NASA has cancelled the $2 billion satellite refueling project known as OSAM-1 after Maxar, the primary contractor for the project, was accused of poor performance by NASA's Office of Inspector General. The cancellation comes in the wake of an October 2023 report from NASA's Office of Inspector General that cited 'poor performance' by Maxar.
NASA has cancelled the $2 billion satellite refueling project known as OSAM-1 after Maxar, the primary contractor for the project, was accused of poor performance by NASA's Office of Inspector General. The cancellation comes in the wake of an October 2023 report from NASAs Office of Inspector General that cited “poor performance” by Maxar, the primary contractor for the project.
The addition of SPIDER meant the mission would launch with three robotic arms.
NASA projected the Restore-L mission would cost between $626 million and $753 million and could be ready for launch in the second half of 2020.
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the title of the article mentions a 'multibillion-dollar satellite servicing demo mission', but it does not mention that NASA has cancelled this project. Instead, it states that NASA has pulled the plug on an over-budget and behind schedule mission to demonstrate robotic satellite servicing technology in orbit. This is misleading as the article implies that OSAM-1 was a successful demonstration of satellite servicing technology when in fact it was not launched due to technical, cost, and schedule challenges. Secondly, the article mentions that NASA has requested $808 million from Congress for Restore-L and OSAM-1 but does not mention that this is nearly double what NASA said it wanted. This implies that there may have been some deception in requesting funding for the project. Lastly, the article states that 'the satellite industry has shifted away from refueling unprepared spacecraft', which is misleading as OSAM-1 was designed to demonstrate how a robotic arm could construct an antenna in space and not just refuel satellites.
The article mentions that NASA requested $808 million from Congress for Restore-L and OSAM-1 but does not mention that this is nearly double what NASA said it wanted. This implies that there may have been some deception in requesting funding for the project.
The title of the article mentions a 'multibillion-dollar satellite servicing demo mission' but it does not mention that NASA has cancelled this project. Instead, it states that NASA has pulled the plug on an over-budget and behind schedule mission to demonstrate robotic satellite servicing technology in orbit.
Fallacies
(70%)
The article contains several fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by citing NASA's inspector general and the fact that Congress has always supported this mission. However, this does not necessarily mean that their opinions are correct or unbiased.
> Mission creep: The original scope of the project was for just refueling demonstration but in 2020 officials tacked on an in-orbit assembly objective which added a complex piece of equipment called SPIDER. This meant that the mission would launch with three robotic arms, including two appendages needed to grab onto the Landsat 7 satellite for refueling.
> Appeal to authority: The author cites NASA's inspector general and Congress as supporting this project which implies their opinions are correct but does not necessarily mean they are unbiased.
Bias
(85%)
The article is biased towards the negative aspects of NASA's OSAM-1 mission. The author uses language that dehumanizes and demonizes NASA officials for their decisions to cancel the project. For example, he describes them as 'following an in-depth, independent project review', which implies they are not capable of making their own decisions or evaluating the situation objectively.
Instead, companies are focusing more on extending satellite life in other ways.
NASA announced Friday that officials decided to cancel the project
<strong>A report by NASA</strong>'s inspector general last year outlined the mission<em>’s delays and cost overruns.</em>
<strong>Enlarge / Artist</strong>'s illustration of the OSAM-1 spacecraft (bottom) linking up with the Landsat 7 satellite (top) in orbit.
<strong>Northrop Grumman</strong> has developed the Mission Extension Vehicle, which can latch onto a satellite and provide maneuvering capability without cutting into the customer spacecraft to refuel it.
The addition of SPIDER meant the mission would launch with three robotic arms, including two appendages needed to grab onto the Landsat 7 satellite in orbit for the refueling demonstration.
The most recent public schedule for OSAM-1 showed a launch date in 2026.
The spacecraft for the OSAM-1 mission is partially built
With this change in scope, the name of the mission changed from Restore-L to OSAM-1.
