![]() The Human Landing System program needs to have competition now instead of later - that's the best solution for NASA and the best solution for our country.” We’re also very encouraged by Administrator Nelson’s comments over the past week that reaffirm NASA’s original intent to provide simultaneous competition. "We’ve been encouraged by actions in Congress to add a second provider and appropriate additional resources to NASA's pursuit to return Americans to the Moon. We’ll continue to advocate for two immediate providers as we believe it is the right solution," a spokesperson for Blue Origin said following the decision. "We stand firm in our belief that there were fundamental issues with NASA’s decision, but the GAO wasn’t able to address them due to their limited jurisdiction. Both Blue Origin and Dynetics had argued that NASA chose the most “high risk option available” since SpaceX’s bid involved its Starship rocket, which at that point in the procurement process had yet to land in one piece.īy subscribing, you are agreeing to Engadget's Terms and Privacy Policy. Notably, the GAO also points in its press release that its role is not to judge the relative merits of a contract decision. What’s more, the GAO concluded there “was no requirement for NASA to engage in discussions, amend, or cancel the announcement” due to the amount of funding it had available for the project. In reviewing NASA’s decision, the GAO says the space agency “did not violate procurement law or regulation when it decided to make only one award.” It notes NASA gave itself the flexibility to hand out a single contract, multiple awards or none at all when it first announced the Human Landing System program. Blue Origin also took issue with the fact that the space agency selected a single contractor for the project when the initial announcement had called for two manufacturers to be involved. To that point, NASA could afford to give SpaceX the contract because the company agreed to modify its payment schedule. When Blue Origin first challenged the lunar lander contract in April, the company claimed the selection process was “fundamentally unfair” because it didn’t get a chance to revise its bid. On Friday, the watchdog said NASA’s “evaluation of all three proposals was reasonable and consistent with applicable procurement law, regulation, and the announcement’s terms.” The AP is solely responsible for all content.The US Government Accountability Office (GAO) has dismissed protests from Blue Origin and defense contractor Dynetics over NASA’s decision to hand out a single $2.9 billion contract to SpaceX as part of its Human Landing System program. The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Science and Educational Media Group. companies have lunar landers awaiting launch later this year from Cape Canaveral, in partnership with NASA. The United Arab Emirates had a mini lunar rover on board that was lost in the crash. Named Hakuto, Japanese for white rabbit, the spacecraft and its experiments were insured, according to Hakamada. ![]() An Israeli nonprofit tried in 2019, but its attempt also ended in a crash landing. Only three governments have achieved that: Russia, the United States and China. ![]() If successful, ispace would have been the first private company to land a spacecraft on the moon. A third landing attempt is planned for 2025. It's a routine peril for many developing countriesĬomputer simulations done in advance of the landing attempt did not incorporate the terrain of the new landing site, Ujiie said.ĬEO and founder Takeshi Hakamada said the company is still on track to attempt another moon landing in 2024, and that all the lessons learned will be incorporated into the next try. The US and Canada saw dangerous smoke this week.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |