Talk:Rocket Lab

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

More information WikiProject Companies To-do: ...
Close

New contract

Launches contracted for Moon Express: . 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)

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. [1]

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. [2] 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. . 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?

Photon, satellite bus

Unnecessary details on Electron launches

History

Please create new article about the Rocket Lab mission to Venus

RfC : What national identifier in the lede sentence?

Is this really C Class?

Legal name

Short Description

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

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)

Promotional language??

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI