Connect with us

News

SpaceX’s upgraded Starship set for test flight despite sore NASA contract losers

Sore losers have potentially delay NASA's ability to work on SpaceX's HLS Moon lander contract but the company isn't letting the red tape stop it from making progress. (Dynetics/SpaceX/bocachicagal/Blue Origin)

Published

on

Within the last week, while SpaceX has been diligently working to ready an upgraded Starship prototype for its first launch, former competitors Blue Origin and Dynetics – both of which recently lost a historic NASA Moon lander contract to SpaceX – have filed “protests” and forced the space agency to freeze work (and funds).

That means that NASA is now legally unable to use funds or resources related to its Human Lander System (HLS) program or the $2.9 billion contract it awarded SpaceX on April 16th to develop a variant of Starship to return humanity to the Moon. However, just like SpaceX has already spent a great deal of its own time and money on Starship development and – more recently – a rapid-fire series of launches, the company appears to have no intention of letting sore losers hamper its rocket factory or test campaign.

https://twitter.com/CaseyDreier/status/1388232161921093634

Instead, on the same two days Blue Origin and Dynetics loudly filed official protests with the US Government Accountability Office (GAO), SpaceX performed two back-to-back static fire tests with a Starship prototype and Raptor engines outfitted with “hundreds of improvements.” Technical challenges and unsavory weather conditions forced SpaceX to call off a launch planned sometime last week but the company now appears to be on track to launch Starship prototype SN15 as early as Tuesday, May 4th.

In principle, the ability for companies to protest US government contracting decisions is a necessity and (nominally) a net good but it can easily be misused – and often in damaging ways. In the case of Blue Origin and Dynetics, it’s difficult not to perceive both protests as examples of the latter.

Blue Origin effectively disagrees with every single major point made and conclusion drawn by NASA’s Source Selection Authority (Kathy Lueders) and a separate panel of experts – often to the point that the company is strongly implying that it understands NASA’s contracting process better than the space agency itself. Blue Origin partners Northrop Grumman and Lockheed Martin are both partially or fully responsible for several of their own catastrophic acquisition boondoggles (F-35, Orion, SLS, James Webb Space Telescope, etc.) and are part of the military-industrial complex primarily responsible for turning US military and aerospace procurement into the quagmire of political interests, quasi-monopolies, and loopholes it is today.

Advertisement

The primary argument is generally shared by both protestors. In essence, Dynetics [p. 23; PDF] and Blue Origin [PDF] believe that it was unfair or improper for NASA to select just a single provider from the three companies or groups that competed. They argue that downselecting to one provider in lieu of budget shortfalls changed the procurement process and competition so much that NASA should have effectively called it quits and restarted the entire five-month process. Blue Origin and Dynetics also both imply that they were somehow blindsided by NASA’s concerns about a Congressional funding shortfall.

In reality, NASA could scarcely have been clearer that it was exceptionally sensitive about HLS funding and extremely motivated to attempt to return humans to the Moon by 2024 with or without the full support of Congress – albeit in fewer words. As Lueders herself noted in the HLS Option A award selection statement, the solicitation Blue, Dynetics, and SpaceX responded to states – word for word – that “the overall number of awards will be dependent upon funding availability and evaluation results.”

Additionally, implications that NASA somehow blindsided offerors with its lack of funding are woefully ignorant at best and consciously disingenuous at worse. Anyone with even the slightest awareness of the history of large-scale NASA programs would know that the space agency’s budget is all but exclusively determined by Congress each year and liable to change just as frequently if political winds shift. Short of blackmailing members of Congress or wistfully hoping that other avenues of legal political influence and partnership actually lead to desired funding and priorities appearing in appropriations legislation, NASA knows the future of its budget about as well as anyone else with access to the internet and a rudimentary awareness of history and current events.

It became clear that Congress was likely to drastically underfund NASA’s HLS program as early as November 2020 – weeks before HLS Option A proposals were due. The latest appropriations bill was passed on January 3rd, 2021, providing NASA $850 million of the ~$3.4 billion it requested for HLS. Historically, NASA’s experience with the Commercial Crew Program – public knowledge available to anyone – likely made it clear to the agency that it could not trust Congress to fund its priorities in good faith when half a decade of drastic underfunding ultimately delayed the critical program by several years. That damage was done by merely halving NASA Commercial Crew budget request from 2010 to 2013, whereas Congress had already set itself on a path to provide barely a quarter of the HLS funds NASA asked for in the weeks before Moon lander proposals were due.

Ultimately, the protests filed by Blue Origin and Dynetics are packed to the brim with petty axe-grinding, attempts to paint SpaceX in a negative light, and a general lack of indication that either company is operating in good faith. Instead, their protests appear all but guaranteed to fail while simultaneously forcing NASA to freeze HLS work and delay related disbursements for up to 100 days. Given that SpaceX is now technically working to design, build, qualify, and fly an uncrewed Lunar Starship prototype by 2023 and a crewed demonstration landing by 2024, 100 days represents a full 7-10% of the time that’s available to complete that extraordinary task.

Advertisement

Ironically, the protests made by Blue Origin and Dynetics have already helped demonstrate why NASA’s decision – especially in light of unambiguous budgetary restrictions – to sole-source its HLS Moon lander contract to SpaceX was an astute one. Had a victorious Blue Origin or Dynetics been in a similar position to SpaceX, it’s almost impossible to imagine either team continuing work to a significant degree in lieu of NASA funding or direction. SpaceX, on the other hand, hasn’t missed a beat and looks set to continue Starship development, production, and testing around the clock regardless of NASA’s capacity to help.

In other words, with a little luck, the actual schedule impact of a maximum 100-day work and funding freeze should be a tiny fraction of what it could have been if NASA had selected an HLS provider more interested in profit margins and stock buybacks than creating a sustainable path for humanity’s expansion beyond Earth.

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

Elon Musk

Tesla’s new Robotaxi geofence shape is an FU by Elon Musk to the competition

Maybe it’s all pareidolia. But maybe it’s not. After all, Tesla embraced the first geofence expansion for what it appeared to be.

Published

on

tesla austin robotaxi geofence and elon musk laugh from meme review

Tesla expanded its Robotaxi geofence in Austin once again early Sunday morning. The new shape seems to be somewhat of a proverbial, and potentially literal, middle finger to the competition.

If you thought the first expansion was a message to the competition and doubters of the company’s ride-hailing service, you probably will believe the second expansion is an even stronger gesture.

Tesla’s first expansion did not go unnoticed, as its shape was particularly recognizable. The company has always operated with a sense of humor, and it embraced what it did. Some, including me, took it as a message to competitors: We can expand in any direction, in any size, at any time. We’ll prove it.”

They picked a shape and went with it:

Tesla’s Robotaxi expansion wasn’t a joke, it was a warning to competitors

It is evident that Tesla is keeping its humor up to continue to show a few things. The first is that it really can expand in any direction it wants and that’s how it is choosing to show it.

The second, well, maybe it’s an edgier way to show doubters that it is really executing on Robotaxi:

Maybe it’s all pareidolia. But maybe it’s not. After all, Tesla embraced the first geofence expansion for what it appeared to be. This might be a similar occurrence, and it might be sending another message to the competition, critics, and doubters.

The expansion was a near-doubling of the geofence Tesla offered previously. After the initial geofence covered just about 20 square miles, Tesla was able to more than double it to 42 square miles with the first growth. This new geofence shape was just under double, and is about 80 square miles.

Tesla’s rapid expansion has impressed many, especially considering the service area has roughly doubled for the second time in well under two months. The Robotaxi service was first offered on June 22.

Continue Reading

Elon Musk

Tesla executes ‘a must’ with Musk as race to AI supremacy goes on: Wedbush

Dan Ives of Wedbush says Tesla made the right move getting Elon Musk his pay package.

