{"id":17488,"date":"2021-09-22T18:06:44","date_gmt":"2021-09-22T10:06:44","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/wp-productionenv-bjg9h2g2bgg5b8aa.southeastasia-01.azurewebsites.net\/news\/court-filings-shed-light-on-blue-origin-vs-spacex-lunar-lander-fight-with-dark-spots\/"},"modified":"2021-09-22T18:06:44","modified_gmt":"2021-09-22T10:06:44","slug":"court-filings-shed-light-on-blue-origin-vs-spacex-lunar-lander-fight-with-dark-spots","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/news\/court-filings-shed-light-on-blue-origin-vs-spacex-lunar-lander-fight-with-dark-spots\/","title":{"rendered":"Court filings shed light on Blue Origin vs. SpaceX lunar lander fight, with dark spots"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"Starship
An artist\u2019s conception shows SpaceX\u2019s Starship rocket ship on the moon. (SpaceX Illustration)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Redacted versions of documents relating to Blue Origin\u2019s federal lawsuit against the federal government and SpaceX lay out further details about the dispute over a multibillion-dollar NASA lunar lander contract, but the details that are left out are arguably just as intriguing.<\/p>\n

Today the U.S. Court of Federal Appeals released the 59-page text of the Blue Origin-led industry consortium\u2019s complaint, which was filed in August. The court also shared redacted responses from SpaceX.<\/p>\n

The filings focus on NASA\u2019s April decision to award SpaceX a $2.9 billion contract to develop its Starship super-rocket as the landing system for the Artemis program\u2019s first crewed trip to the lunar surface, planned for as early as 2024.<\/p>\n

At the time, NASA said that SpaceX\u2019s proposal was technically superior to the concepts offered by Blue Origin and its partners \u2014 Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and Draper \u2014 and by another competitor, Dynetics. SpaceX had the low bid, with Blue Origin\u2019s team proposing $5.9 billion for its landing system. Draper\u2019s proposal was even more expensive.<\/p>\n

The original hope was that NASA might make multiple awards, in the interest of promoting competition and having a Plan B. But space agency officials said Congress appropriated only enough money to make one award.<\/p>\n

In a protest filed with the Government Accountability Office, Blue Origin complained that NASA didn\u2019t evaluate the proposals properly, and that SpaceX was given a chance to restructure its bid to fit NASA\u2019s budget. The GAO largely sided with NASA and SpaceX in a ruling that let the contract award stand, but then Blue Origin took the dispute to federal court.<\/p>\n

Blue Origin\u2019s lawsuit touches on the aforementioned talking points, but it primarily focuses on waivers that NASA issued relating to \u201csupporting spacecraft\u201d that are apparently used in connection with SpaceX\u2019s landing system. The details about those supporting spacecraft were blacked out by the court.<\/p>\n

The lawsuit argues that issuing the waivers for individual flight readiness reviews and \u201cother review requirements\u201d for the supporting spacecraft gave SpaceX an unfair advantage in the competition. \u201cBlue Origin and Dynetics did not get such a chance to compete with waived requirements the Agency afforded to SpaceX,\u201d it says. \u201cHad it had such an opportunity, Blue Origin would have been able to propose a substantially lower price\u2026\u201d<\/p>\n

So what is the supporting spacecraft? References to SpaceX\u2019s moon-landing Starship and a tanker version of the same spacecraft that would be used for in-flight refueling were left unredacted \u2014 so those probably aren\u2019t at issue in terms of confidentiality.<\/p>\n

Blue Origin calls on the court to issue an order that would suspend SpaceX\u2019s work on the lunar lander contract and give the competitors an equal chance to discuss their proposals with NASA. If the order is issued as proposed by Blue Origin, the competitors would send \u201cfinal proposal revisions\u201d to NASA, and space agency officials would make a new award determination.<\/p>\n

In one of its responses to the complaint, SpaceX says Blue Origin is relying on a \u201cflawed interpretation\u201d of NASA\u2019s solicitation \u2014 an interpretation that was \u201cunfortunately adopted by GAO\u201d in its ruling.<\/p>\n

SpaceX also says the unredacted version of Blue Origin\u2019s complaint should remain sealed because it would disclose SpaceX\u2019s proprietary and confidential information. The judge in the case, Richard Hertling, agreed with SpaceX on the redaction issue.<\/p>\n

The court is expected to hear oral arguments in October, with an eye toward issuing a ruling by early November. In the meantime, NASA has granted a total of $146 million in fixed-price awards to Blue Origin, SpaceX, Dynetics, Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman through a follow-up program aimed at boosting the space agency\u2019s lunar landing capabilities.<\/p>\n

Update<\/strong>: In a tweet, The Washington Post\u2019s Christian Davenport passed along information from a SpaceX white paper providing more details disputing Blue Origin\u2019s claims in the complaint about flight readiness reviews, and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk weighed in via Twitter as well:<\/p>\n