Jeff Bezos' Blue Origin Sues NASA, Escalating Its Fight for a Moon Lander Contract (theverge.com) 117
Jeff Bezos' space company Blue Origin brought its fight against NASA's Moon program to federal court on Monday, doubling down on accusations that the agency wrongly evaluated its lunar lander proposal. From a report: The complaint escalates a monthslong crusade by the company to win a chunk of lunar lander funds that was only given to its rival, Elon Musk's SpaceX and comes weeks after Blue Origin's first protest over the Moon program was squashed by a federal watchdog agency. Now in court, Blue Origin's challenge could add another pause to SpaceX's contract and a new lengthy delay to NASA's race to land astronauts on the Moon by 2024.
Blue Origin's complaint, filed with the US Court of Federal Claims, was shrouded behind a protective order. The company is broadly challenging NASA's decision to pick SpaceX for the lunar lander award, and "more specifically ... challenges NASA's unlawful and improper evaluation of proposals submitted under the HLS Option A BAA," according to its request to file its complaint under seal. Blue Origin was one of three firms vying for a contract to land NASA's first astronauts on the Moon since 1972. In April, NASA shelved the company's $5.9 billion proposal of its Blue Moon landing system and went with SpaceX's $2.9 billion Starship proposal instead, opting to pick just one company for the project after saying it might pick two. Limited funding from Congress only allowed one contract, NASA has argued.
Blue Origin's complaint, filed with the US Court of Federal Claims, was shrouded behind a protective order. The company is broadly challenging NASA's decision to pick SpaceX for the lunar lander award, and "more specifically ... challenges NASA's unlawful and improper evaluation of proposals submitted under the HLS Option A BAA," according to its request to file its complaint under seal. Blue Origin was one of three firms vying for a contract to land NASA's first astronauts on the Moon since 1972. In April, NASA shelved the company's $5.9 billion proposal of its Blue Moon landing system and went with SpaceX's $2.9 billion Starship proposal instead, opting to pick just one company for the project after saying it might pick two. Limited funding from Congress only allowed one contract, NASA has argued.
What're the grounds? (Score:5, Interesting)
SpaceX has done impressive shit. Blue Origin hasn't done anything. What grounds are they contesting it on?
Re: (Score:2)
Bezos has plenty of money, if he had balls he'd pay for this himself and be standing on the moon the greet SpaceX when they arrived.
Re: What're the grounds? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
If Dynetics is cheaper, they absolutely should do this.
Re: (Score:3)
Really, they should do it anyway, Blue Origin's ship has the least long-term value of the three, while Dynetics could actually serve a complementary role to Starship.
Dynetics is developing a versatile, reusable lunar expedition platform with impressive sub-orbital potential in addition to surface-to-orbit capacity. Even after we've got a moon base with Starship-capable landing pads, Dynetics would still be an excellent way to send research, survey, and prospecting teams on suborbital flights to distant sit
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I just love this video [twitter.com] of Bezos lamenting the slowness of the current procurement process, compared to the times of the Apollo program.
"They were moving fast (...) there were nine comptitors for the lunar lander (...) and it was awarded to Grumman six months later. Today there would be, you know, tree protests, and the losers would sue the federal government, because they didn't win,..."
Re: What're the grounds? (Score:2)
divorce.
mrs bezos got his balls in the settlement
Re: What're the grounds? (Score:2)
divorce.
mrs bezos got Jeffâ(TM)s balls in the settlment
Proposed solution (Score:3)
One proposed solution to all this is to pay the companies after the fact.
Set up some verifiable target conditions, and pay the money to the first company that achieves them.
If that's too far in the future, you could set target conditions for specific milestones. In this case: first to launch a satellite to low orbit, first to launch to geosynchronous (or farther) orbit, first to hit the moon, first to land on the moon, first to land on the moon and come back...
