Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
NASA The 2000 Beanies

NASA Adds SpaceX's Starship To Launch Services Program Fleet (yahoo.com) 64

Posted by BeauHD from the onboarding-process dept.
Despite recent test failures, NASA has added SpaceX's Starship to its Launch Services Program contract, allowing it to compete for future science missions once it achieves a successful orbital flight. Florida Today reports: NASA announced the addition Friday to its current launch provider contract with SpaceX, which covers the Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy. This opens the possibility of Starship flying future NASA science missions -- that is once Starship reaches a successful orbital flight.

"NASA has awarded SpaceX of Starbase, Texas, a modification under the NASA Launch Services (NLS) II contract to add Starship to their existing Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launch service offerings," NASA's statement reads. Th announcement is simply an onboarding of Starship as an option, as the contract runs through 2032. However, SpaceX is under pressure to get Starship operational by next year as the company plans not only to send an uncrewed Starship to Mars by late 2026, but the NASA Artemis III moon landing is fast approaching. Should it remain the plan with the current administration, Starship will act as a human lander for NASA's Artemis III crew.

"The NLS II contracts are multiple award, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity, with an ordering period through June 2030 and an overall period of performance through December 2032. The contracts include an on-ramp provision that provides an opportunity annually for new launch service providers to add their launch service on an NLS II contract and compete for future missions and allows existing contractors to introduce launch services not currently on their NLS II contracts," NASA's statement reads.

NASA Adds SpaceX's Starship To Launch Services Program Fleet More | Reply

NASA Adds SpaceX's Starship To Launch Services Program Fleet

Comments Filter:

  • The grift continues (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    How much has elona already cost the country formerly known as US?

    • I knew some moron would type something like you did, thinking this was due Elon's involvement in the government. But thus is merely a standard continuation if what already was present. And thanx to Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy the US is saving a lot of money as SpaceX competitors were, and still are, much more expensive.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by tragedy ( 27079 )

        I believe New Glenn is on there too, so there isn't anything fishy, per se with adding Starship. It obviously would need more testing before actually getting a launch contract. However, since Musk is in a government position that has effective direct control over NASA's budget while still being CEO and Chairman of SpaceX, it seems unreasonable to call suspicion over any interaction between SpaceX and NASA moronic. Musk is absolutely, 100% ethically compromised to well beyond any reasonable doubt.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward
        SpaceX can have the bestest and cheapest rockets in the whole wide universe and put humans on Pluto tomorrow. It doesn't fucking matter, because with the massive corruption and conflicts of interest going on, no SpaceX government contracts - past, present or future - can be trusted. They should all be torn up and Elon and whatever is left of every company he's ever been involved with, banned from anything remotely connected to government.
  • Starship will save money for NASA due to greatly-reduced launch costs and give them capabilities no other launcher can provide.
    A Starship launch will cost about two orders of magnitude less than one on NASA's SLS launcher.

    This has nothing to do with (very real) Trump corruption, a Biden-run NASA would have done the same.

    ( And, yes, Musk has gone mad. )

    • Maybe.

      It doesn't work yet. Will it? Maybe. They've tried stainless steel this time, which is cheaper than typical aerospace alloys, and doesn't have a zero fatigue limit, but a lower strength to weight ratio. So, cheaper and longer lasting, but a lower usable mass fraction, which makes everything more marginal.

      The design is a gamble, not a guaranteed payoff.

    • A Starship launch will cost about two orders of magnitude less than one on NASA's SLS launcher.

      That's good, because it'll need a minimum of 6 launches to do what one SLS can do, at a bare minimum.

      Starship is indeed a cool fucking ship. And it may be the first thing humanity has built that has the possibility of being a long-term space manned space vehicle. But people trying to look at it as a replacement for actual rocketry are being absurd.
      It's simply too fucking heavy.

      • Starship's margin for payload in reusable mode is currently low, indeed, but will certainly grow.

        On the one hand, they are throwing metal at their current problems, which will be pared away later, and on the other, their engines are getting substantially better with each iteration.
        • The booster is pretty damn cool. And I mean, Starship itself is pretty damn cool too- but it doesn't do the booster justice.
          There's nothing they can do to change the basic math of Starship. It's just too heavy.
          It makes a lot sense as a space-based platform for exploration outside of our planetary system, or even for motoring stuff around up in our planetary system, but the logistics for even a manned trip to the moon are ridiculous, and that isn't going to change.