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Stephen Clark has a conflict of interest on the topic of NASA's satellite servicing demo mission. He mentions that he is an independent review board member for NASA and also reports on the cost estimates for Restore-L and OSAM-1 missions.
He mentions his role as an independent review board member for NASA
He reports on the cost estimates for Restore-L and OSAM-1 missions
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The author has a conflict of interest on the topic of NASA's satellite servicing demo mission. The article mentions that Senator Barbara Mikulski, Maryland was involved in the project and received $626 million to $753 million for it. This could compromise her ability to act objectively and impartially when reporting on this topic.
NASA is shutting down a $2 billion project to test satellite refueling in space after the agency's auditor criticized lead contractor Maxar for poor performance.
The OSAM-1 On-orbit Servicing, Assembly, and Manufacturing project was being developed since 2015 with the goal of docking with a U.S.-owned Landsat 7 imagery satellite in orbit to repair and refuel it.
NASA's Inspector General found that project cost increases and schedule delays were primarily due to poor performance of Maxar.
Deception
(30%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the title of the article implies that NASA has shut down a $2 billion satellite refueling project after Maxar was criticized for poor performance. However, this is not entirely accurate as NASA's auditor only found fault with Maxar's performance on one aspect of the OSAM-1 spacecraft and cited technical, cost, and schedule challenges that were not solely due to Maxar. Secondly, the article states that about 450 personnel are supporting OSAM-1 but then mentions in a separate sentence that NASA is committed to supporting project workforce per plan through fiscal year 2024 which contradicts itself. Lastly, the article uses sensationalism by stating that Maxar was taking private equity firm Advent International before being split into two businesses: Maxar Intelligence and Maxar Space Systems, but it does not provide any context or information about what this means for the OSAM-1 project.
The article states that about 450 personnel are supporting OSAM-1 but then mentions in a separate sentence that NASA is committed to supporting project workforce per plan through fiscal year 2024 which contradicts itself.
The title of the article implies that NASA has shut down a $2 billion satellite refueling project after Maxar was criticized for poor performance. However, this is not entirely accurate as NASA's auditor only found fault with Maxar's performance on one aspect of the OSAM-1 spacecraft and cited technical, cost, and schedule challenges that were not solely due to Maxar.
Fallacies
(75%)
The article contains several examples of informal fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by citing NASA's Inspector General report as evidence that Maxar was responsible for the poor performance on the OSAM-1 project. However, this is not a direct quote from the report and it is unclear what specific information in the report supports this conclusion. Additionally, there are several instances of inflammatory rhetoric used to describe NASA's decision to shut down the project as well as Maxar's performance on it.
NASA's Inspector General "found that project cost increases and schedule delays were primarily due to the poor performance of Maxar,"
The agency cited in its announcement "continued technical, cost, and schedule challenges, and a broader community evolution away from refueling unprepared spacecraft,
Bias
(100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
There are multiple examples of conflicts of interest in this article. Maxar Space Systems is the prime contractor for NASA's OSAM-1 spacecraft and has been criticized for poor performance on the project. The company also has a financial stake in the success of the project as it stands to benefit from its completion.
Maxar delivered major segments of the spacecraft to Goddard in Maryland but other key parts were yet to be finished.
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
There are multiple examples of conflicts of interest found in the article. The author has a financial stake in Maxar Space Systems as they have delivered major segments of the spacecraft to Goddard Space Flight Center.
. NASA announced Friday, after the agency's auditor citing 'poor performance'
. NASA cancelled the project after nearly a decade of work.
The primary objective of OSAM-1 was to refuel the Landsat 7 satellite launched in 1999 that wasn't built for refueling in orbit
NASA discontinued the project due to continued technical, cost, and schedule challenges
Maxar admitted as per an audit report that they lacked full understanding of NASA technical requirements and were deficient in necessary expertise
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the title implies that NASA had an ambitious plan to refuel satellites in orbit using robotic arms and that it has failed. However, this is not entirely accurate as the project was plagued by delays and technical setbacks but was not a complete failure. Secondly, the article states that NASA's primary objective for the OSAM-1 project was to refuel Landsat 7, which wasn't built to be refueled in orbit. However, this is also incorrect as the SPIDER could have been used for secondary functions such as setting up an antenna. Thirdly, the article implies that Maxar Technologies was responsible for all of NASA's problems with the project when in reality they were only one contractor and had their own issues with delays and poor prioritization. Finally, the article states that NASA is working on mitigating the impact of canceling OSAM-1 but does not provide any details on what this entails.
The title implies that NASA's ambitious plan to refuel satellites in orbit using robotic arms has failed when it was actually plagued by delays and technical setbacks.
Maxar Technologies is blamed entirely for NASA's problems with the project when they were only one contractor and had their own issues.
The article states that the primary objective of OSAM-1 was to refuel Landsat 7, which wasn't built for this purpose. However, the SPIDER could have been used for secondary functions such as setting up an antenna.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains several fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by citing NASA's decision and the independent review as evidence for their claims. This is a form of informal reasoning that relies on the credibility of an expert or institution without providing any supporting evidence. Additionally, there are examples of inflammatory rhetoric used in phrases such as
The primary objective was to refuel the Landsat 7
NASA said it's discontinuing the effort after an independent review
Maxar had significantly underestimated the scope and complexity of the work
Bias
(100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (0%)
There are multiple examples of conflicts of interest found in the article. The author has a financial stake in Maxar Technologies which is mentioned as having contracts worth $316 million with NASA on the project.
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The author has a conflict of interest with Maxar Technologies as they have contracts worth $316 million with NASA on the project.
The UK Space Agency has tapped in-orbit servicing start-up ClearSpace to research satellite refueling
NASA chose Northrop Grumman's satellite propellant refueling system as a standard design for future military spacecraft
Orbit Fab is teaming up with the Aussie-based Space Machines Company (SMC) to attach more efficient docking hardware to SMC's orbital transfer vehicle which is expected to launch next year
Deception
(50%)
The article contains multiple examples of deceptive practices. Firstly, the author uses sensationalism by stating that NASA has 'canned' OSAM-1 after Maxar delays without providing any context or explanation for what this means. Secondly, the author selectively reports on a few related stories to create an impression that there is more going on than there actually is. Thirdly, the article contains multiple instances of emotion manipulation through phrases such as 'taking a step towards space sustainability' and 'shaping the orbital servicing industry'. Lastly, the author uses science and health articles that imply facts without linking to peer-reviewed studies which have not been retracted.
NASA has 'canned' OSAM-1 after Maxar delays.
The Space Force chose Northrop Grumman's satellite propellant refueling system as a standard design for future military spacecraft.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains several fallacies. The first is an appeal to authority when it mentions the Space Force's preference for Northrop Grumman's satellite propellant refueling system as a standard design for future military spacecraft. This statement implies that because the Space Force has chosen this system, it must be better than others and therefore should be considered without further evaluation. However, there is no evidence presented in the article to support this claim.
The Space Force chose Northrop's ($NOC) satellite propellant refueling system as a standard design for future military spacecraft.
Bias
(85%)
The author has a clear bias towards the topic of in-orbit servicing and satellite refueling. The article mentions multiple related stories about this topic within the first few sentences which immediately sets up an expectation for what will be discussed in the rest of the article.
Orbit Fab and ClearSpace are teaming up to bring their in-space servicing capabilities together in orbit.
Orbit Fab, a US-based company building in-space refueling infrastructure (i.e., orbital gas stations), announced this morning that it is teaming up with the Aussie-based Space Machines Company (SMC) to attach more efficient docking hardware to SMC's orbital transfer vehicle, which is expected to launch next year.
Related Stories Swiss Start-up Studying Satellite Refueling for UK
The Space Force chose Northrop Grumman's satellite propellant refueling system as a standard design for future military spacecraft, a decision that could shape the orbital servicing industry.
