klionsignal.blogg.se

“We are also under contract with NASA to develop in-situ resource utilization technology, lunar space robotics, and lunar landing sensor collaboration including testing on New Shepard. “We are fully engaged with NASA to mature sustainable lander designs, conduct a wide variety of technology risk reductions, and provide Commercial Lunar Payload Services,” the Blue Origin spokesperson said. In September, the US space agency awarded Blue Origin and four other companies, including SpaceX, to develop “sustainable human landing system concepts” for establishing a long-term presence on the Moon. Instead, the company said it’s still working with NASA on lunar landing systems, but through other contracts. However, Blue Origin didn’t mention any effort to appeal the ruling. "Returning astronauts safely to the Moon through NASA’s public-private partnership model requires an unprejudiced procurement process alongside sound policy that incorporates redundant systems and promotes competition." "Our lawsuit with the Court of Federal Claims highlighted the important safety issues with the Human Landing System procurement process that must still be addressed," a Blue Origin spokesperson said in a statement on Thursday. (The company also complained to the US Government Accountability Office about the contract, but in July the GAO rejected the claims, noting Blue Origin's bid offer was significantly higher in price.) The decision is a setback for Blue Origin, which had claimed NASA improperly awarded the contract to SpaceX by allegedly ignoring certain safely-related requirements during the bidding process. 470 comments 96 Upvoted Sort by: best View discussions in 8 other communities level 1 10 mo. 18 to propose redactions to any confidential information in the ruling before the court publishes it. Federal judge releases redacted lunar lander lawsuit from Bezos’ Blue Origin against NASA, SpaceX /2021/0. Theres a big section redacted and for some reason my spider-sense, which is often pretty good, suggests that this part is about reusability. It is another setback in Blue Origin’s attempt to force NASA to award more than one lunar lander contract. Best Hosted Endpoint Protection and Security SoftwareĪs a result, the judge’s reasoning behind the ruling remains unclear. After a federal judge ruled against Blue Origins lawsuit seeking to over the NASA.One thing Blue Origin's New Shepard has going for it: suborbital hops don't need a "waste management system". Only via purported cost savings from those waived reviews, Blue Origin claims, was NASA able to afford SpaceX’s proposal – which, it’s worth noting, was more than twice as cheap as the next cheapest option (Blue Origin).

Perhaps most notably, it claims that when NASA ultimately concluded that it didn’t have funds for even a single award (a known fact) and asked SpaceX – its first choice – to make slight contract modifications to make the financial side of things work, NASA consciously chose to waive the need for an FRR before every HLS Starship launch. Curiously, Blue Origin nevertheless does make a few coherent and seemingly fact-based arguments in the document. Nevertheless, NASA’s Kathy Lueders and a source evaluation panel made it abundantly clear in public selection statement that SpaceX’s proposal was by far the most competent, offering far a far superior management approach and technical risk no worse than Blue Origin’s far smaller, drastically less capable lander. As Blue Origin has exhaustively reminded anyone within earshot for the last five months, SpaceX’s Starship Moon lander proposal is extremely complex and NASA is taking an undeniable risk (of delays, not for astronauts) by choosing SpaceX. In short, Blue Origin appears to have abandoned the vast majority of arguments it threw about prior to suing NASA and the US government and is now almost exclusively hinging its case on the claim that SpaceX violated NASA’s procurement process by failing to account for a specific kind of prelaunch review before every HLS-related Starship launch. most of the opening argument is legible.

We always do flight readiness reviews! This argument makes no sense.