Axiom Space has sued rival Vast Space under the False Claims Act, alleging that Vast handed NASA a mission planning document built from Axiom’s proprietary work. The complaint, filed June 19 in federal court in Houston, was unsealed by a Nov. 4 order from US District Judge Charles Eskridge, according to court filings reviewed by Ars Technica.
The document, a Mission Integration and Operations Management Plan, is one of the deliverables NASA requires under its Private Astronaut Mission (PAM) agreements for crewed visits to the International Space Station (ISS). NASA awarded Vast the sixth such mission in February, and Axiom alleges that NASA’s acceptance of the plan is a condition of a milestone payment to Vast.
According to the complaint, NASA told Axiom on June 3 that Axiom’s sensitive information had turned up in a Vast deliverable. Axiom says NASA advised that the document swapped in “the PAM Provider” for Axiom’s name in some places and left Axiom’s name and company details in others.
The Justice Department declined to intervene on Oct. 23, so Axiom is pursuing the case on its own, seeking civil penalties, treble damages, litigation costs and a whistleblower award. Vast said the suit is about competition, not fraud, that the department’s decision reflects the merits, and that its PAM work is continuing without interruption. NASA spokesman George Alderman told Ars Technica the agency “is aware of the matter but does not comment on litigation.”
By Axiom’s own account, it was NASA that spotted Axiom’s name in Vast’s paperwork and flagged it. Final proposals for NASA’s commercial space station competition are due Dec. 14, and both companies are bidding.
NASA Watch commentary: “Does not comment on litigation” is a standard line, but NASA isn’t a bystander here. By Axiom’s account, NASA found Axiom’s name in a Vast deliverable and told Axiom about it, so what NASA did next with that plan, and with the milestone payment tied to it, is part of the story either way. With final proposals for the commercial station competition due Dec. 14 and both companies bidding, the people judging those bids, and everyone who has to trust the result, should know that question has been answered.