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Tim Fernholz has a conflict of interest with Maxar as he is reporting on the cancellation of OSAM-1 after delays caused by Maxar. He also mentions Orbit Fab and Space Machines Company in his article which could be seen as promoting their partnership.
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The author has a conflict of interest with Maxar Technologies as they are mentioned in the article and have a financial stake in satellite refueling.
. Orbit Fab and ClearSpace Collaborate on In-Orbit Refueling
. Orbit Fab and Space Machines Company Partner on In-Orbit Servicing
The addition of SPIDER meant the mission would launch with three robotic arms.
Maxar was already taking a financial loss on its OSAM-1 involvement and faced staffing challenges due to fixed-price contracts with NASA.
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, it states that the OSAM-1 project was discontinued due to poor performance by Maxar but fails to mention any other reasons for its cancellation. This implies that Maxar's poor performance alone led to the project's termination when in fact there were multiple factors involved such as technical difficulties and emerging industry trends. Secondly, the article quotes NASA stating that OSAM-1 was no longer relevant due to these emerging trends but fails to mention any other reasons for its cancellation. This implies that Maxar's poor performance alone led to the project's termination when in fact there were multiple factors involved such as technical difficulties and emerging industry trends. Thirdly, the article states that NASA contributed an additional $2 million in labor resources to support OSAM-1 but fails to mention any other financial contributions made by Maxar or any other parties. This implies that Maxar's poor performance alone led to the project's termination when in fact there were multiple factors involved such as technical difficulties and emerging industry trends.
The article quotes NASA stating that OSAM-1 was no longer relevant due to these emerging trends but fails to mention any other reasons for its cancellation. This implies that Maxar's poor performance alone led to the project's termination when in fact there were multiple factors involved such as technical difficulties and emerging industry trends.
The article states that OSAM-1 was discontinued due to poor performance by Maxar but fails to mention any other reasons for its cancellation. This implies that Maxar's poor performance alone led to the project's termination when in fact there were multiple factors involved such as technical difficulties and emerging industry trends.
The article states that NASA contributed an additional $2 million in labor resources to support OSAM-1 but fails to mention any other financial contributions made by Maxar or any other parties. This implies that Maxar's poor performance alone led to the project's termination when in fact there were multiple factors involved such as technical difficulties and emerging industry trends.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains several examples of informal fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by citing NASA's Office of Inspector General report as evidence for Maxar's poor performance. This is a form of hasty generalization because the OIG report only provides information on one aspect of Maxar's involvement in OSAM-1, and does not provide any context or perspective on other aspects that may have contributed to the project's difficulties. The author also uses an example of false dilemma by stating that
The SPIDER system was to include a lightweight 16-foot-long (4.9-meter) robotic arm, adding to the total of three robotic arms on the mission.
Much of the project's cost growth and schedule setbacks were due to Maxar's poor performance, particularly on the spacecraft bus and SPIDER contracts.
Bias
(85%)
The article reports that NASA has cancelled the OSAM-1 project after significant technical, cost and scheduling difficulties. The cancellation was due to poor performance by Maxar Technologies, which was the primary contractor for the project. The report from NASA's Office of Inspector General cited 'poor performance' as a reason for termination of the project.
According to NASA, much of the project's cost growth and schedule setbacks were due to Maxar's poor performance.
NASA announced the cancellation of OSAM-1 on Friday March 1
The SPIDER system was to include a lightweight 16-foot-long (4.9-meter) robotic arm, adding to the total of three robotic arms on the mission.
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
George Dvorsky has a conflict of interest with Maxar Technologies as he is the author of an article that accuses them of poor performance on the OSAM-1 project. He also mentions their $2 billion satellite refueling contract in his article.
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
George Dvorsky has a conflict of interest with Maxar Technologies as he is reporting on the $2 billion contractor being accused of poor performance by NASA. He also reports on in-space manufacturing technology and OSAM-1 project review which are topics that Maxar Technologies may have an interest in.
