This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something. It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU.
Artemis

NASA Puts SpaceX HLS Contract On Hold

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
April 30, 2021
Filed under ,
NASA Puts SpaceX HLS Contract On Hold

NASA Suspends HLS Contract With SpaceXS, SpacePolicyOnline
“NASA has suspended its contract with SpaceX for the landing system to take astronauts down to and back from the lunar surface. Two other competitors for the contract, Blue Origin and Dynetics, have filed protests with the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and NASA issued the stop work order until GAO resolves the matter. NASA awarded 10-month contracts to three companies one year ago today to further develop their concepts for Human Landing Systems (HLS) as part of the Artemis program to return astronauts to the lunar surface: SpaceX, Dynetics, and Blue Origin’s “National Team” that includes Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and Draper.”
Keith’s note: According to NASA PAO: “Pursuant to the GAO protests, NASA instructed SpaceX that progress on the HLS contract has been suspended until GAO resolves all outstanding litigation related to this procurement.”
NASA’s Dilemma: Put Humans On The Moon Or Feed Big Aerospace, earlier post
Blue Origin Formally Protests NASA HLS Contract Award, earlier post
Formal NASA Human Lander Announced, earlier post

NASA Watch founder, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA, Away Teams, Journalist, Space & Astrobiology, Lapsed climber.

26 responses to “NASA Puts SpaceX HLS Contract On Hold”

  1. Johnhouboltsmyspiritanimal says:
    0
    0

    So spacex gets to work on their own dime and time without having nasa in their business during the protest. This may yet be the most productive 100 days for them since they got the HLS award a year ago.

    • Bill Housley says:
      0
      0

      No. I laughed when I read this, but no. It just means that SpaceX gets to make progress on stuff that will have to be undone later to satisfy NASA’s bureaucracy. Also, it trims the paperwork processing time between now and launch time without trimming the paperwork which will contribute to down calendar pressure and cost SpaceX money as they wait for NASA.

      • fcrary says:
        0
        0

        I’m not sure about that. As structured, NASA is only concerned with the lunar version of Starship. Getting into orbit (with SuperHeavy as the first stage) and the tanker flights to refuel it are SpaceX problem. By using a tanker as a temporary depot and not launching the lunar Starship until all the propellent is already in orbit, delays in the tanker flights aren’t on the critical path. So I don’t believe NASA bureaucracy or paperwork are going to have any part in development of SuperHeavy and the non-lunar versions of Starship.

        • Bill Housley says:
          0
          0

          Dude. People will ride in it to and from the lunar surface…far away and outside the reach of rescue. The paperwork piles and delays were huge for Dragon and Dreamliner, so much so that some wondered why they dealt with NASA at all and this will be no different. There will come a time with this, just like with Dragon, where Elon will say, “We’re ready to fly, we’re just waiting for the certs from NASA.” THAT leg of the journey is being delayed by this protest filing and NASA did it to themselves by not involving the other two contractors on April 2nd.

          • rb1957 says:
            0
            0

            The plane (or rocket) hasn’t been made that can carry the weight of paper it creates.

          • fcrary says:
            0
            0

            So how does that affect SuperHeavy? It’s the first stage for Starship, but there aren’t going to be any astronauts on board when the lunar Starship launched. The astronauts don’t get on board until the thing is in an Earth-Moon L2 halo orbit. And they don’t come back to Earth on the lunar Starship. Similarly, the tanker version of Starship is necessary for the HLS system, but it’s job is done before any astronauts leave the ground. The GAO is expected to resolve these contract protests within 100 days. What, in the next three months, is SpaceX going to be doing that directly affects the lunar version of Starship? The things they’re flying in Boca Chica are very preliminary prototypes which have very little similarity to what the lunar Starship will eventually be like.

    • rktsci says:
      0
      0

      In theory, they can’t work on anything that is specific to this contract.

  2. ed2291 says:
    0
    0

    Space X is going full speed ahead on Starship and Super Heavy so this should not slow down the process too much. Unlike Blue Origin, Space X does not tie progress to federal contracts.

    A bigger question is how much credibility and good will Blue Origin and Dynetics will lose with these dilatory tactics as legacy space and cost plus contracts start to fade.

  3. Bad Horse says:
    0
    0

    SpaceX should win. I can only imagine Musk’s response, “Whatever”. Cost, schedule, low technical risk, investment from the company and performance. SpaceX is going to the moon.

    • rb1957 says:
      0
      0

      Yes, I can see SpaceX going ahead. $3B is “pocket change”. SpaceX’ll be on the moon before NASA. There’s a thought … who licenses landing on another “planet” ? FAA licenses launches. Who worries about not only landing on the moon, but also returning to the earth ? quarantine ??

      • fcrary says:
        0
        0

        No one. It’s a gap in the existing laws. The US government is required to make sure a US-based company or individual follows the appropriate parts of the Outer Space Treaty, but there’s no mechanism in place to do that. The required FCC license, which covers a few things other than just the radios they’re using, would be required, but that isn’t too restrictive. The Apollo 11 astronauts were asked to file a customs form when they got back and arrived in Hawaii, but that was a joke. And I guess the FAA does have to handle the airspace around the landing site, and issue the usual notice to airmen. But other than that, I don’t think any government agency is authorized to regulate activities in space.

  4. Bill Housley says:
    0
    0

    I hadn’t read the selection statement until this latest development.

    I’m still reading it, but it looks like SpaceX took first place just based on their combined Technical and Management Ratings…which the report says is more important than Price anyway. So, I’m really not all that sure what all this lawyer whining over the “post-selection price negotiation” on April 2nd is intended to achieve. Yes, budgetary considerations caused NASA to down-select to one, but I don’t see how follow-up price negotiations with Dynetics or the “Lobby Lander” team could have yielded enough fruit to pay for two awards.

    One element of the SpaceX proposal in fact makes it uniquely suited for the aggressive “Boots on the ground by 2024” timeline. They proposed redundancy in airlocks and engines in case something goes wrong. The admittedly awkward size of the platform makes this possible.

    This is just for that one launch. Future flights on a more relaxed timeline give the other two choices a better chance at success.

    • Terry Stetler says:
      0
      0

      Another item highlighted by Leuders was NASA asking for a 90 day lunar orbit loiter and Space bid 100 days. Opens up new options.

      • Bill Housley says:
        0
        0

        Yeah. The protests highlight other details that the other applicants noticed were missing as well.

        I’m going to take off my SpaceX fan-boy hat for a minute (difficult, since it’s actually welded on in a few places ;-).

        I have now read the Selection Statement and the headers of the two protests. If an authority finds the substance of the details of their complaints to be accurate, then it looks like it could point to bias toward SpaceX on the part of NASA and a brazen and obvious attempt to hijack Congress for more money and punish Congress for not ever taking the 2024 landing date seriously. It looks like in deciding to “coach” SpaceX on payment schedule while not coaching the other two applicants on the determined weaknesses of their proposals and on the impact of budget considerations, NASA opened themselves up to litigation that could drag out enough to threaten their mission timeline.

        First…did anyone here ever take the 2024 date seriously, or Congressional intent to try and fund it, or NASA’s ability to pull it off without the funding? I think that if the Congressional support and budget considerations and their potential impact on an HLS landing in 2024 did not surprise me, a total outsider, then it should not have surprised NASA, Blue Origin or Dynetics either.

        BTW, it threatens NASA’s and the other applicants’ mission timelines…maybe not SpaceX’s…throwing a very fun angle into all of this.

        • space1999 says:
          0
          0

          ” It looks like in deciding to “coach” SpaceX on payment schedule while not coaching the other two applicants on the determined weaknesses of their proposals and on the impact of budget considerations, NASA opened themselves up to litigation that could drag out enough to threaten their mission timeline.”
          I believe since NASA selected SpaceX for award they could enter into negotiations regarding cost and payment schedule. If NASA had selected BO or Dynetics they could have done the same. However, they didn’t select either. There may be valid grounds for protest, but it doesn’t seem like this is one.

          • Bill Housley says:
            0
            0

            You’re correct, and the selection statement says exactly that. The protests disagreed with the substance of their respective disqualifying weak points and point out strengths that were not considered and potential weak points in the DpaceX offer. Also, one or both protests take very strong issue with the down-select to a single provider, saying that it is a major adjustment from the original development plan…to the point of being a disqualifying weakness in the whole plan due to the mission assurance risk that it creates.

          • Bill Housley says:
            0
            0

            A complaint in one of the protests was that NASA listed the crew safety advantage of the proximity to the ground for ingress and egress as a technical strength on the Dynetics proposal without listing the serious lack of proximity to the ground as a technical weakness for Starship.

            I have to screw my SpaceX fanboy hat on really tight to ignore that. I actually have to pull it down all the way over my eyes.

          • fcrary says:
            0
            0

            Why? Safe access to the surface is obviously a consideration. Dynetics had a good was of doing it (having the hatch near the surface), so that’s a strength. SpaceX had a so-so way of doing it (multiple lifts or cranes compensating for how high the hatch would be from the surface.) That’s not a strength, but it’s not a weakness either. Contract reviews don’t talk about _all_ aspects of a proposal. Only the strengths and weaknesses which are notable. If something’s considered not worth mentioning, it doesn’t get mentioned.

          • Bill Housley says:
            0
            0

            Agreed.

            The Dynetics protest filing thought it was worth mentioning.

            How tall is Starship? 150 feet? And they’re not going to use those stubby little legs, so that’ll get added. It seems to me that if direct, back-porch-level access can be called a strength compared to the BO’s 40 feet, then asking why 150 feet wasn’t worth mentioning is a valid question to ask.

          • Terry Stetler says:
            0
            0

            NASA has seen a prototype of SpaceX’s elevator, and published an image in an HLS update doc. Basically, it looks like a retractable mine elevator. (attached image crop)

            Blue’s lander has a ~40′ ladder, which is a helluva climb. People fall from ladders far more often than falling in elevators, and that’s without bulky spacesuits.

            You can’t fall from Dynetics lander because, according to Leuders, the thing can’t land. Too heavy, no refuelling concept/details, etc. Nice pictures though.

            https://uploads.disquscdn.c

          • fcrary says:
            0
            0

            Negotiating the details of a contract, including revisions to the budget, is normal after a proposal is selected. And the source selection statement specifically said that, even with negotiations over the cost, the Blue Origin and Dynetics proposals would not have been selectable. So NASA didn’t think it was even worth trying. There isn’t anything illegal about that.

        • Bernardo Senna says:
          0
          0

          It’s true, but before starting negociations with SpaceX, wasn’t National Team disqualified by asking for money in advance and Dynetics for excessive weight? In this case wouldn’t make sense according to the due proccess, to negociate first with SX and then, only if it fails, with the other bidders?

          • Bill Housley says:
            0
            0

            True.

            Both protests disagreed with NASA on the substance of their disqualifying technical, pricing, and management weak points.

            NASA might have saved themselves some grief by coaching the Lobby Lander team and the Dynetics team and giving them a chance to amend their proposals on those points before announcing a winner.

            The big part of both protests pointed to the budget shortfall not being listed as a requirement to be overcome. They say that after the budget shortfall became an issue, NASA should have given all parties a chance to amend their pricing or just withdraw the development request and resubmit it with a more realistic timeline.

          • fcrary says:
            0
            0

            NASA didn’t “coach” SpaceX. The budget was renegotiated _after_ the proposals were reviewed and the decisions were made. That’s normal. I’ve had it happen to me, on much, much smaller NASA contracts. You get selected, but at the same time told that the budget doesn’t work, and one of things you proposed to do wasn’t considered very important. So could you please remove that task from the statement of work and submit an appropriately revised budget. Or, in the case of a planetary mission I’m familiar with, it was selected but told to reschedule, plan on a launch a year later than NASA had required in the AO and reduce the budget in the first year. That sort of thing is normal.

            As far as making one rather than two selections, I don’t think that is a valid complaint. NASA said they’d like to select to, but unless someone really screwed up writing the RFP, NASA didn’t commit to selecting two. That’s also something which happened to me. In this case, NASA planned to select two proposals for each sort of instrument for a robotic mission, and down select to one for flight after the first phase of development. Congress was generous, gave them more money than expected, but also required an earlier launch date. So the decided to select one, not two, and the selections were weighted towards those ready to fly without too much early development work. Again, that’s normal and legal, as long as NASA put the right weasel words in the original solicitation (which they’re always careful to do.)

      • Christopher James Huff says:
        0
        0

        It also significantly reduces the risk of the primary option not working…does anyone expect SLS to do its third launch ever with a year+ launch cadence without delays? That’s 10 days of extra margin for getting Orion off the ground and on its way to its rendezvous.

        • Bill Housley says:
          0
          0

          Yeah. We’re allowed to say that HERE. NASA not so much. 😉

          In fact, knowing SpaceX they’ll be building that possibility into the spacecraft.