Government Denies Blue Origin's Challenge To NASA's Lunar Lander Program (cnbc.com) 67
The U.S. Government Accountability Office on Friday denied protests from companies affiliated with Jeff Bezos that NASA wrongly awarded a lucrative astronaut lunar lander contract solely to Elon Musk's SpaceX. CNBC reports: "NASA did not violate procurement law or regulation when it decided to make only one award ... the evaluation of all three proposals was reasonable, and consistent with applicable procurement law, regulation, and the announcement's terms," GAO managing associate general counsel Kenneth Patton wrote in a statement. The GAO ruling backs the space agency's surprise announcement in April that NASA awarded SpaceX with a contract worth about $2.9 billion. SpaceX was competing with Blue Origin and Dynetics for what was expected to be two contracts, before NASA only awarded a single contract due to a lower-than-expected allocation for the program from Congress.
NASA, in a statement, said that the GAO decision will allow the agency "to establish a timeline for the first crewed landing on the Moon in more than 50 years." "As soon as possible, NASA will provide an update on the way ahead for Artemis, the human landing system, and humanity's return to the Moon. We will continue to work with the Biden Administration and Congress to ensure funding for a robust and sustainable approach for the nation's return to the Moon in a collaborative effort with U.S. commercial partners," the U.S. space agency said. A Blue Origin spokesperson told CNBC that the company still believes "there were fundamental issues with NASA's decision, but the GAO wasn't able to address them due to their limited jurisdiction."
"We'll continue to advocate for two immediate providers as we believe it is the right solution," Blue Origin said. "The Human Landing System program needs to have competition now instead of later -- that's the best solution for NASA and the best solution for our country."
NASA, in a statement, said that the GAO decision will allow the agency "to establish a timeline for the first crewed landing on the Moon in more than 50 years." "As soon as possible, NASA will provide an update on the way ahead for Artemis, the human landing system, and humanity's return to the Moon. We will continue to work with the Biden Administration and Congress to ensure funding for a robust and sustainable approach for the nation's return to the Moon in a collaborative effort with U.S. commercial partners," the U.S. space agency said. A Blue Origin spokesperson told CNBC that the company still believes "there were fundamental issues with NASA's decision, but the GAO wasn't able to address them due to their limited jurisdiction."
"We'll continue to advocate for two immediate providers as we believe it is the right solution," Blue Origin said. "The Human Landing System program needs to have competition now instead of later -- that's the best solution for NASA and the best solution for our country."
Good (Score:3)
Blue Origin is way behind SpaceX in terms of how far they can go.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The Loser or losers will sue the FG claiming that something was wrong with the FG's choice.
Usually, the contract decision is NOT changed and remains the same.
This behavior on the part of losing contractors is one (small) reason for the rising costs of running the FG.
I have seen these on the State and Local levels also but the Loser/s don't have the deep-pockets to sue every time.
The clear winners in this process are the Attorneys
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
> They can do soft landings and they have the tech to reach lunar orbit.
Is there any evidence they have that tech? Lunar orbit, and lunar landing, take roughly twice the energy per gram of payload needed for low earth orbit. So far, they've not launched anything that has reached lunar orbit, and their recent human launch only reached LEO.
The Apollo landings were a herculean effort, and expense, and there were many surprises during their design and testing. I'd not say they "have the tech" until they've d
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Nope, the detail is in the name. It's a lunar LANDER. The LANDER itself only lands hence the name. Even the Apollo lunar landers only landed and left the landing stage behind on the moon when the ascent module initiated.
Re: Good (Score:2)
New glen didn't even reach Leo. Blue origin basically made it to the safety line at the beach. Not swimming across an ocean.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
This is about building a moon lander though, not achieving orbit. How far behind in the development of that is Blue Origin exactly?
It is *also* about achieving orbit, because the National Team lander is supposed to be launched either on Vulcan-Centaur with Blue Origin's engines, or on Blue Origin's own New Glenn launcher.
It can launch on Atlas (Score:2)
This is about building a moon lander though, not achieving orbit. How far behind in the development of that is Blue Origin exactly?
It is *also* about achieving orbit, because the National Team lander is supposed to be launched either on Vulcan-Centaur with Blue Origin's engines, or on Blue Origin's own New Glenn launcher.
From Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]
Blue Origin's president Rob Meyerson said, in April 2017, that the lander could be launched with multiple launch vehicles including Blue Origin's New Glenn, the United Launch Alliance Atlas V, NASA's Space Launch System (SLS) rocket and ULA's next-generation Vulcan launch vehicle.
I still think this entire proposal was a big distraction for Blue, though. They didn't need to chase this and even if they got the bid it's unlikely it would help them bring their core product--orbital launches--to market any faster.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Besides, if BO really wanted this contract, there are other operational boosters they could support as contingencies. Like Falcon 9/Falcon Heavy.
Re: (Score:1)
Old Law School Advice (Score:5, Insightful)
"If you're weak on the facts and strong on the law, pound the law...
If you're weak on the law and strong on the facts, pound the facts...
If you're weak on both, pound the table."
Blue Origin haven't even reached orbit, let alone successfully completed a commercial mission to put something in space, yet this comes across as though they think that they don't have to prove any competency in space-based operations before they can expect to receive billions of dollars in public funds for a capability they don't possess and can't demonstrate.
The arrogance is breathtaking.
This isn't to say that NASA shouldn't be willing to award contracts to Blue Origin as a means to foster competition in the commercial lift market. That competition will keep prices down - and so far seem to come in well under the costs NASA would incur if they tried to do this themselves. Cough, SLS, cough. But it doesn't follow that in order to foster that competition, NASA need to start handing out contracts for lunar missions to a company that hasn't put it in orbit. Blue Origin need to prove they can crawl before they try to walk and well before they demand to be paid for running.
Even more, this idea that "if you lose a bidding contract, you go straight to court" has to be stopped. Blue Origin competed on the merits. If they had issues or concerns with the bidding process, they could have spoken out at any point in time prior to the award being announced. The fact they didn't strongly suggests that they had no issues with the process when they thought they would win. It is only after they have lost that they suddenly find fault with the process.
Suggestion for NASA: next time you put something out to contract, put some very clear language in your bidding documents to make it clear that your decisions are final. Put in language that says that the act of submitting a bid will be deemed acceptance to the bidding process terms. Stipulate that all parties who submit a bit agree to be bound by the stipulations of the bidding process, which includes a commitment to accept and be bound by the final decision. As an incentive, include a statement that indicates that whilst NASA won't necessarily counter-sue any company for breach of contract (unless that proves necessary, of course), any attempt to use legal complaints to over-turn a NASA contract award decision in this way will automatically disqualify bidders from any future NASA contracts.
And make darned sure that contract terms pay for delivery, that is on time, to specification and on or under budget. No more of this "cost-plus" crap, thank you very much.
Put it another way... Can you imagine someone going to interview for a job as an Amazon warehouse employee and saying, "Even though I don't work for you yet, I demand that you pay me my salary for the next three years, up front. As part of this payment, you also agree that if I don't work hard enough to perform to your expectations you will continue to pay me overtime and other costs in order for me to make up any short-fall. And no, I don't need to prove my capability to do the job, because although I've never done anything like this before, I'm sure I can learn."
Do we actually think Bezos or Amazon would hire that person?
No?
So why should Blue Origin expect NASA to do the equivalent? "Arrogant Ass-hats" doesn't even come close.
Re: (Score:2)
Can you imagine someone going to interview for a job as an Amazon warehouse employee and saying, "Even though I don't work for you yet, I demand that you pay me my salary for the next three years, up front. As part of this payment, you also agree that if I don't work hard enough to perform to your expectations you will continue to pay me overtime and other costs in order for me to make up any short-fall. And no, I don't need to prove my capability to do the job, because although I've never done anything like this before, I'm sure I can learn.
