News
SpaceX’s Starship Moon lander under fire yet again as Blue Origin sues NASA
Less than three weeks after the US Government Accountability Office (GAO) categorically denied protests from Blue Origin and Dynetics over NASA’s decision to award SpaceX a Moon lander development contract, the former company has sued the space agency.
First reported by The Verge, Blue Origin filed its lawsuit against NASA with the US Court of Federal Claims on Monday, August 16th and continues to spout the same kind of rhetoric that GAO wholeheartedly refuted on July 30th. Namely, the office explicitly upheld the procurement process and reasoning behind NASA’s decision to award SpaceX – and SpaceX alone – a contract to develop a crewed Moon lander.
Thus far, the central argument put forth by Blue Origin and Dynetics is that NASA effectively invalidated the entire Human Landing System (HLS) “Option A” procurement when it didn’t award two HLS development contracts. Option A refers to a limited portion of the HLS program focused on funding the development of crewed Moon landers and the completion of two crucial flight tests – one uncrewed and one with NASA astronauts aboard.
Program-wise, HLS is quite similar to NASA’s Commercial Crew Program (CCP), which began as a series of smaller contracts focused on capability demonstrations that culminated in a major competition to ferry NASA astronauts to and from the International Space Station (ISS). Ultimately, NASA selected Boeing and SpaceX and the rest is now history (SpaceX flourished; Boeing floundered) and despite unsurprising delays, the program has been an extraordinary success and a financial bargain.
As part of the major Commercial Crew Transportation Capability contracts SpaceX and Boeing won, both companies were tasked with designed, building, and qualifying crewed spacecraft to NASA specifications. The centerpiece of those contracts was a pair of full-up demonstration flights to and from the ISS – one uncrewed and the other with two NASA astronauts. NASA then separately purchased “post-certification missions” – operational crew transport flights – from both companies a few years into development.
-->The corollaries between Commercial Crew and HLS are clear and unsurprising. However, unlike the Commercial Crew Program, NASA has been able to structure HLS with the benefits of hindsight. This time around, already faced with a Congressional funding shortfall even worse than years of half-funding that directly delayed CCtCap, NASA used a different procurement ‘vessel’ for HLS and repeatedly warned competitors that while it wanted two Moon lander providers, the ability to award two contracts would be entirely dependent on funding availability.
In other words, NASA had learned an important lesson from the Commercial Crew Program and wasn’t about to trap itself with contractual obligations that far outmatched recent Congressional funding trends. Intentionally or not, NASA structured HLS in such a way that it only awarded major Option A lander contracts after Congress had already appropriated its FY2021 funding. As it turned out, Congress ultimately provided a pathetic 25% of the full $3.4 billion NASA had requested, leaving the agency no choice but to downselect to just a single provider – SpaceX. Put simply, NASA has assumed that Congress will continue to supply just a tiny fraction of the funding it would need to develop two landers on time and SpaceX’s Starship proposal was just cheap enough to make any Option A award possible.
The fixed-price contract will cost NASA $2.9B over four or so years – narrowly within the space agency’s reach if Congress continues to appropriate around $850M annually ($3.4B over four years). The numbers are very simple. As GAO notes, the Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) vehicle NASA used for its HLS Option A procurement also strictly allows the agency to select as many or as few proposals as it wants, including none at all. In the lead-up to proposal submission, official NASA documents repeatedly cautioned as much, warning that the agency might not even award one contract depending on funding or the quality of proposals it received.
For Blue Origin’s lawsuit to succeed, the increasingly desperate company will have to convince a federal judge that basic realities and longstanding precedents of federal procurement – not just NASA’s HLS award to SpaceX – are flawed and need to be changed. The odds of success are thus spectacularly low. However, if the presiding judge allows the case to proceed and awards Blue Origin an injunction against NASA, it could force the space agency to cease work on SpaceX’s HLS contract for months and potentially freeze SpaceX’s access to the $300M NASA recently disbursed.
News
Blue Origin announces Super-Heavy New Glenn 9×4 to Rival SpaceX Starship
The announcement followed the company’s successful NG-2 launch on November 13.
Blue Origin has revealed plans to develop New Glenn 9×4, a “super heavy” rocket designed to deliver 70 metric tons to low-Earth orbit and directly compete with SpaceX’s Starship.
The announcement followed the company’s successful NG-2 launch on November 13, which deployed NASA’s ESCAPADE (Escape and Plasma Acceleration Dynamics Explorers) Mars mission and landed the first stage.
Upgraded engines and reusability
As noted in a Universe Today report, Blue Origin will roll out upgraded BE-4 engines producing 640,000 lbf each, up from 550,000 lbf, starting with NG-3. This should boost the New Glenn rocket’s total first-stage thrust to 4.5 million pounds. Upper-stage BE-3U engines are expected to improve from 320,000 lbf to 400,000 lbf over the next few flights as well.
“These enhancements will immediately benefit customers already manifested on New Glenn to fly to destinations including low-Earth orbit, the Moon, and beyond. Additional vehicle upgrades include a reusable fairing to support increased flight rates, an updated lower-cost tank design, and a higher-performing and reusable thermal protection system to improve turnaround time,” Blue Origin noted.
