Bezos said in a letter following the complaint that NASA risked compromising the mission by eliminating the element of "competition."
In response, the GAO pointed to NASA's limited funds for the mission. The group even took a stab at Blue Origin, saying NASA was not "required" to choose an applicant whose proposal NASA did not find attractive. In other words, NASA was not forced to take on two companies if it only found one company up to par.
Despite Bezos' offer to lower Blue Origin's $5.9 billion contract and take on $2 billion out-of-pocket, the GAO said NASA had found it "implausible" that the company could reduce its price without significantly changing its design.
Bezos said NASA had unfairly evaluated Blue Origin. For example, the company argued that it was not specified that the vehicle should be able to land in the dark. The GAO contended that NASA was not required to lay out all minute details, and Blue Origin should take into account the conditions on the moon or space itself- which is dark.
Blue Origin also raised issue with the fact that SpaceX received extra points for developing a system that focused on the health and safety of the crew- an objective that NASA had not made a requirement. The GAO said NASA had the freedom to choose which design function to prioritize.
> Despite Bezos' offer to lower Blue Origin's $5.9 billion contract and take on $2 billion out-of-pocket, the GAO said NASA had found it "implausible" that the company could reduce its price without significantly changing its design.
The US government has rules limiting the ability of contractors to provide the government with subsidised services. The fear is that a contractor will provide massive discounts to win the contract initially, then jack up the price once the government is locked-in. Bezos' offer to tip in $2 billion likely violates those rules.
SpaceX is contributing its own funds towards HLS Starship, but that is allowed by the rules because it can demonstrate it is a commercial investment for non-NASA customers – Starship is a generic system to meet many use non-government cases, including Starlink, commercial launch customers, and private tourism (e.g Dear Moon), and the HLS-specific aspects are a relatively small part of the overall system cost. By contrast, Blue Origin has no concrete evidence of any customer for Blue Moon except NASA, so it can't claim that its contribution is a commercial investment.
> For example, the company argued that it was not specified that the vehicle should be able to land in the dark
This seems like an important bit? Like...launch windows are a thing and when it's time to launch it's time to launch. I guess Blue Origin never thought someone might want to launch at night (implying a night-time abort is a possibility?)
It's not the launch, it's the landing. NASA specified landing sites that are in permanent shadow as targets. The 'national team' missed that landing in permanent shadow would have to happen in the dark.
Bezos is acting like an idiot and just digging himself into a deeper hole. If he was at least 10% as serious about Blue Origin as he is about Amazon, maybe he would have something to show after 20 years instead of exactly jack shit. Pathetic. NASA is not looking for an expensive joyride to the Karman line, that's why they chose SpaceX.
Once Bezos got into space because he wanted to improve space travel for humanity, now he is just holding it back because of his pride.
His company simply can't do what he claims it can do. They have proven nothing. They have achieved nothing and take on ever greater challenges.
The have spent 10 or more years for a very simple suborbital craft that is still not flying regularly and claim to be able to build a moon lander in a few years.
They have committed to making a complex engine, BE-4 that is 4 years late and the version they are still working on is not anywhere close to the engine the initially announced.
They are building a gigantic rocket, New Glenn, that includes a new engine, BE-3U. This is claimed to be a version of the BE-3 but is totally different. Initially this rocket was also claimed to have vacuum version of BE-4 that has since been dropped.
This rocket is already 4 years late and is very not even sure to fly in 2023.
They are also working on a new different reusable upper stage for the New Glenn (and likely another new engine to go with it). This is supposed to be reusable as well.
They are also claiming to work on an even bigger rocket.
For the moon lander they didn't just propose a complex lander (that requires another new engine, BE-7), but also claimed to be the leader of a team integrating immensely complex parts from old space contractors, despite them not having any history of being a integrator of complex systems.
They are also have a ISRU division that works on resource production on the moon.
He has 4000 people working for Blue and basically no income. The company literally just burns Amazon stocks and has been for 20 years. There is no prospect what so ever that this can change in the next 5 years. So literally NASA would commit to basically having the whole HLS project be simply paid for by Bezos with a company that has no possibility to survive without private good will.
They existed for 20 years and their only achievement is a single human suborbital flight.
Yet they have the gaul to claim that NASA made a mistake selecting SpaceX who in the same time has achieved literally 100-500x more then them with less money.
P.S: SpaceX also sued NASA but GAO actually sided with them. SpaceX also sued Air Force and won that too. SpaceX opened space for competition and Blue abuses that freedom to delay every program.
Bezos said in a letter following the complaint that NASA risked compromising the mission by eliminating the element of "competition."
In response, the GAO pointed to NASA's limited funds for the mission. The group even took a stab at Blue Origin, saying NASA was not "required" to choose an applicant whose proposal NASA did not find attractive. In other words, NASA was not forced to take on two companies if it only found one company up to par.
Despite Bezos' offer to lower Blue Origin's $5.9 billion contract and take on $2 billion out-of-pocket, the GAO said NASA had found it "implausible" that the company could reduce its price without significantly changing its design.
Bezos said NASA had unfairly evaluated Blue Origin. For example, the company argued that it was not specified that the vehicle should be able to land in the dark. The GAO contended that NASA was not required to lay out all minute details, and Blue Origin should take into account the conditions on the moon or space itself- which is dark.
Blue Origin also raised issue with the fact that SpaceX received extra points for developing a system that focused on the health and safety of the crew- an objective that NASA had not made a requirement. The GAO said NASA had the freedom to choose which design function to prioritize.