Published NASA documents reveal the process of selecting three companies that will continue to work on the development of the lunar rover for the Artemis program. Balancing costs, capabilities and experience were decisive factors in selection.
3 April NASA announced the selection of companies led by Intuitive Machines, Lunar Outpost and Venturi Astrolab to participate in its Lunar Rovers (LTV) servicing program. Each of these companies received an assignment to finance design work aimed at preliminary study of the project.
At the time of the announcement, NASA provided information about the reasons for choosing these three companies, but did not disclose the number of proposals received from other participants. However, more details were provided in the selection statement released on April 9.
The document confirmed that nine companies submitted proposals to participate in the LTV program. Three proposals submitted by automotive technology company 3Sixty Degrees, space robotics company GITAI and a company identified as ORBIT as not eligible for evaluation.
Proposals from Astrobotic, Blue Origin and Leidos were then eliminated, although the reasons for rejecting these proposals were not specified. Astrobotic and Blue Origin have not disclosed their plans to participate in the LTV contract, while Leidos announced its plans a year ago, working with partners including NASCAR.
NASA solicited updated proposals from Intuitive Machines, Lunar Outpost and Venturi Astrolab, which were evaluated in detail on factors such as cost, previous results and technical factors. This allowed the agency to decide to award contracts to all three companies based on a combination of the above criteria, including mission potential.
Intuitive Machines submitted the lowest bid at — $1.692 billion, but its mission suitability assessment was the lowest of the three partners — 724 out of 1000 points. However, NASA praised their «unique type of removable trailer structure» designed for use with the rover, despite the fact that this was not the main feature mentioned in the official statement.
Lunar Outpost presented an average price, — $1.727 billion, — and mission suitability score (863 points) application. The evaluation highlighted “advanced energy storage technology” that exceeds vehicle performance requirements while ensuring battery safety. Although details of this technology were not presented, the fact that the Lunar Outpost team includes General Motors may indicate the use of battery technologies developed for electric vehicles.
Astrolab demonstrated the highest mission suitability score — 905, but this success came at a steep price of $1.928 billion. The company's key advantages were the proposal to share the lunar rover on the Starship lander for the Artemis-4 mission, ahead of NASA's plans for LTV availability. In addition, the rover will be able to navigate steeper slopes than required by NASA, and the company claims to “exceed the required minimum requirements by many times.”
However, these statements raised doubts about Astrolab's ability to successfully complete the task. NASA noted that based on the team's work, Astrolab has a low level of confidence in the company's ability to successfully implement the project. Also, Intuitive Machines and Lunar Outpost, companies that include such industry giants as Boeing, Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman, showed only «moderate» confidence level.
However, Vanessa Wyche, director of the Space Center. Johnson and the contract sourcing officer, expressed confidence in all three companies based on their previous performance records. She noted that «the past performance of all three companies gives me confidence that the teams are capable and have the necessary experience to complete the project».
Despite the higher prices offered by Astrolab and Lunar Outpost, NASA decided to award contracts to all three companies, believing that their superior mission suitability records would offset the additional costs. However, for now, the agency plans to select only one of the companies to order the development and demonstration of its rover after completing preliminary reviews of the project.
This approach is inconsistent with other service agreements in which NASA has sought to have at least two companies providing the capabilities. Chris Hansen, deputy program manager for extravehicular activities, attributed the decision to the agency's budget constraints. He noted that NASA supports competition, but the LTV program approach provides the agency with better assurance of meeting the budget provided for the mission.