'ABANDONED THE FUNDAMENTAL GROUND RULES': The battle for the chance to return astronauts to the lunar surface got ugly this week after design teams led by Blue Origin and Dynetics separately protested NASA's award to SpaceX for its Starship vehicle under the Human Landing System program. And it's more public than usual given the leading roles of tech titans Jeff Bezos, founder of Blue Origin, and SpaceX's Elon Musk, who of course couldn't help but troll his nemesis after news of the protest. But the losers are confident they have a strong case. Dynetics is arguing "competition was of the essence in the HLS program and the goal of returning to the lunar surface by 2024," according to its protest filed with the Government Accountability Office and obtained by POLITICO. "But after obtaining buy-in from its private partners on NASA's HLS strategy, and after having solicited and obtained the offerors' … proposals premised on its acquisition strategy of competition, NASA has now apparently abandoned the fundamental ground rules it had previously established for this program." Blue Origin, which released its protest earlier in the week, and Dynetics have a laundry list of beefs with how NASA handled the selection process, including a series of allegations about how contracting officials misjudged the technical aspects of the competing proposals. But both keyed in on NASA's justification that it doesn't anticipate having sufficient funding to live up to its end of the public-private partnership for two lander designs, which Dynetics' argues are constraints that "were imposed after the offerors had submitted their proposals." The space agency only got about 25 percent of the funding in fiscal 2021 for HLS than it requested ($850 million versus $3.4 billion). "Basically it has turned into a sole-source program," a former NASA official intimately familiar with the project told us Thursday. Betting so much on the Starship is not without serious risk, as recent test failures have shown. (Musk even joked about it last week, remarking about upcoming tests: "If you've been watching videos, we've blown up a few of them, so excitement guaranteed, one way or another.") Dynetics also insists NASA had other alternatives , including amending the solicitation to reflect the new strategy and budget, allowing the bidders to offer revised proposals, or it could have "withdrawn or cancelled the solicitation given its incompatibility with the severe budget constraints imposed on the HLS program," its complaint says. "NASA's change of strategy cannot be reconciled with notions of order and fairness in this public-private partnership or with NASA's own stated goals for the HLS program," Dynetics concluded. Congress also clearly has questions. "There has been very little communication from NASA to Congress on this decision," Rep. Robert Aderholt, a Republican from Alabama, where the Blue Origin team has a major presence, said in a statement Thursday, adding that "summaries of the two protests filed by the other teams are just now being shared." "NASA had planned to announce a decision in February, but their delay of a couple of months meant the other two teams spent additional tens of millions of dollars of their own funds," he added. "I believe there are a lot of aspects of this program which my colleagues and I will want to discuss before there is any consensus on the best way ahead." The lack of competition by foregoing two designs is clearly a concern within NASA as well. "Officials expressed concern that selecting a single contractor would result in a lack of redundancy and potentially higher, less sustainable future HLS costs due to a lack of competition," the agency's IG reported in an April 21 Artemis Status Update. New round of competition? And NASA signaled anew on Thursday that it is well aware the political heat is rising around the program. It posted a new request for information "seeking industry feedback in advance of the development of NASA's Human Landing System." "I think it was their preparation for how to respond to the political, you know, broad criticism they would have about not continuing competition," said another former NASA official. So what about the moon plan? So far there seems to be wide agreement that the protests won't materially affect the 2024 timeline. That's for two reasons: SpaceX plans to go to the moon whether NASA does or not, so development of the Starship is expected to continue uninterrupted during the protest. Secondly, no one thinks the 2024 timeline is realistic anyway. If NASA has to go back to the drawing board, that's another matter. Related: Competition delivers the goods and the crew for all NASA commercial space services, via Space News. Plus: With Starship, NASA is buying the Moon, but investing in Mars, via The Space Review. 'DISAPPOINTED': The Federal Communications Commission ruled this week that SpaceX can go ahead with its plans to operate an additional 2,800 satellites as part of its Starlink constellation at lower orbits, despite hundreds of filings, including from other satellite operators, who contend the move will cause electromagnetic interference, dramatically increase the chances of a collision, and risk environmental damage. "We are pleased the Commission confirmed that Starlink satellites must be reliable and safe, and also recognized the need to assess the cumulative (aggregate) collision risk presented by the entire Starlink constellation," said John Janka, Viasat's chief government affairs and regulatory officer. But he said the satellite communications company is "disappointed that the Commission failed to fulfill its statutory obligations" under the National Environmental Policy Act, accusing the agency of not following the Biden administration's "commitment to a science-based approach to protecting the atmosphere, the Earth's climate, space, the well-being of US citizens, and critical research that relies upon radio and optical astronomy." Related: Astronomers ask UN committee to protect night skies from megaconstellations, via Space.com. | 
No comments:
Post a Comment