Author Topic: Blue Origin loses protest over pad 39A (Read 2998 times)

yg1968 · « **on:** 12/12/2013 08:45 pm »

http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/659674.pdf

Via Marcia Smith:

Quote from: Marcia Smith

GAO agrees w/Blue Origin that GAO has jurisdiction over its protest re Launch Complex 39A AFP,but denies the protest.

https://twitter.com/SpcPlcyOnline/status/411247987948388353

aero · « **Reply #1 on:** 12/12/2013 08:58 pm »

Good, now we have more to ponder about. I wonder how soon, and how quickly SpaceX will move to using pad 39A.

RocketGoBoom · « **Reply #2 on:** 12/12/2013 08:59 pm »

SpaceX didn't win the launch pad yet.

I think this decision just clears the way for NASA to make a final decision.
Blue Origin was protesting the process.

Nomadd · « **Reply #3 on:** 12/12/2013 09:00 pm »

Not too bad a read. I have to say that entire Blue Origin argument looked pretty damn weak. Based on fuzzy semantics and interpretations. I didn't really get their reason for complaining about NASA benefiting from the arrangement even if it was true, which it seems not to be.

Kabloona · « **Reply #4 on:** 12/12/2013 09:03 pm »

For those who dont want to wade through the whole document, the last 2 grafs pretty much sum it up:

"In the final analysis, we agree with the agency that the AFP contemplates two possible approaches, but includes no preference for one approach versus another. The approaches are different--and require the presentation of different information to substantiate the plan being offered--but there currently is nothing in the record beyond the protester’s arguments to show that either approach necessarily is better in terms of meeting the agency’s objective of achieving the fullest commercial use of space. Simply stated, that question will be resolved based on the comparative strength of the business cases presented by the offerors.

However, the case at hand only concerns whether the agency’s interpretation of the AFP is reasonable and, based on our discussion above, we conclude that nothing in the language of the AFP favors one approach over the other.
The protest is denied."

LucR · « **Reply #5 on:** 12/12/2013 09:53 pm »

This gave me a good laugh:

Quote from: NASA, Agency Legal Memorandum, Oct. 21, 2013

The Agency might also have a future requirement for flux capacitors and warp drives.

JBF · « **Reply #6 on:** 12/12/2013 09:55 pm »

This topic is already being discussed at http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31945.msg1128852#msg1128852

Joffan · « **Reply #7 on:** 12/12/2013 10:43 pm »

Quote from: LucR on 12/12/2013 09:53 pm

This gave me a good laugh:

Quote from: NASA, Agency Legal Memorandum, Oct. 21, 2013
The Agency might also have a future requirement for flux capacitors and warp drives.

Nice find; however, I would aver* that NASA has an immediate need for these items.

--------------
* see what reading legal documents does to your brain...