5 ms·

Blue Orgin says they should have been awarded the contract because SpaceX isn't safe enough? Is that the gist?

panick21_ 5y ago
Its more like 'NASA said that they would award 2 contracts and then didn't'. NASA wanted 2 contracts but the bid was always set up so that NASA could select however many they want. They made some token reference to suboptimal things in SpaceX proposal but technically they never had a leg to stand on.
- sebazzz 5y ago
  They both need refueling in space, but National Team needs hydrogen refueling in orbit of the moon and Starship needs Methane refueling in orbit of Earth.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
skissane 5y ago
In the court case, one of their key arguments was about “Flight Readiness Reviews” (FRRs). Standard NASA practice on commercial missions is to have a review meeting (the FRR) before each launch where NASA and the commercial provider agree the mission is ready to proceed. Often, the FRR is a contract milestone and its successful completion triggers a part payment from NASA to the provider. When designing the requirements for HLS, NASA was expecting a mission architecture with only 1-3 launches, not the multiple refuelling flights SpaceX plans. With only 1-3 launches, having an FRR before each launch makes sense; with all these refuelling flights it starts to become bureaucratic overkill. So SpaceX proposed, and NASA accepted, a single consolidated FRR for all refuelling flights. Problem is, that violates the explicit wording of the binding bid requirements document published by NASA, and so technically counts as a waiver of a NASA requirement for SpaceX. BO tried to make a big deal of this before GAO, arguing it was unfair that NASA waived a requirement for SpaceX but didn’t waive any requirement for BO, and also calling it a “safety requirement” (technically true but this waiver does not cause any realm harm to safety.) They lost before GAO, it ruled the waiver wasn’t material. They tried the same argument before the Court, and obviously the Court has rejected it too, but we’ll have to wait for their published reasons to see if their reasons for rejecting the argument are the same as GAO’s or somewhat different

Its more like 'NASA said that they would award 2 contracts and then didn't'. NASA wanted 2 contracts but the bid was always set up so that NASA could select however many they want. They made some token reference to suboptimal things in SpaceX proposal but technically they never had a leg to stand on.

sebazzz 5y ago
They both need refueling in space, but National Team needs hydrogen refueling in orbit of the moon and Starship needs Methane refueling in orbit of Earth.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

skissane 5y ago

In the court case, one of their key arguments was about “Flight Readiness Reviews” (FRRs). Standard NASA practice on commercial missions is to have a review meeting (the FRR) before each launch where NASA and the commercial provider agree the mission is ready to proceed. Often, the FRR is a contract milestone and its successful completion triggers a part payment from NASA to the provider. When designing the requirements for HLS, NASA was expecting a mission architecture with only 1-3 launches, not the multiple refuelling flights SpaceX plans. With only 1-3 launches, having an FRR before each launch makes sense; with all these refuelling flights it starts to become bureaucratic overkill. So SpaceX proposed, and NASA accepted, a single consolidated FRR for all refuelling flights. Problem is, that violates the explicit wording of the binding bid requirements document published by NASA, and so technically counts as a waiver of a NASA requirement for SpaceX. BO tried to make a big deal of this before GAO, arguing it was unfair that NASA waived a requirement for SpaceX but didn’t waive any requirement for BO, and also calling it a “safety requirement” (technically true but this waiver does not cause any realm harm to safety.) They lost before GAO, it ruled the waiver wasn’t material. They tried the same argument before the Court, and obviously the Court has rejected it too, but we’ll have to wait for their published reasons to see if their reasons for rejecting the argument are the same as GAO’s or somewhat different