Connect with us

News

SpaceX’s NASA Starship contract prevails over frivolous Blue Origin, Dynetics protests

A render of SpaceX's proposed Starship Moon lander besides SN15, the first full-scale Starship to successfully land. (SpaceX)

Published

on

The US Government Accountability Office (GAO) has thrown out frivolous protests filed by Blue Origin and Dynetics after NASA awarded SpaceX a $2.9B contract to develop a crewed Starship Moon lander.

In mid-April, NASA announced that it had chosen SpaceX and SpaceX alone to develop a Starship-derived lander capable of returning humanity to the Moon more than half a century after astronauts last stepped foot on Earth’s neighbor. Ultimately, in the context of dismal Congressional support, NASA analyzed proposals submitted by SpaceX, Dynetics, and a Blue Origin-led team and concluded that Congress had only provided enough funding for the space agency to pick a single provider.

By awarding more than one contract, NASA could feasibly ensure – like it did with its Commercial Crew and Cargo programs – that a delay or failure of one vehicle wouldn’t guarantee a program-wide delay. However, thanks to Congress appropriating a pathetic $850M (1/4th) of the $3.4B NASA requested for Human Landing System (HLS) development, awarding two contracts would guarantee that HLS would be delayed years beyond its 2024 target for a crewed Moon landing. Ultimately, though NASA had demonstrated a desire to proceed with more than one HLS provider, the agency unsurprisingly concluded that it would have to pick only the best of the three competitors.

In a wholly unexpected twist, NASA ultimately determined that SpaceX’s Starship proposal was simultaneously the cheapest and the most competent of the three, rating above or equal to Blue Origin and Dynetics in two main categories. Unsurprisingly, NASA thus chose to award an HLS “Option A” contract to SpaceX alone, citing the agency’s own repeated qualifications that its desire to make multiple awards was “dependent upon funding availability.”

It eventually became clear that Blue Origin’s proposal – the second cheapest, according to NASA – had requested more than $6 billion, making it more than twice as expensive as SpaceX’s offering. In her selection statement, NASA Associate Administrator Kathy Lueders (former head of the extraordinarily successful Commercial Crew Program) noted that the funding left after SpaceX’s $2.94B award was “so insubstantial” that it would have been insulting and a waste of time to even attempt to negotiate Blue Origin’s $6B request down to a feasible number

Advertisement

As would soon become clear, both Blue Origin and Dynetics were apparently furious with NASA’s reasonable, consistent, and well-explained decision and immediately filed protests with GAO, effectively preventing NASA from working on HLS in any consequential fashion. Available for anyone to read, both protests were so frivolous and petty that it was hard to believe any serious, professional company would willingly attach their name to either.

Thankfully, although GAO took 95 of the 100 days it was allowed for the decision, the federal watchdog ultimately agreed that both Blue Origin’s and Dynetics’ protests were almost entirely meritless, save for one minute, unspecified waiver NASA allowed SpaceX. As NASA noted in an official response to GAO’s decision, the demise of both protests means that the space agency can finally get back to work with SpaceX, begin dispersing funds the company fairly won, and establish a timeline and provide updates on plans to land humans on the Moon for the first time in half a century.

Eric Ralph is Teslarati's senior spaceflight reporter and has been covering the industry in some capacity for almost half a decade, largely spurred in 2016 by a trip to Mexico to watch Elon Musk reveal SpaceX's plans for Mars in person. Aside from spreading interest and excitement about spaceflight far and wide, his primary goal is to cover humanity's ongoing efforts to expand beyond Earth to the Moon, Mars, and elsewhere.

Advertisement
Comments

News

Tesla gets price target increase on Wall Street, but it’s a head-scratcher

Delaney’s price target on Tesla shares went up to $395 from $300. Currently, Tesla is trading between $420 and $430, making the new price target from Goldman Sachs a bit of a head-scratcher.

Published

on

Credit: Cybertruck | X

Tesla (NASDAQ: TSLA) received a price target increase from a Wall Street analyst today, who noted in his report that the company’s shares could rise or fall based on its execution in robotics and autonomy.

However, the price target boost still fell below Tesla’s current trading levels.

Mark Delaney of Goldman Sachs said in a note to investors today that Tesla has a significant opportunity to solidify itself as one of the stable and safe plays in the market if it can execute on its two key projects: humanoid robots and autonomy.

In the note, Delaney said:

“If Tesla can have [an] outsized share in areas such as humanoid robotics and autonomy, then there could be upside to our price target.”

Delaney’s price target on Tesla shares went up to $395 from $300. Currently, Tesla is trading between $420 and $430, making the new price target from Goldman Sachs a bit of a head-scratcher.

He went on to say that Tesla could also confront outside factors that would limit the stock’s ability to see growth, including competition and potentially its own lack of execution:

“…although if competition limits profits (as is happening with the ADAS market in China) or Tesla does not execute well, then there could be downside.”

The note is an interesting one because it seems to point out the blatantly obvious: if Tesla performs well, the stock will rise. If it doesn’t, the stock price will decline.

We discussed yesterday in an article that Tesla is one of the few stocks out there that does not seem to be influenced by financials or anything super concrete. Instead, it is more influenced by the narrative currently surrounding the company, rather than the technicals.

Tesla called ‘biggest meme stock we’ve ever seen’ by Yale associate dean

Tesla’s prowess in robotics and autonomy is strong. In robotics, it has a very good sentiment following its Optimus project, and it has shown steady improvement with subsequent versions of the robot with each release.

On the autonomy front, Tesla is expanding its Robotaxi platform in Austin every few weeks, and also has a sizeable geofence in the Bay Area. Its Full Self-Driving suite is among the most robust in the world and is incredibly useful and accurate.

The company can gain significant value if it continues to refine the platform and eventually rolls out a driverless or unsupervised version of the Full Self-Driving suite.

Continue Reading

Elon Musk

Tesla addresses door handle complaints with simple engineering fix

“We’ll have a really good solution for that. I’m not worried about it.”

Published

on

Tesla Model S self-presenting door handle
Tesla Model S self-presenting door handle (Credit: TesBros)

Tesla is going to adjust one heavily scrutinized part of its vehicles after recent government agencies have launched probes into an issue stemming from complaints from owners.

Over the past few days, we have reported on the issues with Tesla’s door handle systems from both the Chinese and American governments.

In China, it dealt with the Model S, while the United States’ National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) reported nine complaints from owners experiencing issues with 2021 Model Ys, as some said they had trouble entering their car after the 12V battery was low on power.

Bloomberg, in an interview with Tesla Chief Designer Franz von Holzhausen, asked whether the company planned to adjust the door handle design to alleviate any concerns that regulatory agencies might have.

Regarding the interior latch concerns in the United States:

  • Von Holzhausen said that, while a mechanical door release resolves this problem, Tesla plans to “combine the two” to help reduce stress in what he called “panic situations.”
  • He also added that “it’s in the cars now…The idea of combining the electronic and the manual one together in one button, I think, makes a lot of sense.” Franz said the muscle memory of reaching for the same button will be advantageous for children and anyone who is in an emergency.

Regarding the exterior door handle concerns in China:

  • Von Holzhausen said Tesla is reviewing the details of the regulation and confirmed, “We’ll have a really good solution for that. I’m not worried about it.”

The new Model Y already has emergency mechanical door release latches in the back, but combining them in future vehicles seems to be an ideal solution for other vehicles in Tesla’s lineup.

It will likely help Tesla avoid complaints from owners about not having an out in the event of a power outage or accident. It is a small engineering change that could be extremely valuable for future instances.

Continue Reading

News

Elon Musk calls out viral claim of 10,000 Tesla Optimus deal: “Fake”

For now at least, Tesla seems determined to focus on the development of Optimus V3.

Published

on

Credit: Tesla Optimus/X

Elon Musk has provided some clarification to recent reports suggesting that PharmAGRI, a US pharmaceutical and agricultural infrastructure company, is looking to deploy 10,000 Optimus robots for its operations.

Musk posted his clarification on social media platform X.

Alleged Optimus purchase

Recently, reports emerged stating that PharmAGRI Capital Partners will be tapping into Tesla’s humanoid robots for its operations. The firm claimed that it had executed a Letter of Intent with Tesla to deploy up to 10,000 Optimus Gen 3+ humanoid robots across its SuperPharm and CEA facilities. This should allow the company to automate its labor and ensure diversion control.

A comment from Lynn Stockwell, Chairwoman & CEO, suggested that the company really was partnering with Tesla. “With Tesla robotics powering our facilities and DEA-licensed infrastructure in place, we can scale with precision, meet federal sourcing mandates, and deliver therapies that are compliant, secure, and American-made,” she said. 

Elon Musk clariies

News of PharmAGRI’s Optimus claims quickly spread on social media, though some Tesla watchers argued that it seemed unlikely that the EV maker will commit two legions of Optimus robots to a rather unknown company this early. Some pointed out that Tesla typically commits to high-profile customers to test its early products, such as PepsiCo with the Tesla Semi. 

Advertisement

Photos from PharmAGRI’s website depicting Tesla Optimus bots, as well as the rather basic look of the website itself, also brought more reservations to the company’s claims. Ultimately, Elon Musk weighed in on the matter, responding to a post about PharmAGRI’s Optimus-filled webpage. Musk was quick and direct, simply stating, “Fake.”

Elon Musk’s comments were quite unsurprising considering that Optimus is still very much in active development, and thus, it is quite unlikely that the company is already taking orders or even Letters of Intent from potential customers at this time. For now at least, Tesla seems determined to focus on the development of Optimus V3, which Musk has noted will be “sublime.”

Continue Reading

Trending