F>G>E F>D>G>E - The sources on this topic are muddled. There are references for "American", "New Zealand" and "US-New Zealand". Usually the descriptor used in the source depends on the nation that's producing the source. This company is obviously "international", so any national descriptor used should reflect that. We want to keep the lede WP:CONCISE (which is what the current lead is not), so something like "American-New Zealand" or "New Zealand-American" seems right. If we can't agree on one of those, we should exclude any description and just deal with the nationality question later in the lead. Failing that "multinational" seems reasonable. And failing that a less concise but accurate option would be the "headquartered/founded" language. NickCT (talk) 17:47, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
• A or B - It is a publicly traded American company and headquartered in Long Beach, California. As you can read in many interviews, when founding CEO Peter Beck is asked if Rocket Lab is an American or New Zealand company he unequivocally answers American. The Electron Rocket only has one flag on it, the U.S, and launches primarily American payloads. The engines are entirely manufactured in California. Even the website url is “rocketlabusa”. Sure it was founded in New Zealand and still maintains a significant presence there, but for clarity it is important the primary descriptor be American. The New Zealand subsidiary and launch site are covered in detail in the article. I don’t have a strong option on how to include New Zealand in the first sentence, but the current wording seems ok enough to me, it's almost word for word what was on the company's FAQ. Grey Wanderer (talk) 00:22, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
• F>E>B, maybe "multinational" if there is a source for that. The company wants to be called American, even putting New Zealand last on the list of locations in their about us page, despite having about half their staff in New Zealand. They want to talk down the New Zealand connection, presumably as a service to their American investors and government customers, and we want to talk it up, because it's interesting and we want to give our readers interesting facts. It rankles to parrot whatever the money says. However, if we need to condense the situation down to a single adjective, it's necessary to stick with the facts rather than editorialise, which means that the money does get to choose. The location of the headquarters and the stock exchange it is listed on are reasonable ways to decide on the nationality of a company. The nationality of a company normally derives from its ownership, not its operations. For example Shell plc is described as British regardless of the location of its operations. The exception is when a subsidiary has its own article, like Arnott's Biscuits, but it wouldn't make sense to write an article about the New Zealand subsidiary of Rocket Lab. Per my previous comments, I like the status quo least of all, because it is misleading and ineffective. It fails to convey the importance and unique nature of the New Zealand connection. New Zealand, in a remote location with a population of 5 million, is leading the world in small orbital launches. It's incredible. It deserves more than to be described as a "subsidiary", tacked on to the lead sentence. -- Tim Starling (talk) 03:40, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

• @Tim Starling: So, I'd agree w/ your point re "they want to talk down New Zealand.... presumably .... American investors". In most debates about nationality, or other semi-subjective categorizations, I usually place a lot of weight on self-identification (i.e. asking what a subject or entity says that they are versus what others say they are). Rethinking my position a little, I guess that would make the argument to include "New Zealand" a little contradictory, as that's not what RocketLab appears to want. I'm shifting my position to opt for no identifiers versus "American-New Zealand". As I mentioned previously, I've got to disagree that "American" is a viable option. I see that RocketLab states they are "Headquartered in Long Beach, California". I don't see that they are calling themselves American. Obviously lots of companies are headquartered places that they don't really identify w/ nationally. Halliburton moved its headquarters to Dubai. Still obviously American. Engines are only one part, albeit an important part, of a rocket. Also, even assumming that all your logic is right, there are plethora of sources (e.g. NYT1, NYT2, Reuters, The Guardian, The Hill, UPI,Gunter's, Fast Company, NewsTalk, Universe Today) which describe Rocket Lab as either a New Zealand compay, or some US-New Zealand combination. Granted, a comparable number of sources exist that call it just "American"; however, if you decide that just "American" is right, you're effectively deciding that some sources are wrong and should be excluded. We don't do that on Wikipeida. We provide due weight to all the sources. NickCT (talk) 21:29, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

From Rocket Lab's own press release titled, Rocket Lab USA Poised to Change the Space Industry: “US Aerospace company Rocket Lab is developing a world-first launch vehicle to deliver satellites into orbit cheaper and faster than ever before.” From the "about us" tab on their website: “Electron, now the second most frequently launched U.S. rocket." I would give spaceflight centric publications weight over general journalistic sources, at least one source you’ve linked does get it wrong, as so often non-spaceflight centric publications do. Several of the others call it an “American-New Zealand” company. Gunter's, as I mentioned in the last RfC is a personal website and not a WP:Reliable source. Is it our job to try and second guess the company's intentions?If you want to suggest they are being deliberately deceptive or misleading then you should back that up with a source. There are so many interviews where Peter Beck is asked the question we are debating and states definitely “American”. Grey Wanderer (talk) 22:34, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

The "about us" section at the end of that press release is pretty good. It leads with "Rocket Lab is an aerospace company founded in 2006 by New Zealander, Peter Beck." The third paragraph is "Rocket Lab is an American company with a subsidiary and head office in Auckland, New Zealand." We would do well to de-emphasize the formal nationality of the company in a similar way. -- Tim Starling (talk) 04:08, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

@Grey Wanderer: - re "I would give spaceflight centric publications weight over general journalistic sources" - That's great that that's what you would do. And I get that for technical information (e.g. what kind of rocket is biggest or best), speciality publications may be more appropriate. But there is no good reason think that general journalistic sources aren't as good or better at figuring out stuff like nationality. Rocketry Today magazine is not going to be better at answering that kind of question than the NYT.

@Tim Starling: - re "We would do well to de-emphasize the formal nationality of the company in a similar way." - Right. Which is why F is the best option.

I'm not debating what Rocket Lab wants to be called or wants to be portrayed as. I've already conceded that point. I'm not sure why we're continuing to make that argument by looking at their press releases (press releases which generally aren't considered RS BTW).

Let me pose a hypothetical; say I claim that I'm Russian. We WP editors find a dozen RS's that call me either "Russian", "American" or some combination of the two. How then does WP describe my nationality? This is a classic question about WP:DUE. The basis of that rule is that we "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint". B is obvisouly undue because it essentially rejects a significant viewpoint. It's really the height of arrogance to think we have a better grasp on this topic than the folks at NYT. NickCT (talk) 14:48, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

• A or B - per Grey Wanderer, Can simply follow the company's language and not over complicate things. The details of what is geographically in US and New Zealand respectively can be added with more detail in subsequent sections. BogLogs (talk) 03:48, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
• F>E>D>G - while they definitely seem to be downplaying the New Zealand connection now, it was the exact opposite during their early days. There was great fanfare about New Zealand launching its own satellites, the rockets were built in New Zealand and carried the New Zealand flag. It seems weird to discount that history given that Rocket Lab is responsible for many of the country's rocketry and space exploration records. If there ends up being consensus to describe it as American along the lines of option B, I wonder if there's scope for another approach along the lines of "American company founded in New Zealand"? I don't like that as much as the options I've indicated a preference for, but I could live with it. Turnagra (talk) 18:08, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

• It's not weird when you consider how much we Yanks like to steal stuff. NickCT (talk) 19:47, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

• A or B—Grey Wanderer's explanation is succinct. For those who are concerned, the company's history and connection to New Zealand can be fleshed out in the article. For all intents and purposes, the company is currently an American organization, and its higher-ups view it as such. Scapulus^takk 18:33, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
• I lean towards F. There's no need to mention the company's national affiliation in the first sentence. Because it's difficult to summarize accurately in a few words, we can let the rest of the lead explain the situation. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 18:44, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

@Mx. Granger: A quick survey of twenty other major launch provider articles revels every one describes nationality immediately. The Cold War may be over, but spaceflight is still overwhelmingly a national endeavor. Grey Wanderer (talk)

The Cold War may be over, but spaceflight is still overwhelmingly a national endeavor. That doesn't match my impression (I often seem to read about astronauts flying on other countries' rockets etc.), and anyway it doesn't affect my point. For this company, whose national affiliation seems to be unusually complicated, we shouldn't cover the national affiliation in the first sentence if that means oversimplifying. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 22:45, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

"I disagree the nationality is ambiguous" - If it wasn't ambiguous, why would we be having this debate? You see, the problem is that is that you can't seem to even acknowledging that different POV's exist. I personally don't think foie gras shouldn't be contraversial. I don't think it's as mean to geese as people imagine. That said, I acknowledge that foie gras is contraversial, b/c I see the contraversy that it creates. Do you see how there's a difference between how you think things should be, and how they are? You think the nationality should be clear, but it's not clear by virtue of this conversation. NickCT (talk) 16:50, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

I think everyone here agrees it’s a combination of American and New Zealand. That part seems entirely unambiguous and is supported by an incredible amount of sources. Let’s stay focused on content please, everyone is allowed to have their point of view after all. Grey Wanderer (talk) 17:06, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Oh man. Now you've got me incredibly confused. If you accept American and New Zealand is right, why aren't you supporting "American and New Zealand" as an option? NickCT (talk) 18:45, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

I feel like I am, the current wording, option A, is exactly that with the added advantage of simply explaining the companies structure/ownership/and public registration. Grey Wanderer (talk) 20:37, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Seems like a bit of a shift bud. That's not said to be a hater or rub it in. Shifting your position is fine, even good if it's done after reflection and consideration (see my comment above re "I'm shifting my position"). But at least be honest about it.

Ok. So if we're now on the same page that "American and New Zealand" is a fair descriptor, and you seemed to be on board previously with the idea that the current wording could be clearer, what's the remaining objection for "American-New Zealand" or seomthing similar? NickCT (talk) 21:24, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Seems consistent and unshifted to me, might just be wishful thinking on your part. I've no problem with both adjectives in the lead. I laid out the advantages of using the current wording over "American-New Zealand" several times. Isn't more information better? Grey Wanderer (talk) 01:46, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm having real trouble fathoming the double-think that must go into saying that the "right" description of the company is some combination of American and New Zealand, then, picking "American" over "American-New Zealand" as the descriptor in the lead sentence. The contradiction there is obvious, right? NickCT (talk) 13:52, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

• F seems way to go, the American label is confusing given it is well known for being a New Zealand company. Much better to just address it in one additional sentence. All the other babel about rocket engines in the lede are not much displaced value. Kuipernet (talk) 23:48, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

@Kuipernet: What you’ve just said is, to me, an argument for maintaining the primary descriptor as American. People are often confused because of the companies' history and think it’s a New Zealand company, when in fact it’s a publicly traded American company, headquartered in California. Rocket Lab itself is clear on this issue and their rockets are flown with U.S. flags. It's worth pointing out that the name of the company is "Rocket Lab USA.” This is not an exclusively American point of view. The New Zealand Space Agency describes Rockets Lab as a United States (US) corporation with a subsidiary in New Zealand. Grey Wanderer (talk) 21:00, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

All arguments sound to you like they support your POV. That's a problem. NickCT (talk) 15:04, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

• Either A or F. If the nationality of the company needs to be stated in the opening sentence then best to describe it as such. --Spekkios (talk) 08:19, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

I noted above that a quick survey of twenty other major launch provider articles revels they all include nationality immediately, imo it would be odd not to here considering it appears to be universal consensus on similar articles and nationality is an often misreported fact about the company. Grey Wanderer (talk) 21:12, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

WP:OTHERCONTENT - As Tim and I discussed above, while most articles do mention nationality, that's not a rule. There's a very good reason we wouldn't follow the norm here. In most cases nationality isn't ambiguous, and thus it's easy and uncontreversial to mention it. Here it is ambiguous. NickCT (talk) 14:55, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Well as far as I know we never really have rules to address content across subject like this, what we do have is consensus: it isn’t even “most” articles, it’s literally every launch provider. If the first sentence is going to say Rocket Lab is a public company it only makes sense in the context of it being an American company publicly traded on the NASDAQ. Of course, I disagree the nationality is ambiguous, the current wording is simple enough and quite accurate, it includes both countries. Everyone would do well to listen to Peter Beck, founder and CEO of Rocket Lab, explain the issue it’s a question he's asked a lot in interviews such as here on New Zealand radio. Grey Wanderer (talk) 21:30, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Other countries have their own stock exchanges and publicly listed companies... Turnagra (talk) 03:52, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Well sure, that’s basically my point, Rocket Lab is only public in the U.S.A, so if you use that adjective it only make sense to say where, this practice is near universal across corporate and business articles. Grey Wanderer (talk) 17:01, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

E would also be fine --Spekkios (talk) 00:44, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

• Option F. The situation is complicated, and thus can't be explained in the opening sentence in the limited number of characters available. Rocket Lab has been pretty clear in private discussions that they're being purposefully ambiguous about their national affiliation. They're doing this because they rely on a certain amount of positive media coverage, and on positive political relationships. If they tell the Americans that they're a New Zealand company with nothing more than a minimal American presence to game the system, they will lose American contracts. Indeed, this has already been a problem. If they shift to become too much of an American company, they will face political headwinds in New Zealand, and be accused of bowing to the American Military Industrial Complex. And again, this has in fact happened (recently, too). So by necessity, Rocket Lab has to be a bit coy about their national affiliation. This spills over into the media coverage about the company. Because of that, secondary sources usable by Wikipedia are all over the place, and do not provide clear consensus. If the sources don't have consensus about what quick, easy national ID should be assigned to Rocket Lab, then we have nothing to put in our topic sentence. It can be explained in a later paragraph or, if absolutely necessary, further on in the lede. — Gopher65_talk 03:10, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
• Option B - Companies such as these are likely doing business in numerous countries. According to the company's own statement, its headquarters are in the US, with launch locations in the US and New Zealand. It is publicly traded on NASDAQ (a US exchange). No issues with including details about its New Zealand work, but even its SEC filings state headquarters are in the US so we should label it as such. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:26, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

  @CNMall41: - Halliburton moved its headquarters to Dubai. No one calls it "Emirati", b/c it was started here and is run by people from here. Rocket Lab was started in New Zealand and is run by people from there. NickCT (talk) 17:08, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

You are comparing this to a 100 year old company that still has a headquarters in the US, just a second HQ in a different country? I understand your contention but would respectfully disagree with the comparison. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:22, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

@CNMall41: - You're certainly right there are a lot of differences between those two companies. More than make a direct comparison, I think I was trying to identify what features of company define its nationality. Obviously "headquarters" is just one variable. If it wasn't, folks would call Halliburton, Emerati-American or something. And I don't think the exchange defines nationality either. I believe Alibaba trades on NYSE. Does that make it American? It's not.

I think you'd probably agree that history is another major variable (i.e. where did a company come from?), and also region of operation (i.e. where does most of the company's work happen?). For both of those, the answer is; not America. NickCT (talk) 17:10, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

@NickCT:, @CNMall41:, I think there's a lot of outdated and just plain wrong information being given here. If you view the team page at rocketlabusa.com you will see the leaders of the company are overwhelming American: 8/9 of the Board of Directors are American and the odd man out is Peter Beck who holds duel American/New Zealand citizenship. The 23 person Executive leadership team is 3/4 American with the remainder being a mix of New Zealanders, Australians, and British citizens. The HQ in California is not a legal trick, its the actual headquarters. The factory there is three times the size of the one in New Zealand according to Peter Beck. In 2021, of 1,300 Rocket Lab employees 600 were in New Zealand and almost 700 were in the United States. [edit: Struck out this is the 2023 employee breakdown not 2021] In 2023, the center of gravity has shifted even more towards the U.S after hundreds more American employees were added after acquisitions of U.S. companies. It's clear that besides the legal registration, HQ location, and public NASDAQ status, that most of the work takes place in the United States. It will only become more U.S. centric as it appears the new Neutron rocket will be entirely produced in and only launched from the United States. Grey Wanderer (talk) 01:43, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

@Grey Wanderer: - Whoa whoa! Them's a lot of "facts". I think a few citations may be needed Mr "Plain wrong". Particularly b/c our own article says "In 2021, Rocket Lab had 525 staff in New Zealand and about 150 in the rest of the world". Where are you getting your figures from?

And regardless of the accuracy of your facts and figures, you're still obviously cherry-picking your stats. Remind us how many launches RL has done in NZ..... how many in the US? NickCT (talk) 13:48, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

it’s like two facts, and I did provided cites both there and multiple times above, which I'm forced to assume you’re not reading. They could do all their launches in Kenya and they’d still be an American company, rockets are flagged with national flags just like ships. I provided a cite for the leadership above, you can use google too it’s all findable. The source for the stats you’ve quoted above (and entirely ignored the following sentence and inline citation already provided in the article) is titled: Most Rocket Lab staff set to be based outside NZ by early next year. Can you admit at least that you were wrong about who runs the company? I think I've exhausted all reasonable arguments, I just didn’t want to see blatant falsehoods propagated. I'm happy with whatever outcome. I think we've both sucked up too much air in this RfC, I'm going to disengage now and let the chips fall where they may. Be forwarded though, this RfC may not actually be productive if it just boots the nationality question to somewhere else in the lead, we'll have to hash out that wording when we come to it. Grey Wanderer (talk) 15:01, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

re "cites both there and multiple times above" - Pray show me you provided that cite for the number of employess. You have a history of misleading and creative interpretations of sources. Not to mention errors of fact like the one you just retracted. Forgive me if I sound dubious.

re "Most Rocket Lab staff set to be based outside NZ by early next year" - Did you actually read this source? It says they have more employees outside of the US b/c they bought a US firm that makes solar panels. Your number of US employees is based on RocketLab's subsidiary company, right? You realize how bad that argument is, right? Imagine if we counted up all of Toyota's (or some similar company) subsidiaries and foreign operations and we found out they had more employees in some country other than Japan, would that make them not Japanese? GM has more employees in China than the US [24]. GM is Chinese?

re "Can you admit at least that you were wrong about who runs the company" - Peter Beck runs the company. Peter Beck is a kiwi. That said, I will grant you that RL has certainly done well to produce an American-looking executive team. You do get the comments from me and others above that RL is trying to give an "Americanized" appearance in order to get federal dollars, right? You do get that this American executive team could be a functoin of that effort?

re "we'll have to hash out that wording when we come to it." - Or not. The second paragraph (i.e. "The company was founded in New Zealand in 2006...") seems like it explains things fine.

It's interesting that you make the analogy to ships and flagging. You know that common practice for many, many companies is to flag your ship in a country other than the one you're operating in, right? Yet companies like Princess Cruises are still American, b/c they mainly operate out of America. You didn't really answer the question about the number of launches. NickCT (talk) 19:22, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

• @NickCT Unsure, but here's an example and possible suggestion from another article: "Issuu, Inc. is a Danish-founded American electronic publishing platform based in Palo Alto, California, United States" — Jon (talk) 11:52, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

  @Jonathanischoice: - This is basically Option E, no? Or a close alternative, right? I agree this would be good wording. NickCT (talk) 14:36, 28 February 2023 (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.

Is this really C Class?

The criteria not met for B class all seem to be met in this article? Starship 24 (talk) 12:22, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, updating to B except for a couple of specialised projects I'm not involved in; they could probably be re-assessed to B as well. — Jon (talk) 21:36, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

As I am familiar with the remaining ones, I have updated them all to B @Jon Starship 24 (talk) 22:05, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Do you think we should make this a GA nominee @Jonathanischoice Starship 24 (talk) 08:59, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

@Starship 24 by all means go for it! As for me I'm a bit busy right at the moment as I'm in the middle of having my first GA review, for contrabass trombone (which in good hands can almost make as much racket as a rocket launch) — Jon (talk) 07:20, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Your GA review seems to have gone well, its GA class now. I will, I'm starting by reactivating and old assesment request from the Wikipedia:Constellation program. Also adding it to my Wikipedia:Artemis program to give it a bit more attention @Jonathanischoice Starship 24 (talk) 10:36, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Legal name

Per Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(companies) and an extensive survey of 20+ other launch provider article, this article should begin with the full legal name of the company: "Rocket Lab USA, Inc." This could be problematic for some folks because there was recently an AfD about company nationality which decided to strike American and New Zealand adjectives later in the sentence. California based Rocket Lab USA, INc. owns Rockets Lab Ltd. as a subsidiary. This edit introduced a major error in the first sentence: Rocket Lab Ltd is not a publicly traded company and is not based in California, this article is about the larger company. Since it is overwhelming practice (unanimous?) on every other launch provider to use the full legal name surely we should do so here when the companies structural situation is extra complicated. I assume the second half of the name was deleted due to editors personal dislike of the companies' name choice. If using the legal name reframes the AfD, perhaps the discussion should be reopened. Personally, I'm fine with the legal name and then no mention of nationality per the last AfD. Grey Wanderer (talk) 19:38, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

I understand the rationale behind using the legal name, but this does feel an awful lot like something against the above consensus and circumventing the result of that RfC. Turnagra (talk) 03:41, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

It's obviously a bad-faith effort to undo the consensus established by the RfC. If you want to put it in, demonstrate that consensus has changed. NickCT (talk) 13:55, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Short Description

"New Zealand and American public spaceflight company" sounds wrong and is also incorrect grammar. Requesting comments and ideas for what we should do. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 11:46, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

What's wrong with the grammar, Me Da Wikipedian? Schwede66 05:31, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Honestly don't remember what I thought was wrong at the time, seeing it now it looks fine to me. @Schwede66 Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 00:17, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

There may be a better option, but the current short description passes on the Wikipedia:Short description#Purposes and Wikipedia:Short description#Formatting criteria. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 05:13, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Rocket Lab/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Me Da Wikipedian (talk · contribs) 14:16, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: I'll review this one. Having looked through the article's history, I see that I have made three edits, but nothing of substance, hence I should be all good. Schwede66 (talk · contribs) 21:00, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

@Me Da Wikipedian, looks like this review is waiting on you, so this is a reminder ping. -- asilvering (talk) 16:24, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Asilvering, what's the rules around failing this? I've only reviewed criterion 1, but we aren't getting there. Do I have to review the other five criteria, or can I fail this now? Schwede66 19:04, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

If you think it's "a long way away" from meeting the GA criteria, you can fail it at any time. Since both you and the nominator have already spent so much effort on it, I think it would be nice to at least give some general remarks about the other criteria before failing. -- asilvering (talk) 19:11, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

@Asilvering @Schwede66 Yeah I'm sorry I'm not very active. I can't work on it today but I'll try tommorrow. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 23:45, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

@Schwede66, @Me Da Wikipedian, this review should probably either be finished or closed for inactivity in the next couple days. —Ganesha811 (talk) 23:04, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

@Schwede66, I would recommend closure of this review at this time. —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:30, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Ganesha811, I plan to review the other four criteria today as suggested by aslivering above. Schwede66 21:35, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:39, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

asilvering, I've finally completed this review by looking at the remaining five criteria so that it's useful for future editors who might want to have another crack at GA. Schwede66 04:06, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Well-written

A New Zealand company now headquartered in the United States. That immediately raises date format and English variety issues. It's set to use dmy dates and with this edit in September 2019—when the article used a mix of English varieties—a use American English tag was set. Just recording this here before I give the article a read. Schwede66 22:09, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

@Lfstevens@Schwede66 I think that, outside of the lead references, this is done, am I correct? Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 00:46, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh, that's just the top-level heading for this part of the review. Date format and language variant are fine, though, if that's what you mean. Schwede66 02:27, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

@Schwede66 No I meant "Is this article fine on this part of the criteria (lead exlucded)?" Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 21:23, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Not all sub-headings have been responded to. I haven't checked whether the work has been done and the only thing that's missing are the responses below. Schwede66 21:30, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Lead (1)

Hyphenate full time. When you mention United States Space Force, please also introduce the abbreviation "(USSF)". Schwede66 03:22, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

You might want to look at my lead comments further below before you attend to this. Schwede66 01:24, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

 Not done When you mention United States Space Force, please also introduce the abbreviation "(USSF)" – this is outstanding. Schwede66 02:15, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Origin (2006–2012)

Please wikilink sounding rocket. And just in case you wanted to illustrate the initial co-director, we do have good photos for Mark Rocket (Q117349392). Schwede66 05:23, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Done. I don't really think there very much room for another image, do you disagree? @Schwede66 Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 11:30, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

 Fixed Schwede66 02:34, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

United States move (2013–2020)

Not sure about aerothermal; outside Wikipedia, it's sometimes spelled as one word and sometimes as two. Your choice; just want you to be deliberate. Consider replacing recover/reuse with recover and reuse. You use first-stage (i.e. it being hyphenated), but the other seven occurrences in the article are not hyphenated. I suggest it shouldn't be hyphenated in this instance either. In this paragraph, you use US $x twice. There are two issues with it. Firstly, it should not be a space after "US". Secondly, you should only use the US qualifier once as the currency does not change in this paragraph. Schwede66 03:22, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

@Schwede66I'm going to keep aerothermal since other Rocket Lab related articles have it like that. First-stage is fixed. The space is fixed (but not by me). The currency does change to NZ$ in the paragraph, actually.

If you look at the histroy, you'll notice that I actually did not author the large majority of this article (and my main contributions were in sourcing). Its split between a bunch of different authors and I think thats part of why theres so much inconstistency. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 11:36, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't matter why there is inconsistency. You have nominated it for GA, and it's thus up to you to make it a good article. :-) Schwede66 20:21, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

 Not done Consider replacing recover/reuse with recover and reuse (you may have considered it, but if you decide against it, I expect you to tell me why). You use first-stage (i.e. it being hyphenated), but the other seven six occurrences in the article are not hyphenated. I suggest it shouldn't be hyphenated in this instance either. In this paragraph, you use US $x twice. ... Firstly, it should not be a space after "US" (you've fixed it in this paragraph, but not in the rest of the article). Secondly, you should only use the US qualifier once as the currency does not change in this paragraph (you correctly point out that it changes between US and NZ currencies; my comment was supposed to go into the next section where it does not swap currencies – sorry for that). Schwede66 02:25, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Done@Schwede66 Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 00:40, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Public company (2021–)

Amend the information in brackets to show 2021–present as the current setup violates MOS:DATETOPRES. Schwede66 03:22, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Done. @Schwede66 Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 11:37, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

 Not done "you should only use the US qualifier once as the currency does not change in this paragraph" moved to here from the paragraph above. Schwede66 03:33, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Done@Schwede66 Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 00:40, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Electron orbital rocket

The sentence part 150 kg to a 500 km should use two convert templates. It says but telemetry was lost and it was destroyed but it's not clear from the sentence that it was flight control that destroyed the rocket; I suggest you spell that out. fibre is British English. When you talk about the width of Humanity Star, it's after an adjective and you need to use hyphens. This is achieved by using {{convert|1|m|ft|sp=us|adj=mid|-wide}}. The synthetic-aperture radar target article is hyphenated, and I can't see why you wouldn't hyphenate this here as well. It says which marked a record 10th flight for the rocket in 2023 and it's unclear to me what the record refers to. Maybe it just needs more context. This paragraph finishes with these sentences: Two attempts have been made to recover an Electron booster by helicopter. In addition, six attempts have been made at soft water recovery. Were these attempts successful? It shouldn't be up to the reader to check the references for the outcome; might as well state it here. More later. Schwede66 03:22, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Done. Lfstevens (talk) 23:35, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

 Not done The sentence part 150 kg to a 500 km should use two convert templates. It says which marked a record 10th flight for the rocket in 2023 and it's unclear to me what the record refers to. Maybe it just needs more context. This paragraph finishes with these sentences: Two attempts have been made to recover an Electron booster by helicopter. In addition, six attempts have been made at soft water recovery. Were these attempts successful? It shouldn't be up to the reader to check the references for the outcome; might as well state it here. Schwede66 02:31, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

HASTE suborbital rocket

I could not understand this sentence: HASTE (Hypersonic Accelerator Suborbital Test Electron) is a suborbital testbed derived from the Electron orbital rocket. I had to Google what a "suborbital testbed" is and learned that it's a "suborbital testbed launch vehicle", and then it all makes sense. You might want to explain this better. Other than that, you need to use the convert template where needed, there's a missing space after a date, and "2" needs to be spelled out as "two". You have three successive sentences start with "HASTE" and that's a style problem. Schwede66 04:56, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

"launch vehicle" was added. Convert template are now used and two is spelled out. 3 successive sentences were also fixed. Fixed some typos as well. @Schwede66 Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 01:17, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

 Fixed Schwede66 02:33, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Neutron reusable rocket

Hyphenate human rated. Use the convert template for 13 and 15 ton and note that it's another adjectival use occasion (i.e. you need to hyphenate). Wikilink Scott Manley. Avoid the use of ampersands. Consider a comma after reusable. Refer to Peter Beck by his surname only. Once you've introduced the abbreviation for Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport, you might as well use it. I suggest that Launch Complex 2 should have a non-breaking space between "Complex" and "2" throughout the article (this is just the first instance). And the last sentence in this section does not parse well; please rephrase it. Schwede66 04:56, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

All of this was already done my someone else, except for the convert templates. For those templates what units do you want to convert to?@Schwede66 Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 01:31, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

 Not done Use the convert template for 13 and 15 ton and note that it's another adjectival use occasion (i.e. you need to hyphenate). Usually, when info comes from the United States, when they say "ton" or "tonne", what they actually mean is "Short ton". Therefore, the correct conversion would be to the metric tonne: {{convert|13|and|15|ST|t|sp=us|adj=mid}} Schwede66 02:54, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Done@Schwede66 Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 00:42, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

 Not done I suggest that Launch Complex 2 should have a non-breaking space between "Complex" and "2" throughout the article. You've done that for Complex 2 and yes, I didn't spell out that it needs to be done for Complex 1 as well, but the problem is obviously the same. Schwede66 02:55, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

How do I add a non-breaking space?@Schwede66 Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 00:41, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

In the source editor, you have a button for it when you display "Wiki markup"; it's labelled " ". If you use the Visual Editor, I couldn't tell you how you do it. Schwede66 03:52, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Ātea sounding rocket

Hyphenate 6 m (20 ft) long. I would place commas like so: The 6 m (20 ft) long rocket, weighing approximately 60 kg (130 lb), was. I couldn't explain why but as a New Zealander, you would not place "the" in front of Coromandel Peninsula (if you are interested in the underlying reason, I could ask around). The rocket was tracked by GPS – I suggest you consider an "a" before "GPS".

I don't understand what you are saying here: The rocket was tracked by GPS uplink to the Inmarsat-B satellite constellation.[152][153] After the flight, Ātea-1 splashed down approximately 50 km (31 mi) downrange. The payload had no telemetry downlink, but had instrumentation including the launch vehicle's uplink to Inmarsat. What confuses me is the "GPS uplink" terminology; it seems that an uplink is something that comes from a terrestrial station (which a rocket is not). Anyway, if it's correct as is, why does it need to be mentioned twice that there's an uplink to Inmarsat? And in the last sentence, what does apply the entire team mean? Schwede66 05:19, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

This appears to have been done by someone else. I admitedly didn't write those sentences, but presumably the uplink was from a terrestrial station and we to the satellite constellation. I remove the second mention of the Inmarsat uplink Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 00:46, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

 Fixed Schwede66 03:01, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Photon satellite bus

This appears to be a double up: Depending on the orbital inclination (37° to Sun-synchronous orbit), it is expected to have a maximum payload capacity of 170 kg (370 lb). The low Earth orbit version of Photon can take 170 kg (370 lb) to Sun-synchronous orbit. And later on, two concepts are being mixed up: HyperCurie is an evolution of the Curie engine, which comes in a monopropellant version and a bipropellant version, while the HyperCurie is hypergolic. HyperCurie is electrically pumped. Maybe consider something like so: "The Curie engine comes in monopropellant and bipropellant versions. The HyperCurie, which is an evolution of the Curie engine, is hypergolic." Trans Lunar Injection burn should be lower case, needs a hyphen, and should wikilink to trans-lunar injection.

This sentence is hard to parse and too long: On that mission, the Electron rocket lifted First Light and the customer satellite, Capella 2, to orbit and then the First Light satellite, as a kick stage, inserted the customer satellite into its orbit and then went on to begin its own orbital mission as a standalone satellite. The sentence containing 55 pounds needs a unit conversion. What is a halo-shaped orbit? Unless we are talking about the US Independence Day, July 4th Photon's should presumably be 4 July, Photon's (please note the comma). I'd say in-house designed needs two hyphens. Spell out "four" in 4 variations. Nice application of MOS:SUFFIXDASH, by the way! The last sentence needs a couple of commas like so: mission and, as of July 2023, was. Schwede66 08:05, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Replaced by an excerpt. Lfstevens (talk) 00:45, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

 Not done This appears to be a double up: Depending on the orbital inclination (37° to Sun-synchronous orbit), it is expected to have a maximum payload capacity of 170 kg (370 lb). The low Earth orbit version of Photon can take 170 kg (370 lb) to Sun-synchronous orbit. (tell me if those are different concepts; it's not clear to me) The use of an excerpt introduces the issue that one paragraph is unreferenced. Schwede66 03:12, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

@Schwede66 Fixed in Rocket Lab Photon, done. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 00:44, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Viscous liquid monopropellant

I'd say that Viscous Liquid Monopropellant is not a proper noun and should thus not be capitalised. I suggest that pseudo solid should be hyphenated. Schwede66 08:22, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Done. Lfstevens (talk) 00:49, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

 Fixed Schwede66 03:13, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Instant Eyes

UAV needs to be spelled out before you can introduce this abbreviation. 5 Mega pixel camera should read "5 megapixel-camera". 2,500 feet needs a unit-conversion. Schwede66 08:22, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Done. Lfstevens (talk) 00:50, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

 Not done 5 Mega pixel camera should read "5 megapixel-camera". 2,500 feet needs a unit-conversion. Schwede66 03:15, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Done@Schwede66 Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 00:45, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Manufacturing

Italicise The Jetsons. As per WP:GEOCOMMA, you need a comma after "Toronto" in Toronto, Canada through. Should mega constellation be one word and link to satellite internet constellation? I suggest that the last sentence in this section is too long. Schwede66 08:41, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Done. Lfstevens (talk) 00:51, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

@Lfstevens thanks for all the work on the article. I'll be able to get to some stuff soon as well. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 02:04, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Lots to do! Welcome in. Lfstevens (talk) 21:02, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

 Not done Sorry, I made a mistake; this should have read: As per WP:GEOCOMMA, you need a comma after "Toronto Canada" in Toronto, Canada through. Schwede66 03:20, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Launch Complex 1

The company's Launch Complex 1 (LC-1) is a private orbital launch site located on the Māhia Peninsula in New Zealand. Gadfium, could you please confirm that the definite article before "Māhia Peninsula" should be omitted? It sounds wrong to my ears, but the definite article can also be found in the Māhia Peninsula article. The same goes for Kaitorete Spit; don't put a definite article in front of it. One instance of Māhia is missing its macron. The word usually should be omitted. Schwede66 08:56, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I have no knowledge of local custom, but Wairoa District Council appears to use "the Mahia peninsula" e.g. https://www.wairoadc.govt.nz/services/airport/drones/ but doesn't if it's part of a list, e.g. https://www.wairoadc.govt.nz/our-district/freedom-camping/ (see the white text on blue background at the top of the page).-Gadfium (talk) 17:29, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

 Not done The same goes for Kaitorete Spit; don't put a definite article in front of it. One instance of Māhia is missing its macron. The word usually should be omitted. Schwede66 03:22, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Launch Complex 2

In late 2018, the company selected the Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport (MARS) at NASA's Wallops Flight Facility as their second launch site. The selection was announced in October 2018. As "late 2018" and "October 2018" is the same, can this be simplified? The first Electron launch from LC-2 happened on 24 January 2023 during the "Virginia is for launch lovers" mission, named in celebration of the inaugural launch from LC-2. As "first ... launch" and "inaugural launch" are identical concepts, can this be simplified? Please spell out "three" in 3 satellites. And the last sentence violates MOS:SINCE and needs to be modified to avoid this problem: Since then, two more missions have been launched from LC-2. Schwede66 09:09, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Done. Lfstevens (talk) 01:02, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Launch Complex 3

This is probably the weakest section in terms of prose. It sounds a bit speculative. Maybe you could greatly simplify it by saying something along the lines of: "A third lauch pad, named ..., was under construction by October 2023. This site will be for Neutron and will be (has been?) named Launch pad 0D (LP-0D). The site is between LP-0A and LP-0B." Schwede66 09:16, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Done. Lfstevens (talk) 01:02, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

 Not done A new issue that I overlooked is that you need to spell out "3" as per MOS:SPELL09. Schwede66 03:29, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

It's called "Launch Complex 3" not "Launch Complex Three" anywhere. It is also I think one of the listed exceptions in the linked policy. @Schwede66 Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 00:49, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, brain fart. You are right, of course. Schwede66 00:57, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Lead (2)

The lead has about the right length (just under 400 words) but in too many paragraphs (aim for three; four at the most). As per MOS:LEADCITE, only controversial content should be cited and I suggest that there is nothing that could be regarded as controversial. Yet, you have about 30 citations in the lead, and I recommend that they all go; those references should appear where the relevant content is cited in the body of the article.

Looking at the lead in more detail and comparing it to what the article covers, I find that it has a non-logical structure, it contains material that is not in the body (e.g. the number of employees), and significant omissions (e.g. Peter Beck is such a prominent person that he must be mentioned in the lead). A logical structure for the lead would closely follow the structure of the article: the company’s history (including locations and acquisitions), the hardware that it produces, and the facilities that it operates.

I suggest that you:

• shift the sources to the body of the article,
• ensure that everything that is contained in the lead is contained in the body, and
• once that’s done, wipe the lead and write a new one from scratch.

Sorry, I appreciate that this is a bit of work but I guarantee you that you will have a much better article as a result! Schwede66 01:18, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

What I'd like to do at this point is to give the nominator a chance to deal with the lead. As verifiability is the next criterion to check, but I've suggested that all references should be shifted out of the lead, I'd like to see this work done before I continue my review. Schwede66 01:56, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Rewriting the entire lead might take me a bit, perhaps you could go out of order (or this not allowed)? @Schwede66 Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 11:28, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm in no particular rush. I'd rather review the finished product. Take your time. And there's no need to ping me from this evaluation page; I've got that on my watchlist. Schwede66 20:18, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Took a stab. Lfstevens (talk) 01:21, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I've suggested that all references should be shifted out of the lead. That hasn't happened yet. Schwede66 21:52, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

@Schwede66 but aren't the refs needed in the lead as well to verify the info there? Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 22:10, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

No. Please read MOS:LEADCITE. Schwede66 22:25, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

That basically says both are valid. So why would we go and change something for something that is already fine as is?@Schwede66 Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 02:18, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

No, it does not say that. It says complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. Another way to check how to interpret guidance is to look at Featured Articles and how it's done there. There are seven spaceflight articles rated top importance and FA quality. Between them, they have 22 citations in their leads, i.e. an average of 3. Of those, 6 are for quotes (and you could argue that they should always be cited). In my view, some of them are overcited, e.g. Hubble Space Telescope with 7. Be that as it may, that average shows that 31 citations in a lead is an outlier. Schwede66 05:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Okay, that's fair. Do you think we should just remove all refs or keep a few (and if so which ones). @Schwede66 Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 00:41, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Statements that may be considered "controversial" where a reference might be justified are:

• made the organization the first private company in the Southern Hemisphere to reach space
• As of June 2024, the company had approximately 2,000 full-time permanent employees globally

I'd delete the rest / transfer those references to the body (in case the lead is the only place where they are). But also, is everything that's stated in the lead actually in the body? When I read the lead the other day, after first having worked my way through the body, I found quite a few bits that were just in the lead. It's also a tad long, and not all key facts are included. That's why I concluded that it might be best to start from scratch. Schwede66 02:25, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

 Not done What's happening with this? Schwede66 03:30, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Verifiable with no original research

There's quite a bit referenced through primary sources. This should ideally be avoided when it comes to claims that could be controversial (e.g. company takeovers; "flight control destroyed it"), announcing commercial arrangements ("As of November 2023 Rocket Lab had contracted for at least six HASTE missions"), where the language is bombastic (e.g. "state-of-the-art production facility"), or where their products are advertised ("The material is designed to be strong and lightweight").

I'm never thrilled about Tweets being used as references (i.e. the last three references), but at least there's nothing controversial conveyed.

With regards to copyright violations, I could not find a copyright statement on the NASA website that covers text. Given that it's a US govt agency, I assume it's freely available. However, the reference must show the relevant license, and that's not the case here. With the second instance, it's crystal-clear, as CNBC retains their copyright:

Article:

CAPSTONE is a microwave oven–sized CubeSat weighing 55 pounds and is the first spacecraft to test a unique, elliptical lunar orbit. As a pathfinder for the Lunar Gateway, a Moon-orbiting outpost that is part of NASA’s Artemis program, CAPSTONE will help reduce risk for future spacecraft by validating innovative navigation technologies and verifying the dynamics of this halo-shaped orbit.

Source (NASA):

A microwave oven–sized CubeSat weighing just 55 pounds is the first spacecraft to test a unique, elliptical lunar orbit as part of the Cislunar Autonomous Positioning System Technology Operations and Navigation Experiment (CAPSTONE). As a pathfinder for Gateway, a Moon-orbiting outpost that is part of NASA’s Artemis program, CAPSTONE will help reduce risk for future spacecraft by validating innovative navigation technologies and verifying the dynamics of this halo-shaped orbit.

Article:

The transaction added $777 million in gross cash. ... Rocket Lab's launch business booked revenues of $13.5 million in 2018, $48 million in 2019 and an estimated $33 million in 2020.

Source (CNBC):

the transaction added $777 million in gross cash ... Rocket Lab's launch business booked revenues of $13.5 million in 2018, $48 million in 2019 and an estimated $33 million in 2020.

Hence, in its current state, the article needs further work. Schwede66 03:34, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Broad in its coverage

I find that the article address the main aspects. I'm less certain that it stays focussed without going into unnecessary details. There are five {{Template:Main}} links within the article, and what's there could and maybe should reflect a well-written lead from the target article. If we look at Rocket Lab Launch Complex 1, for example, we find a concise and non-technical lead at the target article. I would argue that the lead is not broad enough and Rocket Lab goes into the history of Kaitorete Spit, which is fine and justifiable. But other aspects of the Launch Complex 1 section are very technical and it would seem more appropriate to me to have the write up more high-level, and to leave the intricate details to the target article. Schwede66 03:44, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Neutral

The only concerns that I have here is already outlined above. For some content that may be considered promotional, there need to be secondary sources. If those sources exist, I'd say that all is good. If they don't, then that points towards the prose not being neutral. Schwede66 03:48, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Stable

Zero concerns. If anything, it's "too stable" (not enough response to my feedback). Schwede66 03:48, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Illustrated

Nicely illustrated; no concerns here. Schwede66 03:50, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Failed GA

I've marked the GA nomination as failed. The biggest issue is the lead; as I stated, content needs to be distributed throughout the article, references moved to the body (almost all of them), then the lead ought to be nuked and rewritten from scratch. Other issues from criterion 1 are much more minor in nature. As for the other criteria, I've outlined what needs to be worked on if somebody would like to achieve GA status at some future point. I hope that my feedback has been helpful in outlining why this article isn't there yet. Schwede66 04:01, 22 November 2024 (UTC)