r/space • u/swordfi2 • 2d ago
Exclusive: SpaceX, ULA to clinch multibillion-dollar Pentagon launch contract
https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/spacex-ula-expected-clinch-multibillion-dollar-contract-key-pentagon-launch-2025-04-04/144
78
u/TheGoldenCompany_ 2d ago
As long as other American space companies are involved, I can be happy.
16
u/murderedbyaname 2d ago
Yeah, glad to see Rocket Labs got a contract.
18
u/snoo-boop 1d ago
RocketLab did not win anything from NSSL3 Lane 2.
-1
u/murderedbyaname 1d ago
That's right, they were awarded for the different class, just commenting that they did get contracts
22
u/snoo-boop 1d ago
No, they didn't. RocketLab has been onboarded to NSSL3 Lane 1 and has yet to win an actual launch. Onboarding and winning a launch are different. Onboarding is necessary, but might end up with zero launch wins.
5
u/PM_ME_UR_ROUND_ASS 1d ago
This is a huge deal for the NSSL Phase 3 program. Unlike previous contracts, these are designed with more flexibility where launch providers can bid on missions as they come up rather than being locked into specific launch counts. Basically lets the Pentagon adapt to changing launch needs over the next 5+ yaers without being stuck with outdated tech.
3
7
u/Decronym 1d ago edited 10h ago
Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread:
| Fewer Letters | More Letters |
|---|---|
| BO | Blue Origin (Bezos Rocketry) |
| EELV | Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle |
| FFSC | Full-Flow Staged Combustion |
| FOD | Foreign Object Damage / Debris |
| LEO | Low Earth Orbit (180-2000km) |
| Law Enforcement Officer (most often mentioned during transport operations) | |
| NSSL | National Security Space Launch, formerly EELV |
| SLS | Space Launch System heavy-lift |
| ULA | United Launch Alliance (Lockheed/Boeing joint venture) |
| USAF | United States Air Force |
| Jargon | Definition |
|---|---|
| hydrolox | Portmanteau: liquid hydrogen fuel, liquid oxygen oxidizer |
| kerolox | Portmanteau: kerosene fuel, liquid oxygen oxidizer |
Decronym is now also available on Lemmy! Requests for support and new installations should be directed to the Contact address below.
10 acronyms in this thread; the most compressed thread commented on today has 15 acronyms.
[Thread #11235 for this sub, first seen 5th Apr 2025, 14:46]
[FAQ] [Full list] [Contact] [Source code]
•
u/OverladyIke 19h ago
THANK YOU!!! Most appreciated. I was really lost and I'm usually accustomed to alphabet soup.
9
u/ergzay 1d ago
Why'd they leave Blue Origin out of the title. Weird.
7
u/CollegeStation17155 1d ago
Because it's a typical hit piece to try and imply that the only reason SpaceX got the award was because Musk manipulated the awards... even though when looking at the meat of the awards, it's clear that there was no manipulation involved; For LEO launches, nothing can come close to matching Falcon 9 prices, for medium energy launches, Vulcan and Falcon Heavy are head to head if SpaceX loses the center core, and New Glenn got the nod for the heaviest, most expensive loads because it has the potential to be a BEAST second only to Starship that hasn't flown successfully yet.
2
u/AdoringCHIN 1d ago
I know you SpaceX fanboys are super eager to praise Elon and SpaceX and think everyone's out to get them, but you could also just open the article and see that the title does mention Blue Origin. OP changed the title, not Reuters
23
u/Old_Bluecheese 2d ago
How surprising, it's so surprising I am afraid my surprise fuse blew and I'll never ever be surprised again
8
u/ioncloud9 1d ago
There are 3 providers for lane 2. All 3 got contracts. Why is this surprising? Are there any other providers who can launch the required payloads to all reference orbits?
SpaceX was the cheapest per launch by the way.
1
•
u/OverladyIke 19h ago
And Space X blows them up a lot, it seems. Another lane like meteorology... you don't have to get it right often to get paid.
•
u/moderngamer327 16h ago
A rocket still in the middle of development and testing has blown up unintentionally a couple times. Falcon 9 is the most reliable rocket in history
7
u/SwayingTreeGT 2d ago
You really can’t say that when there literally is no better option.
-18
u/Petrichordates 1d ago
There is, we can nationalize the brand and incorporate it into NASA. As it should've been the entire time.
Instead we just give billions to a space nazi, which he then uses to destroy our government.
19
u/fastforwardfunction 1d ago
There is, we can nationalize the brand and incorporate it into NASA. As it should've been the entire time.
All NASA spaceships and rockets are built with private contractors, including the Apollo moon missions, the shuttle. By Boeing, Rockwell, McDonald Douglass, etc.
