NASA Picks Eric Schmidt's Rocket Company For Mars Mission (techcrunch.com)
- Reference: 0183973824
- News link: https://science.slashdot.org/story/26/06/18/2349246/nasa-picks-eric-schmidts-rocket-company-for-mars-mission
- Source link: https://techcrunch.com/2026/06/17/nasa-picks-eric-schmidts-rocket-company-for-mars-mission-setting-up-a-race-with-spacex/
> The structure of the contract is akin to the deals that NASA made with SpaceX to fly cargo to the International Space Station, or Firefly Aerospace to put a lander on the Moon. The government agency handles the science, while the private company provides low-cost infrastructure. Aeolus, as the mission is dubbed, will contain four instruments to measure and image Mars from orbit, providing what NASA expects to be the first daily, global view of dust, winds, and temperature in its atmosphere. The agency said that data will make it safer for landers and, someday, astronauts, to visit the surface of the Red Planet.
>
> By pairing NASA's world-class instruments with commercial innovation and investment, we can deliver more science, more often, and reduce the time it takes to get essential data into the hands of researchers preparing for future human missions to Mars," NASA administrator Jared Isaacman said in statement. The mission is set to launch in 2028 -- a rapid pace that will require Relativity to design and build the spacecraft to carry the Aeolus instruments, and finish building the rocket that will carry it to space, all on a tight timeline. NASA did not disclose how much it is paying Relativity for the mission, and Relativity did not respond to questions from TechCrunch.
>
> Relativity was founded in 2015 by two former SpaceX and Blue Origin engineers, with the idea of using 3D printing to its maximum potential as a path to building a cheaper rocket. The company's first design, Terran-1, launched in March 2023 and failed mid-flight. Relativity doubled down by moving on to a larger design, dubbed the Terran R. Before Relativity could get it to the launch pad, the company ran into fundraising challenges, and Schmidt took a majority stake in the company in it last year, installing himself as CEO. He's been tight-lipped about the investment but has expressed interest in orbital data centers, and is thought to be using Relativity to launch a space telescope, Lazuili, financed by his family philanthropy, Schmidt Sciences.
[1] https://techcrunch.com/2026/06/17/nasa-picks-eric-schmidts-rocket-company-for-mars-mission-setting-up-a-race-with-spacex/
Re: (Score:1)
> Demand that Eric Schmidt be the first one to go to Mars. Strap his ass into a rocket and light it. For bonus points, put Elmo in there with him. And for even extra bonus points, stick Zuck in there too.
I want Starship human rated so we can load one up with Elon, Zuck, Bezos, maybe Branson and a smattering of others, launch them out past the moon somewhere, and just leave them with surveillance cameras on. Let them experience 24/7 surveillance as their supplies slowly dwindle and they are eventually forced to resort to eating each other to survive. Last one to be eaten wins! What do they win? The chance to starve to death instead of being butchered for Haitian Steaks!
Hmmm, so far.... (Score:3)
He has blown one up on the pad, and launched zero successfully. NASA = "Sounds Great! Lets give em a contract!"
Re: (Score:2)
"No money exchanged hands in the making of this contract."
Yeah that's exactly what you do (Score:2)
Because if you're not stupid you don't have a single supplier. Even if one of the other suppliers isn't quite up to snuff you make sure that they get up to snuff so that you don't have a single supplier. Monopolies suck.
Better headline would be... (Score:1)
"NASA Picks Eric Schmidt For Mars Mission". The unwashed masses would care about this more, compared to which billionaire gets money before delivering anything.
Credit where credit is due (Score:2)
I hate the headline, which is crediting Relativity Space to Eric Schmidt.
Eric Schmidt did not found the company, nor did he contribute to the technology, He was just the billionaire who stepped in with funding. Tim Ellis and Jordan Noone should be credited with founding the company and developing the technology.
But we Americans treat billionaires as superhuman rock stars; we don't care who does the actual innovation, we just let the billionaires take credit (and, yes, that applies to Elon Musk as well. Fr
Don't Be Evil, Be Reimbursable. (Score:4, Insightful)
Public-private space partnerships are not inherently bad. NASA buying commercial services can make perfect sense. COTS helped give us SpaceX, and whatever else one thinks of Musk, reusable Falcon launches were not exactly a rounding error in the history of spaceflight.
But transparency is the thin line between public-private partnership and a billionaire infrastructure layaway plan.
So now Eric Schmidt, yes, that Eric Schmidt from Google’s deliciously ironic “Don’t be evil” era, takes control of Relativity Space after it runs into funding trouble, installs himself as CEO, and suddenly Relativity gets picked for a Mars orbiter mission. NASA gets useful atmospheric science out of it, sure. Daily global Martian weather data is real science, not hand-wavy TED-talk vapor. But the interesting part is the scaffolding: Relativity supplies the spacecraft, rocket, and cruise operations, while NASA supplies the instruments and the public purpose.
That is very close to the Elon Musk template. Do useful work for government customers, gain launch heritage, build factories, normalize regulatory access, wrap the whole thing in national destiny and science, then aim the resulting machine at the founder’s private cathedral. In Musk’s case, Mars colonization and DOGE-flavored state capture. In Schmidt’s case, orbital data centers and privately backed space observatories. And look who approved the deal -- Jared Issacman, Trump’s hand-picked commercial-space billionaire with deep ties to Musk and SpaceX, now sitting on top of the agency that decides which private space companies get wrapped in the flag, the science mission, and the launch manifest.
Maybe this is a good deal. Maybe NASA is getting a bargain. Maybe Schmidt is putting real private money behind real public science. But Eric...remember the don't-be-evil days at Google? If that is the case, show the numbers. Under a Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) contract, the government has explicit data rights and strict oversight. But the Space Act Agreement that this project is authorized under bypasses that transparency.
Who pays whom? Who owns what? What data is public? What infrastructure becomes commercially reusable? What happens if Relativity misses the 2028 launch window? What private projects of yours are going to benefit from NASA-paid mission experience? And why is a “reimbursable” Space Act Agreement being described in the press like NASA hired the company, while the dollar figure remains undisclosed? If the public is funding the operational heritage and validating the hardware platform, does the public own the telemetry? Or is the public merely a tenant in an infrastructure stack you are going to privatize?
This is "go ahead and be evil, if you can hide the bodies" territory. I'm not being cynical or anti-science, here. This is basic hygiene when billionaires start using science as a fig leaf for projects that also happen to build their next monopoly platform.
3D printing whole rockets was such a dumb idea. (Score:2)
Don't get me wrong, there's a lot to say about printing small rocket parts , such as for the engines. But they were printing [1]basically sheet metal cylinders [3dprint.com], which is such an immensely slow and inefficient way to go about it, and it left them with parts that were heavier and less aerodynamic (rougher surface). Crazy that idea ever got any funding.
[1] https://3dprint.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/0-2.jpg
Re: (Score:2)
I agree. The idea that 3d printing is the be-all, end-all of manufacturing is quite short-sighted. There's a reason a modern, complex machine will use many types of manufacturing methods. Injection molding, bending and forming metal, forging and casting, CNC cutting metal and plastics, then all the finishing techniques, and of course some 3d printing. Each has its place for both price and quality.
Reminds me of another billionaire that thought carbon fiber was the best material for any use.
When you sense the real Slashdot headline is... (Score:1)
"Screw SpaceX!"
We hate Elon because his politics don't align with ours, therefore we think it is great that NASA isn't giving his company money for this Mars mission, especially because Elon wants humans to colonize Mars so badly. Double whammy!
Slashdot has become so biased during the past decade.
Re:Phallic (Score:5, Insightful)
Rockets are really cool. They are our one major way of getting off this planet and even without humans involved are the way we send things to space so we can understand the universe around us. You shouldn't have to like any of the people involved or can even actively dislike them for other reasons, and still get that.
Re: (Score:2)
"SapceX has got to be a huge scam too" - SpaceX launches the vast majority of the world's commercial cargo to orbit. The Falcon 9 FT has the highest success rate of any rocket with a statistically significant number of launches under its belt, and is dirt cheap. SpaceX's core operations are roughly breakeven, but that's including subsidizing the development of Starship. Starlink is a money printer.
There are lots of things sketchy about the SpaceX IPO , to say the least, but SpaceX, as a company, has been ex
Re: (Score:3)
Rockets are awesome, they are probably our best means of getting rid of billionaires. Just send their ass[es] to Mars.
Re: (Score:2)
The one [1]seen over Moscow [bsky.app] might have been, with a bit more thrust...
[1] https://bsky.app/profile/nafnlaus.bsky.social/post/3monacrbbps2v
Re: Phallic (Score:2)
Just look at the Amazon logo
Re: (Score:2)
What other shape do you propose?