          I don't see a particular problem with th
      • Uhm, sorry to burst your bubble, but Starship Block 3 (the actual production version, and looking at the timeline it might even be the next testflight) will be able to lift much more as SLS block 2, in reusable mode, in disposable mode it can lift even more than twice what SLS is capable, and even as disposable it still is a fraction of what a single SLS flight costs.
        • What in the fucking hell are you talking about, lol.
          Starship can't put a single gram into TLI.
          It requires refuelling. A not a small amount.
          How long do you think it'll take to launch the 6 Starships to get a mission past LEO?

          What it can lift to LEO isn't useful, except to refuel itself- which was always the plan.
          It's a shit launch platform, but a cool space platform.

          SLS can send 38t to Mars today
          With a single launch.

          Starship will require 1 launch to get the Mars vehicle up, 8 more to give it enou

          • SLS can not do *anything* this year let alone today.
            Please pass that crack pipe around.

            • The fuck you talking about? Artemis 2 is sitting in the VAB right now. Upper stage to be stacked in the coming weeks.
              I don't think they're done with the Orion and ESM though, but they could always launch the thing without a payload just to make you happy.

              Go take your nasty cheerleading elsewhere, shit for brains.

      • Are you insane? The SLS has launched a total of one (1) time in a test flight configuration. Its looking more and more likely to not make it to *2026* for it's next flight. Your basing a very shay opinion on a rocket that has almost no chance of long term flight vs Starship that is almost guaranteed to have a very long life span once the initial iterations are finished.

        • The SLS has launched a total of one (1) time in a test flight configuration.

          That wasn't a test flight configuration. It was a fully loaded Block 1 SLS, with a completed Orion spacecraft on it.
          It launched and tossed that baby around the moon.
          If you're this wrong right out of the gate, I don't see this conversation being very productive.

          Its looking more and more likely to not make it to *2026* for it's next flight.

          It's literally standing up in the VAB right now, stacked. You can even go look at it.
          Whether or not it launches in 2026, they could light it off today.

          Your basing a very shay opinion on a rocket that has almost no chance of long term flight vs Starship that is almost guaranteed to have a very long life span once the initial iterations are finished.

          Are you an idiot?
          Did you not read what was written?

          My opinion was grounded in fact, whereas yo

    • I've read quite a bit saying that Starship is a boondoggle. I'm not convinced much good will come from it, even if they manage to get them reliable.

  • Despite recent test failures (Score:3)

    by LondoMollari ( 172563 ) on Saturday March 29, 2025 @07:48AM (#65267563) Homepage

    Does anyone want to count all the NASA test failures before they pile it on someone else?

    • Its almost logistics at this point.

      Dollar per KG to orbit at 96% success rate within 3 months of promised delivery date. If there were 2 peers, fight on like Boeing and Airbus in meatbag haulers.

      SpaceX is working on a bigger truck with the surplus capacity and used parts of the current system.
  • Imagine if you or I had a product that was constantly failing and we approached a large government department for a multi-billion dollar contract. Most people would be laughed out of the room. I guess it helps if you are the thread keeping the sword of Damocles from falling on every job in that department.

    • This is a little unfair. SpaceX is not some random person off the street, they already provide this service for NASA with different vehicles. In effect this is just stating the bleeding obvious. IF SpaceX get it to work effectively then NASA will use it for launches. It's mostly pointless to even say that, it's simply a given. I doubt anyone doubted that for a second.

      However, there is an element of corruption here, albeit a very small one in the scale of all the other corruption going on. Musk has financial

      • People will be much less willing to either lend him money or invest in his ventures. SpaceX may not be able to fund this vehicle to a working state because of this. So he gets NASA to state explicitly what everyone already knows implicitly, that they will use this rocket when it works. This should help to improve SpaceX's credit rating at least a little.

        This is called "corruption"

        If this was 2012 era SpaceX and Musk then I don't think anyone would have such an issue with this, I think many people would agree NASA should help even fledgling programs with great potential but Musk decided to encroach himself into the government so this is now corrupt, obviously so.

        This is literal DEI for companies. SpaceX already has an active NASA contract for Starship (HLS) which they won on as conservatives like to say "merit". Was this based on merit or Musk's personal

      • Musk has financial issues. Tesla's share price is sinking and their sales are going down. It's unlikely that this will reverse any time soon, and may even lead to bankruptcy.

        I wonder. Trump's auto tariffs are set to start on April 2. They will affect all US auto-manufacturers, but they will affect Tesla the least. That would give Tesla a competitive advantage. Car prices will go up, including Teslas, because Tesla will take advantage of the inflation in the market, and benefit more than their competitors.

        And yes, TSLA shares have been dropping over the past few months, but recently started to wave a bear-flag. Let's see whether they recover when tariffs kick in for real.

      • It certainly would have happened if Musk wasn't on the government. This is merely an addendum to the contract they already had and a mere confirmation that Starship may fligh missions AFTER it gets through its developmentcycle and is certified. There isn't anything dodgy going on here, except in the minds of frustrated morons who think anything Musk does these days must be corruption, except if you really get down to earth and look at what he really does/did, he didn't do anything awful. Yeah his 'my heart

  • Starship is a dud (Score:3, Insightful)

    by TilTacoTuesday ( 7156595 ) on Saturday March 29, 2025 @10:18AM (#65267721)

    It will never work the way SpaceX and MuSSk think it will. Its payload capacity is too low. I will never be certified for human flight because the life support requirements are too heavy, and its safety factor is too high for a safe reentry with a craft that large and fragile. It will need fuel to go to the Moon or Mars (which we will never succeed at because colonizing Mars is a nearly impossible joke). To get enough fuel to space for a single expedition would require over 30 Starship sorties just to lift it all. The math just don't math for Starship. And SpaceX can't sustain as a business with the diminishing market needs for space delivery systems. But OK.

    • The fanboys have swung, they will be back.

    • Some may ask "Why climb the highest mountain?" "Why, 35 years ago, did we cross the Atlantic?"

      We do these things not because they are easy, but because the are hard. Because that challenge is one we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one we intend to win..."

      Where the hell is your American Spirit?

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Jeremi ( 14640 )

        I'm all for doing great things -- but to do them, you need working technology. You can't just keep throwing money at a failed design in the hopes of making it work. If you find that your approach isn't working, you have to step back and try a different approach.

        Maybe SpaceX can yet figure out how to make Starship do useful work; I hope they can. But it's sure starting to sound like they'll need to write off the Starship design as a "lessons learned" exercise and come up with something different instead.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by tragedy ( 27079 )

        Sure. Spirit of adventure. All that. The Scott Antarctic expedition had that. They also brought kerosene to power their vehicles, provide, heat, etc. in metal cans vulnerable to kerosene creep, so they lost most of their fuel. The provisions they brought were based on faulty nutrition theory, so they got scurvy and also didn't have enough calories to pull their sledges. They also brought ponies which were not suitable for the conditions. They also wore woolen clothes that were not suitable for a combination

    • So I looked it up, and according to people smarter than me, it would require 1200 tons of fuel to get a Starship to Mars in 45 days. Depending on where the fuel accumulated in orbit, the current "reusable" Starship could transfer between 21 and 150 tons of fuel while the next generation could transfer up to 200 tons. Refueling in LEO would be the ideal as it would allow the most fuel per trip before moving it to GTO. It seems to be a plausible pathway for getting things to Mars but I agree that the certifi

      • So I looked it up, and according to people smarter than me, it would require 1200 tons of fuel to get a Starship to Mars in 45 days.

        That is one hella fast trip to Mars. Typically, missions take about 7 months to fly out, and the window opens only every 2 years or so.

        I can understand the desire to get to Mars rapidly (reduced use of consumables by the crew, and reduced radiation exposure) but good luck slowing down once you get there.

    • Yeah, a keyboard jockey like you on /. Knows it better as all those people working at SpaceX and already making it happen. At the moment SpaceX is the most solid rocket company the US has, its crewcapsules show they know how to create safe vehicles, their Falcon 9 and Falcon heavy are rock solid. Starship block one performed perfectly, its boosters are also perfoming perfectly. The booster fir block 2 also performed perfect, but Starship block 2 seems to have a problem with its engines, which were never act
  • I think NASA is wise to do so, what Iâ(TM)m unclear on is A) has this been done for other vehicles under development, B) Are there any real viable alternatives on the books being actively developed. The falcons had their issues at the start but are hands down the best orbital payload delivery system ever developed.

Slashdot Top Deals

Support bacteria -- it's the only culture some people have!

Close