SpaceX will take NASA to the moon — maybe

Dynetics and Blue Origin are upset over SpaceX's $2.9 billion moon contract win.

| More on:

You’re reading a free article with opinions that may differ from The Motley Fool’s Premium Investing Services. Become a Motley Fool member today to get instant access to our top analyst recommendations, in-depth research, investing resources, and more. Learn More

This article was originally published on Fool.com. All figures quoted in US dollars unless otherwise stated.

Two years ago, NASA put out a call for America's biggest space companies to build it a "Human Landing System" to return American astronauts to the moon. Last year three teams signed up to do just that, and NASA doled out $967 million in contracts to help Jeff Bezos' Blue Origin (in cooperation with Lockheed Martin (NYSE: LMT) and Northrop Grumman, Leidos Holdings subsidiary Dynetics, and Elon Musk's SpaceX design and build prototypes for NASA to choose from.

And this month, NASA finally picked its winner: SpaceX.

The Washington Post reports, NASA decides

In a story that you know must have just burned Jeff Bezos's biscuits, The Washington Post (which Bezos also owns) reported last week that SpaceX "beat out Jeff Bezos's Blue Origin and Dynetics" as well. For $2.9 billion, paid in installments so that it "fits within NASA's current fiscal year budget," NASA will hire SpaceX to: 

  • Build a Starship spacecraft,
  • Dock it with an Orion spacecraft (which will be delivered to lunar orbit by a NASA "Space Launch System" rocket),
  • Take onboard two astronaut passengers,
  • Land them on the moon, and then
  • Bring them back up to re-board the Orion for their return to Earth.

As NASA explained, although SpaceX's Starship is still in development, the rocket's enormous capacity promises "to greatly improve scientific operations" on the moon. Perhaps even more importantly, though, SpaceX's bid "was the lowest [bid] by a wide margin." Both Leidos's bid and the bid submitted by Blue Origin, Lockheed Martin, and Northrop Grumman were described as "significantly higher" than SpaceX's price.

The reason: SpaceX was already building Starships on its own dime as part of Elon Musk's goal of colonizing Mars. Because SpaceX was willing to pay "over half of the development and test activities" costs of building a Starship itself, it was able to charge NASA much less than the other bidders. In fact, SpaceX is probably viewing the moon contract as NASA helping to pay for some of SpaceX's development costs, rather than vice versa!

What the losers said

Not everyone was thrilled with NASA's decision. After absorbing the initial shock, on Monday both Dynetics and Blue Origin filed protests with the Government Accountability Office (GAO).

In a statement to SpaceNews.com, Dynetics questioned "several aspects of the acquisition process as well as elements of NASA's technical evaluation." NASA had rated Dynetics' management "very good," but rated its bid "marginal" for technical quality, citing concerns about the Dynetics lander's weight. Additionally, it seems that Dynetics' bid was well in excess of $6 billion -- far more than NASA had budgeted for this leg of the Artemis project. 

Blue Origin bid just under $6 billion, still more than twice SpaceX's bid. Accusing NASA of running "a flawed acquisition" contest, Blue Origin alleged that the space agency "moved the goalposts at the last minute." Although it did not specify how NASA moved said goalposts, it argued that awarding only one human lander contract "eliminates opportunities for competition, significantly narrows the supply base, and ... delays [and] endangers America's return to the moon." 

From that language, it appears Blue Origin was hoping NASA would choose two winners, as initially envisioned. And seeing as it submitted a bid higher than SpaceX's but lower than Dynetics', Blue Origin would have been the logical winner of any second contract. So that's what Blue Origin will probably be asking for now -- not that GAO take away SpaceX's win, but that it demand NASA award a second contract to Blue Origin as well.

Alternatively, Blue might try to couch its bid in installment payments, as SpaceX did, so as to similarly fit "within NASA's current budget," suggested Blue Origin CEO Bob Smith in a statement to the Post. That wouldn't change the fact that Blue's bid comes in at twice SpaceX's cost, but it might give NASA the financial flexibility to award a second contract.

What comes next

Ordinarily, the twin GAO protests of SpaceX's NASA contract would draw work on the lander to a screeching halt, and keep it halted until the GAO renders a decision(s) -- which it must do within 90 days. In the current case, however, with SpaceX already building Starship prototypes on its own dime, and presumably not needing NASA's money to continue the spacecraft's development, it's likely SpaceX will continue working. 

As for the challengers, however -- Dynetics parent Leidos, and Blue Origin partners Lockheed and Northrop -- well, investors in those companies will just have to bide their time and hope for the best. GAO will wrap up its consideration of the challenges by the end of July, and once GAO has decided, NASA intends to "begin work immediately on a follow-up competition" to "provide regularly recurring services to the lunar surface that will enable these crewed missions on sustainable basis." 

Big as "$2.9 billion" sounds, it's really only the beginning of what these companies hope to earn from NASA's return to the moon.

This article was originally published on Fool.com. All figures quoted in US dollars unless otherwise stated.

Rich Smith has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool Australia's parent company Motley Fool Holdings Inc. recommends Lockheed Martin. The Motley Fool Australia has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. This article contains general investment advice only (under AFSL 400691). Authorised by Bruce Jackson.

More on International Stock News

Blue electric vehicle on a green rising arrow with a charger hanging out.
International Stock News

Boom! Why has Tesla stock rocketed 68% so far in 2023?

It's already been a year to remember for the electric vehicle giant.

Read more »

A male investor wearing a white shirt and blue suit jacket sits at his desk looking at his laptop with his hands to his chin, waiting in anticipation.
International Stock News

How an AI demo erased $140 billion from Alphabet stock

One error made this a costly display of Alphabet's new technology.

Read more »

A man with a beard and wearing dark sunglasses and a beanie head covering raises a fist in happy celebration as he sits at is computer in a home environment.
Share Market News

Meta stock price rockets 19% on $56 billion buyback

Meta stock has just seen one of its biggest jumps in history...

Read more »

woman looking surprised watching netflix
International Stock News

The Netflix share price just popped. Here's one way to buy in on the ASX

Here's one way to get a slice of whatever future Netflix might have.

Read more »

A futuristic view of electric vehicle technology with speeding bright light trails indicating power.
International Stock News

If I'd bought $5,000 of Tesla stock 3 years ago, what would my investment be worth now?

Here's how much mind-blowing money investors have made on Tesla stock in three years...

Read more »

A man and a woman sit in front of a laptop looking fascinated and captivated.
International Stock News

Alphabet stock: A once-in-a-decade opportunity to outdo Warren Buffett?

Is now the time to snap up shares in the global tech giant?

Read more »

Piggy bank on an electric charger.
International Stock News

Aussie investors are buying Tesla shares in droves. Should you?

A beaten-up stock, dramatic price cuts, and a controversial leader -- does investing in Tesla still make sense?

Read more »

Happy woman on her phone while her electric vehicle charges.
International Stock News

Should I buy Tesla stock for 2023 or not?

Is it finally time to buy Tesla stock?

Read more »