Break the contract into sections and award the
Re:Proposed solution (Score:5, Insightful)
Surely, Jeff Bezos can crow about how his New Glenn technically beat Falcon to a landing back on earth surface from space, but Falcon and Falcon9 and Falcon Heavy have gone forward to actually deliver revenue producing payloads to orbit, and cargo & crew delivery to ISS on a regular schedule. This has freed NASA from reliance on Russian Space Agency for rideshare service on Soyuz. Where is BO? Finally last month sending the boss into LEO for 2 minutes.
Yes, Bezos has made a deal with ULA to buy BE-4 rocket motors for their next launch vehicle, but that is still vaporware and has yet to deliver anything even a foot above the ground. So neither BO nor ULA have convinced anyone that the new tech is trustworthy to provide orbital delivery service.
You're correct, make the contracts contingent on companies achieving targets and award then. If Bezos has the cash to casually toss $2B like I toss pennies, then he ought to spend that to launch a dozen flights carrying commercial payloads to LEO and GEO to show NASA and USAF/USSF it can deliver.
Re: (Score:3)
> Surely, Jeff Bezos can crow about how his New Glenn technically beat Falcon to a landing back on earth surface from space,
New Shepard. New Glenn doesn't exist yet.
And barely from space, not from near-orbital velocity like Falcon.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Proposed solution (Score:5, Insightful)
Where is BO? Finally last month sending the boss into LEO for 2 minutes.
Correct me if I am wrong, but BO hasn't even launched an ORBITAL vehicle yet, have they? All they have done is gone straight up and straight down. SpaceX has been there, done that already and got the T-shirt.
That is child's play compared to fielding an orbital vehicle,
Re: (Score:3)
As Khrushchev said comparing Gagarin's flight to Shepard's, "Around the world precisely, not just up and down."
Re: (Score:2)
Surely, Jeff Bezos can crow about how his New Glenn technically beat Falcon to a landing back on earth surface from space.
Actually, New Glenn has not flown as is still a paper rocket at this point. You mean New Shepard.
Finally last month sending the boss into LEO for 2 minutes.
LEO stands for Low Earth Orbit, all they did is go straight up and back down again which is peanuts compared to actually reach any orbit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Proposed solution (Score:2)
It's hard to see how Blue Origin has a leg to stand on here relative to SpaceX. SpaceX was founded at about the same time as Blue Origin (actually 2 years later), but has achieved many more milestones and demonstrated far more capability than Blue Origin since then. They're simply further along, and are routinely doing things that Blue Origin has yet to do even once (like go to LEO and actually orbit).
It appears on the surface like Blue Origin's approach will be less complex, but if that's true then why is
Re: (Score:2)
It's a bit like a fairy tale where whoever brings the most spectacular gift gets the hand of the princess in marriage. I'm pretty sure the runners up don't get their gifts back.
Re: What're the grounds? (Score:3)
Bezos is a sore loser who would rather whine because the lost than see anyone succeed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: What're the grounds? (Score:3)
Re:What're the grounds? (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah:
Option A) Land 2 people on the moon for a couple days, plant some flags, collect a couple rocks. Fly home. Burn blueprints when done as solution is exclusively for fulfilling NASA's lunar lander mission. $6B.
Project has no alternative customers. If it runs over budget NASA would need to depend on the goodwill of the client to keep shoveling money into it and not cut their losses or be bailed out from bankruptcy.
Option B) Land 20 people on the moon and an entire instant lunar base. Also the option to use the same architecture to replace the ISS, replace the SLS, affordably replace the HLS' lunar gateway station, put astronauts on Mars, slash launch expenses on every single other NASA project by a factor of 10, land a large permanent lunar base, build an orbital refueling depot for deep space missions and dramatically reduce the time to reach the outer solar system with the opportunity to build massive kick stages to boost probes' delta V. $3B
Project has a long line of commercial customers who contractor must appease besides NASA and cannot afford to fail.
Hmmm, I wonder which one NASA should pick?
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty much.
Though keep in mind, the Lunar Starship is a separate beast from the "general purpose" Starship. Starship, its orbital refueling functionality, outer-system potential, etc. will almost certainly come to pass regardless of NASA's contribution (assuming no HUGE problems)
The NASA Lunar Starship design is primarily focussed on the modifications specifically necessary for the moon - mostly those alternate high-mounted engines that will hopefully let it land without the Raptor engines launching debri
Re: (Score:2)
Bezos believes he's entitled to this contract since he's one of the richest men alive and can buy any and all members of Congress.
Re: (Score:2)
Easy. They got the DoD to cancel Microsoft's contract because that was meant for them. They won the NSA contract.
Thus, they should win NASA contract as well.
Count your blessings. (Score:2)
Sounds a bit like someone stepped on his 3rd big toe.
Come on Bezos, count your blessings. Just look at Boeing. You're still in the race and we love it.
Re: (Score:3)
To add to that. Just make a private financed moon landing then. Sure you can.
Wait, think saw a gimmick i have to order soon. Can't finish this post really; have to sponsor Space Race first. Please, go. Do it.
Re: (Score:2)
To add to that. Just make a private financed moon landing then. Sure you can.
Wait, think saw a gimmick i have to order soon. Can't finish this post really; have to sponsor Space Race first. Please, go. Do it.
I think the proper order is to get into orbit first, then figure out how to get to the moon...
Re: (Score:3)
I think the proper order is to get into orbit first, then figure out how to get to the moon...
Quite sure you can hire orbital launchers just from any, like Russia or SpaceX. A landing, on the other hand, takes some. Same profession, different expertises.
Things are changing (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Things are changing (Score:4, Insightful)
Seems basically Amazon vs...the world. Space, cloud, something else.
Re: (Score:2)
We'll know that Amazon is in control on the day that a Prime van rolls up to the white house to deliver a single roll of toilet paper.
Re: Things are changing (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Contracts have always been subject to applicable law. Contracts only exist because of the framework of law.
What's imbecilic is the vendor allowing wording in their contract which would allow a plausible legal challenge from the loser. That's known as NASA management lowballing their legal department.
The problem is that its cheaper for Bezos to present a legal challenge than it is for him to "lose" the contract. Because NASA is a gov't agency, there won't be enough institutional memory to hold a grudge th
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is that its cheaper for Bezos to present a legal challenge than it is for him to "lose" the contract. Because NASA is a gov't agency, there won't be enough institutional memory to hold a grudge the next time NASA opens bidding for a space contract.
If Blue Origin is passed over next time due to a grudge, they will sue and win. If they broke existing law, they need to be sanctioned in a way that disallows them from competing in subsequent RFPs. If they are merely acting in bad faith, there needs to be new legislation to prevent such bad faith obstructionism. As much as it pains me to say it, if there is merit to their suit, then it should move forward.
Re: (Score:3)
I haven't fully thought it through, but I'm toying with the notion of imposing liability for delays in projects caused by unsuccessful challenges to contract awards . . . the question is in what way to quantify the cost of the delay of the project not starting, or at least coming up with some kind of proxy for that.
Another possibility would be to alter the court rules for such challenges to have an *extremely* short period before a preliminary injunction type hearing (i.e., ten days or so) and no stay on th
Re:Things are changing (Score:5, Interesting)
1770's?
in 1773 The Boston Tea Party was about partly the fact that East India Company was granted a monopoly to sell tea to the Americas, where many of the Americans were going via different sources to get their Tea before, some where some of the wealthier Americans had some investments in.
It is actually common for companies to protest not getting a contract, especially if they feel they offered a better deal. However the rise of Ultra Mega Rich and Highly Charismatic CEO like that of Amazon, Space X, Facebook, Microsoft and their other companies, tend to get their own egos brought into the debate more than what use to just be a bunch of lawyers, dictating a bunch of small points.
What happens nearly all the time, but never makes the news, is when a small lesser known company sues to get a contract, because they went with a bigger company who will charge them more for the work, and also may not be specialized in the area they need to do. But the only criteria that made them choose the other company was how well their name was known.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure I'd characterize Bezos as "Highly Charismatic"
Re: (Score:2)
Well he tries to be. Often Charismatic people are not as Likable as they often think they are, but are usually good at getting a good group of followers behind them.
I wouldn't say Musk is Charismatic either, but he is able to get a bunch of fans of him too.
To the Courts and Beyond! (Score:2)
Indeed! Apollo project contractors didn't bicker like this, at least not publicly. They worked it out behind closed doors in a give and take way. Otherwise, the Eagle wouldn't have landed until the 80's. Maybe fear of Soviets made them cooperate? If we keep delaying in court, China will launch the next Sputnik and embarrass our ass again.
Re: (Score:3)
The good news is that SpaceX doesn't give a shit what bickering NASA and Blue Origin do on the sidelines. They're building Starship and Falcon Super-heavy regardless.
Injunction Unlikely (Score:2)
NASA will only have to wait for the litigation to complete if the judge issues a preliminary injunction requiring it. Given how cut and dry the GAO's decision against BO is, I find that highly unlikely.
Indeed (Score:4, Informative)
Indeed. When I assess a contract, I generally look at cost, level of service in the contract, and reliability of the company.
Bezos is apparently protesting that Nasa is putting all its eggs in one basket and should have selected two companies. To me, this immediately fails, because Congress only funded one attempt. Basically, Nasa doesn't have enough money to select two bidders to compete.
Next, cost. Space-X bid half that of BO. SpaceX wins.
Level of service: SpaceX's proposal is better than BO's. They're promising more.
Reliability: As many here have noted, SpaceX has actually put rockets into orbit, BO hasn't. Ergo, SpaceX wins.
Short of some truly epit bullshit, SpaceX wins at all points.
Re: (Score:2)
> When did it become mainstream for companies to start dictating government contracts and taking the government to court over its choice of contractors?
Didn't they set a bad precedent when he sued Government/Microsoft for hosting Cloud over AWS?
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty sure it's been that way all along, at least since companies have been allowed to sue the government. (Suing kings wasn't really allowed.)
Private enterprises can, and usually do, put clauses in the bidding documents like: We can award this to anyone we want whether you think it's fair or not. (paraphrasing)
Governments are generally required by law
Re: (Score:2)
No worries, the moon is not running away!
Re:Things are changing (Score:5, Funny)
Man, I haven't seen this kind of worship since the Israelites built a golden calf.
Re:Things are changing (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
"for" or "to"?
Exploiting his workers for humanity? Not paying corporate income taxes for 20 years after his startup, while making himself a millionaire, then a billionaire, and doing all of this by outdoing Walmart by being a front man for Chinese goods?
How would you know the person you replied to was living in his parent's basement and eating pizza rolls? Are you clairvoyant, or just a common stalker?
Re:Things are changing (Score:5, Funny)
Jeff, you can sign up for your own account instead of using the Anonymous Coward option.
Imagine this (Score:2)
happening during the first moon landing....
we'd still be in court, instead of on the moon.
C'mon Bozos, accept you lost with grace, and move on.
You insecure prick.
Re: (Score:3)
From FPI, dateline July 20 1969:
*** BREAKING NEWS ***
FPI has just learned that a temporary restraining order has just issued preventing separation of the lunar module from the Apollo orbital capsule.
Currently, two astronauts are in the LEM, and were minutes from leaving orbit for a landing.
FPI investigations show that a failed contractor filed suit, disputing the awarding of key systems in the LEM, claiming that for merely three times the price it could have developed a similar system, and that it will irre
This guy says losers sue the government. (Score:2)
Re:This guy says losers sue the government. (Score:5, Informative)
This guy talking to some TV anchor [twitter.com] was quite dismissive of losers suing the federal government. May be we should arrange for Jeff to meet this guy.
In context he said 'the [contract] losers would sue the federal government because they didn't win." He wasn't really calling people who sue the government losers. But it's still a revealing quote because they're doing what he was complaining about, which is slow down procurement. Just like Amazon did when MS was awarded the JEDI contract.
IF he loses. (Score:3)
I am suing too (Score:5, Funny)
I have the same record of getting rockets into orbit as blue origin, so why not?
Re:I am suing too (Score:5, Funny)
Hey, more of us can join, we can make it into a class action!
And Blue Origin's proposal was only 2X the cost of SpaceX. I can definitely come up with a proposal for 4X or more, surely more = better, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It might have looked like a rocket, but actually it was a sword.
Re: (Score:3)
so why not?
Because you don't have the money to sue. If you do and you're willing, sure go ahead. As I understand it (not a lawyer), anyone can sue anyone else for anything if they have the cash.
Eric Berger has theories (Score:3)
https://twitter.com/SciGuySpac... [twitter.com]
So why is Blue Origin doing this? Three theories I've heard:
CEO Bob Smith has been told he is fired unless he wins an HLS contract
Jeff Bezos is employing a "Burn the Ships" strategy
Bezos is counting on Congress to bail him out
Also says "Have spoken with two Blue Origin employees today. They are mortified by the recent "infographic spam" that has come from the company regarding NASA, SpaceX, and HLS. Opinion was mixed earlier, but now internally it is turning very much against the scorched Earth approach."
I have to imagine that the engineers in the trenches at BO probably would not feel great about this approach versus just giving them the means to actually build hardware.
He also floated the probably true rumor that Bezos is taking a page from SpaceX who I believe sued the USAF back in like 2005 in a similar situation where a sole contract was awarded to Kestrel for a rocket and they won thus getting some early money before even Falcon 1 was built. That is to say, it can be a winning strategy. The difference is the space market is wildly different than it was over a decade ago and NASA only has so much money before Congress steps in.
Here are some of the things BO complained about (Score:5, Informative)
https://www.businessinsider.com/how-spacex-beat-blue-origin-for-nasa-lunar-lander-project-2021-8 [businessinsider.com]
In response, the GAO pointed to NASA's limited funds for the mission. The group even took a stab at Blue Origin, saying NASA was not "required" to choose an applicant whose proposal NASA did not find attractive. In other words, NASA was not forced to take on two companies if it only found one company up to par.
Despite Bezos' offer to lower Blue Origin's $5.9 billion contract and take on $2 billion out-of-pocket, the GAO said NASA had found it "implausible" that the company could reduce its price without significantly changing its design.
Bezos said NASA had unfairly evaluated Blue Origin. For example, the company argued that it was not specified that the vehicle should be able to land in the dark. The GAO contended that NASA was not required to lay out all minute details, and Blue Origin should take into account the conditions on the moon or space itself â" which is dark.
Blue Origin also raised issue with the fact that SpaceX received extra points for developing a system that focused on the health and safety of the crew â" an objective that NASA had not made a requirement. The GAO said NASA had the freedom to choose which design function to prioritize.
Re: Here are some of the things BO complained abou (Score:4, Interesting)
The one o really like was this one:
Blue Origin also raised issue with the fact that SpaceX received extra points for developing a system that focused on the health and safety of the crew â" an objective that NASA had not made a requirement. The GAO said NASA had the freedom to choose which design function to prioritize.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For example, the company argued that it was not specified that the vehicle should be able to land in the dark. The GAO contended that NASA was not required to lay out all minute details, and Blue Origin should take into account the conditions on the moon or space itself, which is dark.
That has to be one of the more absurd contentions I've heard in awhile from a big boy company. Last time I checked it does get a bit dark out there...
Re: Here are some of the things BO complained abou (Score:2)
In their defense, half the moon is (almost) always illuminated, so it's not unreasonable to say "we're going to design our system to land on that half".
However, if a second company says "we'll land anywhere, whether it's well lit or not", that's clearly demonstrating more capability than the first company.
At the very least if I'm a NASA reviewer and considering the potential for problems during landing, I'd preferred the lander that can land regardless of light level. What if there's a problem and they nee
Re: (Score:2)
FWIW link to original GAO response.. sadly severely lacking in snark.
https://www.gao.gov/assets/b-4... [gao.gov]
Ouch... was that the moon?
Specifically, the protester contends that the Option A BAA did not specifically require offerorsâ(TM) HLS vehicles to be able to land in darkness or low light conditions. Agencies, however, are generally not required to identify all areas of each factor that might be taken into account in an evaluation, provided the unidentified areas are reasonably related to, or encompassed by, the established factors.
Blue Hindenburg v Space Farts...
Blue Origin makes no effort to explain why the specific concerns arising from its need to mature technologies associated with its proposed use of LH2/LO2 are equally applicable to or otherwise reasonably comparable to the necessary development associated with SpaceXâ(TM)s proposed use of methane propellant. Cf. id. (explaining that "thermal risks for propellant transfer and storage are reduced through the use of liquid oxygen and methane, which can be stored at a significantly higher temperature and greater bulk density than liquid hydrogen").
No I can't here you now...
With respect to SpaceX, the contracting officer noted that SpaceXâ(TM)s
proposal specifically addressed multipath degradation, both in terms of accounting (or "budgeting") for potential degradation in its calculations and design, and proposing specific mitigation approaches.
Therefore, while SpaceX's approach created a risk to successful performance, the risk did not rise to a level warranting the assessment of a significant weakness. Supp. COS (B-419783) at 31. In contrast, the contracting officer noted that Blue Origin essentially deferred addressing multipath degradation in its proposal.22 Specifically, the contracting officer pointed to Blue Origin's link budget which accounted for 0 dB of multipath loss.
Two clocks never gets old...
The protester, however, pointed out a "notable difference" between the Orion's and its proposed HLS's architecture, namely that Orion uses a 3-IMU architecture while the HLS will use a [DELETED] architecture. Id. To address potential dilemma situations arising with [DELETED], Blue Origin proposed to utilize [DELETED] to [DELETED]. Id. at 24167. Blue Origin's proposal represented that "these [DELETED] . . . will be developed and fly on Orion before being leveraged for HLS."
Re: (Score:2)
The whole thing *did* become funnier when I read the list of complaints . . .
Gosh, spaceX hasn't landed a Starship from orbit yet. I'm not sure I have enough fingers to count the ways in which that backfires . . . .
And, oh, dear, they *added* features, including [*shudder*] safety that weren't in the specs, all for lower price.
And how were we supposed to know it's dark in space?
hawk
Re:Here are some of the things BO complained about (Score:4, Informative)
Bezos said NASA had unfairly evaluated Blue Origin. For example, the company argued that it was not specified that the vehicle should be able to land in the dark. The GAO contended that NASA was not required to lay out all minute details, and Blue Origin should take into account the conditions on the moon or space itself -- which is dark.
I could not believe this was real so I actually went and looked at the GAO decision doc it self....and it is.
From the decision doc:
[P]ursuant to NASA’s requirements, the offeror’s planned mission will require landing in either darkness or low light conditions. As such, the offeror’s proposed TRN will not likely be able to provide the precision necessary to achieve an accurate landing in such conditions in accordance with NASA’s requirements. And, as a result, the offeror’s potential mission trajectories will be limited to those than can achieve a landing in areas with lighting conditions that are sufficient for the offeror to be able to utilize its TRN. This will in turn constrain the offeror’s landing sites and dates.
Oh and here is the safety bit:
For example, Blue Origin complains that NASA impermissibly relied on an unstated evaluation factor when it assigned SpaceX a strength for its “crew-centric” design that focuses on crew safety, health, and comfort. Specifically, the evaluators credited SpaceX’s design, noting several features including:
* Spacious crew accommodations that [DELETED];
* A [DELETED] configuration for [DELETED] of the mission, which will provide additional protection from [DELETED] by the crew;
* [DELETED] with dedicated [DELETED], which will enable the crew to [DELETED] and [DELETED] the vehicle while providing needed redundancy and crew resource management during high-workload landing tasks;
* A robust medical system including additional capabilities such as [DELETED]; and
* “[E]xceptionally detailed and mature” [DELETED], which “will greatly improve the operability and safety of the final Starship design.”
We think this representative example is exactly why discretion is due when NASA is seeking innovative research and development approaches to fulfilling important scientific and engineering objectives. In this regard, we find nothing unreasonable in NASA positively assessing SpaceX’s commitment to the health, safety, and comfort of the astronauts who will be traveling and working within the awardee’s HLS vehicle within the broader framework of the Option A BAA’s evaluation criteria and the Option A BAA’s request for innovative research and development solutions. Blue Origin’s disagreement that such considerations were not expressly contemplated by the solicitation or otherwise were inappropriate, without more, provides no basis to object to NASA’s evaluation.
Full Decision doc can be found here [gao.gov]
total idiot (Score:2)
NASA would very much like to have BO doing stuff for them, BUT, NASA does NOT NEED BO.
That is what is going to kill BO before they are really started.
This is what happens... (Score:3)
Jeff Bezos (Score:3)
I should too (Score:3)
I won't be going out on a limb by ... (Score:2)
predicting that Musk will simply ignore Bozo's court actions and will continue to work on his Starship with his own money. His primary objective is, after all, Mars, not the Moon.
Bozo, who hasn't even put anything into orbit or carried people to the ISS, deludes himself into believing he can land on the Moon cheaper than Musk by using a copy of the ancient Lunar Lander. All he has done is repeat the same suborbital flight 15 times with no one aboard, and once with him and his friends. Not much preparat
Re: (Score:2)
Given the speed of litigation, SpaceX could very well have already done a lunar flyby in the Starship (scheduled for 3 years from now) before the case concludes. Given its current track record, Blue Origin will likely still be putzing around with suborbital flights.
Re: I won't be going out on a limb by ... (Score:2)
Give the man some credit - he has now personally achieved the same milestones as a monkey and dog in the 1950s.
Correction - Bezos can't do it cheaper (Score:2)
Actually, one nitpick correction - Bezos doesn't believe that he can land on the moon cheaper. His bid was double that of SpaceX.
Technically, he wants to "share" with SpaceX, technically the same sort of solution as the ISS docking vessels. SpaceX and Boeing won on that, with Boeing charging substantially more and having substantially more problems, but theoretically would have meant that NASA would still have an ISS docking solution even if SpaceX shit the brick. In this case though, it's Boeing that ha
Suing your customers? (Score:2)
Never a good move.
Re: Suing your customers? (Score:3)
SHIT!
I've just been served papers for buying a hair dryer at Target instead of Amazon!
Similar but different to what happened with Amazon (Score:2, Interesting)
To some extent this looks similar to what happened with Amazon fighting Microsoft about the JEDI contract. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Enterprise_Defense_Infrastructure [wikipedia.org]. That was a massive government contract for cloud computing that went to Microsoft. Amazon sued over it, and kept throwing in so many legal issues that eventually the government just gave up, canceled the whole program, and issued a new program which was essentially guaranteed to have some parts for Amazon, some for Microsoft and so
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt it will delay NASA's goals because SpaceX are developing Starship with or without the contract with NASA. All NASA is getting is a modified Starship that can land on the moon, which is why SpaceX is so much cheaper. However at this point in time SpaceX are no where near working on a modified Starship. You don't start working on a modified Starship till you have a fully functional one in the first place which SpaceX don't yet have. Hence no delay. Besides Musk would probably just keep working on it
On the grounds his penismobile is too small (Score:4, Funny)
Bezos is just jelous (Score:2)
That Spacex is much more advanced and cooler than blue origin, and blue origin wont survive without some money headed it's way.
They don't even want the contract!! (Score:2)
Taxpayers paid for that court system and NASA (Score:2)
These companies and the people in them don't seem to mind using the services we taxpayers paid for in the court system and NASA.
Pay your share and stop being a parasite.
Use your own money (Score:2)
Just no.. (Score:2)
Since I don't have a megayacht . . . (Score:2)
I will definitely devote more of my time to my vaporware rocket company that Bezos has to his company that has vaporware rockets. Maybe I should get a moon landing contract. Also, I promise not to let any "Alive Girls" distract me.
Re: (Score:3)
This is why NASA should just do everything itself - yes, suposedly private companies are "more efficient" ($$$ wise) than big, big government (oh no!), but then this type of crap happens, and just ends up being a colossal waste of time, additional money and energy.
There is very little NASA actually built for any of their space programs. It was almost all contracted out to pork barrel companies in many, many states.
"You know we're sitting on four million pounds of fuel, one nuclear weapon and a thing that has 270,000 moving parts built by the lowest bidder. Makes you feel good, doesn't it?"
Re: (Score:2)
You wanna to compare brain-pans?
So what's different now? (Score:1)
There is very little NASA actually built for any of their space programs. It was almost all contracted out to pork barrel companies in many, many states.
Did this crap happen in the Apollo days? Or is it just because we have filthy rich entitled Bozos (pun totally intended) trying to compensate [yahoo.com] now?
Re: (Score:3)
In terms of today's dollars, NASA spent $280 billion just on the Apollo program -- 1960 to 1973. Note, that this does not include the F-1 engine design and initial testing which was mostly done in the 1950s. With that much money bouncing around, you can bet some people got rich off it. Reference: https://www.planetary.org/spac... [planetary.org]
If NASA sustained that sort of budget until today .. we would have so many people on Mars by now that colonists might be trying to form independence movements over there.
By "crap" I meant lawsuits (Score:1)
Sorry, probably should've been more clear - by "Did this crap happen in the Apollo days?" I mean contractors suing NASA about awarded contacts.
I did know that in the "earlier" days of NASA most stuff was built on contracts - I'm mostly stating that perhaps they should just do it themselves now, since awarding contracts seem to be more trouble than it's worth these days (also true for other agencies ie NSA).
Re: (Score:2)
Did this crap happen in the Apollo days? Or is it just because we have filthy rich entitled Bozos (pun totally intended) trying to compensate [yahoo.com] now?
All three stages of the Saturn IV were built by different companies, which really does seem like they either went lowest bidder (standard for government contracts) or went through all the different manufacturers in order to get it done on time (plausible given the fire lit under NASA's butt at the time). I'm not expert enough to know the motivation for sure.
Re: (Score:2)
You're clueless. This is the way its always been. NASA have very little institutional holdings (just intellectual property, and the engineers it hires). Every rocket and space project has been put up for bid to private companies, and that includes the entire Apollo program.
Re: (Score:1)
As opposed to NASA itself wasting money and pissing it away with zero accountability and competition?
Re: (Score:2)
Oh they don't piss that money away alone, the pass it on to other companies like Boeing or Lockheed Martin that are really good at wasting government money. The real difference is NASA usually sets the requirements and then contracts for a rocket. SpaceX is different because it built the rocket first and then filled the contract. The difference is billions of dollars in waste.
Re: NASA shoudln't do contracts (Score:2)
And congress wonâ(TM)t work together with them and the media why? You assume congress wonâ(TM)t be getting kickbacks and other benefits. Besides, they have a ton of other things to investigate .. like, their opponents. Congress gains nothing when NASA looks bad, they can shuffle some deck chairs and that is about it.