Connect with us

News

SpaceX and “new space” up against traditionalists for future of NASA

Published

on

Speculation about the direction of NASA under the Trump Administration has been circling for weeks, and although there are still no definite answers, there’s finally some news about the process being executed.

According to internal White House advisory documents obtained by Politico, there’s a huge push from many advisors for NASA to be used as a driver for privatized space technology; however, that push is bringing the rift between traditional NASA contractors and the “new space” companies like SpaceX and Blue Origin to a head. NASA’s $19 billion dollar budget is simply not large enough to accommodate both commercially-driven and traditional visions for the agency. The struggle is real, apparently, and it isn’t just affecting inner White House circles, either.

Earlier this week, the Commercial Spaceflight Federation (CSF) surprised its audience by endorsing NASA’s Space Launch System (SLS), the heavy lift rocket being built to launch future NASA missions. In his remarks at the FAA’s Commercial Space Conference, CSF chairman Alan Stern characterized the SLS as a “resource” that could be complimentary to commercial space activity.

The surprise at this announcement comes in part from the fact that Boeing, a traditional NASA contractor and one-half of the government-customer-only launch service United Launch Alliance (ULA), is the prime contractor for the SLS. The cost comparison between private and government contracted technology is the issue.

Cost Effectiveness is Key

The billions of dollars it will take to fully develop SLS plus the high cost of launch missions is hard to justify when, for example, SpaceX estimates under $100 million dollars per flight on its upcoming heavy launch vehicle, Falcon Heavy.

SLS is estimated to be capable of carrying many times the payload weight of SpaceX’s vehicle, but it would still cost much less to use multiple SpaceX vehicles for a multi-part payload rather than justify the huge cost for a single launch. That, or one could argue that the cost of a SpaceX or Blue Origin developed vehicle in line with the SLS’s capabilities would be much more cost effective given the pricing record thus far. It also should be noted that such vehicles are, in fact, being designed by these companies already, albeit mostly still in non-tangible state. SpaceX has its Mars-bound Interplanetary Transport System (or “BFR” if you like), and Blue Origin has its “New Armstrong” in the works.

What about Congress?

The push from White House advisers will face obstacles in Congress as well. Space subcommittee members in both the House and Senate have discussed some of the details included in a draft 2017 NASA Authorization Act, the legislation which will define NASA’s priorities, and considering their comments alongside prior legislative drafts, “stay the course” looks to be the general direction. Concern over NASA’s need for “constancy of purpose” is a big driver, as missions requiring long-term development suffer when directives vary too widely from one presidential administration to another.

While prior presentations of NASA Authorization Acts have been lengthy and mostly inviting little to no controversy, they all still contain a requirement to use the SLS and Orion, NASA’s crew capsule under development, for deep space activity and anywhere else suitable. Such emphasis would likely clash with those advocating for transforming NASA’s role to one supporting commercial launch vehicles, especially those promoting the elimination of the SLS entirely.

Also, with thousands of NASA-dependent jobs on the line in the districts hosting SLS development facilities, the stakes are high for any congressional representatives thinking of supporting major shifts for NASA. The lines seem to have been drawn in the proverbial sand.

What about Mars?

News of commercial space supporters advocating for a NASA transition inside the White House may sound hopeful to those rooting for more privatized space technology; however, for colonization dreamers, Mars looks to be a carrot teased at the end of a “Moon first” road. The internal White House documents call for Moon development to begin by 2020, Mars falling under the “and beyond” category of capabilities that could be possible with an overhauled NASA.

In that light, the proposed NASA bills might sound like a Cinderella story for Mars enthusiasts: In order to go to the Prince’s ball (Mars), a whole host of lengthy chores (cis-lunar activity, Moon base, use the SLS, etc.) must be completed first.

If “Moon first” becomes the winner in the end, it still wouldn’t likely interfere with Elon Musk’s Mars plans but rather help them along with all the new space infrastructure launch income for SpaceX. And to continue with the Cinderella bit, we know there’s no way Musk would make it home by midnight anyway, although he does seem to have an affinity for mice.

Accidental computer geek, fascinated by most history and the multiplanetary future on its way. Quite keen on the democratization of space. | It's pronounced day-sha, but I answer to almost any variation thereof.

Continue Reading
Comments

News

Armored Tesla Cybertruck “War Machine” debuts at Defense Expo 2025

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.

Published

on

Photo: Unplugged Performance

Temporibus autem quibusdam et aut officiis debitis aut rerum necessitatibus saepe eveniet ut et voluptates repudiandae sint et molestiae non recusandae. Itaque earum rerum hic tenetur a sapiente delectus, ut aut reiciendis voluptatibus maiores alias consequatur aut perferendis doloribus asperiores repellat.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.

“Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat”

Nemo enim ipsam voluptatem quia voluptas sit aspernatur aut odit aut fugit, sed quia consequuntur magni dolores eos qui ratione voluptatem sequi nesciunt.

Et harum quidem rerum facilis est et expedita distinctio. Nam libero tempore, cum soluta nobis est eligendi optio cumque nihil impedit quo minus id quod maxime placeat facere possimus, omnis voluptas assumenda est, omnis dolor repellendus.

Nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

Sed ut perspiciatis unde omnis iste natus error sit voluptatem accusantium doloremque laudantium, totam rem aperiam, eaque ipsa quae ab illo inventore veritatis et quasi architecto beatae vitae dicta sunt explicabo.

Neque porro quisquam est, qui dolorem ipsum quia dolor sit amet, consectetur, adipisci velit, sed quia non numquam eius modi tempora incidunt ut labore et dolore magnam aliquam quaerat voluptatem. Ut enim ad minima veniam, quis nostrum exercitationem ullam corporis suscipit laboriosam, nisi ut aliquid ex ea commodi consequatur.

At vero eos et accusamus et iusto odio dignissimos ducimus qui blanditiis praesentium voluptatum deleniti atque corrupti quos dolores et quas molestias excepturi sint occaecati cupiditate non provident, similique sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollitia animi, id est laborum et dolorum fuga.

Quis autem vel eum iure reprehenderit qui in ea voluptate velit esse quam nihil molestiae consequatur, vel illum qui dolorem eum fugiat quo voluptas nulla pariatur.

Continue Reading

News

Tesla Megapacks chosen for 548 MWh energy storage project in Japan

Tesla plans to supply over 100 Megapack units to support a large stationary storage project in Japan, making it one of the country’s largest energy storage facilities.

Published

on

Tesla-megapack-pilot-project-willowbrook-mall
Credit: Tesla

Tesla’s Megapack grid-scale batteries have been selected to back an energy storage project in Japan, coming as the latest of the company’s continued deployment of the hardware.

As detailed in a report from Nikkei this week, Tesla plans to supply 142 Megapack units to support a 548 MWh storage project in Japan, set to become one of the country’s largest energy storage facilities. The project is being overseen by financial firm Orix, and it will be located at a facility Maibara in central Japan’s Shiga prefecture, and it aims to come online in early 2027.

The deal is just the latest of several Megapack deployments over the past few years, as the company continues to ramp production of the units. Tesla currently produces the Megapack at a facility in Lathrop, California, though the company also recently completed construction on its second so-called “Megafactory” in Shanghai China and is expected to begin production in the coming weeks.

READ MORE ON TESLA MEGAPACKS: Tesla Megapacks help power battery supplier Panasonic’s Kyoto test site

Tesla’s production of the Megapack has been ramping up at the Lathrop facility since initially opening in 2022, and both this site and the Shanghai Megafactory are aiming to eventually reach a volume production of 10,000 Megapack units per year. The company surpassed its 10,000th Megapack unit produced at Lathrop in November.

During Tesla’s Q4 earnings call last week, CEO Elon Musk also said that the company is looking to construct a third Megafactory, though he did not disclose where.

Last year, Tesla Energy also had record deployments of its Megapack and Powerwall home batteries with a total of 31.4 GWh of energy products deployed for a 114-percent increase from 2023.

Other recently deployed or announced Megapack projects include a massive 600 MW/1,600 MWh facility in Melbourne, a 75 MW/300 MWh energy storage site in Belgium, and a 228 MW/912 MWh storage project in Chile, along with many others still.

What are your thoughts? Let me know at zach@teslarati.com, find me on X at @zacharyvisconti, or send us tips at tips@teslarati.com.

Tesla highlights the Megapack site replacing Hawaii’s last coal plant

Need accessories for your Tesla? Check out the Teslarati Marketplace:

Continue Reading

News

Elon Musk responds to Ontario canceling $100M Starlink deal amid tariff drama

Ontario Premier Doug Ford said, opens new tab on February 3 that he was “ripping up” his province’s CA$100 million agreement with Starlink in response to the U.S. imposing tariffs on Canadian goods.

Published

on

NORAD and USNORTHCOM Public Affairs, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Elon Musk company SpaceX is set to lose a $100 million deal with the Canadian province of Ontario following a response to the Trump administration’s decision to apply 25 percent tariffs to the country.

Starlink, a satellite-based internet service launched by the Musk entity SpaceX, will lose a $100 million deal it had with Ontario, Premier Doug Ford announced today.

Ford said on X today that Ontario is banning American companies from provincial contracts:

“We’ll be ripping up the province’s contract with Starlink. Ontario won’t do business with people hellbent on destroying our economy. Canada didn’t start this fight with the U.S., but you better believe we’re ready to win it.”

It is a blow to the citizens of the province more than anything, as the Starlink internet constellation has provided people in rural areas across the globe stable and reliable access for several years.

Musk responded in simple terms, stating, “Oh well.”

It seems Musk is less than enthused about the fact that Starlink is being eliminated from the province, but it does not seem like all that big of a blow either.

As previously mentioned, this impacts citizens more than Starlink itself, which has established itself as a main player in reliable internet access. Starlink has signed several contracts with various airlines and maritime companies.

It is also expanding to new territories across the globe on an almost daily basis.

With Mexico already working to avoid the tariff situation with the United States, it will be interesting to see if Canada does the same.

The two have shared a pleasant relationship, but President Trump is putting his foot down in terms of what comes across the border, which could impact Americans in the short term.

Continue Reading