![]() ![]() The suit points out that while the Government Accountability Office (GAO) ultimately ruled in NASA/SpaceX’s favor, the office mentions that SpaceX did not meet that requirement, stating: “NASA ignored its contemporaneous documents and argued to GAO that a FRR was not required prior to each launch element.” In other words, SpaceX’s initial proposal was unawardable.” It’s part of the core of the argument that SpaceX was allowed to bypass certain regulations: “The waiver of thirteen (13) Flight Readiness Reviews permitted SpaceX to propose a technical solution that included sixteen or more launches in a launch cadence the Contracting Officer admitted was logically inconsistent with the Solicitation’s requirement for one Flight Readiness Review prior to each launch. The term Flight Readiness Review comes up repeatedly in the filings. “Historically a staunch advocate for prioritizing safety, NASA inexplicably disregarded key flight safety requirements for only SpaceX, in order to select and make award to a SpaceX proposal that NASA’s evaluation team assessed as tremendously high risk and immensely complex, even before the waiver of safety requirements,” the filing says. But Blue Origin alleges what amounts to favoritism, claiming NASA allowed SpaceX to bypass some procedures. However, while the original plan called for two selections, congressional appropriations only gave enough funding for one - which ultimately went to SpaceX. That decision broke the mold of NASA’s successful commercial space programs by putting an end to meaningful competition for years to come.” In an open letter in July, Blue Origin founder Jeff Bezos wrote: “Instead of investing in two competing lunar landers as originally intended, the Agency chose to confer a multi-year, multi-billion-dollar head start to SpaceX. ![]() Blue Origin believes NASA shut out competition ![]() Here are four essential facts gathered from Blue Origin’s complaint: 4. SpaceX was the lowest bidder, with Alan Boyle at GeekWire listing the respected proposal prices at $2.9 billion for SpaceX - $3 billion less than Blue Origin’s concept. Congressional appropriations cut the funding from two possible proposals to one. The suit stems from a bid for lunar lander concepts as part of NASA’s Artemis program, which will see humans return to the Moon. Oral arguments on the suit begin in October, and a ruling could come as soon as early October. August 2021: Blue Origin files a lawsuit against NASA.July 2021: The GAO rejects Blue Origin’s protest, setting the stage for the lawsuit.That same month, Blue Origin files its protest to the GAO. April 2021: NASA announces that it had selected SpaceX as the winner of the contract, though originally it had received the smallest award.At least two other companies, Boeing and Vivace, submitted unsuccessful proposals. At the time, Blue Origin received the largest award. It also releases details of the finalists’ vehicles. April 2020: The agency announces its selection of Blue Origin, SpaceX, and Dynetics.September 2019: NASA calls for proposals for its lunar lander, accepting proposals through November of that year.Federal Court of Claims, a new point on a growing timeline: It accuses the agency of flouting rulemaking regulations in an “arbitrary, capricious, and irrational” way, and allowing SpaceX to address potential problems and skimp on Flight Readiness Reviews. The court document, posted in PDF form on CNBC, reveals Blue Origin believes NASA cut corners in order to grant SpaceX a contract, and shut Blue Origin and competitor Dynetics out. Now unsealed court documents show the nature of its SpaceX-centered lawsuit against the government agency. ![]() Blue Origin was denied a lucrative NASA lunar lander contract - but it’s refusing to go down without a fight. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |