Author Topic: USAF releases GPS III launch RFP  (Read 125374 times)

Offline Newton_V

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 842
  • United States
  • Liked: 822
  • Likes Given: 129
Re: USAF releases GPS III launch RFP
« Reply #40 on: 10/04/2015 03:32 am »
The A2100M bus uses hydrazine AKM not solids.

There is no AKM.  It is direct inject.

I thought only IIF were direct inject.

Offline Newton_V

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 842
  • United States
  • Liked: 822
  • Likes Given: 129
Re: USAF releases GPS III launch RFP
« Reply #41 on: 10/04/2015 03:33 am »
Delta could perform the mission, yet Bruno says ULA cannot bid. It would further Bruno's agenda if reality were as he describes it. But what if his description of reality ... appears delusional? What if he seems to be confusing what is true, with what he wishes were true?

We want to know, "Is there some way his apparently untrue statements can be rationally justified?"
How can they justify not bidding a Delta for the GPS III launch if a lot of GPS IIF were launched using Delta ?

Govt is paying them US$ 1 billion so they can refuse to bid on a launch they can serve ?

How can this be even remotely acceptable.

Cut the billion subsidy...

The government doesn't want to use Delta.  It's too expensive.  The ELC contract IS going away.

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5266
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 4992
  • Likes Given: 6459
Re: USAF releases GPS III launch RFP
« Reply #42 on: 10/04/2015 04:56 am »
Delta could perform the mission, yet Bruno says ULA cannot bid. It would further Bruno's agenda if reality were as he describes it. But what if his description of reality ... appears delusional? What if he seems to be confusing what is true, with what he wishes were true?

We want to know, "Is there some way his apparently untrue statements can be rationally justified?"
How can they justify not bidding a Delta for the GPS III launch if a lot of GPS IIF were launched using Delta ?

Govt is paying them US$ 1 billion so they can refuse to bid on a launch they can serve ?

How can this be even remotely acceptable.

Cut the billion subsidy...

The government doesn't want to use Delta.  It's too expensive.  The ELC contract IS going away.

Yes, the ELC contract is going away in the future.  Right now, this year, $1 billion of taxpayer dollars are going to it.  So stop bidding the Delta after ELC goes away, don't stop bidding it while taking ELC and claim ULA "can't" bid.

Offline LastStarFighter

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 234
  • Europa
  • Liked: 77
  • Likes Given: 11
Re: USAF releases GPS III launch RFP
« Reply #43 on: 10/04/2015 05:05 am »
As far as the F9FT certification what is bid is the regular F9v1.1 and later when the F9FT is certified a contract mod is used to change the vehicle specification on the contract without a price change. This is done on ULA contracts and other ones as well. It just needs to have a current certified vehicle to be able to meet the mission needs in order to bid.

Does that mean ULA can bid with an engine that is exempt and then ask for a contract mod when they use the engine on a different mission? ;)

Offline Newton_V

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 842
  • United States
  • Liked: 822
  • Likes Given: 129
Re: USAF releases GPS III launch RFP
« Reply #44 on: 10/04/2015 05:17 am »
Yes, the ELC contract is going away in the future.  Right now, this year, $1 billion of taxpayer dollars are going to it.  So stop bidding the Delta after ELC goes away, don't stop bidding it while taking ELC and claim ULA "can't" bid.

What's the point in bidding if there's zero chance of winning?  Even the government doesn't want to be "forced" to choose a couple Delta IVs if their only option is F9 and Delta. 
The ELC contract is mainly in place to keep Delta alive to support mission where no other options are available, even Atlas.  It's to maintain the 2 Delta pads and keep essential people employed because you can't keep laying people off and re-hiring them when 1 launch comes up every year.  It's also so the government can swap payloads between Atlas and Delta, as they essentially (NRO, DoD, NASA, and ULA too) control the ULA manifest.  They only use Delta where there is no other option, like WR heavy, ER heavy, and when no slot is open on the Atlas manifest.  You probably noticed they had all the remaining GPS's on Atlas lately.
The 800 million ELC is also split between Delta and Atlas and what isn't spent goes back to the government every year. 
The cost of bidding has nothing to do with ELC.  In fact, ELC money is not even used for the bidding.  ULA is not free to do whatever it wants with ELC money.   It's spelled out exactly what it's to be used for.

Edit, added:
Everything covered under ELC is for missions under the block buy, or before.  Just to be clear, are you saying in a competitive environment, where companies bid for contracts, the government should be able to dictate what launch vehicle should be bid by each company?
« Last Edit: 10/04/2015 05:44 am by Newton_V »

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7202
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2050
  • Likes Given: 1962
Re: USAF releases GPS III launch RFP
« Reply #45 on: 10/04/2015 06:12 am »
Most of us agree the motivation for this RFP was to create a mission on which SpaceX could bid. Bruno's implicit point (I think) is doing so ipso facto created a mission on which ULA is not compelled to bid. But I'm convinced USAF does want more than one offer even though Bruno has arranged his business such that he conveniently "cannot" bid Atlas without an RD-180 waiver.

My hunch is that ULA doesn't want to offer Delta for a whole variety of reasons, and as Newton_V asserts USAF largely agrees with their reasoning. But looking solely at the question of Delta IV-M availability for a 2018 launch, I think the currently anticipated missions include one in 2019, so Delta IV-M won't yet have been discontinued. Below is the list of anticipated Delta IV-M missions I'm using:

2016
February 10 - NROL-45: Topaz 4 (TBD) - Delta IV-M+(5,2) - Vandenberg SLC-6
July 21 - AFSPC-6: GSSAP3, GSSAP4 (TBD) - Delta IV-M+ (4,2) - Canaveral SLC-37B
TBD - WGS-8 - Delta IV-M+(5,4) - Canaveral SLC-37B (or 2017)
2017
1st quarter May - GPS IIIA-1 - Delta-IV-M+(4,2) - Canaveral SLC-37B
1st half - WGS-9 - Delta IV-M+(5,4) - Canaveral  SLC-37B
midyear - GPS IIIA-2 - Delta-IV-M+(4,2) - Canaveral SLC-37B
October - NROL-(TBD): Topaz 5 (TBD) - Delta IV-M+(5,2) - Vandenberg SLC-6
2018
TBD - DMSP-5D3 F20 - Delta IV-M  - Vandenberg SLC-6 (or  July 2020)
2019
TBD - WGS-10 - Delta IV-M+(5,4) - Canaveral SLC-37
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5266
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 4992
  • Likes Given: 6459
Re: USAF releases GPS III launch RFP
« Reply #46 on: 10/04/2015 06:21 am »
Yes, the ELC contract is going away in the future.  Right now, this year, $1 billion of taxpayer dollars are going to it.  So stop bidding the Delta after ELC goes away, don't stop bidding it while taking ELC and claim ULA "can't" bid.

What's the point in bidding if there's zero chance of winning?  Even the government doesn't want to be "forced" to choose a couple Delta IVs if their only option is F9 and Delta. 
The ELC contract is mainly in place to keep Delta alive to support mission where no other options are available, even Atlas.  It's to maintain the 2 Delta pads and keep essential people employed because you can't keep laying people off and re-hiring them when 1 launch comes up every year.  It's also so the government can swap payloads between Atlas and Delta, as they essentially (NRO, DoD, NASA, and ULA too) control the ULA manifest.  They only use Delta where there is no other option, like WR heavy, ER heavy, and when no slot is open on the Atlas manifest.  You probably noticed they had all the remaining GPS's on Atlas lately.
The 800 million ELC is also split between Delta and Atlas and what isn't spent goes back to the government every year. 
The cost of bidding has nothing to do with ELC.  In fact, ELC money is not even used for the bidding.  ULA is not free to do whatever it wants with ELC money.   It's spelled out exactly what it's to be used for.

Edit, added:
Everything covered under ELC is for missions under the block buy, or before.  Just to be clear, are you saying in a competitive environment, where companies bid for contracts, the government should be able to dictate what launch vehicle should be bid by each company?

What I'm saying is that as long as ELC is in place, ULA is getting special treatment by the government.  It is getting a lot of money on a sole-source contract.  Even if the special treatment is justified, it's still special treatment.  It means ULA is not just one among many purely-commercial bidders.

In my opinion, that special status entitles the U.S. government to more respect.  The U.S. government clearly wants ULA to bid.  So why won't they?  To try to embarrass the Air Force to try to get policy changed.  From a purely commercial company, I'd say that's disrespectful and selfish, but understandable.  From a company with a special relationship with the government, I'm less understanding.

The Air Force, and, by extension, the taxpayers, deserve more respect from a company that's been granted this kind of special relationship.

Offline Hauerg

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 901
  • Berndorf, Austria
  • Liked: 520
  • Likes Given: 2574
Re: USAF releases GPS III launch RFP
« Reply #47 on: 10/04/2015 06:55 am »
If ULA says they cannot bid they should not bid.
AF will see that ELC might no get them what they - really - wanted, look at the fine print and, stop wasting that money ASAP.
Where's the problem?

Offline Dante80

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 893
  • Athens : Greece
  • Liked: 835
  • Likes Given: 539
Re: USAF releases GPS III launch RFP
« Reply #48 on: 10/04/2015 09:45 am »
If ULA says they cannot bid they should not bid.
AF will see that ELC might no get them what they - really - wanted, look at the fine print and, stop wasting that money ASAP.
Where's the problem?

Well, the problem is that this is not what USAF wants when they are trying to transition into a competitive model. The whole idea of competition in the launch market for military payloads is that assured access is maintained while launch costs go down via said competition.

Assured access means that for each payload/mission that the DoD has there are two or more dissimilar LVs that can do the job. There are some rare payloads where we don't have assured access (this will change if/when FH is certified), but other than that Delta IV and Atlas V were able until now to uphold the policy for two LVs.

Now, as soon as we have the first competitive contract, here is what we see. ULA purposefully position themselves to not be able to bid with Atlas, refuse to bid with Delta and SX either does not have a "current" certified LV to take the contract or - if the mission was designed for direct injection only - maybe doesn't have the cap to do the mission at hand.

I can't imagine the Air Force guys being happy about the situation..
« Last Edit: 10/04/2015 11:02 am by Dante80 »

Offline DanseMacabre

Re: USAF releases GPS III launch RFP
« Reply #49 on: 10/04/2015 01:30 pm »
When was the last no bid contract for launch services?

Asking if ULA can't bid & SpaceX can't bid cause 1.2 isn't certified.

Sounds like we need to stock up on the popcorn. ::)

Is there an actual news source or public industry source that states the 1.2 is not certified?

At no point anywhere in any official releases does it state it is not certified, on the contrary, USAF themselves have mentioned that SpaceX remain certified even after the CRS-7 failure.

Offline Dante80

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 893
  • Athens : