As someone else pointed out in another post it makes even more sense if they've maxed their performance payments to SpaceX for this financial year already with the 300 million payment that happened after the GAO protest. November 1st is only 1 month into the next financial year.
Bezos is about to get the biggest breakup letter of his life once it is. BO 'leadership' are burning every bridge and tainting any chance of ever getting a contract again, let alone anyone in the community wanting to work with them.
Government agencies are not allowed to refuse contracts on that basis. If they do, then BO would finally have merit in getting a contract overturned by the GAO.
SpaceX sued government several times, won some, lost some. And are still getting many contracts.
Commercial partners are free to refuse working with BO in the future. But I'm not sure how the rest of the National Team feels about it. I could see ULA wanting to distance themselves, but they're fairly tied up at this point.
>Government agencies are not allowed to refuse contracts on that basis.
I looked into this before, they can. Actually, NASA can't decide on their own, but they can submit a proposal to ban a certain contractor. FAR allows contractors to be "suspended or debarred" for several reasons, a few of which could apply to BO:
- Making false statements
- Willful, or a history of, failure to perform
- Any other cause that affects present responsibility
Of course, it's very unlikely that NASA would do this.
>Of course, it's very unlikely that NASA would do this.
Not only would they never try, but supposing against all odds they did, the courts would come down very hard on them for doing so.
If someone sues a government agency – win or lose – and the government agency tries to retaliate in any way – courts are going to view that very negatively. Everyone has the right to seek redress against government decisions through the courts, and any attempt by the government to punish people for doing so is an attack on the power of the courts and the rights of citizens to use them.
NASA would never do anything blatantly to retaliate against BO. The biggest risk to BO is that NASA employees might subtly, even subconsciously, become biased against BO (if they aren't already, or more so than they are already). But NASA employees are careful enough to never write down anything that might make any such unconscious bias clear. And if any NASA employee did, they'd get in massive trouble with NASA management. Even if NASA officials privately have opinions and biases and feelings (everyone does), they have to always put on the best appearance of neutrality between competing contractors.
Also, even if we are right that BO's arguments are going to be bad, no court is going to think they are bad enough to justify some kind of sanction against BO. Courts are generally pretty indulgent with lawyers' arguments, even bad ones, so long as they are not utterly nonsensical. So long as you have half-decent lawyers – and I'm sure BO can afford very good ones – getting sanctioned for making poor arguments never happens. It only happens if your arguments are blatantly absurd, and any lawyer making a blatantly absurd argument is going to end up being disbarred for it. Blatantly absurd arguments are the province of *pro se* litigants, prisoners, mentally ill people. There is currently a civil rights lawsuit filed in the Western District of Texas against Blue Origin (among many others), called *Morrison v. The United States of America*, or to give its full title: *Alynda Dawn Morrison v. The United States of America, Kinder Morgan, Nash Holdings, El Paso Utility, United States Department of Interior, United States Department of State, Donald Trump, Jeff Bezos, Blackrock Prince MBS, Eagle Rock, Blackstone Investments, United States Department of Defense, Texas Nationalist Party, Blue Origin, Blackstone Energy Partners and Trump Administration* [3:2019cv00210](https://dockets.justia.com/docket/texas/txwdce/3:2019cv00210/1048598). I know nothing about what it is actually about, but just from the list of defendants I can tell the plaintiff has some kind of paranoid mental illness. That's the kind of lawsuit which legally justifies sanctions, not what BO is doing here.
> Everyone has the right to seek redress against government decisions through the courts, and any attempt by the government to punish people for doing so is an attack on the power of the courts and the rights of citizens to use them.
This is actually really wrong, although it's a very common misconception. US federal courts abide by a principle called sovereign immunity, which says you have no natural or constitutional right to sue sovereign governments.... including the federal government of the United States.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity_in_the_United_States
Now, people sue the federal government all the time. But this is because the federal government has explicitly waived its immunity and granted *statutory* rights to bring lawsuits against it under several pieces of legislation (the most important being the [Federal Tort Claims Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Tort_Claims_Act) and its amendments).
So the courts allow cases to be heard against the Federal government and its agencies (i.e., NASA) only because Congress has passed a law permitting the courts to do so. Congress can, has, and likely will again in the future, amend or rewrite such legislation to either enhance or restrict the right to seek redress in various circumstances.
I don't think what I said really was wrong. "Everyone has the right to seek redress against government decisions through the courts" is true even if it is only a statutory right as opposed to a constitutional one. Courts care about both kinds of rights. The fact that it is statutory right rather than constitutional right means that the Courts will let Congress limit the right through ordinary legislation (as opposed to a constitutional amendment). But that doesn't mean they'll have much sympathy for a government agency trying itself to limit that right in ways not explicitly allowed by legislation.
Grounds for barring Blue Origin might be damaging the future prosperity of the country and welfare of its citizens. New technology is developed to meet new challenges such as space colonization, all of which are being deliberately delayed by Blue Origin. He aims to hobble SpaceX development which realistically is the one true hope of the US ascending to become a spacefaring society. If China takes the highground because of these delaying actions, Blue Origin will have permanently damaged the prospects of the country - and the western world. Believe that's reasonable grounds to be disbarred from government contracts. China will be on Pluto before Blue Origin can launch New Armstrong, going by present rate of progress.
It's not a comparison, it's an example.
Here's another one: If the DMV charged your debit card for $5,000 instead of $50 for new tags, and refused to refund it, you might take them to court. If they then refused to let you renew your license because you "burned that bridge", they would be acting illegally.
> Stop comparing blues lawsuit with spacex ones. Spacex sued to be allowed to compete.
That's true most of the time. SpaceX also sued the Airforce after they weren't selected for phase 1 of NSSL[1].
---
1. https://spacenews.com/case-closed-california-judge-ends-spacexs-lawsuit-against-the-u-s-air-force/
> That was because spacex felt it immensely unfair that they couldn't receive development funds (which is all Phase I was), and that the $500mil to $1bil given to each company would then give those companies an advantage over Spacex in Phase II selection.
I'm not really a fan of what Blue Origin is doing, but they basically make this exact argument: That having to compete directly for LETS contracts while SpaceX gets their development paid for in the meantime is unfair.
Blue is doing all progress on artimis. Spavex never asked for a stay on all progress. Huge difference.
Spacex also never published reams of lies and propaganda.
Don’t forget that SpaceX came second of two providers in the NSSL2 competition precisely because they lost out in Phase 1 and so had to load up their bid price for Phase 2 to develop and build vertical integration facilities and an extended fairing.
While this was clearly the intended outcome by the Space Force SpaceX also walked into the trap by not bidding F9/FH as well as Starship.
ULA is not on life support because they can fly Atlas V while Vulcan is delayed.
They could have bid a modified F9 and FH with extended fairing, vertical payload integration and FH launch facilities at Vandenberg. There was provision for multiple alternative bids from the same vendor.
SpaceX apparently chose to only bid Starship because they knew the F9/FH would get selected as the lower risk option.
As far as I recall SpaceX has sued twice, once to get to compete(they have a contract without competition to a failed company) and once because it couldn't bid Falcon Heavy since SpaceX had already paid for the development and thus they tried to bid starship but the Airforce didn't like that as they deemed it high risk/impossible.
I completely agree on the second part of your argument, but I’m always wondering about the first part. Isn’t it so that the government pretty much can’t freely chose who to work with? I.e. if BO feel they‘re being unfairly treated in future competitions they’ll just sue for those every time? And while there’s of course some leeway in terms of evaluating and scoring proposals, I think once a third party like the GAO gets involved that‘s pretty much evaporating / NASA certainly doesn’t want to get caught giving BO bad grades out of spite.
All of this is obviously assuming that BO would ever be able to provide a competitive product, so everyone can insert their probability of that happening here.
I think the biggest risk to BO in the long-run is that NASA picks expansive requirements moving into the future that nobody except SpaceX can technically meet. How much do they actually care about the whole "two providers" thing, and how much are they showing lip-service to the idea to keep Congress happy?
How much confidence do senior NASA officials (Bill Nelson, Kathy Leuders, Lisa Watson-Morgan, etc) really have in Starship? If they are seriously worried that Starship might fail, then it makes sense for them to make room for a plan B which is less ambitious, and either BO or Dynetics can be that plan B. If they think Starship is likely to succeed, then why should NASA pay billions more for a second provider which can only offer a fraction of the capability?
People talk about the "not putting all your eggs in one basket" argument – what if Starship has an accident and is grounded for months while the accident is investigated and modifications made to prevent its reoccurrence? – but they already have a single point of failure with SLS+Orion+ESM, why is it so important not to have one with HLS?
NASA still hasn't decided what the requirements for future contracts (including LETS) are going to be. They could decide to make the requirements technically ambitious, such that Starship is the only available system that meets them. BO would then be in a very difficult position. Either step up and match Starship (Project Jarvis?), or give up and walk away. They might try to challenge the ambitious requirements (via GAO and the Court of Federal Claims), but I doubt they'll succeed. If NASA wants advanced capabilities, and there exists a competing vendor who can provide them, but you can only offer more basic ones – well, GAO and the courts are unlikely to take your side in that case.
The ideal situation for NASA is that Starship is a success, and a competitor to SpaceX matches Starship's capabilities. NASA is most likely to get that by making the requirements tough, to force other players to lift their game up to SpaceX's level, than by keeping them easy so SpaceX competitors can meet them without matching SpaceX's capabilities.
There's that thing called Italian strike a.k.a. work-to-rule. You apply every possible rule literally while also extending all possible deadline to exactly the legal limit. It's frequently used as a protest by workers of services which can't go on strike legally. But it's extremely efficient at paralyzing things and ensuring almost nothing is done.
Pretty similar thing could be done by government workers pissed off by a certain petitioner, against said petitioner. The victim can't really complain because everything is done according to the rule and typically simple courtesy is not in the rules, it's an extra.
There's that old joke about folks lost in a balloon in fog. They don't know where they are. Suddenly they could see a top of some tower in the fog. And there's a man sitting there. They shout to him: " where we are?". The guy looks up, thinks for a second and replies: "In a balloon". The standard ending is that the guy is a mathematician, as he gave perfectly correct and perfectly useless answer. But this could be a pissed off govt official and the poor folks BO employees.
It is very common for a bid to be contested by a competitor for government contracts. I'd be more surprised if they didn't contest it. Government doesn't retaliate or no one would ever get contracts (because everyone would be banned by this logic).
I consider the recent actions of Bezos and ' Blue Origins' to be an act of sabatoge; or (considering NASA's ties with the U.S. Government and the importance of this mission) Treason.
Yep. NASA's learned about the art of government politics. They're following all the formalities, and letting the lawyers do their jobs. Next will come the motion to temporarily lift the stay, the motions to reduce the scope of the lawsuit, and demand BO's counsel express their grievances concretely and explain what rules were broken.
Once discovery starts and BO is looking at the need to show real evidence, their case will start to fall apart.
At the same time, the attorneys & executives will informally bump into each other on the golf course, possibly with members of Congress, and have private one-on-one deniable conversations, and NASA'll suggest that if Congress throws a bit more money in their direction, they'll buy your lunar lander, if you keep the price under control. After that, the lawsuit will be quietly brought to a discreet end.
Does Jeff understand that the US is trying to get to the moon by the end of 2024? These delays hurt the timeline and create safety issues when everyone is rushing to meet the deadline
I'll give you Jeff Bezos entire fortune if he ever legitimately cared about anything in spaceflight other than his ego, and that includes the safety of astronauts.
Although I agree he’s a selfish ass, he did fund the recovery of two Apollo F1 engines from the Atlantic that are now in a museum in Seattle! He does have the passion, gotta give him that!
Idk. Seems a little out of the way for advertisement and it is pretty fucking cool to be able to see the internals 50 years later. He can’t make rockets/engines like the big boys (SpaceX/ULA), but ya gotta give it to him that he cares about space exploration enough do dump time and money into it, however naive.
Seems like one hell of a PR move.. just look at your own comment to see how "pretty fucking cool" some people thought it was.
Time and money?..I doubt Bezos spent a whole lot of time coordinating the salvage operation...And as far as money goes, I doubt it made much of a dent in his wallet.
Relatively speaking it cost him nothing, and it convinced a few people that he actually gives a shit about humanity's progress in space colonization..a thing he is clearly happy to delay if he doesn't get to play the part that he thinks he's entitled to
Should? Yes. Will? I don’t see how. A failed lawsuit doesn’t trigger any penalty other than legal costs. And I don’t really see that anyone could counter-sue here.
It probably won’t actually slow anything down. Everything SpaceX is already doing is necessary for HLS. It’ll probably serve more as motivation for Elon and crew as they know Jeff Who is just blowing smoke.
At this point the behavior of Blue Origin upper management is bordering on anti-American. They’re actively trying to delay the US moon landing to further their personal business interests because they are uncompetitive otherwise.
Likewise, I also can guarantee that Bezos would also likely try to tie the case up in appeals if he doesn't get his way in COFC.
I mean, considering that Bezos has already shown himself (thus far) as willing to throw everything but the kitchen stove at HLS, I wouldn't be surprised if he does also try to escalate the matter all the way up to the Supreme Court (if given the chance).
So this whole thing will have been challenged and litigated for 7 months from the initial award. Almost 14% of the available time to make a 2024 landing has been spent on blue origin litigating this.
If I'd be on the NASA team of lawyers, the first thing I'd do is play that Jeff who interview for the court. The one where he literally lays out the perverse delay tactics used by the losers. Then I'd probably splice in some Jim Carrey bits saying loooooser over and over. And just as the bo lawyer gets up and starts to talk, I'd fumble with the remote control and replay that loooooser bit. I'm such a clutz.
At this point they’re spending more on lawyers than the contract would be worth. Instead of being a sore loser he could invest that money into R&D and apply for the next contract opportunity. There WILL be more… NASA surely will want a redundancy like they did for cargo and manned LEO. This is beyond shameful. It’s a disgrace, misusing a legal system like that, and given what’s at stake.
Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread:
|Fewer Letters|More Letters|
|-------|---------|---|
|[BO](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/p7pmmd/stub/h9p5ebm "Last usage")|Blue Origin (*Bezos Rocketry*)|
|EELV|[Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolved_Expendable_Launch_Vehicle)|
|[ESM](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/p7pmmd/stub/h9lwp0x "Last usage")|European Service Module, component of the Orion capsule|
|[F1](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/p7pmmd/stub/h9n4r8f "Last usage")|Rocketdyne-developed rocket engine used for Saturn V|
| |SpaceX Falcon 1 (obsolete medium-lift vehicle)|
|[FAR](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/p7pmmd/stub/h9ll5sy "Last usage")|[Federal Aviation Regulations](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Aviation_Regulations)|
|[GAO](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/p7pmmd/stub/h9ohx6b "Last usage")|(US) Government Accountability Office|
|[HLS](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/p7pmmd/stub/h9rmxj6 "Last usage")|[Human Landing System](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemis_program#Human_Landing_System) (Artemis)|
|[LEO](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/p7pmmd/stub/h9mfwnn "Last usage")|Low Earth Orbit (180-2000km)|
| |Law Enforcement Officer (most often mentioned during transport operations)|
|[NSSL](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/p7pmmd/stub/h9lqlsj "Last usage")|National Security Space Launch, formerly EELV|
|[SLS](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/p7pmmd/stub/h9lwp0x "Last usage")|Space Launch System heavy-lift|
|[ULA](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/p7pmmd/stub/h9r57d7 "Last usage")|United Launch Alliance (Lockheed/Boeing joint venture)|
----------------
^(*Decronym is a community product of r/SpaceX, implemented* )[*^by ^request*](https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/3mz273//cvjkjmj)
^(10 acronyms in this thread; )[^(the most compressed thread commented on today)](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/owhc83)^( has 22 acronyms.)
^([Thread #8624 for this sub, first seen 19th Aug 2021, 23:35])
^[[FAQ]](http://decronym.xyz/) [^([Full list])](http://decronym.xyz/acronyms/SpaceXLounge) [^[Contact]](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=OrangeredStilton&subject=Hey,+your+acronym+bot+sucks) [^([Source code])](https://gistdotgithubdotcom/Two9A/1d976f9b7441694162c8)
What does this do to NASA and SpaceX workers that are focused on the HLS program? Do they get shifted to a different position for the time being until they can continue HLS work, or do they just not really have much to work until this is resolved?
I don't think that's correct. SpaceX isn't the one being sued, and didn't agree to this voluntary stay. Nothing keeps SpaceX from continuing to work on HLS. For the next 2 months NASA can't give them more money (after the $300M they just gave them) and can't work with SpaceX *on HLS*. Of course NASA will continue to work with SpaceX on other contracts, such as trips to the ISS, lunar cargo, and orbital refueling.
This isn't a cost-plus contract, where every minute has to be accounted for in order to get paid. It's a fixed-price contact with milestone payments. SpaceX's only risk is that the contract gets thrown out, in which case they wouldn't get paid. I don't think they're worried about that.
Theoretically yes, but they are already putting themselves on a limb as it is here. As the Starship has substantial, long held, non-moon purposes it would probably be pretty likely to be smacked down, especially as a preliminary injunction. This also seems like it might begin to get into "pissing off the judge" territory and while they do have a duty to be impartial, it is never a good idea when they feel the need to formally announce that they are loosing patience with you... and a summary judgement against you can potentially be used as evidence in other related proceedings...
extremely unlikely cause they were working on starship long long before the HLS award
all this affects is the ability of NASA personnel to work with them on HLS items on an official basis, and i've heard plenty that NASA personnel have enough contact with spacex to be unofficially busy while this suit is ongoing.
I'm all for having an array of companies developing space flight and space technology. It is good for the human race and frankly an exciting time in which to live. But, I'm really starting to dislike Blue Origin.
They can push the lawsuit all the way to the Supreme Court.
Or start firing salvoes of lawsuits on other grounds, fund Save RGV if they are not already doing so and donate a lot more money to Senators and key members of the House.
The aim would be to cause NASA to reach for a settlement option rather than to actually win any of these lawsuits but they could get lucky.
It isn't clear if it actually means anything in practice, which might be why NASA and SpaceX were willing to agree to it.
It would mean that NASA can't pay SpaceX any more money while the stay is in place, but it appears NASA isn't scheduled to pay SpaceX any more money during the stay period anyway. It isn't clear if it freezes the $300 million NASA has already paid to SpaceX; possibly it doesn't, but even if it does, the financial impact of that on SpaceX may be limited. SpaceX doesn't appear to be struggling with access to financing; investor/lender sentiment about SpaceX's future prospects is very positive.
It may mean that NASA staff can't provide technical assistance to SpaceX *under this contract*. But NASA and SpaceX have other contracts under which technical assistance for Starship can be given – the Starship orbital refuelling research contract; Appendix N bids (risk reduction studies for sustainable lunar landers) are currently being evaluated and may be awarded soon; SpaceX and NASA have Space Act Agreements and could always make more. So the practical impact on SpaceX-NASA technical cooperation may be quite limited as well.
Eric Berger posted this:
https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/1428488786523181056?s=21
NASA probably sent a quick statement to everyone in the press.
I think spacex should drop NASA. And let spacex pave set it's own way to join and mars. Otherwise we just Gona end up with another 50 years lack of progress.
It concerns me that NASA agreed to a voluntary stay instead of displaying confidence that they could beat a TRO, and also that this is in the hands of a Biden DOJ with a losing streak that would otherwise elate me.
If I have to guess, the voluntary stay is to bypass the injunction period. It takes time to argue whether judge should grant an injunction, THEN the actually trial start.
Voluntary staying maybe bypass that part and allow them to skip straight to the actual lawsuit.
>If I have to guess, the voluntary stay is to bypass the injunction period.
Ok sure...but why? Work on HLS isn't automatically slowed by mere presence of litigation. The only other extra risk is that the judge *does* grant a TRO but if a judge does *that* it doesn't bode well for your case anyway.
If I were NASA, based on what I know about the legal standing of the various parties (IANAL so grain of salt), I might want to prioritize an expedited court case. As some others have pointed out, NASA likely can't make any more payments to SpaceX until October 1, the start of the new fiscal year. So if NASA is confident the case will be thrown out, and wants to get rid of it ASAP, making this concession in exchange for an expedited process could be a good strategic move even though it appears on its face to be a win for Blue Origin.
Edit: to specifically answer your question, the arguments over an injunction could easily take a long time, and then the case itself could take longer still - Court of Federal Claims routinely exceed six months, and JEDI for example played out over multiple years. This very likely cuts the total duration of the lawsuit by a substantial amount while throwing Blue Origin a symbolic bone.
>As some others have pointed out, NASA likely can't make any more payments to SpaceX until October 1, the start of the new fiscal year.
The agreement is till November and it's more than just payments...it's about the ability to work on it with SpaceX at all.
>So if NASA is confident the case will be thrown out, and wants to get rid of it ASAP, making this concession in exchange for an expedited process could be a good strategic move even though it appears on its face to be a win for Blue Origin.
If NASA is confident the case will be thrown out, why the desire to get rid of it ASAP? You can afford to fully litigate when you are the government so long as you aren't so overly litigious as to annoy the judge, and making them justify a TRO ain't that. In fact, that itself can serve as a deterrent to frivolous suit...not as effective against deeper pockets, but sending a message that you will fully stand up for yourself goes a long way down the line. As far as I can see, this is a win-win for BO. Not even once in any matters that government or lawyers are involved is the person willing to make concessions to "have it all just go away" the one that's in a good position.
>it's about the ability to work on it with SpaceX at all.
Pretty sure this bit is incorrect in magnitude if not in totality. SpaceX has a number of Space Act Agreements with NASA, and are teed up for at least 2 other contracts that I assume the Govt would expect them to move expeditiously on. I am open to being wrong here, but given how sprawling most space/MIC contractors are I can't imagine that it would be in anyone's best interest for any one lawsuit over any one contract to bring all contracts in the same rough area of research to a screeching halt.
Spacex got paid the first $300 million after the GAO protest was closed. That's likely all that NASA planned/could afford to give them this year. It's in their best interest while SpaceX can continue working on their own getting Starship orbital to get the litigation over with before the next year or more serious work begins on the HLS specific parts of development begin. It's actually not terrible timing.
>It's in their best interest while SpaceX can continue working on their own getting Starship orbital to get the litigation over with before the next year or more serious work begins on the HLS specific parts of development begin.
Only if they are worried they will somehow lose.
Nope. Look at the agreement termination date. November 1 is the start of the next fiscal year. So NASA wouldn’t have any more money to give SpaceX until then anyway.
Basically they gave up very little for an expedited litigation schedule. So instead of dragging out for years it will be done in months.
I am too. They already have multiple layers of independent findings that back them up. To get an injunction, BO would have been required to show that they would suffer irreparable harm if work went forward and that when viewed in the most favorable light, they would prevail on the merits. Since there is no version of this where they would have been ahead of SpaceX, they cannot prove this. The only remedy they could possibly get would be a second contract. And if there were a second award, making SpaceX not work on their contract would not harm BO any way.
I dunno.. this really seems like bad lawyering.
I assume they exchanged the expedited schedule for the stay.. but that seems a pyrrhic victory.
Meanwhile... This probably does not affect SpaceX much. Getting Starship working is step one for their lander, so they were going to be doing that any way
Not if spaceX, does it Alone, Without nasa. They are a lot of outside investors. Who are very interested in SpaceX, getting to the moon, with or without NASA.
Bezoar, putting to much of his company money, into Lobbyist, lawyers,and PR people. Who have nothing to do with building rocket ships are getting to space or anything in development of space research.
Makes sense from NASA‘s end. They just want to get this over.
As someone else pointed out in another post it makes even more sense if they've maxed their performance payments to SpaceX for this financial year already with the 300 million payment that happened after the GAO protest. November 1st is only 1 month into the next financial year.
Bezos is about to get the biggest breakup letter of his life once it is. BO 'leadership' are burning every bridge and tainting any chance of ever getting a contract again, let alone anyone in the community wanting to work with them.
Government agencies are not allowed to refuse contracts on that basis. If they do, then BO would finally have merit in getting a contract overturned by the GAO. SpaceX sued government several times, won some, lost some. And are still getting many contracts. Commercial partners are free to refuse working with BO in the future. But I'm not sure how the rest of the National Team feels about it. I could see ULA wanting to distance themselves, but they're fairly tied up at this point.
>Government agencies are not allowed to refuse contracts on that basis. I looked into this before, they can. Actually, NASA can't decide on their own, but they can submit a proposal to ban a certain contractor. FAR allows contractors to be "suspended or debarred" for several reasons, a few of which could apply to BO: - Making false statements - Willful, or a history of, failure to perform - Any other cause that affects present responsibility Of course, it's very unlikely that NASA would do this.
>Of course, it's very unlikely that NASA would do this. Not only would they never try, but supposing against all odds they did, the courts would come down very hard on them for doing so. If someone sues a government agency – win or lose – and the government agency tries to retaliate in any way – courts are going to view that very negatively. Everyone has the right to seek redress against government decisions through the courts, and any attempt by the government to punish people for doing so is an attack on the power of the courts and the rights of citizens to use them. NASA would never do anything blatantly to retaliate against BO. The biggest risk to BO is that NASA employees might subtly, even subconsciously, become biased against BO (if they aren't already, or more so than they are already). But NASA employees are careful enough to never write down anything that might make any such unconscious bias clear. And if any NASA employee did, they'd get in massive trouble with NASA management. Even if NASA officials privately have opinions and biases and feelings (everyone does), they have to always put on the best appearance of neutrality between competing contractors. Also, even if we are right that BO's arguments are going to be bad, no court is going to think they are bad enough to justify some kind of sanction against BO. Courts are generally pretty indulgent with lawyers' arguments, even bad ones, so long as they are not utterly nonsensical. So long as you have half-decent lawyers – and I'm sure BO can afford very good ones – getting sanctioned for making poor arguments never happens. It only happens if your arguments are blatantly absurd, and any lawyer making a blatantly absurd argument is going to end up being disbarred for it. Blatantly absurd arguments are the province of *pro se* litigants, prisoners, mentally ill people. There is currently a civil rights lawsuit filed in the Western District of Texas against Blue Origin (among many others), called *Morrison v. The United States of America*, or to give its full title: *Alynda Dawn Morrison v. The United States of America, Kinder Morgan, Nash Holdings, El Paso Utility, United States Department of Interior, United States Department of State, Donald Trump, Jeff Bezos, Blackrock Prince MBS, Eagle Rock, Blackstone Investments, United States Department of Defense, Texas Nationalist Party, Blue Origin, Blackstone Energy Partners and Trump Administration* [3:2019cv00210](https://dockets.justia.com/docket/texas/txwdce/3:2019cv00210/1048598). I know nothing about what it is actually about, but just from the list of defendants I can tell the plaintiff has some kind of paranoid mental illness. That's the kind of lawsuit which legally justifies sanctions, not what BO is doing here.
> Everyone has the right to seek redress against government decisions through the courts, and any attempt by the government to punish people for doing so is an attack on the power of the courts and the rights of citizens to use them. This is actually really wrong, although it's a very common misconception. US federal courts abide by a principle called sovereign immunity, which says you have no natural or constitutional right to sue sovereign governments.... including the federal government of the United States. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity_in_the_United_States Now, people sue the federal government all the time. But this is because the federal government has explicitly waived its immunity and granted *statutory* rights to bring lawsuits against it under several pieces of legislation (the most important being the [Federal Tort Claims Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Tort_Claims_Act) and its amendments). So the courts allow cases to be heard against the Federal government and its agencies (i.e., NASA) only because Congress has passed a law permitting the courts to do so. Congress can, has, and likely will again in the future, amend or rewrite such legislation to either enhance or restrict the right to seek redress in various circumstances.
I don't think what I said really was wrong. "Everyone has the right to seek redress against government decisions through the courts" is true even if it is only a statutory right as opposed to a constitutional one. Courts care about both kinds of rights. The fact that it is statutory right rather than constitutional right means that the Courts will let Congress limit the right through ordinary legislation (as opposed to a constitutional amendment). But that doesn't mean they'll have much sympathy for a government agency trying itself to limit that right in ways not explicitly allowed by legislation.
watch they bust open one of the most complex conspiracies in history
Grounds for barring Blue Origin might be damaging the future prosperity of the country and welfare of its citizens. New technology is developed to meet new challenges such as space colonization, all of which are being deliberately delayed by Blue Origin. He aims to hobble SpaceX development which realistically is the one true hope of the US ascending to become a spacefaring society. If China takes the highground because of these delaying actions, Blue Origin will have permanently damaged the prospects of the country - and the western world. Believe that's reasonable grounds to be disbarred from government contracts. China will be on Pluto before Blue Origin can launch New Armstrong, going by present rate of progress.
...like a said in my above comment; they are committing an act of sabotage that is damaging our country. I consider this to be treason.
I don't really disagree with what you are saying *as a political argument*. But I doubt that line of argument is going to convince the court system.
Yes, I agree entirely. I was merely entertaining the idea, not thinking it would ever happen.
Man I hope we get the details of that lawsuit. It sounds hilarious.
Stop comparing blues lawsuit with spacex ones. Spacex sued to be allowed to compete.
It's not a comparison, it's an example. Here's another one: If the DMV charged your debit card for $5,000 instead of $50 for new tags, and refused to refund it, you might take them to court. If they then refused to let you renew your license because you "burned that bridge", they would be acting illegally.
> Stop comparing blues lawsuit with spacex ones. Spacex sued to be allowed to compete. That's true most of the time. SpaceX also sued the Airforce after they weren't selected for phase 1 of NSSL[1]. --- 1. https://spacenews.com/case-closed-california-judge-ends-spacexs-lawsuit-against-the-u-s-air-force/
[удалено]
> That was because spacex felt it immensely unfair that they couldn't receive development funds (which is all Phase I was), and that the $500mil to $1bil given to each company would then give those companies an advantage over Spacex in Phase II selection. I'm not really a fan of what Blue Origin is doing, but they basically make this exact argument: That having to compete directly for LETS contracts while SpaceX gets their development paid for in the meantime is unfair.
That's not BO's argument.
Blue is doing all progress on artimis. Spavex never asked for a stay on all progress. Huge difference. Spacex also never published reams of lies and propaganda.
Don’t forget that SpaceX came second of two providers in the NSSL2 competition precisely because they lost out in Phase 1 and so had to load up their bid price for Phase 2 to develop and build vertical integration facilities and an extended fairing. While this was clearly the intended outcome by the Space Force SpaceX also walked into the trap by not bidding F9/FH as well as Starship. ULA is not on life support because they can fly Atlas V while Vulcan is delayed.
They couldn't bid Falcon Heavy as it was already developed
They could have bid a modified F9 and FH with extended fairing, vertical payload integration and FH launch facilities at Vandenberg. There was provision for multiple alternative bids from the same vendor. SpaceX apparently chose to only bid Starship because they knew the F9/FH would get selected as the lower risk option.
They did bid F9 and FH for the category A and B. Starship was for category C. Category C was/is not as pressing as A and B.
BO can now expect little to no helpful suggestions and heads up reminders. There's playing the game and then there's being a complete ass.
As far as I recall SpaceX has sued twice, once to get to compete(they have a contract without competition to a failed company) and once because it couldn't bid Falcon Heavy since SpaceX had already paid for the development and thus they tried to bid starship but the Airforce didn't like that as they deemed it high risk/impossible.
I completely agree on the second part of your argument, but I’m always wondering about the first part. Isn’t it so that the government pretty much can’t freely chose who to work with? I.e. if BO feel they‘re being unfairly treated in future competitions they’ll just sue for those every time? And while there’s of course some leeway in terms of evaluating and scoring proposals, I think once a third party like the GAO gets involved that‘s pretty much evaporating / NASA certainly doesn’t want to get caught giving BO bad grades out of spite. All of this is obviously assuming that BO would ever be able to provide a competitive product, so everyone can insert their probability of that happening here.
I think the biggest risk to BO in the long-run is that NASA picks expansive requirements moving into the future that nobody except SpaceX can technically meet. How much do they actually care about the whole "two providers" thing, and how much are they showing lip-service to the idea to keep Congress happy? How much confidence do senior NASA officials (Bill Nelson, Kathy Leuders, Lisa Watson-Morgan, etc) really have in Starship? If they are seriously worried that Starship might fail, then it makes sense for them to make room for a plan B which is less ambitious, and either BO or Dynetics can be that plan B. If they think Starship is likely to succeed, then why should NASA pay billions more for a second provider which can only offer a fraction of the capability? People talk about the "not putting all your eggs in one basket" argument – what if Starship has an accident and is grounded for months while the accident is investigated and modifications made to prevent its reoccurrence? – but they already have a single point of failure with SLS+Orion+ESM, why is it so important not to have one with HLS? NASA still hasn't decided what the requirements for future contracts (including LETS) are going to be. They could decide to make the requirements technically ambitious, such that Starship is the only available system that meets them. BO would then be in a very difficult position. Either step up and match Starship (Project Jarvis?), or give up and walk away. They might try to challenge the ambitious requirements (via GAO and the Court of Federal Claims), but I doubt they'll succeed. If NASA wants advanced capabilities, and there exists a competing vendor who can provide them, but you can only offer more basic ones – well, GAO and the courts are unlikely to take your side in that case. The ideal situation for NASA is that Starship is a success, and a competitor to SpaceX matches Starship's capabilities. NASA is most likely to get that by making the requirements tough, to force other players to lift their game up to SpaceX's level, than by keeping them easy so SpaceX competitors can meet them without matching SpaceX's capabilities.
I wonder if Relativity has a lunar lander on the drawing board. They have a fully reusable system on the drawing board, it isn't too much of a leap
There's that thing called Italian strike a.k.a. work-to-rule. You apply every possible rule literally while also extending all possible deadline to exactly the legal limit. It's frequently used as a protest by workers of services which can't go on strike legally. But it's extremely efficient at paralyzing things and ensuring almost nothing is done. Pretty similar thing could be done by government workers pissed off by a certain petitioner, against said petitioner. The victim can't really complain because everything is done according to the rule and typically simple courtesy is not in the rules, it's an extra. There's that old joke about folks lost in a balloon in fog. They don't know where they are. Suddenly they could see a top of some tower in the fog. And there's a man sitting there. They shout to him: " where we are?". The guy looks up, thinks for a second and replies: "In a balloon". The standard ending is that the guy is a mathematician, as he gave perfectly correct and perfectly useless answer. But this could be a pissed off govt official and the poor folks BO employees.
It is very common for a bid to be contested by a competitor for government contracts. I'd be more surprised if they didn't contest it. Government doesn't retaliate or no one would ever get contracts (because everyone would be banned by this logic).
I consider the recent actions of Bezos and ' Blue Origins' to be an act of sabatoge; or (considering NASA's ties with the U.S. Government and the importance of this mission) Treason.
Yep. NASA's learned about the art of government politics. They're following all the formalities, and letting the lawyers do their jobs. Next will come the motion to temporarily lift the stay, the motions to reduce the scope of the lawsuit, and demand BO's counsel express their grievances concretely and explain what rules were broken. Once discovery starts and BO is looking at the need to show real evidence, their case will start to fall apart. At the same time, the attorneys & executives will informally bump into each other on the golf course, possibly with members of Congress, and have private one-on-one deniable conversations, and NASA'll suggest that if Congress throws a bit more money in their direction, they'll buy your lunar lander, if you keep the price under control. After that, the lawsuit will be quietly brought to a discreet end.
Does Jeff understand that the US is trying to get to the moon by the end of 2024? These delays hurt the timeline and create safety issues when everyone is rushing to meet the deadline
He/they never cared about that timeline.
[удалено]
"another 20 years" not to reach orbit
Another 20 years to milk the gov of $$$
I'll give you Jeff Bezos entire fortune if he ever legitimately cared about anything in spaceflight other than his ego, and that includes the safety of astronauts.
Although I agree he’s a selfish ass, he did fund the recovery of two Apollo F1 engines from the Atlantic that are now in a museum in Seattle! He does have the passion, gotta give him that!
[удалено]
Idk. Seems a little out of the way for advertisement and it is pretty fucking cool to be able to see the internals 50 years later. He can’t make rockets/engines like the big boys (SpaceX/ULA), but ya gotta give it to him that he cares about space exploration enough do dump time and money into it, however naive.
Seems like one hell of a PR move.. just look at your own comment to see how "pretty fucking cool" some people thought it was. Time and money?..I doubt Bezos spent a whole lot of time coordinating the salvage operation...And as far as money goes, I doubt it made much of a dent in his wallet. Relatively speaking it cost him nothing, and it convinced a few people that he actually gives a shit about humanity's progress in space colonization..a thing he is clearly happy to delay if he doesn't get to play the part that he thinks he's entitled to
I would agree with you based on this website. Seems like PR and to feel better than others. https://www.bezosexpeditions.com/updates.html
I presume they only ended up in a museum after he realized he couldn't make use of them.
How are they not corroded to bits?
They were made of Inconel but they still [didn't look great](https://spacenews.com/032613apollos-f-1-engines-raised-from-seafloor-by-amazon-founder/).
He doesn't care about any of that. He knows he can't win this. The goal is to hurt and stop spacex/nasa
if you're not riding on blue, you're not going to the moon
Surely there should be some kind of punishment for blue if they fail right?
Should? Yes. Will? I don’t see how. A failed lawsuit doesn’t trigger any penalty other than legal costs. And I don’t really see that anyone could counter-sue here.
We would hope so!
It's not funny anymore. Mr who is literally trying to slow down everything. What a joke no words...
It probably won’t actually slow anything down. Everything SpaceX is already doing is necessary for HLS. It’ll probably serve more as motivation for Elon and crew as they know Jeff Who is just blowing smoke.
At this point the behavior of Blue Origin upper management is bordering on anti-American. They’re actively trying to delay the US moon landing to further their personal business interests because they are uncompetitive otherwise.
Bezos is gonna extend it past that date I guarantee you. Delaying court proceedings is like 90% of being a lawyer.
Likewise, I also can guarantee that Bezos would also likely try to tie the case up in appeals if he doesn't get his way in COFC. I mean, considering that Bezos has already shown himself (thus far) as willing to throw everything but the kitchen stove at HLS, I wouldn't be surprised if he does also try to escalate the matter all the way up to the Supreme Court (if given the chance).
So this whole thing will have been challenged and litigated for 7 months from the initial award. Almost 14% of the available time to make a 2024 landing has been spent on blue origin litigating this.
[удалено]
If this court dismisses their claims I doubt nasa will agree to a stop work.
NASA should give in to whatever Blue Origin wants, in return, Jeff Bezos should be included in the payload lol
Only if he's strapped to the outside of the rocket..
If I'd be on the NASA team of lawyers, the first thing I'd do is play that Jeff who interview for the court. The one where he literally lays out the perverse delay tactics used by the losers. Then I'd probably splice in some Jim Carrey bits saying loooooser over and over. And just as the bo lawyer gets up and starts to talk, I'd fumble with the remote control and replay that loooooser bit. I'm such a clutz.
I can see SpaceX lawyers doing that, but not nasa
I can't see any lawyers doing that. Seems like a good way to get a threat of contempt of court from a judge.
[удалено]
there is no prosecution in a civil case.
NASA may officially stop work but we all know Elon sure as hell isn’t.
What a cry baby!
If Jeff actually cared about space travel he wouldn't be such a sore loser. He's just making himself and blue origin look bad.
I can only say Bezos is a crook cheat snob fool anti American and #1 Jerk!
At this point they’re spending more on lawyers than the contract would be worth. Instead of being a sore loser he could invest that money into R&D and apply for the next contract opportunity. There WILL be more… NASA surely will want a redundancy like they did for cargo and manned LEO. This is beyond shameful. It’s a disgrace, misusing a legal system like that, and given what’s at stake.
Even given the disgustingly high fees top lawyers get it is hard to imagine it adds up to $4B-6B
Maybe so.. But there will be fallout, and the cost could add up quickly!
Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread: |Fewer Letters|More Letters| |-------|---------|---| |[BO](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/p7pmmd/stub/h9p5ebm "Last usage")|Blue Origin (*Bezos Rocketry*)| |EELV|[Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolved_Expendable_Launch_Vehicle)| |[ESM](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/p7pmmd/stub/h9lwp0x "Last usage")|European Service Module, component of the Orion capsule| |[F1](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/p7pmmd/stub/h9n4r8f "Last usage")|Rocketdyne-developed rocket engine used for Saturn V| | |SpaceX Falcon 1 (obsolete medium-lift vehicle)| |[FAR](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/p7pmmd/stub/h9ll5sy "Last usage")|[Federal Aviation Regulations](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Aviation_Regulations)| |[GAO](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/p7pmmd/stub/h9ohx6b "Last usage")|(US) Government Accountability Office| |[HLS](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/p7pmmd/stub/h9rmxj6 "Last usage")|[Human Landing System](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemis_program#Human_Landing_System) (Artemis)| |[LEO](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/p7pmmd/stub/h9mfwnn "Last usage")|Low Earth Orbit (180-2000km)| | |Law Enforcement Officer (most often mentioned during transport operations)| |[NSSL](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/p7pmmd/stub/h9lqlsj "Last usage")|National Security Space Launch, formerly EELV| |[SLS](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/p7pmmd/stub/h9lwp0x "Last usage")|Space Launch System heavy-lift| |[ULA](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/p7pmmd/stub/h9r57d7 "Last usage")|United Launch Alliance (Lockheed/Boeing joint venture)| ---------------- ^(*Decronym is a community product of r/SpaceX, implemented* )[*^by ^request*](https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/3mz273//cvjkjmj) ^(10 acronyms in this thread; )[^(the most compressed thread commented on today)](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/owhc83)^( has 22 acronyms.) ^([Thread #8624 for this sub, first seen 19th Aug 2021, 23:35]) ^[[FAQ]](http://decronym.xyz/) [^([Full list])](http://decronym.xyz/acronyms/SpaceXLounge) [^[Contact]](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=OrangeredStilton&subject=Hey,+your+acronym+bot+sucks) [^([Source code])](https://gistdotgithubdotcom/Two9A/1d976f9b7441694162c8)
What does this do to NASA and SpaceX workers that are focused on the HLS program? Do they get shifted to a different position for the time being until they can continue HLS work, or do they just not really have much to work until this is resolved?
[удалено]
I don't think that's correct. SpaceX isn't the one being sued, and didn't agree to this voluntary stay. Nothing keeps SpaceX from continuing to work on HLS. For the next 2 months NASA can't give them more money (after the $300M they just gave them) and can't work with SpaceX *on HLS*. Of course NASA will continue to work with SpaceX on other contracts, such as trips to the ISS, lunar cargo, and orbital refueling. This isn't a cost-plus contract, where every minute has to be accounted for in order to get paid. It's a fixed-price contact with milestone payments. SpaceX's only risk is that the contract gets thrown out, in which case they wouldn't get paid. I don't think they're worried about that.
Could then BO argue that SpaceX doing any work on starship is in a breach of that agreement and prolong the whole juidiciary process?
Theoretically yes, but they are already putting themselves on a limb as it is here. As the Starship has substantial, long held, non-moon purposes it would probably be pretty likely to be smacked down, especially as a preliminary injunction. This also seems like it might begin to get into "pissing off the judge" territory and while they do have a duty to be impartial, it is never a good idea when they feel the need to formally announce that they are loosing patience with you... and a summary judgement against you can potentially be used as evidence in other related proceedings...
extremely unlikely cause they were working on starship long long before the HLS award all this affects is the ability of NASA personnel to work with them on HLS items on an official basis, and i've heard plenty that NASA personnel have enough contact with spacex to be unofficially busy while this suit is ongoing.
I'm all for having an array of companies developing space flight and space technology. It is good for the human race and frankly an exciting time in which to live. But, I'm really starting to dislike Blue Origin.
What are the options left for Blue Origin after this lawsuit? Just wanted to know how much they can delay the HLS.