New Glenn “Super Heavy” 9×4
The super-heavy New Glenn 9×4, with nine BE-4s on the booster, four BE-3Us on the upper stage, will feature an 8.7-meter payload fairing. Blue Origin expects New Glenn 9×4 to be capable of transporting 70 metric tons to LEO, 14 tons to GSO, and 20 tons to trans-lunar injection, as noted by the company in a blog post. This is very impressive, as New Glenn 9×4’s capacity exceeds Falcon Heavy, SpaceX’s largest rocket available to consumers today. Falcon Heavy is capable of carrying up to 64 metric tons to low Earth orbit in a fully expendable configuration.
-->That being said, SpaceX’s Starship’s capacity is extremely impressive. As per SpaceX, Starship is designed to be capable of carrying up to 100-150 metric tonnes to orbit in its fully reusable configuration. At its expendable configuration, Starship’s capacity enters unheard-of territory, with SpaceX stating that the vehicle could transport 250 metric tonnes of cargo.
News
Tesla FSD approved for testing in Nacka, Sweden, though municipality note reveals aggravating detail
Nacka, Sweden, a municipality just a few miles from Stockholm, has given its approval for FSD tests.
Tesla has secured approval for FSD testing in an urban environment in Sweden. As per recent reports from the Tesla community, Nacka, Sweden, a municipality just a few miles from Stockholm, has given its approval for FSD tests.
A look at the municipality’s note regarding FSD’s approval, however, reveals something quite aggravating.
FSD testing approval secured
As per Tesla watcher and longtime shareholder Alexander Kristensen, Nacka is governed by the Moderate Party. The shareholder also shared the municipality’s protocol notes regarding approval for FSD’s tests.
“It is good that Nacka can be a place for test-driving self-driving cars. This is future technology that can both facilitate mobility and make transportation cheaper and more environmentally friendly,” the note read.
The update was received positively by the Tesla community on social media, as it suggests that the electric vehicle maker is making some legitimate headway in releasing FSD into the region. Sweden has been particularly challenging as well, so securing approval in Nacka is a notable milestone for the company’s efforts.
-->Aggravating details
A look at the notes from Nacka shows that FSD’s proposed tests still met some opposition from some officials. But while some critics might typically point to safety issues as their reasons for rejecting FSD, those who opposed the system in Nacka openly cited Tesla’s conflict with trade union IF Metall in their arguments. Fortunately, Nacka officials ultimately decided in Tesla’s favor as the company’s issues with the country’s unions are a completely different matter.
“The left-wing opposition (S, Nackalistan, MP and V) voted no to this, referring to the fact that the applicant company Tesla is involved in a labor market conflict and does not want to sign a collective agreement. We believe that this is not an acceptable reason for the municipality to use its authority to interfere in a labor law conflict.
“Signing a collective agreement is not an obligation, and the company has not committed any crime. The municipality should contribute to technological development and progress, not work against the future,” the note read.
News
Tesla Model 3 and Model Y named top car buys in Norway
Despite growing competition from European and Korean brands, both models stood out for their balance of price, performance, and everyday usability.
Norway’s annual roundup of the best car purchases featured Tesla’s two main sellers this year, with the Model 3 and Model Y securing top positions in their respective segments.
Despite growing competition from European and Korean brands, both models stood out for their balance of price, performance, and everyday usability. The verdict comes as electric vehicle adoption remained above 95% of new vehicle sales in the country.
Tesla Model 3 strengthens its value position
Among compact EVs, the Tesla Model 3 maintained its position as the best overall buy thanks to its strong blend of performance, efficiency, and updated features. Reviewers noted that every trim offered compelling value, especially with the all-electric sedan’s improved cabin ergonomics and the return of the turn-signal stalk, which was one of the few previous complaints among drivers.
The Model 3’s mix of long-range capability, low operating costs, and responsive handling has continued to set the benchmark for compact EVs in Norway. While competitors from Hyundai, Volkswagen, and Peugeot have narrowed the gap, Tesla’s price-to-capability ratio has remained difficult to beat in this segment, Motor.no reported.
“The Model 3 clearly offers the best value for money in the compact class, no matter which version you choose. Now it also gets the turn signal lever back. This eliminates one of the few flaws in a driving environment that many believe is the best on the market,” the publication wrote.
-->Tesla Model Y claims its crown
The Tesla Model Y emerged as Norway’s top family-car purchase this year. The latest refresh introduced improvements in ride quality, styling, and interior materials, allowing the Model Y to deliver a more premium driving experience without a substantial price increase.
Reviewers praised its spacious cabin, strong safety profile, and practical range, all of which reinforced its appeal for families needing an all-purpose electric crossover. The Model Y remains especially notable given its continued popularity in Norway even as Tesla faces declining sales in other global markets.
“The Model Y is back as the winner in the family class. The upgrade in the new year was even more extensive than expected. It is a slightly more elegant and significantly more comfortable Model Y that solidifies its position as Norway’s best car purchase in the most important class,” the Norwegian motoring publication noted.
Blue Origin announces Super-Heavy New Glenn 9×4 to Rival SpaceX Starship
Tesla FSD approved for testing in Nacka, Sweden, though municipality note reveals aggravating detail
