Connect with us

News

SpaceX sues US government to protest mystery launch or rocket R&D contracts

SpaceX prepares Falcon 9 B1054 for the company's first major USAF launch in December 2018. (SpaceX/USAF)

Published

on

SpaceX has filed a lawsuit – technically a “Bid Protest Complaint” – against the United States government and successfully petitioned for the file to remain sealed, restricting access to additional case details for the time being.

This development follows a quiet series of bid protests SpaceX filed with the Government Accountability Office (GAO) in February 2019, shortly after NASA announced that it had awarded ULA a ~$150M launch contract for Lucy (a robotic Trojan asteroid explorer). SpaceX believed that it could perform the mission at a “dramatically lower” price, potentially saving the federal government tens of millions of dollars. SpaceX withdrew both of its GAO bid protests without comment on April 4th. Whether those prior protests are related to SpaceX’s May 2019 lawsuit is unclear.

https://twitter.com/ponder68/status/1129724676333346849

Adding even more complexity and uncertainty to the series of events, NASA awarded SpaceX the launch contract for its Double Asteroid Redirection Test (DART) spacecraft on April 20th, about two weeks after SpaceX retracted its Lucy protests. The cause-and-effect relationship between both events is wholly ambiguous. Perhaps SpaceX withdrew before the company was made aware of their DART win. Perhaps they withdrew their protest because they learned of NASA’s award.

Regardless of what did or did not trigger the contract award, the fact remains that SpaceX’s DART launch will cost NASA ~$70M, less than half the price of ULA’s ~$150M Lucy launch contract. As such, it seems likely that launching Lucy on Falcon 9 could have saved the US government as much as $50M, assuming an expendable profile (~$100M per SpaceX’s latest GPS III launch contracts).

Falcon 9’s upper stage and NASA’s 600 kg DART asteroid impactor. (SpaceX/NASA)

Returning to the topic at hand, the simplest explanation is that SpaceX’s GAO bid protests and May 2019 lawsuit are in some way related. Although SpaceX was clearly correct when it insinuated that it could launch Lucy far more affordably than ULA, the company was criticized for its GAO protests because they effectively froze – or at least complicated – work on the NASA spacecraft. In the event that the withdrawals and lawsuit are related, SpaceX would have backed down after entering into the slow GAO protest process, essentially conceding the contract to ULA and allowing spacecraft work to continue without disruption.

Replaced with a lawsuit against the US government, SpaceX could instead be attempting to change the processes that lead NASA to award ULA the Lucy launch contract in spite of potential savings on the order of ~$50M. SpaceX has done something similar once before when it sued the US Air Force for its uncompetitive launch procurement processes, a largely successful endeavor that has helped force some competition back into USAF/DoD launch contracts.

Atlas V lifts off with the USAF AFSPC-11 spacecraft, April 2018. (Ben Cooper)
Falcon 9 supported its first certified USAF launch – carrying the ~$600M GPS III SV01 spacecraft – in December 2018. (SpaceX)

However, there are several additional possibilities for the actual subject of SpaceX’s latest sealed suit. Most recently, NASA distributed ~$46M among 11 companies for studies and prototypes of lunar landers, transfer vehicles, and in-space refueling technology. SpaceX tied with Aerojet Rocketdyne for the least substantial awards out of those 11 companies, each receiving funds for a single study, while most other awardees were contracted for multiple studies and/or prototypes. This is a stretch, however.

The most likely alternative to a continuation of SpaceX’s Lucy protest is a lawsuit focused on the USAF’s latest EELV/NSSL development contracts and its proposed continuation of block-buy launch procurement. Of the four companies involved, Blue Origin and SpaceX have both criticized the USAF for a variety of reasons. Both did agree, however, in their dislike of the USAF’s inexplicable desire to award all launch contracts to two victors, despite there being as many as four different launch vehicles that could feasibly compete for those several-dozen contracts.

The USAF awarded major vehicle development funding to ULA, Orbital ATK (now NGIS), and Blue Origin. SpaceX was snubbed but is still eligible to compete for Phase 2 launch contracts. (Teslarati – ULA/NGIS/Blue Origin/SpaceX)

For now, details of SpaceX’s latest lawsuit will remain sealed, leaving the company’s motivations veiled in mystery. SpaceX’s next USAF mission could occur as early as June 22nd. Known as STP-2, it will mark Falcon Heavy’s third flight, the rocket’s first defense-related launch, and the USAF’s first use of flight-proven SpaceX boosters. If successful, SpaceX will effectively be able to compete with ULA for all conceivable future launch contracts.

Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.

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 flexes its most impressive and longest Full Self-Driving demo yet

Tesla is flexing a lengthy Full Self-Driving demo from San Francisco to Los Angeles.

Published

on

tesla full self-driving demo from san francisco to los angeles
Credit: Tesla

Tesla its most impressive and longest demo of the Full Self-Driving suite, showing a zero-intervention trek from the San Francisco Bay Area to Los Angeles. The drive required no interventions from the vehicle operator, the video showed.

It also included a quick Supercharging stop about two-thirds of the way in.

Tesla has been extremely confident in the performance of the FSD suite since releasing it years ago. However, with improvements in data comprehension and storage with its neural nets, as well as a more refined Hardware system, FSD has made significant strides over the last year.

I took a Tesla Model Y weekend-long Demo Drive – Here’s what I learned

Tesla’s prowess with driving tech has established the company as one of the industry leaders.

In a new video released on Tuesday, Tesla showed a drive of roughly 360 miles from San Francisco to Los Angeles, a trek of about six-and-a-half hours, with zero interventions using Full Self-Driving:

Full Self-Driving is not fully autonomous, but it does operate under what Tesla calls “Supervised” conditions. This means that the driver does not have to have their hands on the wheel, nor do they have to control the accelerator or brake.

Instead, Tesla’s internal cabin-facing camera tracks eye movement to ensure the driver is ready to take over at any time and is paying attention.

The version of FSD used in this example is likely the version that the public has access to; the only differentiating factor would be the Hardware version, as older vehicles do not have HW4.

With Tesla’s Robotaxi suite in Austin operating since late June, the company stated that those vehicles are using a version that is not yet available to the public. It does not require anyone to be in the driver’s seat, which is how the vehicles are able to operate without anyone in the driver’s seat.

Continue Reading

Elon Musk

Elon Musk’s new $29B Tesla stock award gets strange synopsis from governance firm

Did CGI not realize that Tesla Shareholders supported Musk being paid not once, but twice?

Published

on

elon musk speaking
Credit: TED

Elon Musk was recently awarded around $29 billion in Tesla stock as the company’s Board of Directors is attempting to get its CEO paid after his original pay package was denied twice by the Delaware Chancery Court.

But a new and strange synopsis from the Corporate Governance Institute (CGI) says the award is potentially a strength move to “endorse the will of a powerful CEO.” The problem is, in the same sentence, the firm said the new award brings up a “question of whether the board exists to steward a company in the interests of all stakeholders.”

The problem with their new analysis of Musk’s pay package is that shareholders voted twice on Musk’s original pay package of $56 billion. They voted to give Musk that sum on two separate occasions.

Musk’s original $56 billion pay package was approved by shareholders twice; once in 2018 and once again last year. Last year’s vote was in response to Delaware Chancery Court Kathaleen McCormick’s decision to revoke the “unfathomable sum” from Musk.

Shareholders still showed support for Musk getting paid. Tesla said in its new award to the CEO that this is a way to give him compensation for the first time in seven years.

CGI said in its note (via TipRanks):

“When a board builds its strategy around a single individual, it creates a concentration risk, not just operationally, but culturally and ethically. If that individual becomes a source of volatility, the company becomes fragile by design.”

What’s strange with this type of narrative is the fact that Tesla’s valuation has skyrocketed with Musk at the helm. Go back to 2020, and the stock is up over 200 percent. Since Musk’s $56 billion pay package was introduced in 2018, shares are up well over 1,000 percent.

Tesla engineer explains why Elon Musk deserves new pay package

Musk’s 2018 pay package was also not awarded to him without performance-based incentives. He was required to reach certain growth goals, all of which were accomplished through the launch of new vehicles and the advancements of its driver-assistance suites, like Autopilot and Full Self-Driving.

It is tough to agree with CGI’s perception of Musk’s new pay plan, especially as it is much less than what shareholders voted on twice. Musk deserves to be paid for his contributions to Tesla.

Continue Reading

News

Tesla Robotaxi is headed to New York City, but one thing is in its way

Tesla is working to hire Vehicle Operators in New York City, but the company still needs some regulatory hurdles to go through.

Published

on

tesla store in New York City
Credit: Tesla

Tesla Robotaxi will be headed to New York City, but there is one huge thing that stands in its way: approval to test autonomous vehicles.

Tesla is expanding its Robotaxi platform across the United States as it currently operates in Austin, Texas, and the Bay Area of California.

The company has also been seeking approvals in several other states, including Nevada, Arizona, and Florida.

However, the company is also working to expand to major metropolitan areas across the U.S. that it has not explicitly mentioned, as it attempts to reach CEO Elon Musk’s goal of giving half of the country’s population access to the platform by the end of the year:

It appears New York City is next on the list, according to a job posting on Tesla’s Careers website.

The company says it is hiring a Vehicle Operator for Autopilot in Flushing, New York, a section of the borough of Queens. Queens is connected to Brooklyn and Long Island, so it seems more ideal than launching in Manhattan or the Bronx, where traffic is heavy and charging is not as readily available.

Tesla’s job posting states:

“We are looking for a highly motivated self-starter to join our vehicle data collection team. As a Prototype Vehicle Operator, you will be responsible for driving an engineering vehicle for extended periods, conducting dynamic audio and camera data collection for testing and training purposes. Access to the data collected is limited to the applicable development team. This role requires a high level of flexibility, strong attention to detail, excellent driving skills, and the ability to thrive in a fast-paced, dynamic environment.”

It also lists the hours of operation as Tuesday through Saturday or Sunday through Thursday, with its three shifts listed as:

  • Day Shift: 6:00 AM – 2:30 PM or 8:00 AM – 4:30 PM
  • Afternoon Shift: 2:00 PM – 10:30 PM or 4:00 PM – 12:30 AM
  • Night Shift: 10:00 PM-6:30 AM or 12:00 AM-8:30 AM

We wouldn’t count on New York City being the next place Tesla launches Robotaxi. According to a report from CNBC, a spokesperson for the NYC Department of Transportation confirmed Tesla has not yet applied for permits that are needed to operate its ride-hailing service.

For what it’s worth, it could just be the first step in Tesla’s plans. It also has Vehicle Operator job postings in other regions. Houston, Texas, as well as Tampa, Miami, and Clermont, Florida, are all listed on Tesla’s Career postings.

Continue Reading

Trending