The U.S. Court of Federal Claims releases its opinion on the Blue Origin HLS lawsuit ruling, saying that the company "does not have standing because it did not have a substantial chance of award" and, even if it did have standing, "it would lose on merits:"
This opinion is the context to the judge's ruling in Blue Origin's lawsuit earlier this month:
The administrative record for this case was 135,000 pages, and Blue Origin argued that still "documents were missing."
While the proposed milestone payments are redacted, the court notes that Blue Origin's lunar lander proposal asked for "more than triple" the ~$345 million that NASA said would be available for fiscal year 2021 – meaning the company asked for about $1 billion in the first year.
The court discloses that, during oral arguments last month, Blue Origin CEO Bob Smith raised the $2 billion private funding offer (made by Jeff Bezos to NASA in July) to "over $3 billion."
The court dismissed Blue Origin's allegation that NASA waived flight readiness reviews for SpaceX on the grounds that Blue Origin "could have not have benefited from a similar waiver" because the company "had not proposed any supporting spacecraft."
The court calls out Blue Origin for pivoting after the GAO decision, as the company said it would have submitted a more affordable single-element integrated lander like Starship that utilized similar strategy ("a large number of launches," LEO rendezvous, and a propellant depot):
Judge Hertling not pulling punches here: "Blue Origin is in the position of every disappointed bidder: Oh. That’s what the agency wanted and liked best?"
"We could have offered a better price and snazzier features and options."
Blue Origin argued NASA's expected HLS budget changed, but Judge Hertling notes that NASA was upfront about the undetermined budget and gives the company's lobbying as an example for why it should have known (with shoutouts to @SpcPlcyOnline & @chelsea_gohd):
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Elon Musk is holding a Twitter Spaces discussion on SpaceX's first Starship launch.
Thread:
Musk: "The outcome was roughly in what I expected, and maybe slightly exceeding my expectations, but roughly what I expected, which is that we would get clear of the pad."
Musk: "I'm glad to report that the pad damage is actually quite small" and should "be repaired quickly."
After the dramatic first Starship Super Heavy launch, a look at SpaceX's monster rocket program – with the good (prototypes in the wings), the bad (destruction and debris at and around the launchpad) and the unknown (regulator investigations underway): cnbc.com/2023/04/29/spa…
NASA chief @SenBillNelson: “I have asked, so I can report to you ... SpaceX is still saying that they think it will take at least two months to rebuild the launchpad and concurrently about two months to have their second vehicle ready to launch." cnbc.com/2023/04/29/spa…
@SenBillNelson Nelson effectively defended SpaceX before a Congressional committee on Thursday, explaining how the company is "hardware rich:"
"They launch, if something goes wrong they figure out what it is, they go back and they launch it again." cnbc.com/2023/04/29/spa…
SpaceX is preparing to launch for the 29th time this year, and the second time this evening, with a Falcon Heavy rocket carrying satellites for Viasat and Astranis.
This rocket is expendable, so its boosters will not be recovered.
Watch live:
Falcon Heavy is standing tall to launch in a little over 10 minutes
ULA CEO Tory Bruno
SpaceX VP of Commercial Sales Tom Ochinero
Arianespace CEO Stephane Israel
Rocket Lab $RKLB Senior Director Richard French
Blue Origin VP of Commercial Sales Ariane Cornell