Since SpaceX now includes controlling the Twitter culture war narrative, yes... lots of other things to do for "SpaceX."
I say this as a huge fan of the OG SpaceX, and a space nerd in general.
I was thinking that I felt bad for the OG SpaceX folks working on rockets, and Starlink... with all the distractions. However, many of them just became millionaires. So, what do I know.
Elon is a heck of an economic engineer. I would probably want to be along for the ride.
This mission is an orbital science mission studying Mars' atmosphere, not the same objective as SpaceX's long-term goal of sending large cargo and eventually humans to Mars. So I think the title might be taking the piss just a smidge.
I don't assume "Mars mission" to necessarily mean cargo for settlement or humans. In fact, that all seems quite distant at this point, so I ignore it entirely unless specific concrete actions occur.
So for many people like myself, the title is perfectly reasonable. The world does not revolve around SpaceX and its purported plans.
They did. It was the Soviets winning the space race that caused the USA to sink everything into the Apollo mission, to prove they could go bigger.
Russia were first to almost every other milestone, first orbit, first man in orbit, first woman in orbit, first EVA, first moon orbit, first (unmanned) moon landing, and many others.
Edited "Russians" to Soviets because lot was done by non-Russian parts of the union, my original reply just mirrored the OP use of Russians.
only if you squint at it while slightly tilting your head and really want it to be acrimonious.
"NASA picks Eric Schmidt's rocket company for Mars mission" comes no where close to implying it was a manned mission while absolutely being accurate in it's a rocket company being selected for a mission going to Mars. You're reading into it a manned mission.
SpaceX is incredibly sensitive about this after they've been beaten to Mars orbit by ... it's quite a list: NASA/JPL, the Soviet/Lavochkin Mars program, ESA, ISRO, ESA+Roscosmos, the UAE Space Agency/MBRSC + JAXA (Japan), and China’s CNSA. And Blue Origin: it launched NASA’s ESCAPADE probes. And while they are still en route and are expected to enter Mars orbit in 2027, orbital dynamics means it's not possible to beat them. Oh and adding these up you might think SpaceX has been beaten to Mars 7 times, but that's not correct. They've been beaten 17 times to Mars orbit in total, and that number will inevitably rise to 18 even if they launched a Mars mission tomorrow. It's over 30 if you count individual vehicles that launched on one rocket separately.
(yes, I'm a bit disappointed, I worked on a canceled European Mars mission long ago. Unfortunately, the financial math on why the entire company was canned was entirely correct, and yes I'm a bit angry that SpaceX gets such incredible funding, with a financial plan that, while better than the one we used, still isn't good enough)
Doubly so now it has been made clear that Falcon 9 is a failure. Reusable rockets are, as an innovation, in fact not good enough for a company to profitably sell access to earth orbit, as it turns out (but was extensively predicted)
(note: this is because starlink is of course using SpaceX funds, and is making a big loss doing it. In other words: the market for falcon9 launches is not big enough to sustain SpaceX, without artificial tricks that look good in the short term but unless something changes, increase the losses in the long term)
For context, Relativity gained Eric Schmidt as CEO in March last year.
They built a 3D printed small sat launcher which failed it's first launch. They cancelled further work in favour of Terran R which has less 3D printing. First launch probably early next year. First successful launch, probably late next year.
A Mars mission 2028 is not crazy but it's ambitious.
NASA hired private companies to engineer and design their early rockets? I thought Wernher von Braun engineered the Saturn V rocket after NASA borrowed him from thew Nazi's
The Saturn V[f] is a retired American super heavy-lift launch vehicle developed by NASA under the Apollo program for human exploration of the Moon.
NASA is not developing Relativity Space's rocket.
"On Tuesday, NASA said it hired the company to build a spacecraft to house a suite of scientific instruments, launch it into space, and fly it to Mars."
Plus, George Mueller, who managed the rocket team, worked for NASA, not some private company. So did all the engineers.
"The largest production model of the Saturn family of rockets, the Saturn V was designed at the Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) in Huntsville, Alabama. The program was managed by American George Mueller; technical design was led by scientists relocated from Nazi Germany, most notably Wernher von Braun, as well as Kurt Debus and Arthur Rudolph. This group had developed the first US launch vehicles, the Redstone rocket family, under the Army Ballistic Missile Agency. All engines were built by Rocketdyne. Boeing built the kerolox S-IC first stage powered by five F-1 engines; these remain the most powerful single chamber liquid-fuelled engines ever built. North American Aviation the hydrolox S-II second stage, and Douglas Aircraft Company the hydrolox S-IVB third stage, powered by five and one J-2 engines respectively. IBM and MSFC designed the rocket's instrument unit. "
As with SpaceX and the Commercial Cargo/Crew projects, NASA sets requirements, milestones, procedures, etc., as they did with Boeing et al during Apollo.
> Borrowing from the US Air Force Minuteman program, Mueller formed the Apollo Executive Group, which consisted of himself and the presidents of Apollo's main contractors.
Sorry I could not understand your point through all the snark.
How is using Schmidt’s company any different than any of the other thousands of military equipment programs? I don’t see how anything you said shows the difference.
Maybe ES' companies gave they a contract stating they assume all the risks and take not a cent unless they succeed, including reparation on failure, just to win the market.
The way these always work is they pick a low-stakes mission to give a new competitor a chance to build the market. If they're on track to miss the deadline badly they'll switch vendors to SpaceX who they know can pick up the slack on a short timeline. And if they do manage to deliver, great.
"Don't read to much into this. It's just a key talent, stable and productive, forming relationships with a key partner, gathering experience that you would think would be critical information to another companies valuation."
NASA always needs more competition to keep launch costs low and encouraging innovation and it seems like he hasn't been CEO for a long time. This is indicative of funding competition which is a good thing.
Relativity Space had a really interesting idea even before Eric Schmidt bought it. The key ideas were new technologies in 3d printing of designs for rapid iteration of design-to-implementation on what was previously extremely difficult (rocket engines, rocket bodies).
They even called their printers "Pylons" if recall (a nod to StarCraft's Protoss). The manufacturing tech has far broader implications than the application they were putting it toward.
My worry is that Eric bought them solely to get launch-for-compute in his pocket. Given his track record of "steal and when you get caught just have the lawyers 'clean all that up'" and "we didn't intend to unleash evil on the world, 'but it happened'" aren't encouraging. I always hope the golden goose doesn't get carved to pieces, but it usually happens.
doublerabbit | a day ago
danielbln | a day ago
bombcar | a day ago
bluefirebrand | a day ago
That's gotta be some kind of rite of passage
jbverschoor | 12 hours ago
close04 | a day ago
SpaceX/Musk can always spin it as “we have more ambitious goals than some lowly scientific instruments”.
consumer451 | a day ago
I say this as a huge fan of the OG SpaceX, and a space nerd in general.
I was thinking that I felt bad for the OG SpaceX folks working on rockets, and Starlink... with all the distractions. However, many of them just became millionaires. So, what do I know.
Elon is a heck of an economic engineer. I would probably want to be along for the ride.
__m | a day ago
ajay-b | a day ago
dundarious | a day ago
So for many people like myself, the title is perfectly reasonable. The world does not revolve around SpaceX and its purported plans.
mr_toad | a day ago
eterm | a day ago
Russia were first to almost every other milestone, first orbit, first man in orbit, first woman in orbit, first EVA, first moon orbit, first (unmanned) moon landing, and many others.
Edited "Russians" to Soviets because lot was done by non-Russian parts of the union, my original reply just mirrored the OP use of Russians.
toast0 | a day ago
sbuttgereit | a day ago
"NASA picks Eric Schmidt’s rocket company for Mars mission, setting up a race with SpaceX"
That title establishes a context in which looking at their relative goals is completely valid.
