5 ms·

IN Stunning Reversal, NASA Halts $2.9B Contract with SpaceX

14 points by nixass 6y ago

jmercouris 6y ago
I'm not surprised they are protesting. It is their only chance to get funding!
derangedHorse 6y ago
Now that Jeff Bezos has retired from running Amazon, it seems he has a lot more time to focus on his other ventures. Ultimately I think that’s a good thing since I believe healthy competition will continue to set the pace for innovation in this space.
- hashkb 6y ago
  Except BO isn't a competitor, really. They'd just like to be.
  - hojjat12000 6y ago
    SpaceX wasn't a thing. They liked to be. Then they became (because of hardwork and billions of dollars in highly criticized government contracts). No one can just become a competitor out of nowhere. They need a push. I hate to see SpaceX be the only private company with internet satellites, or the only private company with access to the moon and Mars.
    - 40four 6y ago
      SpaceX, BO & Dynetics all started on the same level playing field. To act like there hasn’t been competition is kind of weird. There has been and still is competition, and we have witnessed the results. SpaceX has simply proven to be superior in every aspect. Don’t hate the player hate the game :)
      - taylodl 6y ago
        Why hate the game when the best player one? Just because someone may not like the winner for whatever reason is no reason to hate the game. I'm not a fan of Elon Musk either, but I'm not going to deny that SpaceX has done very impressive things.
    - Isinlor 6y ago
      Blue Origin is older company than SpaceX. Blue Origin was founded in 2000 and SpaceX in 2002. SpaceX got to orbit in 2008 without big government money 6 years after founding. Blue Origin 20 years after founding still did not managed to get to orbit and Bezos is pushing around billion dollars a year into that company. Blue Origin is obviously quite badly managed. For example Rocket Lab founded in 2006 in New Zealand is a lot more successful with many orbital launches. They are currently building human rated, 8 metric tonne class orbital reusable rocket.
leephillips 6y ago
The headline, I believe, is misleading. SpaceX was told to suspend work while the government considers the merits of the protests and decides whether they should reverse the contract award.
- 40four 6y ago
  Yeah this article is terrible, seems like they just wanted a chance to make fun of Elon. But let’s be real, SpaceX was chosen for obvious reasons. Blue Origin and Dynetics are upset I’m sure, but nobody believes they can pull this off by 2024. They haven’t even tried to fly any rockets yet, they are so far behind. SpaceX has consistently demonstrated rapid progress, and superior technology. The other guys should worry about just getting a working rocket, before they sit there and tell us they have any chance at landing something on the moon. NASA never promised to pick two companies for the contract. The said they would consider picking up to two. But BO & Dynetics are trying to use that in the media and say it’s not fair they only picked one. Well, honestly what choice did NASA have, based on the stage of development both companies are in?
  - gremlinsinc 6y ago
    I was a fan of musk but not much these days. His rude and off-putting behavior towards his own workers and the pandemic sullied me on him as a leader. So I'm no apologetic, but Spacex seems the sure bet for Nasa to accomplish their goals. The competitors just don't have the experience, launches, and technology. Spacex is at a unique spot, they basically have advanced tech nobody else in the world has(yet), at least that I'm aware of, until the other contractors have as solid a program I'm pretty sure he'll get the bulk. I think competitors should be allowed to compete so they can afford to perfect their tech but start on satellite launches not the moon shot or bigger stuff until they have as many launches as Spacex
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - 40four 6y ago
mensetmanusman 6y ago
We don’t need to multi source our ability to get to the moon…
- adamcstephens 6y ago
  Then why pay a private company? The government is a single entity that has already been to get moon. Competition is a good thing and builds more resilient systems.
  - PLenz 6y ago
    NASA used contractors to build the equipment last time too
    - adamcstephens 6y ago
      Did they pay the contractors to design it too?
  - Isinlor 6y ago
    Because NASA is anchored by USA congress as a job creation program, not a space exploration program. Commercial Lunar Payload Services is not designed to create jobs across all USA and stretch it in infinity as is the case with SLS, so congress does not like it. That's also why they did not give the founding to make it possible to finance two services. Actually they did not give enough money even for one service and SpaceX had to agree to receive payments with delay. > This decision was based on NASA’s longstanding Option A acquisition strategy of making two Option A contract awards. While it remains the Agency’s desire to preserve a competitive environment at this stage of the HLS Program, at the initial prices and milestone payment phasing proposed by each of the Option A offerors, NASA’s current fiscal year budget did not support even a single Option A award. Working in close coordination with the CO, it was therefore my determination that NASA should, as a first step, open price negotiations with the Option A offeror that is both very highly rated from a technical and management perspective and that also had, by a wide margin, the lowest initially-proposed price—SpaceX. [0] https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/option-a-source-selection-statement-final.pdf https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/option-...
jchook 6y ago
Will these billions of tax dollars fund privately owned intellectual property?
- Isinlor 6y ago
  Blue Origin was in breach of solicitation requirements that would likely result in in intellectual property disputes with the government [0]. I don't think NASA found any issues with SpaceX and Dynamics proposal with regard to IP licensing rights. > Blue’s approach to data rights is likely to result in protracted intellectual property (IP) disputes during contract performance and generally creates a high risk that the Government will obtain lower IP licensing rights than it is otherwise entitled to under the contract. (...) this aspect of Blue’s proposal is non-compliant with the solicitation’s instructions. Blue’s proposal further impugns the Government’s potential rights in data by proposing to deliver data created in conjunction with NASA with less than a GPR license; this is prohibited by the solicitation. [0] https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/option-a-source-selection-statement-final.pdf https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/option-...
Isinlor 6y ago
I think people do not realize that: a) NASA did not receive sufficient budget to found even one proposal. SpaceX had to agree to delayed payments. b) SpaceX was rated the highest by NASA in technical and management rating. c) SpaceX was basically half the price of Blue Origin and probably 1/4th of Dynamics. d) Starship is and will be developed with private money whether NASA awards SpaceX the contract or not. e) Because Starship is and will be privately founded, it would be somewhat accurate to say that it is SpaceX subsidizing a government program not the other way around. f) Starship is the most advanced project with early proof of concept prototypes flying (and crashing) all the time. Hopefully less crashing and more flying from next week. g) Also a fun fact. The movie Avatar about a fake moon made in box office 2.9B dollars. SpaceX got exactly the same money i.e. 2.9B dollars for an actual moon landing. Let that sink in. > This decision was based on NASA’s longstanding Option A acquisition strategy of making two Option A contract awards. While it remains the Agency’s desire to preserve a competitive environment at this stage of the HLS Program, at the initial prices and milestone payment phasing proposed by each of the Option A offerors, NASA’s current fiscal year budget did not support even a single Option A award. Working in close coordination with the CO, it was therefore my determination that NASA should, as a first step, open price negotiations with the Option A offeror that is both very highly rated from a technical and management perspective and that also had, by a wide margin, the lowest initially-proposed price—SpaceX. [0] https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/option-a-source-selection-statement-final.pdf https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/option-... Also if you do not like Elon the tweeter idiot Musk. Then let me introduce you to Gwynne Shotwell [1] SpaceX COO who runs the company day to day. She is absolutely badass business woman and engineer and deserves as much, if not more, recognition for SpaceX outstanding day to day execution. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gwynne_Shotwell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gwynne_Shotwell
smitty1e 6y ago
"Stunning" is tendentious. These are public funds. Protests of contracts are routine.

14 points by nixass 6y ago

I'm not surprised they are protesting. It is their only chance to get funding!

Now that Jeff Bezos has retired from running Amazon, it seems he has a lot more time to focus on his other ventures. Ultimately I think that’s a good thing since I believe healthy competition will continue to set the pace for innovation in this space.

hashkb 6y ago
Except BO isn't a competitor, really. They'd just like to be.
- hojjat12000 6y ago
  SpaceX wasn't a thing. They liked to be. Then they became (because of hardwork and billions of dollars in highly criticized government contracts). No one can just become a competitor out of nowhere. They need a push. I hate to see SpaceX be the only private company with internet satellites, or the only private company with access to the moon and Mars.
  - 40four 6y ago
    SpaceX, BO & Dynetics all started on the same level playing field. To act like there hasn’t been competition is kind of weird. There has been and still is competition, and we have witnessed the results. SpaceX has simply proven to be superior in every aspect. Don’t hate the player hate the game :)
    - taylodl 6y ago
      Why hate the game when the best player one? Just because someone may not like the winner for whatever reason is no reason to hate the game. I'm not a fan of Elon Musk either, but I'm not going to deny that SpaceX has done very impressive things.
  - Isinlor 6y ago
    Blue Origin is older company than SpaceX. Blue Origin was founded in 2000 and SpaceX in 2002. SpaceX got to orbit in 2008 without big government money 6 years after founding. Blue Origin 20 years after founding still did not managed to get to orbit and Bezos is pushing around billion dollars a year into that company. Blue Origin is obviously quite badly managed. For example Rocket Lab founded in 2006 in New Zealand is a lot more successful with many orbital launches. They are currently building human rated, 8 metric tonne class orbital reusable rocket.

leephillips 6y ago

The headline, I believe, is misleading. SpaceX was told to suspend work while the government considers the merits of the protests and decides whether they should reverse the contract award.

40four 6y ago
Yeah this article is terrible, seems like they just wanted a chance to make fun of Elon. But let’s be real, SpaceX was chosen for obvious reasons. Blue Origin and Dynetics are upset I’m sure, but nobody believes they can pull this off by 2024. They haven’t even tried to fly any rockets yet, they are so far behind. SpaceX has consistently demonstrated rapid progress, and superior technology. The other guys should worry about just getting a working rocket, before they sit there and tell us they have any chance at landing something on the moon. NASA never promised to pick two companies for the contract. The said they would consider picking up to two. But BO & Dynetics are trying to use that in the media and say it’s not fair they only picked one. Well, honestly what choice did NASA have, based on the stage of development both companies are in?
- gremlinsinc 6y ago
  I was a fan of musk but not much these days. His rude and off-putting behavior towards his own workers and the pandemic sullied me on him as a leader. So I'm no apologetic, but Spacex seems the sure bet for Nasa to accomplish their goals. The competitors just don't have the experience, launches, and technology. Spacex is at a unique spot, they basically have advanced tech nobody else in the world has(yet), at least that I'm aware of, until the other contractors have as solid a program I'm pretty sure he'll get the bulk. I think competitors should be allowed to compete so they can afford to perfect their tech but start on satellite launches not the moon shot or bigger stuff until they have as many launches as Spacex
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - 40four 6y ago

mensetmanusman 6y ago

We don’t need to multi source our ability to get to the moon…

adamcstephens 6y ago
Then why pay a private company? The government is a single entity that has already been to get moon. Competition is a good thing and builds more resilient systems.
- PLenz 6y ago
  NASA used contractors to build the equipment last time too
  - adamcstephens 6y ago
    Did they pay the contractors to design it too?
- Isinlor 6y ago
  Because NASA is anchored by USA congress as a job creation program, not a space exploration program. Commercial Lunar Payload Services is not designed to create jobs across all USA and stretch it in infinity as is the case with SLS, so congress does not like it. That's also why they did not give the founding to make it possible to finance two services. Actually they did not give enough money even for one service and SpaceX had to agree to receive payments with delay. > This decision was based on NASA’s longstanding Option A acquisition strategy of making two Option A contract awards. While it remains the Agency’s desire to preserve a competitive environment at this stage of the HLS Program, at the initial prices and milestone payment phasing proposed by each of the Option A offerors, NASA’s current fiscal year budget did not support even a single Option A award. Working in close coordination with the CO, it was therefore my determination that NASA should, as a first step, open price negotiations with the Option A offeror that is both very highly rated from a technical and management perspective and that also had, by a wide margin, the lowest initially-proposed price—SpaceX. [0] https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/option-a-source-selection-statement-final.pdf https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/option-...

jchook 6y ago

Will these billions of tax dollars fund privately owned intellectual property?

Isinlor 6y ago
Blue Origin was in breach of solicitation requirements that would likely result in in intellectual property disputes with the government [0]. I don't think NASA found any issues with SpaceX and Dynamics proposal with regard to IP licensing rights. > Blue’s approach to data rights is likely to result in protracted intellectual property (IP) disputes during contract performance and generally creates a high risk that the Government will obtain lower IP licensing rights than it is otherwise entitled to under the contract. (...) this aspect of Blue’s proposal is non-compliant with the solicitation’s instructions. Blue’s proposal further impugns the Government’s potential rights in data by proposing to deliver data created in conjunction with NASA with less than a GPR license; this is prohibited by the solicitation. [0] https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/option-a-source-selection-statement-final.pdf https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/option-...

Isinlor 6y ago

I think people do not realize that: a) NASA did not receive sufficient budget to found even one proposal. SpaceX had to agree to delayed payments. b) SpaceX was rated the highest by NASA in technical and management rating. c) SpaceX was basically half the price of Blue Origin and probably 1/4th of Dynamics. d) Starship is and will be developed with private money whether NASA awards SpaceX the contract or not. e) Because Starship is and will be privately founded, it would be somewhat accurate to say that it is SpaceX subsidizing a government program not the other way around. f) Starship is the most advanced project with early proof of concept prototypes flying (and crashing) all the time. Hopefully less crashing and more flying from next week. g) Also a fun fact. The movie Avatar about a fake moon made in box office 2.9B dollars. SpaceX got exactly the same money i.e. 2.9B dollars for an actual moon landing. Let that sink in. > This decision was based on NASA’s longstanding Option A acquisition strategy of making two Option A contract awards. While it remains the Agency’s desire to preserve a competitive environment at this stage of the HLS Program, at the initial prices and milestone payment phasing proposed by each of the Option A offerors, NASA’s current fiscal year budget did not support even a single Option A award. Working in close coordination with the CO, it was therefore my determination that NASA should, as a first step, open price negotiations with the Option A offeror that is both very highly rated from a technical and management perspective and that also had, by a wide margin, the lowest initially-proposed price—SpaceX. [0] https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/option-a-source-selection-statement-final.pdf https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/option-... Also if you do not like Elon the tweeter idiot Musk. Then let me introduce you to Gwynne Shotwell [1] SpaceX COO who runs the company day to day. She is absolutely badass business woman and engineer and deserves as much, if not more, recognition for SpaceX outstanding day to day execution. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gwynne_Shotwell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gwynne_Shotwell

smitty1e 6y ago

"Stunning" is tendentious. These are public funds. Protests of contracts are routine.