SpaceX protests NASA launch contract award
SpaceX has filed a protest over the award of a launch contract to United Launch Alliance for a NASA planetary science mission, claiming it could carry out the mission for significantly less money.
The protest, filed with the Government Accountability Office (GAO) Feb. 11, is regarding a NASA procurement formally known as RLSP-35. That contract is for the launch of the Lucy mission to the Trojan asteroids of Jupiter, awarded by NASA to ULA Jan. 31 at a total cost to the agency of $148.3 million. The GAO documents did not disclose additional information about the protest, other than the office has until May 22 to render a decision. NASA said that, as a result of the protest, it's halted work on the ULA contract.
[...] SpaceX confirmed that the company was protesting the contract. "Since SpaceX has started launching missions for NASA, this is the first time the company has challenged one of the agency's award decisions," a company spokesperson said in a statement to SpaceNews. "SpaceX offered a solution with extraordinarily high confidence of mission success at a price dramatically lower than the award amount, so we believe the decision to pay vastly more to Boeing and Lockheed for the same mission was therefore not in the best interest of the agency or the American taxpayers," the spokesperson added. ULA is a joint venture of Boeing and Lockheed Martin.
[...] A key factor in the decision to award the contract to ULA was schedule certainty. Lucy has a complex mission profile with a series of flybys in order to visit several asteroid either leading or following Jupiter in its orbit around the sun. That results in a launch window that is open for only about 20 days in October 2021. Should the launch miss that window, the mission cannot be flown as currently planned.
Could it be retaliation for recent audits? Still, a matter of ±$70 million or so is almost nothing compared to the billions being spent annually on the Space Launch System.
Lucy (spacecraft) and trojans.
Also at Ars Technica and Teslarati.
Previously: NASA Selects Two Missions to Visit Asteroids
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 16 2019, @01:03AM (7 children)
NASA is big on process.
They must have had a reason if they awarded a more expensive option.
Perhaps to support a second launch option.
Cost is not everything. Even if X is cheaper and still reliable, it does not mean that there are not overriding factors.
If there was such a reason, it should be out in the open for all to see.
It will be interesting to see if NASA choose a more expensive path on purpose and if so, what drove them to do this.
Supporting old school space while incubating new school might not necessarily be bad, at least in the short term.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 16 2019, @01:35AM (6 children)
The reason is in the linked earlier article:
Musk is still an unknown risk factor. He rules the company singlehandedly, and at the same time behaves irresponsibly. Without him the work contracted to SpaceX may crumble. The promised review will determine how SpaceX is set up and operated. The money difference is nothing, compared to dependability of the supplier.
(Score: 3, Funny) by RandomFactor on Saturday February 16 2019, @01:54AM (5 children)
450,000 miles is a heck of a road trip.
В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 16 2019, @02:44AM (4 children)
Double standards- sure it’s ok if YOU smoke a doobie but not Musk
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 16 2019, @03:08AM
(Score: 2) by RandomFactor on Saturday February 16 2019, @03:18AM (2 children)
450,000 miles refers to the distance his Tesla has traveled so far. Quite the accomplishment for frat boys (maybe Real Genius [imdb.com] frat boys...)
The cult of personality aspect mentioned is not an entirely unreasonable concern though. He needs to have the appropriate plans and processes in place in the organization for the continuance of the company in the event he gets some bad buds or something.
That's just good business.
В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 16 2019, @07:55PM (1 child)
Bad buds? The fuck are YOU smoking?
(Score: 2) by RandomFactor on Saturday February 16 2019, @08:37PM
Ehhh, did I mix up my druggie slang? Buds = marijuana buds. I'm not talking about smoking your headset :-p
Maybe it's just an archaic term?
В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды