NASA is betting on alternatives, spreading Mars ambitions across multiple partners
In June 2026, NASA awarded Relativity Space — a 3D-printing rocket company now led by former Google CEO Eric Schmidt — a contract to build and launch a Mars orbiter carrying atmospheric instruments by 2028. The selection is less a routine procurement than a philosophical statement: that the agency believes the future of deep space exploration belongs not to a single dominant contractor, but to a constellation of competing visions. It is a calculated wager on potential over precedent, placed at a moment when humanity's relationship with Mars is still being written.
- Relativity Space has launched exactly one rocket in its history — and it never reached orbit — yet NASA is trusting it with a Mars mission two years away.
- The contract is a direct challenge to SpaceX's near-monopoly on commercial deep space work, signaling that NASA is actively engineering competition into its Mars strategy.
- Eric Schmidt's operational takeover of Relativity adds financial muscle and Silicon Valley credibility, but also raises questions about whether a tech mogul's ambition can substitute for hard-won aerospace experience.
- The Aeolus atmospheric instruments at the heart of the mission represent genuine scientific value — but they can only deliver that value if Relativity first solves the more fundamental problem of reaching orbit at all.
- The next 24 months will function as a public stress test: either Relativity proves the 3D-printed rocket model can scale to interplanetary missions, or NASA's diversification gamble becomes a cautionary tale.
NASA has selected Relativity Space to build and launch a Mars orbiter in 2028, carrying the agency's Aeolus instruments designed to measure atmospheric conditions on the Red Planet. The contract, announced in June 2026, is remarkable less for what it asks than for who it asks: a company with a single launch attempt on its record, and one that never reached orbit.
The decision reflects a deliberate strategic turn at NASA. SpaceX has long dominated commercial space contracts, but the agency is now spreading its Mars ambitions across multiple private partners. Relativity — founded on the unconventional premise of manufacturing rockets through 3D printing — becomes the primary vehicle for that diversification.
Eric Schmidt's presence sharpens the story. The former Google CEO took operational control of Relativity last year, marking his most direct role yet in the space industry. His involvement brings resources and visibility, but the company's core challenge remains unchanged: it must prove its rocket can reach orbit before it can credibly promise to reach Mars.
For NASA, the logic is pragmatic. Commercial partners cost less than in-house missions, and over-reliance on any single contractor creates strategic risk. By betting on Relativity, the agency signals it will accept execution uncertainty in exchange for a more resilient, competitive supplier landscape.
The contrast with SpaceX is pointed. Where SpaceX is building toward Mars with Starship's brute-force scale, Relativity is wagering on manufacturing elegance and specialization. Whether both models can coexist — or whether one eventually absorbs the other — is a question the next two years will begin to answer. If Relativity delivers, NASA's gamble looks visionary. If it stumbles, the harder question becomes whether the agency moved too quickly away from what it already knew worked.
NASA has handed a Mars mission to Relativity Space, the rocket company that Eric Schmidt took control of last year. The contract, announced in June 2026, asks the company to build and launch an orbiter bound for Mars in 2028. The spacecraft will carry NASA's Aeolus instruments, which measure atmospheric conditions on the Red Planet. It's a striking vote of confidence in a company whose track record is thin: Relativity has launched one rocket, and it never made it to orbit.
The decision represents a deliberate shift in how NASA approaches deep space exploration. For years, SpaceX has dominated the commercial space sector, winning contract after contract from the agency. Now NASA is explicitly betting on alternatives, spreading its Mars ambitions across multiple private partners rather than concentrating them with a single proven player. Relativity Space becomes the vehicle for that diversification strategy.
Schmidt's involvement adds a layer of intrigue to the arrangement. The former Google CEO has been investing in space ventures for years, but taking the helm of Relativity marks his most direct operational role in the industry. The company itself was founded on an unconventional premise: using 3D printing to manufacture rockets, a technology that promises to simplify production and reduce costs. Whether that promise translates into reliable deep space capability remains untested.
The Aeolus instruments themselves are the scientific anchor of the mission. These tools study Mars's atmosphere in ways that ground-based observation cannot. Getting them to Mars orbit in 2028 would represent a meaningful advance in planetary science. But the timeline is aggressive, and the execution risk is real. Relativity must not only prove its rocket can reach orbit—something it has yet to do—but also demonstrate it can reliably deliver a spacecraft across the 140-million-mile journey to Mars.
For NASA, the calculus appears straightforward: the agency needs multiple pathways to Mars, and commercial partners are cheaper than building and flying missions in-house. SpaceX has proven itself capable, but relying solely on one contractor creates vulnerability. By selecting Relativity, NASA signals that it will take calculated risks on less-established players if the terms are right and the technology shows promise.
The competitive dynamic is unmistakable. SpaceX has built its Mars strategy around Starship, a fully reusable super-heavy-lift vehicle designed for interplanetary missions. Relativity's approach is different—smaller, more specialized, reliant on manufacturing innovation rather than sheer rocket power. Whether both approaches can coexist, or whether one will ultimately dominate Mars logistics, remains an open question.
What's certain is that the space industry is no longer a two-player game, if it ever was. NASA's willingness to contract with Relativity despite its limited flight history suggests the agency believes the company can deliver. The next two years will test that belief. If Relativity reaches orbit and then successfully sends its Mars orbiter on its way, the decision will look prescient. If the company stumbles, it will raise hard questions about whether NASA moved too fast in diversifying away from proven contractors.
Citas Notables
NASA is explicitly betting on alternatives, spreading its Mars ambitions across multiple private partners rather than concentrating them with a single proven player— NASA's diversification strategy
La Conversación del Hearth Otra perspectiva de la historia
Why would NASA trust a company with one failed launch to fly a Mars mission?
Because Mars exploration is expensive, and NASA needs multiple paths forward. SpaceX has proven itself, but betting everything on one contractor is risky. Relativity offers a different approach—3D-printed rockets, lower costs, fresh thinking. Sometimes you have to take a chance on capability that hasn't been fully proven yet.
But Relativity's one rocket never reached orbit. That's not exactly a strong foundation.
True. But the company has backing, engineering talent, and a novel manufacturing process. NASA isn't betting blind—they're betting that the underlying technology is sound, even if the execution track record is thin. It's a calculated risk, not a reckless one.
What does Eric Schmidt bring to this beyond his name and money?
Credibility, connections, and operational discipline. Schmidt has been involved in tech ventures for decades. He's not a space engineer, but he knows how to scale organizations and navigate complex partnerships. For a company trying to prove itself to NASA, that kind of leadership matters.
Is this really about competition with SpaceX, or is it just NASA hedging its bets?
Both. NASA absolutely wants alternatives to SpaceX. But it's not adversarial—it's strategic. SpaceX will keep building Starship. Relativity will pursue its own path. If both succeed, NASA has options. If one stumbles, the other is there. That's the whole point.
What happens if Relativity fails to reach orbit before the 2028 deadline?
Then NASA will have to find another contractor or delay the Aeolus mission. It would be embarrassing for Relativity and a setback for NASA's Mars timeline. But it wouldn't be catastrophic—the agency has contingencies. The real question is whether Relativity can prove its technology works at scale, and soon.