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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
NASA Space Moon

NASA Suspends SpaceX's $2.9 Billion Moon Lander Contract After Rivals Protest (theverge.com) 88

NASA has suspended work on SpaceX's new $2.9 billion lunar lander contract while a federal watchdog agency adjudicates two protests over the award, the agency said Friday. The Verge reports: Putting the Human Landing System (or HLS) work on hold until the GAO makes a decision on the two protests means SpaceX won't immediately receive its first chunk of the $2.9 billion award, nor will it commence the initial talks with NASA that would normally take place at the onset of a major contract. Elon Musk's SpaceX was picked by NASA on April 16th to build the agency's first human lunar lander since the Apollo program, as the agency opted to rely on just one company for a high-profile contract that many in the space industry expected to go to two companies.

As a result, two companies that were in the running for the contract, Blue Origin and Dynetics, protested NASA's decision to the Government Accountability Office, which adjudicates bidding disputes. Blue Origin alleges the agency unfairly "moved the goalposts at the last minute" and endangered NASA's speedy 2024 timeline by only picking SpaceX. "Pursuant to the GAO protests, NASA instructed SpaceX that progress on the HLS contract has been suspended until GAO resolves all outstanding litigation related to this procurement," NASA spokeswoman Monica Witt said in a statement.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

NASA Suspends SpaceX's $2.9 Billion Moon Lander Contract After Rivals Protest

Comments Filter:
  • by He Who Has No Name ( 768306 ) on Saturday May 01, 2021 @02:11AM (#61334820)

    Is that the Lunar Starship won't have a NASA meatball on it when it lands on the moon. That's it. Bezos has accomplished less than nothing; he's held others back to the level of his own failure.

    What a shmuck.

    • Seems like they are in rapid prototyping for Starship as is. If they make it to the moon without nasa money it will be crazy.
    • by ShanghaiBill ( 739463 ) on Saturday May 01, 2021 @02:52AM (#61334868)

      Indeed. Someday, Jeff Bezo's page in the Encyclopedia Galactica will remember him as a pothole on the road to the stars.

      • by Rei ( 128717 )

        Jeff who?

        • He is the 'other guy' who isn't your personal hero.

          • No. He is "The Other Guy" who talked about moving all industry into space but couldn't achieve orbit in over 20 years while going from one of the richest men in the world to THE richest man in the world. Then complained about not getting NASA contracts. That is why he is "Jeff Who?"

            The guy he "competes with" went from gambling everything on his space company to being the leading private company in space. His company has a partially reusable space craft in use with manned orbital capability and is worki

    • Long ago, SpaceX decided that travelling to the Moon didn't add anything to their plans for Mars. The lower gravity and lack of any atmosphere means that they wouldn't learn anything useful from landing on the Moon.

      So, without NASA's plans to land on the Moon, SpaceX won't go to the Moon. They will continue with Starship development, for orbital launches and Martian travel, but anything specifically for the Moon - like high thrust hot gas thrusters for a Lunar landing and the specific lunar starship without
      • by CrimsonAvenger ( 580665 ) on Saturday May 01, 2021 @05:38AM (#61335062)
        Ahh, but Luna could very well add quite a bit to Mars missions. If nothing else, it allows you to dispense with lifting most of his Mars-bound fuel out of Earth's gravity well. 85% of his methane-LOX fuel can come from the Moon (everything but the Carbon can be found on the Moon).

        And LEO is closer to the Moon than to the Earth, when you look at energy/fuel required to get there....

        • If you just want Raptor fuel for Mars missions, moon is not that helpful becuse of that lack of carbon. And if you have to drag a carboneacous asteroid into lunar orbit make CH4, then why not drag one with ice in it into Earth orbit and make the methane in Earth orbit?

          • If you lift the carbon from Earth, and get the oxygen and hydrogen from the Moon, you come out way ahead on the whole "fly to Mars" thing.

            And if you're using hydrogen and oxygen for fuel, you can get it all from the Moon.

            Either way, it's going to be, in the long run, a lot cheaper to get to Mars if you're not lifting anything more than you absolutely have to out of Earth's gravity well....

        • This would require them to invent a method of extracting and refining that fuel on the Moon. If you look at time, effort, and cost of doing this, it would be insane to even think about starting this sort of project until you're running weekly service to Mars at a hefty profit. It would be like the Wright brothers building the Dubai airport in 1905 - Eventually it would make sense, but it's not even close to the right time to do it, and is a tremendous waste in every way to do so.

          The ISS cost over $150 billi

        • "And LEO is closer to the Moon than to the Earth, when you look at energy/fuel required to get there...."

          Only if you ignore the energy/propellant required to stop there. It takes about as much to brake into low lunar orbit as it does to go to Mars, where you can use the atmosphere for braking and only need enough propellant for a short landing burn.

          And of course, lunar propellant requires a massive lunar propellant mining/processing facility, as opposed to just sending up a tanker from Earth. Lunar propella

    • What Bezos wants is to land a robot on the moon that will carve out a huge... no make that really huge Amazon Logo on the surface. As long as it is visible without a telescope, he'll be happy, very happy.

      Welcome to planet Amazon people. Your Bezos overlord is coming to indoctrinate you into the cult.

      The rival cult of Musk will not be happy.

      • What Bezos wants is to land a robot on the moon that will carve out a huge... no make that really huge Amazon Logo on the surface.

        If that is what he is trying he needs to read his Heinlien.

    • It seems he was born with a spoiled silver spoon in his mouth. Remember when he lost that cloud contract with the pentagon? Same whining, same crying, same protests. Either stop letting him bid or stop placating his "Im taking my ball and going home" tantrum. Its getting ridiculous, put the spoiled bitch in a corner for a timeout.
      • by hawk ( 1151 )

        In this case, it's more, "I'm taking *his* ball and going home' . . .

        the problem with this appeals is that they delay projects by years, not weeks.

    • Is that the Lunar Starship won't have a NASA meatball on it when it lands on the moon.

      Musk could plant his flag and declare the moon Muskville; and let the lawyers fight it out over international treaties while he builds Musktown.

  • Well, 2024 looked iffy, at the best of times. The litigation will take long enough that 2024 is, as we used to say Right Out.

    And by the time the various branches of government sort this out, we'll be well past 2024 (if it works like most legal wrangling, we won't see a Lunar landing again in my lifetime.

    Unless the Chinese can manage one....

    • by JaredOfEuropa ( 526365 ) on Saturday May 01, 2021 @02:41AM (#61334864) Journal
      That's the funny thing: NASA "moved the goalposts at the last minute and endangered NASA's speedy 2024 timeline by only picking SpaceX". So let's meet that 2024 deadline by getting the lawyers involved and halting all work until they get things sorted out? I get why BO would be pissy about not being awarded the contract, but please spare us the fake narrative.
      • by backslashdot ( 95548 ) on Saturday May 01, 2021 @03:26AM (#61334898)

        Now they may have to split the $2.3 billion three ways .. meaning nobody will have enough money to get it done. Think about it, an modern airplane takes about $10 billion in investment to development .. and that's known technology. This spacecraft has to be just as safe and well tested. $2.3 billion isn't even a lot of money in that context.

        • It doesn't have to be "just as safe". Crew Dragon had an estimated probability of failure of of 1/276. (versus the Space shuttle probability of failure of 1/68). Both of those numbers are nowhere near as safe as an airliner.

      • No, when the government violates the rights of contract bidders, those parties are not obligated to protect the government from the consequences of seeking justice.

        Nor are their attempts to achieve justice required to actually mean justice for the government; they're allowed to seek justice for themselves.

      • by robbak ( 775424 ) on Saturday May 01, 2021 @04:10AM (#61334966) Homepage
        None of the others has a chance of making 2024. Dynetics couldn't get their paper designs, let alone actual hardware, under their mass limits; Blue Origin is yet to develop a rocket to launch to orbit.

        SpaceX is moving fast, and I'd back them to at least get their part of it ready for flight within 3 years. Whether Boeing can have the SLS stack ready by then, or LockMart and Airbus can have an Orion Spacecraft is less certain. But even then, you can tweak the Starship system to do the mission without SLS.

        B.O. and Dynetics argument seems to be that NASA could have broken up the payment between the three companies, essentially paying 2/3 of the money for systems that won't be used, shredding funding for whatever system might end up being used, and pushing the launch date out indefinitely.
        • I do not want a single 'brand' to be the only entity the government can go to. Particularly if it's a 'brand' that mostly has just been savvy in slurping up government incentives and subidies in one of their other pursuits.

          Government stuff is supposed to be deliberative. The hustle-hustle attitude like a 2024 deadline is not the way government should be run.

          • Selling a good or service to the government at a significantly reduced cost than they would be able to buy it from anyone else is the exact opposite of a subsidy. SpaceX is saving NASA money when NASA pays them for a launch. Are you seriously arguing NASA should pay more for launches because you don't like the one guy heading the company who can deliver for cheap? Anyone else is welcome to match prices, but until they do, NASA gets the best value for their money with SpaceX. It's not a difficult formula -

          • The hustle-hustle attitude like a 2024 deadline is not the way government should be run.

            I seem to recall a President setting a deadline like this before and the US met the challenge. It went like this [wikipedia.org]:

            We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard; because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one we intend to win, and the others, too.

            The US landed on the Moon 7 years later.

            • I seem to recall a President setting a deadline like this before and the US met the challenge. It went like this [wikipedia.org]:

              I remember another President who wanted to go to the moon in 4 years because he wanted to ensure it was done while HE was in office, when that was impossible he was much less interested in it even when it MIGHT be done at the very end of his hypothetical 2nd term (which he didn't get).

              Other Presidents started their terms by cancelling the prior Presidents space plans then ended their own with big plans which of course their successor cancelled.

          • More competition would definitely be nice, but it has to actually be competitive. The other potential providers for this contract wanted double to triple what SpaceX is willing to do it for while providing far less capable craft. And this after SpaceX received 2/4 times LESS than what the others received in the initial development stage (BO: $579M, D: $253M, SX: $135M). It would seem to me that NASA already threw BO and Dynetics a line to the tune of over $800m,and the only thing they got for it were ske

    • The litigation will take long enough that 2024 is, as we used to say Right Out.

      Pedantic nitpick: Although the summary describes the dispute as "litigation", it is actually an administrative review run by bureaucrats, not judges.

      • Pedantic nitpick: Although the summary describes the dispute as "litigation", it is actually an administrative review run by bureaucrats, not judges.

        I was thinking more in terms of "if we lose, we sue" (all parties involved).

        And both BO and Dynetics want this to take a long time. Because that gives them more time to actually develop something that looks vaguely like a Lunar Lander.

        • I just don't understand the attitude that 2024 is a do or die deadline. Is there some big problem with the idea of there being more than one viable lunar lander desigh?

          Perhaps no government money should go to any of them if it means only one design will be completed.

          However, we know how badly Musk will do in any endeavor without money from the government.

          • I just don't understand the attitude that 2024 is a do or die deadline.

            The likelihood of a NASA hardware development program being canceled, delayed, or the mission success criteria changed dramatically increases radically with each new administration. If they don't get it substantially done by 2024 then "it" will likely be cancelled or changed so significantly as to make it unrecognizable.

            It's okay. The Russians sold us rides to ISS for a decade. Maybe we can hitch a lift to the moon too.

          • It is an incredible waste of time and money designing two when you will only use one. This would be like Boeing designing two complete separate new aircraft when they know they will only produce one, or a car manufacturer doing something similar. Why? What possible benefit would justify doubling the development costs when it produces the same end result?

        • I was thinking more in terms of "if we lose, we sue" (all parties involved).

          And both BO and Dynetics want this to take a long time. Because that gives them more time to actually develop something that looks vaguely like a Lunar Lander.

          Not really. Neither wants to spend their own money that has no guarantee of being paid back (with profit) by the government. They might spend some money rewriting the design proposal but not on solid design work or prototype building.

          SpaceX work on Starship is part of other goals and only incidentally works for Lunar Starship. They won't likely do any work that is only for Lunar Starship until they have the contract but will continue other Starship work that will also be needed for the Lunar Starship.

      • That's a False Pedanticism, the phrasing merely implies that they've received notice that parties have indicated that they will sue if their rights are not restored, and requested documents be retained. So there is litigation at issue, even if no lawsuits have yet been filed.

      • by q_e_t ( 5104099 )
        That's designed to be a faster, lower cost option for the government (and everyone, to be fair) by hopefully avoiding litigation.
  • by backslashdot ( 95548 ) on Saturday May 01, 2021 @02:24AM (#61334836)

    I have gotten just as many things into orbit as Blue Origin, whereâ(TM)s my slice of the pie?

  • The only reason for picking 2024 was that Trump wanted to be President when the US returned humans to the moon. It was all about his ego, and wanting to one up Obama. It made no sense from a scientific, economic, or even political point of view.

    Even when JFK announced the US was going to the moon, the timeline was a decade and he knew he would be out of office if the goal was met. And that was when there was effectively an unlimited budget. Given how science budgets are limited these days, achieving a moon

    • Well, then the delay suites him well: it might actually happen under his precidentcy now.
    • Even when JFK announced the US was going to the moon, the timeline was a decade and he knew he would be out of office if the goal was met. And that was when there was effectively an unlimited budget.

      The U.S. spent close to $35 billion on NASA in the 1960s and $168 billion on the Vietnam war. Which admittedly ran until 1973 but shows where the number one priority was. Might also indicate why the space program was curtailed in the 1970s. That $168B in today's money would be $1 trillion, less than half the cost of the war in Afghanistan. You could have already gone to Mars and had a chain of Howard Johnson's up there by now.

      • Even when JFK announced the US was going to the moon, the timeline was a decade and he knew he would be out of office if the goal was met. And that was when there was effectively an unlimited budget.

        The U.S. spent close to $35 billion on NASA in the 1960s and $168 billion on the Vietnam war. Which admittedly ran until 1973 but shows where the number one priority was. Might also indicate why the space program was curtailed in the 1970s. That $168B in today's money would be $1 trillion, less than half the cost of the war in Afghanistan. You could have already gone to Mars and had a chain of Howard Johnson's up there by now.

        Yea, but war is more profitable.

    • The only reason for picking 2024 was that Trump wanted to be President when the US returned humans to the moon.

      Putting aside the motives (about which you are correct), this program is actually moving forward. Possibly due to how hard Trump pushed it, it has enough momentum to not immediately die after the next Administration took office, and that's not nothing.

  • And now they will force others to do nothing too

  • Okay, so we've seen (and China will never let us forget) how poorly the U.S. and Western democracies performed under the pandemic. With a death toll passing 600,000 and infections in the millions it is clear that some of the virtues of democracies, like no (or low) levels of censorship and tribal politics led to people believing stupid conspiracy theories. This directly led to people not adhering to the simplest and most basic health practices (why is wearing a mask worse than a seat belt? It's actually

    • by misnohmer ( 1636461 ) on Saturday May 01, 2021 @07:27AM (#61335212)

      The best argument against democracy is a quick scan through social media such as Facebook or Twitter. In order to drive a car, you need to pass some basic applicable skills and knowledge test, in order to drive a country (by voting) there are no such competency tests. Even the elected officials have no competency prerequisites, so we end up with ones who win popularity contests regardless of their qualifications to do the job.

      • by mykepredko ( 40154 ) on Saturday May 01, 2021 @08:49AM (#61335326) Homepage

        The best argument against democracy is a quick scan through social media such as Facebook or Twitter. In order to drive a car, you need to pass some basic applicable skills and knowledge test, in order to drive a country (by voting) there are no such competency tests. Even the elected officials have no competency prerequisites, so we end up with ones who win popularity contests regardless of their qualifications to do the job.

        I'm guessing that the voter "qualifications" you're looking is that they have the same background as you and think like you.

        In the other systems the "elected leaders" simply demonstrate a willingness to trample over everyone else, regardless of the cost including taking away the "qualified" electorate's right to vote.

        Seeing your comment reminds me of the Churchill quote:

        No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.

        • I know what you're thinking - a danger of political indoctrination through "voter training". That definitely should be kept in mind, but no, that is not what I meant. I meant basic training for voters, facts (not opinions) how the political system works so that nobody is puzzled by electoral vote system and such. Some basic history too, akin to citizenship tests given to new potential citizens. Perhaps some basic logic and critical thinking, along the lines of, e.g. "If A then B" doesn't mean if "B then A"

      • That's why I support mandatory voting.

      • Now do non-democracies.
    • The axis is Authoritarian vs. Libertarian. The first is "the ends justify the means". Mao murdered 50-million Chinese "for the common good". The latter is "the means justify the ends". Liberty is supposed to be "better that ten guilty men go free than one innocent man is wrongly accused."

      In Freedom, outcomes are not guaranteed. "It's a dangerous way of life, but it is ours."

      Democracy, though, leads to people clamoring for safety and handouts, which is why all the great thinkers for millenia have dispar

      • by ghoul ( 157158 )
        Lets run the country based on Facebook opinion polls. More people would vote on facebook than show up at the polls. Zuckerberg has far more data on you than the govt in order to prevent voter fraud.
        • Wish I had mod points; satirical but deep since it’s laced with a vein of truth, all in 3 short sentences. Well played!

  • Maybe they could make it a competition instead - whichever company builds a working lander first and passes NASA's tests (perhaps lands a few of NASA's crush test dummies on the moon and brings them back safely), wins the whole $2.9bn. Both Musk and Bezos have plenty of net worth to finance such a project. The losing company still ends up with valuable technology they can sell to other interested parties.

  • So will the additional costs incurred by the delay in work caused by this 'protest' be paid for the companies that launched the grievance?

    Or will they be the ones chanting 'See! It cost more than they (SpaceX) said it would' years down the road?

    Also, will the investigator simply ask Bezos if Amazon would pick an unproven contractor over a proven one? Yeah, not for one instant. Never has, never will.

  • I'm not sure what Blue Origin/Dynetics hope to accomplish with this (besides publicity). Both of their designs were way more expensive than the SpaceX option, far less capable and far more than NASA could currently afford regardless. NASA's options appear to have been either chose SpaceX, choose no one or chose 2 (maybe even 3) contracts and run the very real risk of not having enough money to do anything. NASA appears to have gone with the more pragmatic approach, chose the ONLY one they could afford an

  • Only Northrop Grumman has significant heavy lift experience with missile as well as commercial and military satellite launch over decades; every other company is playing in the kiddy pool in comparison.
    • Er...NGSS doesn't have any heavy lift experience. The closest they get is that Northop Grumman bought the company (a few mergers removed) that made the Shuttle boosters. They're making the SLS boosters as well, but the core that does most of the work is Boeing's. For a while they worked on a Shuttle-derived medium-heavy vehicle, but gave up on it when the USAF decided not to use it.

      ULA and SpaceX are the only US companies with currently operational HLVs (SpaceX having the only operational superheavy launch

    • by k6mfw ( 1182893 )

      missile as well as commercial and military satellite launch over decades;

      Cannot use experience from past decades. Tom Kelly and his team at Grumman, others at North American, etc. they're all dead or longtime retired and much of that infrastructure was dismantled. When looking at heavy lift, we need to see who can do what now or soon. Next question is sustainability as that is important. We don't want to follow the Apollo program model (it worked great for task back then).

  • This is not a surprise at all. Every major federal contract is challenged by the losers either in hopes the winner will pay them off, possibly with a sub-contract, or that the government will re-open the process. Most of the time, the losers get a chunk of the business or direct payment to keep quiet. When a contract is worth billions, a few million for lawyers is a good investment.

  • Elon Musk invested his own money to develop inexpensive and reliable recyclable space transportation. His bid for the work was half of his major competitor, Jeff Bezos, who likes to sue when he doesn't get awarded a government contract. While there is rocket science here, the bidding process is not. Half price for a proven product compared to one still under development is a deal any idiot would see as a good thing. "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough."--Albert Einstein

Philosophy: A route of many roads leading from nowhere to nothing. -- Ambrose Bierce

Working...