IN Stunning Reversal, NASA Halts $2.9B Contract with SpaceX
futurism.com
futurism.com
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?
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
I think you have the right if it. It’s quite silly of BO & Dynetics to sit here and act mad as if they were ‘wronged’ in this process somehow. They should be mad at themselves for the fact that they can’t even simply launch a satellite into orbit by now. And they want to be taken seriously about landing on the moon?
That’s how SpaceX started. Small. Let’s just get some satellites up, and get some revenue going, while find tuning their tech. Now they are sending people to the space station, & fine tuning Starship. It’s not even a conversation really.
He seems to get a lot of irrational hate, in the same way competing teams in spectator sports do. Its reasonable to recognize his achievements for what they are, it is ridiculous to desperately countersignal that - as his detractors regularly do.
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-...
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.
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.
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-...
Competition is a good thing and builds more resilient systems.
> 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-...
Look at Apollo. Clearly it was sourced from all over the country in way that created jobs everywhere. Everyone was happy and we put a man on the moon.
Now look at SLS. Clearly it's sourced from all over to create jobs, however it's such a good job creator - it works so well political that the politics have stopped being a parasite on the goal; instead the politics are the goal. SLS is does nothing other then spend money.
There's a funny story involving corruption in 2 countries. In one the minister involved points at a bridge off in the distance and with a wink says "I got 10% of the cost of the bridge in my bank account." In the other country a ministry points to an empty space devoid of anything beyond wilderness. "Hah! I got 100% of the cost of our bridge!"
Politics does get stuff moving but it needs to be a tail being wagged by a dog not the other way 'round.
I could buy a second car as a backup in case I have car troubles. Heck, I could buy 2 spare cars. What I shouldn't do is pretend those extra cars are free.
SpaceX got picked because they were reasonably plausible and fit the budget. The other contenders best argument seems to be, "Oh, we didn't know just how little of your money we were going to get to spend. Can we try again with a smaller budget?"