Doug Loverro has left NASA

[marsbase]

Time to sign off. A last @NASA tweet. I'm proud of all team HEO has done, & all they will do. I hope I served them well and perhaps pointed the way. I'd rather be "marred by dust & sweat & blood" than to stand among the "cold and timid souls". Go @Commercial_Crew LL&P, Out.

That is fine to say when you are retiring and you have a record of accomplishment, but not the thing to say when you didn't accomplish anything, and you had to resign - possibly for illegalities you committed.

Loverro is quoting Teddy Roosevelt from "Man in the Arena".  No, I don't think he is any TR.  Instead he "perhaps pointed the way" to violation of NASA regulations and leaving in disrepute.

[yg1968]

Scott Manley’s take
...

I tend to believe the circumstance evidence (and SM's take) that: Doug L was aiming to do what he thought was needed to make the best attempt to hit the 2024 target.

Loverro publicly (in a nasawatch.com thread, I believe) stated in no uncertain terms that the ONLY way to get to the Moon (by 2024 presumably) was on the SLS based upon his belief in pre-integration and the available TLI payload capacity.     There were several folks arguing against this conclusion and these premises (including me) in this thread.

There was also a separate, public statement from Loverro favoring a pre-integrated lander.

From this there are several reasonably good possibilities.   Loverro may have provided forbidden information/communication to one, some or all of the bidders:

*  to encourage them to make their bid explicitly fly on SLS, or maybe just fit the size/mass constraints.
*  to adjust their pricing/terms in order to avoid disqualification or low performance scores.
*  to adjust their architecture to fit Loverro's presumptions (in addition or in replacement of the documented requirements in the RFP)

I suspect that he didn't really tip the scales per se, but he made his opinions/preferences open to all bidders (which may have run afoul of the procurement rules).

I found the quote where Loverro says that SLS is essential but he doesn't say that SLS is essential for the lander.

http://nasawatch.com/archives/2020/01/another-sls-lau.html#comment-4753358735

=====

*  From a comment here: 
https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/02/nasa-planning-document-may-offer-clues-to-changes-in-artemis-program/?comments=1

This was Loverro's response to a post of mine on NASAwatch:

"...I can assure you I am well familiar with all the new launch capabilities brought to us by the wonderful and unstoppable force known as American Entrepreneurial fervor. While in DoD I was a prime advocate in working to enhance our cooperation with those companies, both for launch and satellites. I awarded the first two Air Force Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches in 2012 which led to their eventual certification for DoD. That said, our journey to the moon is not yet possible on any commercial launch vehicle -- it's simple physics -- they just can't get there. That may not be true sometime in the future, but for right now, our national success is linked to the success of SLS. It worries me that some folks believe this is an "either or" situation. It's not. We must have SLS and we must make it successful. We must also have a vibrant commercial launch sector and NASA must help empower that as well."

[freddo411]

Scott Manley’s take
...

I tend to believe the circumstance evidence (and SM's take) that: Doug L was aiming to do what he thought was needed to make the best attempt to hit the 2024 target.

Loverro publicly (in a nasawatch.com thread, I believe) stated in no uncertain terms that the ONLY way to get to the Moon (by 2024 presumably) was on the SLS based upon his belief in pre-integration and the available TLI payload capacity.     There were several folks arguing against this conclusion and these premises (including me) in this thread.

There was also a separate, public statement from Loverro favoring a pre-integrated lander.

From this there are several reasonably good possibilities.   Loverro may have provided forbidden information/communication to one, some or all of the bidders:

*  to encourage them to make their bid explicitly fly on SLS, or maybe just fit the size/mass constraints.
*  to adjust their pricing/terms in order to avoid disqualification or low performance scores.
*  to adjust their architecture to fit Loverro's presumptions (in addition or in replacement of the documented requirements in the RFP)

I suspect that he didn't really tip the scales per se, but he made his opinions/preferences open to all bidders (which may have run afoul of the procurement rules).

I found the quote where Loverro says that SLS is essential but he doesn't say that SLS is essential for the lander.

http://nasawatch.com/archives/2020/01/another-sls-lau.html#comment-4753358735

=====

*  From a comment here: 
https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/02/nasa-planning-document-may-offer-clues-to-changes-in-artemis-program/?comments=1

This was Loverro's response to a post of mine on NASAwatch:

"...I can assure you I am well familiar with all the new launch capabilities brought to us by the wonderful and unstoppable force known as American Entrepreneurial fervor. While in DoD I was a prime advocate in working to enhance our cooperation with those companies, both for launch and satellites. I awarded the first two Air Force Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches in 2012 which led to their eventual certification for DoD. That said, our journey to the moon is not yet possible on any commercial launch vehicle -- it's simple physics -- they just can't get there. That may not be true sometime in the future, but for right now, our national success is linked to the success of SLS. It worries me that some folks believe this is an "either or" situation. It's not. We must have SLS and we must make it successful. We must also have a vibrant commercial launch sector and NASA must help empower that as well."

Thanks for finding that link.

So I guess one could conclude that Loverro might have meant:

1)  SLS is needed for ORION to go to the Moon

or

2)  SLS is needed for HLS to get to the moon

He doesn't really say specifically.   

I think we do know that his opinion of assembling pieces of hardware;  he much, much preferred a single launch paradigm.   I think by extension that he wanted to launch the HLS on SLS in one piece (at least for 2024).

[yg1968]

I think that most people understood that he meant both of these things based on his comments at the March 13th NAC Science committee:

Risk is driven by new technology development.  If you’re going to do any new technology development, you’re not going to do it in four-and-a-half years. Program risk is driven by which things haven’t you done in space before. … There is this theory of success for going to the Moon that requires us to launch a lander in three individual pieces that would meet up at the Moon in such a way that they can survive at descent and ascent and still meet the mission requirements. We’ve never done that before.  We’d like to avoid doing things we’ve never done before. … If you have risks that you can’t take away … at least burn them down early… “

https://spacepolicyonline.com/news/gateway-no-longer-mandatory-for-2024-moon-landing/

See also these articles:
https://spaceflightnow.com/2020/03/14/nasa-no-longer-counting-on-gateway-for-2024-moon-landing/
https://www.universetoday.com/145428/the-lunar-gateway-is-no-longer-a-required-part-of-the-artemis-mission-to-return-to-the-moon-by-2024/
https://spacenews.com/nasa-takes-gateway-off-the-critical-path-for-2024-lunar-return/

[dror]

I find it hard to believe that a man in his position and with his experience will go and do something that is clearly illegal such as breaking confidentiality in a procurement.
Therefor, his mistake may have been, IMO, related to a pressure which he might have applied within his authority, in some non equality way.
Appling pressure to accelerate the development of EUS would fit that narrative, and only if it was done with a particular contractor's benefit in mind.

[yg1968]

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1267510261872762891

In an AIAA webinar, Steve Jurczyk, NASA associate administrator, says the agency is actively searching for a new AA for human exploration and operations, replacing Doug Loverro; hope to name in “weeks, not months.” Reorg of that directorate is on hold in the meantime.

[Rzeppa]

Full article by Jeff Foust at spacenews.com:

https://spacenews.com/nasa-human-spaceflight-directorate-reorganization-on-hold/

[su27k]

NASA investigating former official's contacts with Boeing on lunar contracts, Fox News

NASA's inspector general is investigating an allegation that a high-ranking NASA official earlier this year improperly guided Boeing Co. regarding an agency competition for lucrative lunar-lander contracts, according to people familiar with the details

The probe, according to these people, focuses on communications Boeing officials had with the head of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's human-exploration office, Doug Loverro, before he resigned in May.

The inspector general's staff, these people said, is looking into an allegation that Mr. Loverro improperly provided guidance that could have offered the Chicago aerospace giant unusual insight into aspects of the competition.

Boeing ultimately was eliminated in the competition for technical and cost reasons unrelated to the communications with Mr. Loverro, according to these people. The outcome was viewed as a blow for Boeing, long formidable in U.S. space exploration efforts.

[woods170]

NASA investigating former official's contacts with Boeing on lunar contracts, Fox News

NASA's inspector general is investigating an allegation that a high-ranking NASA official earlier this year improperly guided Boeing Co. regarding an agency competition for lucrative lunar-lander contracts, according to people familiar with the details

The probe, according to these people, focuses on communications Boeing officials had with the head of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's human-exploration office, Doug Loverro, before he resigned in May.

The inspector general's staff, these people said, is looking into an allegation that Mr. Loverro improperly provided guidance that could have offered the Chicago aerospace giant unusual insight into aspects of the competition.

Boeing ultimately was eliminated in the competition for technical and cost reasons unrelated to the communications with Mr. Loverro, according to these people. The outcome was viewed as a blow for Boeing, long formidable in U.S. space exploration efforts.

This is pretty much similar to scenarios that have been floated here. It would also explain why Boeing chose not to protest the HLS awards. If they indeed had accepted improper guidance by Loverro than that would become obviously clear upon protesting the awards. So, instead Boeing sits still, keeps quiet and hopes the whole thing will quietly go away.

[ncb1397]

NASA investigating former official's contacts with Boeing on lunar contracts, Fox News

NASA's inspector general is investigating an allegation that a high-ranking NASA official earlier this year improperly guided Boeing Co. regarding an agency competition for lucrative lunar-lander contracts, according to people familiar with the details

The probe, according to these people, focuses on communications Boeing officials had with the head of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's human-exploration office, Doug Loverro, before he resigned in May.

The inspector general's staff, these people said, is looking into an allegation that Mr. Loverro improperly provided guidance that could have offered the Chicago aerospace giant unusual insight into aspects of the competition.

Boeing ultimately was eliminated in the competition for technical and cost reasons unrelated to the communications with Mr. Loverro, according to these people. The outcome was viewed as a blow for Boeing, long formidable in U.S. space exploration efforts.

This is pretty much similar to scenarios that have been floated here. It would also explain why Boeing chose not to protest the HLS awards. If they indeed had accepted improper guidance by Loverro than that would become obviously clear upon protesting the awards. So, instead Boeing sits still, keeps quiet and hopes the whole thing will quietly go away.

They usually don't protest awards. They didn't protest GLS. They didn't protest PPE. They didn't protest CRS-2.

[yg1968]

NASA investigating former official's contacts with Boeing on lunar contracts, Fox News

NASA's inspector general is investigating an allegation that a high-ranking NASA official earlier this year improperly guided Boeing Co. regarding an agency competition for lucrative lunar-lander contracts, according to people familiar with the details

The probe, according to these people, focuses on communications Boeing officials had with the head of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's human-exploration office, Doug Loverro, before he resigned in May.

The inspector general's staff, these people said, is looking into an allegation that Mr. Loverro improperly provided guidance that could have offered the Chicago aerospace giant unusual insight into aspects of the competition.

Boeing ultimately was eliminated in the competition for technical and cost reasons unrelated to the communications with Mr. Loverro, according to these people. The outcome was viewed as a blow for Boeing, long formidable in U.S. space exploration efforts.

As a side note, this article is written by Andy Pasztor:
https://www.marketscreener.com/BOEING-COMPANY-THE-4816/news/NASA-Investigating-Former-Official-s-Contacts-With-Boeing-on-Lunar-Contracts-30737295/

https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1269686694384742402

[saliva_sweet]

NASA investigating former official's contacts with Boeing on lunar contracts, Fox News

NASA's inspector general is investigating an allegation that a high-ranking NASA official earlier this year improperly guided Boeing Co. regarding an agency competition for lucrative lunar-lander contracts, according to people familiar with the details

The probe, according to these people, focuses on communications Boeing officials had with the head of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's human-exploration office, Doug Loverro, before he resigned in May.

The inspector general's staff, these people said, is looking into an allegation that Mr. Loverro improperly provided guidance that could have offered the Chicago aerospace giant unusual insight into aspects of the competition.

Boeing ultimately was eliminated in the competition for technical and cost reasons unrelated to the communications with Mr. Loverro, according to these people. The outcome was viewed as a blow for Boeing, long formidable in U.S. space exploration efforts.

As a side note, this article is written by Andy Pasztor:
https://www.marketscreener.com/BOEING-COMPANY-THE-4816/news/NASA-Investigating-Former-Official-s-Contacts-With-Boeing-on-Lunar-Contracts-30737295/

https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1269686694384742402

Berger didn't really report this. He presented it as informed speculation.

[VSECOTSPE]

They usually don't protest awards.

To be complete and accurate, Boeing, just like LM, NG, SX, BO and other large and deep-pocketed aerospace firms, can and does protest awards, especially when the stakes are high for them.  Here are a couple of Boeing’s larger examples over the past decade:

B-21
https://www.defensenews.com/breaking-news/2016/02/16/gao-denies-boeings-protest-of-bomber-contract-northrop-gets-back-to-work/

KC-X
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/kc-x-protest.htm

[yg1968]

In a related strand of the inquiry, according to these people, investigators are looking into Mr. Loverro's various contacts with Boeing and a second bidder outside normal contracting channels. Investigators are still trying to determine what information was passed on and whether motivations were ill-intended, these people said.

The article mentions a second bidder.

[Coastal Ron]

In a related strand of the inquiry, according to these people, investigators are looking into Mr. Loverro's various contacts with Boeing and a second bidder outside normal contracting channels. Investigators are still trying to determine what information was passed on and whether motivations were ill-intended, these people said.

The article mentions a second bidder.

As far as we know Loverro was an honest person throughout his previous career in government, so we still don't understand his personal or professional motivation for doing something in his role at NASA that he had to know was questionable, if not illegal.

What could have motivated him?

And why this moment in his life?

In other words we need to be asking the Five why's.

[Robotbeat]

Yeah, I don't see this as a Boeing action. HLS selection authority is not him, and his replacement is the guy eliminated Boeing from GLS, I don't see this benefiting Boeing. Also Loverro is actually against 3-stage lander and more sympathetic to Boeing's single launch HLS architecture.

Looks like nobody else knows the exact reason, my guess is this is really some procedure mistake, which may in fact be trying to help Boeing in HLS, probably uncovered by OIG (OIG has never been a friend of Boeing/SLS).

Bingo?

[Robotbeat]

In a related strand of the inquiry, according to these people, investigators are looking into Mr. Loverro's various contacts with Boeing and a second bidder outside normal contracting channels. Investigators are still trying to determine what information was passed on and whether motivations were ill-intended, these people said.

The article mentions a second bidder.

As far as we know Loverro was an honest person throughout his previous career in government, so we still don't understand his personal or professional motivation for doing something in his role at NASA that he had to know was questionable, if not illegal.

What could have motivated him?

And why this moment in his life?

In other words we need to be asking the Five why's.

According to his public statements, he was just trying to make the 2024 lunar landing date more likely. Which isn't an excuse, of course.

[philw1776]

In a related strand of the inquiry, according to these people, investigators are looking into Mr. Loverro's various contacts with Boeing and a second bidder outside normal contracting channels. Investigators are still trying to determine what information was passed on and whether motivations were ill-intended, these people said.

The article mentions a second bidder.

As far as we know Loverro was an honest person throughout his previous career in government, so we still don't understand his personal or professional motivation for doing something in his role at NASA that he had to know was questionable, if not illegal.

What could have motivated him?

And why this moment in his life?

In other words we need to be asking the Five why's.

According to his public statements, he was just trying to make the 2024 lunar landing date more likely. Which isn't an excuse, of course.

Yes.
I think he was all in trying to meet the date and made a professionally seriously fatal but not intentionally evil error giving feedback to Boeing, because in his worldview the program needed Boeing in the selection.
What intrigues me is the yet unidentified second company.  What's up with that?

[Proponent]

.
What intrigues me is the yet unidentified second company.  What's up with that?

My guess is that the second company is Vivace.  Perhaps Loverro realized that neither Boeing's nor Vivicace's proposals would pass muster and, in the interest of giving NASA a better range of options to choose from, tried to nudge them both to up their games.  That the "second company" was one of the losers is (weakly) supported by the fact, so far as we know, no protest has been filed: if one of the winners had received a bit of back-channel help, then you might expect one of the losers to contest the awards.

[yg1968]

"Working hard isn't toiling 24 hours a day but the will to make tough decisions and move forward. That is lacking in today’s bureaucracy. It's the competitive drive that makes #2 countries become #1 countries & vice versa."

@DouglasLoverro to my @ISU_Commercial  class today.

https://twitter.com/GregWAutry/status/1270482856901357570