Oh yes. A friend of mine who owns a cleaning company sometimes complains about job applications that sounds much like the above. And the younger applicants are now also demanding "meaningful" work, and making demands about the company's moral stance on social issues.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
No one 'owe you their labor', if they only want to work for what they see as a 'socially responsible' employer, that's their business. The idea that 'desperate poverty' is somehow needed for capitalism to work is simply not true. Otherwise we should eliminate all inherited wealth and force every child to work from nothing
Re:Old Law School Advice (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No one 'owe you their labor', if they only want to work for what they see as a 'socially responsible' employer, that's their business. The idea that 'desperate poverty' is somehow needed for capitalism to work is simply not true. Otherwise we should eliminate all inherited wealth and force every child to work from nothing
Most people, as they mature, realize that a good honest job can be quite meaningful. It gives you the means and stability to live your life according to your conscience, while providing for your family and helping your coworkers and customers provide for theirs.
Re:Old Law School Advice (Score:5, Insightful)
And the younger applicants are now also demanding "meaningful" work, and making demands about the company's moral stance on social issues.
These kids go off to college and get sold some odd-duck degree that has "meaning" and value to them (like Art Criticism, or Drama Major), while being indoctrinated into thinking they are now blessed with a special education to match how special they are. They'll bring that worthless degree along with their Mom to the interview, demanding "meaningful" work with a six-figure salary, because that is what the college "professor" sold them they are worth.
Mass Narcissism creating Mass Arrogance, was never going to pan out well. Buckle up, because THAT problem, ain't going anywhere now that we have monetized it.
To the arrogant; You want meaningful work? Go volunteer in a 3rd world country then. Might be a nice wake-up call to see how lucky you really are. You'll also see what real moral and social issues are when you struggle to find clean water and one meal a day, because corruption took the rest.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I was with you till the last sentence. Third world countries have corruption because anytime a honest leader comes to power MNCs complain to the US govt to get rid of him. MNCs make more money when the local infrastructure sucks so that local Small companies cant compete with MNCs who can put up their own water wells, generators and transport services.
Never said American corruption was any better. It is simply better financed, by the taxpayer. Honest leader? We just had an incompetent leader installed by our system, along with an equally incompetent second-in-command. One piece of Hunter's first-time art collection, pays far more than their salaries, but I'll be damned if they won't leave office as multi-millionaires. Like Nancy "Insider Trade" Pelosi.
The Disease of Greed, has infected mankind for thousands of years, and unfortunately will likely be
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Government contracts don't exist to stroke billionaires egos.
Re: (Score:2)
May I suggest that billionaire egos are often a vital aspect of government contracts?
Re: (Score:1)
Well, if Bezos thinks he can build a fully working lunar lander for under 2.9B$ then that is pocket change for him so just do it Bezos and prove the world your great and then the order will flood into you. Too risky, then go back to Amazon and sell some more cheap china knockoffs and get your delivery drivers to piss into a few more bottles.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, very much this. If he can demonstrate a moon lander he will definitely have a leg up in future contracts..
But currently he is just a whining loser..
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Old Law School Advice (Score:5, Insightful)
But it appears that the Muscovites are steering us toward a single supplier for all things space.
It's not SpaceX's fault that they've been more capable lately than pretty much any other applicant.
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty sure it really is. Nobody is forcing them to hire excellent engineers and managers without decades of indoctrination into managing plodding, wasteful cost-plus government aerospace contracts.
I mean sure, theoretically nothing's stopping the "competition" from doing the same - but the fact that SpaceX started that way, and has managed to scale up dramatically without falling back on industry-standard practices is completely their own fault.
Re:Old Law School Advice (Score:4, Informative)
No... It's been a long string of successes.
BO submitted a bid, right? So, what are you talking about?
Re: (Score:2)
No... It's been a long string of successes.
This is the issue that I have with the Spacex fans. A weird kind of selective memory. Falcon 9 rapid disassembly. https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Crew Dragon destroyed during engine test. https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
I'll ignore the Falcon first stage landings and mishaps. Also the Starship tests - although there are some worrying launch fever aspects on occasion, like the FogLaunch that blew up. Given that video is a critical element - especially when it can help troubleshoot issues then a rocke
Re: (Score:3)
Seriously? A string of over 100 consecutive successful flights of Falcon 9 and 100% success rate for Dragon isn't a string of successes, because test articles were destroyed during testing?
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously? A string of over 100 consecutive successful flights of Falcon 9 and 100% success rate for Dragon isn't a string of successes, because test articles were destroyed during testing?
So if I get you correctly, you consider the Apollo1 fire to be inconsequential because it happened during testing?
I mean, it was only a test, amirite? So the three dead astronauts don't mean anything.
By the way, tell us how say, the launchpad explosion of the Falcon 9 was not possible to happen under a total launch scenario.
This is the problem of the Cult of Musk. They suffer from selective memory. Anything good is paraded around like proof of infallibility. Anything bad is at best dismissed as utte
Re: (Score:2)
Yes Apollo1 was a test but with humans onboard it needs to be treated better then if their was no humans on board.
Launchpad explosion of the Falcon 9:
Dragon is equipped with a LES to get the astronauts out of danger if it happens again.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm not saying that Blue Origin should not have the right to complain. I am sorry if that is how you read my first post. What I tried to say was that Blue Origin should not be permitted to enter in to a bidding process, ostensibly happy with the rules of that process until they lose. If there is something wrong with the bidding process, then Blue Origin should scream "Corruption!" from the rooftops - when the bids get published. They shou
Re: (Score:2)
"The arrogance is breathtaking."
Unfortunately thats par for the course with egotistical billionaire types. They all think they're the best and deserve to win regardless of the facts. You can see it in Bozos, Musk, Branson etc. 20 years ago it was Gates and Ellison.
Re: (Score:2)
. Cough, SLS, cough. But it doesn't follow that in order to foster that competition, NASA need to start handing out contracts for lunar missions to a company that hasn't put it in orbit. Blue Origin need to prove they can crawl before they try to walk and well before they demand to be paid for running.
To be entirely fair to Blue Origin, the SLS is a good argument in their favor. Lockheed has never built a manned space capsule, but NASA is giving them billions to do so. Boeing (and Rockwell Aviation, whom Boeing now owns) built most of the old space capsules, and most of the Space Shuttle. I guess they get enough money building the rockets, that NASA would spread the largesse around a bit more.
2.9B is fairly cheap (Score:5, Insightful)
We're talking a working moon lander here.
You don't just award 2.9B and *hope* it will deliver that.
There must also be some feasibility with getting it there, so yeah, I completely see less economical risk, that is less risk with tax-payer money, by going with a company that has a high probability that they can actually deliver.
Safety (Score:5, Interesting)
So the man who routinely tells his drivers to skip safety checks wants to build a lunar lander. No wonder NASA passed!
And yes, I’m aware that Bezos never told a driver that personally. But as CEO he is deemed to know that.
Swiped Left (Score:4, Funny)
The Government wasn't impressed by Bezos's dick pic.
What makes SpaceX so much Better than BO? (Score:2, Interesting)
While there's no debate that Blue Origin has a much steeper hill to climb to have a successful lunar lander, it's not like SpaceX has done anything close to landing on the moon or even leaving Low Earth Orbit.
Personally, I've always been a bit suspicious of SpaceX's approach of using a modified Starship - I have a hard time believing that the basic design is so good that it can be used as a cargo hauler, bringing people into orbit, providing tanker services, Mars transporter/lander as well as landing on t
Re: (Score:2)
You mean, like the actual NASA document [nasa.gov] that you could have found with Google? The one that has juicy bits like:
plainly stated, Dynetics’ proposal evidences a substantial negative mass allocation
I have an image that summarizes everything as mostly green and pink bullet points, with two red bullet points for National team, and one for Dynetics, but I can't find the original. There are four pink bullet points for SpaceX about the need for multiple rapid launches (of fuel tankers), but the other two are more than 50% pink.
Dynetics: Lacking test objectives violate demonstration requirements
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you - I didn't find that before.
So in answer to my question:
In light of these results, and the funds presently available to the Agency for Option A contract(s), my selection analysis must first consider the merits of making a contract award to the offeror that is most highly rated and has the lowest price-SpaceX-...
Re:What makes SpaceX so much Better than BO? (Score:4, Interesting)
it's not like SpaceX has done anything close to landing on the moon or even leaving Low Earth Orbit
I'm not even going to be bothered that you don't seem to understand the difference between LEO and geosynchronous orbit, and a lot of satellites have been put in GEO on a Falcon 9, but did you already forget that Musk launched his own freaking car into a solar orbit that reaches just beyond Mars? It's not his fault that aside from JPL, there isn't much call for going beyond Earth orbit in general. And right now SpaceX is the only thing launching humans from the United States.
And you're shrugging off that they haven't landed on the moon? Oh sure, that's so easy, anyone can do it, stupid Elon can't even do a simple thing like that?
You might want to review your own Dunning-Kruger status first.
Re: (Score:1)
it's not like SpaceX has done anything close to landing on the moon or even leaving Low Earth Orbit
I'm not even going to be bothered that you don't seem to understand the difference between LEO and geosynchronous orbit, and a lot of satellites have been put in GEO on a Falcon 9, but did you already forget that Musk launched his own freaking car into a solar orbit that reaches just beyond Mars? It's not his fault that aside from JPL, there isn't much call for going beyond Earth orbit in general. And right now SpaceX is the only thing launching humans from the United States.
There's a huge difference between getting a person into LEO versus beyond which was the point you seemed to have missed; I guess you feel like if Musk can get a car into solar orbit, he can do anything.
Re: (Score:3)
Falcon Heavy payload capacity for trans-Mars insertion: 16,800kg
Dragon Crew module empty weight: 4,200 kg
Dragon Crew payload capacity: 9,000 kg
3,600 kg remaining payload capacity over the 8,900kg payload inside the dragon after you take the weight of a human into consideration. I think they can fit whatever additional life support for a lunar orbit with 12,500kg to play with.
And that's based on the available payload for a trans-Mars trip. Just going to the moon will leave even more weight available.
They hav
Re: (Score:2)
> it's not like SpaceX has done anything close to landing on the moon or even leaving Low Earth Orbit.
Umm... they're routinely landing on Earth, which is far more challenging in most respects. The moon just adds the difficulty of not kicking up debris onto an escape velocity, and landing on an uneven surface.
They also have launched far beyond low Earth orbit - or perhaps you forgot the whole "Starman/Roadster" spectacle demonstrating mission capability traveling through the high-radiation Van Allen belt
Re: (Score:2)
Why would you think landing a Falcon 9 booster on Earth is "far more challenging in most respects" to landing a manned ship from lunar orbit and then returning it to Earth?
What SpaceX is proposing is to take a Starship (modified to land on the moon) from LEO, to the moon, land and return with a fully intact spacecraft. In comparison, Apollo left LEO with a CSM, LM and third stage (which massed 140,510 kg) and returned to Earth with just the CM which had a mass of 5,560 kg.
I don't think what SpaceX sugg
Re: (Score:2)
Landing is landing, it doesn't matter to the flight control systems what the payload is. Well, aside from setting maximum allowable acceleration limits. And lower gravity makes it easier to both land, and keep maximum accelerations down. And before you gripe about boosters not having payloads, a payload actually makes the job easier since it raises the center of gravity, akin to balancing an inverted broom on the palm of your hand - the more weight at the top of the inverted pendulum, the more stable it
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> it's not like SpaceX has done anything close to
>landing on the moon or even leaving Low Earth Orbit.
Yeah, musk grumbles about that every time he takes his roadster out for a drive.
Oh, wait . . .
What Now? (Score:1)
Just wait till JB goes full Karen on NASA
I want some pie! (Score:2)
Give me the money (Score:2)
I have the same track record of orbital rockets as blue origin.
Typical of Bezos (Score:1)