FireBeyond | a day ago
dylan604 | a day ago
"NASA picks Eric Schmidt's rocket company for Mars mission" comes no where close to implying it was a manned mission while absolutely being accurate in it's a rocket company being selected for a mission going to Mars. You're reading into it a manned mission.
cyanydeez | a day ago
Gud | a day ago
Not everything is about Elon’s wacky plan to settle Mars.
spwa4 | 10 hours ago
(yes, I'm a bit disappointed, I worked on a canceled European Mars mission long ago. Unfortunately, the financial math on why the entire company was canned was entirely correct, and yes I'm a bit angry that SpaceX gets such incredible funding, with a financial plan that, while better than the one we used, still isn't good enough)
Doubly so now it has been made clear that Falcon 9 is a failure. Reusable rockets are, as an innovation, in fact not good enough for a company to profitably sell access to earth orbit, as it turns out (but was extensively predicted)
(note: this is because starlink is of course using SpaceX funds, and is making a big loss doing it. In other words: the market for falcon9 launches is not big enough to sustain SpaceX, without artificial tricks that look good in the short term but unless something changes, increase the losses in the long term)
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/science/2025/nov/13/jeff-bezos-b...
philipwhiuk | a day ago
They built a 3D printed small sat launcher which failed it's first launch. They cancelled further work in favour of Terran R which has less 3D printing. First launch probably early next year. First successful launch, probably late next year.
A Mars mission 2028 is not crazy but it's ambitious.
josefritzishere | a day ago
ThrowawayTestr | a day ago
Noaidi | a day ago
bvcp | a day ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wernher_von_Braun
Noaidi | a day ago
https://www.thewrap.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/trump-ina...
mr_toad | a day ago
These days NASA doesn’t even build the payloads.
ceejayoz | a day ago
Manufacturer: Boeing (S-IC), North American (S-II), Douglas (S-IVB)
Noaidi | a day ago
The Saturn V[f] is a retired American super heavy-lift launch vehicle developed by NASA under the Apollo program for human exploration of the Moon.
NASA is not developing Relativity Space's rocket.
"On Tuesday, NASA said it hired the company to build a spacecraft to house a suite of scientific instruments, launch it into space, and fly it to Mars."
Plus, George Mueller, who managed the rocket team, worked for NASA, not some private company. So did all the engineers.
"The largest production model of the Saturn family of rockets, the Saturn V was designed at the Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) in Huntsville, Alabama. The program was managed by American George Mueller; technical design was led by scientists relocated from Nazi Germany, most notably Wernher von Braun, as well as Kurt Debus and Arthur Rudolph. This group had developed the first US launch vehicles, the Redstone rocket family, under the Army Ballistic Missile Agency. All engines were built by Rocketdyne. Boeing built the kerolox S-IC first stage powered by five F-1 engines; these remain the most powerful single chamber liquid-fuelled engines ever built. North American Aviation the hydrolox S-II second stage, and Douglas Aircraft Company the hydrolox S-IVB third stage, powered by five and one J-2 engines respectively. IBM and MSFC designed the rocket's instrument unit. "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Mueller_(engineer)
ceejayoz | a day ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Mueller_(engineer)#NASA...
> Borrowing from the US Air Force Minuteman program, Mueller formed the Apollo Executive Group, which consisted of himself and the presidents of Apollo's main contractors.
infecto | a day ago
expedition32 | a day ago
This is not Arasaka.
infecto | a day ago
How is using Schmidt’s company any different than any of the other thousands of military equipment programs? I don’t see how anything you said shows the difference.
t1234s | a day ago
Noaidi | a day ago
PunchyHamster | a day ago
0x59 | a day ago
BiteCode_dev | a day ago
bpodgursky | a day ago
The way these always work is they pick a low-stakes mission to give a new competitor a chance to build the market. If they're on track to miss the deadline badly they'll switch vendors to SpaceX who they know can pick up the slack on a short timeline. And if they do manage to deliver, great.
smrtinsert | a day ago
zitterbewegung | a day ago
mrweasel | a day ago
nielsbot | a day ago
Third parties will always build in profit to their services which is wasteful.
slowmovintarget | a day ago
They even called their printers "Pylons" if recall (a nod to StarCraft's Protoss). The manufacturing tech has far broader implications than the application they were putting it toward.
My worry is that Eric bought them solely to get launch-for-compute in his pocket. Given his track record of "steal and when you get caught just have the lawyers 'clean all that up'" and "we didn't intend to unleash evil on the world, 'but it happened'" aren't encouraging. I always hope the golden goose doesn't get carved to pieces, but it usually happens.
zelias | a day ago
ChrisArchitect | a day ago