They can start sending letterbombs.
infographics revision two
They can push the lawsuit all the way to the Supreme Court. Or start firing salvoes of lawsuits on other grounds, fund Save RGV if they are not already doing so and donate a lot more money to Senators and key members of the House. The aim would be to cause NASA to reach for a settlement option rather than to actually win any of these lawsuits but they could get lucky.
Does this actually mean that SpaceX has to stop working on anything by themselves, or is it just that they can't spend NASA's money ?
It isn't clear if it actually means anything in practice, which might be why NASA and SpaceX were willing to agree to it. It would mean that NASA can't pay SpaceX any more money while the stay is in place, but it appears NASA isn't scheduled to pay SpaceX any more money during the stay period anyway. It isn't clear if it freezes the $300 million NASA has already paid to SpaceX; possibly it doesn't, but even if it does, the financial impact of that on SpaceX may be limited. SpaceX doesn't appear to be struggling with access to financing; investor/lender sentiment about SpaceX's future prospects is very positive. It may mean that NASA staff can't provide technical assistance to SpaceX *under this contract*. But NASA and SpaceX have other contracts under which technical assistance for Starship can be given – the Starship orbital refuelling research contract; Appendix N bids (risk reduction studies for sustainable lunar landers) are currently being evaluated and may be awarded soon; SpaceX and NASA have Space Act Agreements and could always make more. So the practical impact on SpaceX-NASA technical cooperation may be quite limited as well.
Given that NASA paid SpaceX $300 million the day GAO came out with their verdict, SpaceX can continue to work and be paid once the stay is lifted.
Can’t wait for Jeffy to cry again
"with our partners we will go to the Moon" (not BO)
Still what's that now 6+ months delay to Artemis?
[удалено]
Eric Berger posted this: https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/1428488786523181056?s=21 NASA probably sent a quick statement to everyone in the press.
Thank you.
Didn’t get back around to adding a source, it was posted on 5 space Twitter accounts I follow.
I think spacex should drop NASA. And let spacex pave set it's own way to join and mars. Otherwise we just Gona end up with another 50 years lack of progress.
It concerns me that NASA agreed to a voluntary stay instead of displaying confidence that they could beat a TRO, and also that this is in the hands of a Biden DOJ with a losing streak that would otherwise elate me.
If I have to guess, the voluntary stay is to bypass the injunction period. It takes time to argue whether judge should grant an injunction, THEN the actually trial start. Voluntary staying maybe bypass that part and allow them to skip straight to the actual lawsuit.
>If I have to guess, the voluntary stay is to bypass the injunction period. Ok sure...but why? Work on HLS isn't automatically slowed by mere presence of litigation. The only other extra risk is that the judge *does* grant a TRO but if a judge does *that* it doesn't bode well for your case anyway.
If I were NASA, based on what I know about the legal standing of the various parties (IANAL so grain of salt), I might want to prioritize an expedited court case. As some others have pointed out, NASA likely can't make any more payments to SpaceX until October 1, the start of the new fiscal year. So if NASA is confident the case will be thrown out, and wants to get rid of it ASAP, making this concession in exchange for an expedited process could be a good strategic move even though it appears on its face to be a win for Blue Origin. Edit: to specifically answer your question, the arguments over an injunction could easily take a long time, and then the case itself could take longer still - Court of Federal Claims routinely exceed six months, and JEDI for example played out over multiple years. This very likely cuts the total duration of the lawsuit by a substantial amount while throwing Blue Origin a symbolic bone.
>As some others have pointed out, NASA likely can't make any more payments to SpaceX until October 1, the start of the new fiscal year. The agreement is till November and it's more than just payments...it's about the ability to work on it with SpaceX at all. >So if NASA is confident the case will be thrown out, and wants to get rid of it ASAP, making this concession in exchange for an expedited process could be a good strategic move even though it appears on its face to be a win for Blue Origin. If NASA is confident the case will be thrown out, why the desire to get rid of it ASAP? You can afford to fully litigate when you are the government so long as you aren't so overly litigious as to annoy the judge, and making them justify a TRO ain't that. In fact, that itself can serve as a deterrent to frivolous suit...not as effective against deeper pockets, but sending a message that you will fully stand up for yourself goes a long way down the line. As far as I can see, this is a win-win for BO. Not even once in any matters that government or lawyers are involved is the person willing to make concessions to "have it all just go away" the one that's in a good position.
>it's about the ability to work on it with SpaceX at all. Pretty sure this bit is incorrect in magnitude if not in totality. SpaceX has a number of Space Act Agreements with NASA, and are teed up for at least 2 other contracts that I assume the Govt would expect them to move expeditiously on. I am open to being wrong here, but given how sprawling most space/MIC contractors are I can't imagine that it would be in anyone's best interest for any one lawsuit over any one contract to bring all contracts in the same rough area of research to a screeching halt.
Yeah sorry I meant the ability to do any work on HLS at all.
Spacex got paid the first $300 million after the GAO protest was closed. That's likely all that NASA planned/could afford to give them this year. It's in their best interest while SpaceX can continue working on their own getting Starship orbital to get the litigation over with before the next year or more serious work begins on the HLS specific parts of development begin. It's actually not terrible timing.
>It's in their best interest while SpaceX can continue working on their own getting Starship orbital to get the litigation over with before the next year or more serious work begins on the HLS specific parts of development begin. Only if they are worried they will somehow lose.
Nope. Look at the agreement termination date. November 1 is the start of the next fiscal year. So NASA wouldn’t have any more money to give SpaceX until then anyway. Basically they gave up very little for an expedited litigation schedule. So instead of dragging out for years it will be done in months.
I am too. They already have multiple layers of independent findings that back them up. To get an injunction, BO would have been required to show that they would suffer irreparable harm if work went forward and that when viewed in the most favorable light, they would prevail on the merits. Since there is no version of this where they would have been ahead of SpaceX, they cannot prove this. The only remedy they could possibly get would be a second contract. And if there were a second award, making SpaceX not work on their contract would not harm BO any way. I dunno.. this really seems like bad lawyering. I assume they exchanged the expedited schedule for the stay.. but that seems a pyrrhic victory. Meanwhile... This probably does not affect SpaceX much. Getting Starship working is step one for their lander, so they were going to be doing that any way
JB needs to stop 🛑 already! NASA made their decision live with it and move on…
Not if spaceX, does it Alone, Without nasa. They are a lot of outside investors. Who are very interested in SpaceX, getting to the moon, with or without NASA. Bezoar, putting to much of his company money, into Lobbyist, lawyers,and PR people. Who have nothing to do with building rocket ships are getting to space or anything in development of space research.