The only difference is the structure of involvement. The new model, which has been successful for the past two decades, is to give private companies more independence in designing the space craft. That has produced better designs.
15
u/ready_player31 1d ago
Worst idea ever. NASA doesn't build their own rockets and have not for decades. SpaceX was built on profits. It runs on profits. That was in part the motivator for first stage reuse. NASA doesn't need to be a launch company. They would incur too many costs and require a lot of resources to develop into that. Not worth it when SpaceX runs just fine independently as-is. Nationalizing it doesn't make sense at any point in its history, won't happen now, and it won't be worth doing when Elon is gone because SpaceX will run just fine without him. I seriously doubt he has much of a hand these days, i doubt anyone other than Gwynne Shotwell is calling most of the shots that make them successful.
15
u/Shrike99 1d ago
we can nationalize the brand and incorporate it into NASA. As it should've been the entire time.
If a government entity were capable of doing SpaceX what does, why did NASA not simply do it themselves first?
Or, put another way:
What would prevent the same factors that constrain NASA from similarly constraining a nationalized SpaceX?
-6
u/Xijit 1d ago
Because GW Bush defunded NASA in 2000, which caused massive layoffs of Aerospace engineers, who then had to ho get jobs with NASA's contractors, doing the exact same thing that they used to do at NASA.
17
u/Shrike99 1d ago edited 1d ago
NASA still had far more funding and engineers than SpaceX built Falcon 9 reuse with.
If they can afford SLS, they could have afforded their own Falcon 9. And sure, it would have been built by contractors, but that's always how NASA have operated.
The important thing is that it would have been their design ip, and they'd have been the ones operating it. Yet they did not do this.
As a sidenote, the vast majority of SpaceX's engineers weren't ex-NASA.
All of that aside, even if we assume that your explanation is correct, it doesn't answer my second/reformulated question:
What stops another president from defunding a hypothetical nationalized SpaceX and causing massive layoffs in a similar manner?
•
u/OverladyIke 19h ago
The government cannot own patents or other intellectual property. (Or so the law says. Not that this has any bearing anymore.)
Government contracting is inherently anti-capitalistic. Contractors can sue to retain their contracts even if they expire or they're fired. This is why all the ventilators the government sent out during COVID-19 peak didn't work. Contractor A sued to keep the contract. Lawsuit took 6+ months. Ventilators in storage need maintenance. Contractor A lost the suit but didn't maintain the equipment. Contractor B's contract didn't include inspection of equipment and restart maintenance. People died without the vents and people died with malfunctioning vents.
It's a dirty, dirty, rigged, rigged game. And... people die. Or, get wet. That's pretty frequent, too.
5
-10
u/jasonefmonk 1d ago
They did, since the 1950s. Then as the breakthrough knowledge and technology trickled down to wider society, private companies came in to do the same thing NASA does, but for direct financial profit.
SpaceX hasn’t pushed the frontier at all.
6
u/snoo-boop 1d ago
Sure, everything that SX did hasn't pushed the frontier.
- Lowering cost to orbit -- who cares?!
- Highest launch cadence in history -- eh, boring
- First long duration kerolox upper stage -- hydrolox beat them to it
- First flown FFSC engine -- eh, that Soviet guy tested one once
- Face shutoff, eliminating many valves -- eh, it was done on small engines already
- Vertical landing -- Delta Clipper did it first, and dominates the market TO THIS VERY DAY
-4
u/jasonefmonk 1d ago
Doing it cheaper and more frequently is a typical change for maturing fields. It was inevitable that some organization would do this. SpaceX is successful, but they haven’t pushed the frontier.
The reason it wasn’t NASA alone doing what you listed is because they weren’t given the resources. Is it better to allow private industry to take on the financial risks and then just have NASA pay the private industry for the flights? Perhaps it is, but NASA could have accomplished these advancements directly is they had the resources.
5
u/Shrike99 1d ago
NASA spent more on SLS every single year over the last decade and a half than SpaceX did in total on developing Falcon 9 reuse.
"Lack of resources" is not the correct answer. "Incorrect allocation of resources" would be closer to the truth - and also hints at why nationalizing SpaceX would not work beyond the short term.
3
u/snoo-boop 1d ago
NASA published a paper saying that Commercial Cargo cost 75% less than NASA directly doing it.
•
u/moderngamer327 15h ago
You don’t call self landing rockets pushing the frontier? What would be according to you, warp drive?
•
u/OverladyIke 19h ago
As the F-45 and the Boeing tankers delivered to USAF full of FOD demonstrated: simple answer is: "No."
•
u/OverladyIke 19h ago
Good luck not to all in avoiding all the space junk up there. I'd like the cleanup contract!
48
u/yoweigh 1d ago
Why did you add exclusive to the beginning of this title? It doesn't even make sense because it's public information.