Published

on

elon musk
Steve Jurvetson, CC BY 2.0 , via Wikimedia Commons

Tesla (NASDAQ: TSLA) executed what Wedbush’s Dan Ives called “a must” this morning as it finalized a new pay package for its CEO Elon Musk.

The move helped give Musk his first meaningful compensation at Tesla since 2017, when the company offered a pay package that was based on performance and proven growth. That package was approved by shareholders on two separate occasions, but was denied to Musk both times by the Delaware Chancery Court.

On Monday, Tesla announced on X that it had created a new package that would give 96 million shares of restricted stock to Musk to compensate him for the “immense value generated for Tesla and all our shareholders.”

The details of the pay package are designed to retain Musk, who has voiced some concerns about his control of Tesla, as “activist shareholders” have used lawsuits to disrupt the previously approved package.

You can read all the details of it here:

Tesla rewards CEO Elon Musk with massive, restricted stock package

Ives says Musk’s retention is ‘a must’

Ives said in a note to investors on Monday that with the raging AI talent war that Tesla made a smart move by doing what it could to retain Musk.

He wrote:

“With the AI talent war now fully underway across Big Tech, we believe this was a strategic move to keep TSLA’s top asset, Musk, would stay focused at the company with his priority being to bolster the company’s growth strategy over the coming years. With this interim award increasing Musk’s voting rights upon this grant, which Musk honed in on and mentioned was increasingly important to incentivize him to stay focused on the matters at hand, this was a strategic move by the Board to solidify Musk as CEO of Tesla over the coming years with this framework for Musk’s pay package and greater voting control removing a major overhang on the story.”

He went on to say:

“While the groundwork is now in place for the next few years, it will be critical for the Tesla Board of Directors to get this long-term compensation strategy in place prior to the company’s November 6th shareholder meeting which would address the elephant in the room and remove a significant overhang on the stock.”

Wedbush maintained its Outperform rating and its $500 price target on the stock.

Continue Reading

Elon Musk

Tesla CEO Elon Musk reveals ideal timeline for insane self-driving feature

Tesla CEO Elon Musk has extremely optimistic expectations for Full Self-Driving progress by the end of 2025.

Published

on

Credit: Tesla

Tesla CEO Elon Musk has revealed his ideal timeline for what would likely be the most insane self-driving feature: the ability for drivers to play video games at the wheel.

There are a handful of videos out there of drivers already performing this task. Nobody using Tesla’s Full Self-Driving suite should perform these activities, as the company maintains the system is not fully autonomous.

Drivers are responsible for the vehicle and should be prepared to take over.

Tesla has put a lot of faith in its development of Full Self-Driving and has made tremendous strides over the past few years. Capabilities have gotten more refined and accurate through various methods, including data collection and hardware improvements.

Tesla kicks Robotaxi geofence expansion into high gear in Austin

It has gotten so good that Tesla launched a Robotaxi platform in Austin, Texas, on June 22. Passengers can hop in the back of a Model Y and will be transported around the city in a confined geofence that is about 90 square miles in size. There is nobody in the driver’s seat, but there is a Safety Monitor in the passenger’s seat.

Tesla launched a similar experience in California’s Bay Area last week, but the company has placed the Safety Monitor in the driver’s seat for that region for the time being.

Eventually, Tesla will get to a point where no monitor is needed, and the vehicles will be able to drive themselves. Many believe that it is a few years away, but Musk believes Tesla could achieve it very soon.

After a video of someone playing Grand Theft Auto in their Cybertruck while operating Full Self-Driving was shared on the social media platform X, Musk said this capability would be available in “probably 3 to 6 months, depending on regulatory approval in your city and state.”

It is important to remember that Musk has been very optimistic regarding autonomy timelines with Tesla projects. We heard for many years that the company would have self-driving vehicles “by the end of the year,” and those projects did not come to fruition.

While there was progress, there were no fully autonomous vehicles or software versions for customers.

With that being said, Tesla has made tremendous strides in its quest for autonomous vehicles this year, and launching a Robotaxi platform was a huge step in the right direction.

Continue Reading

Trending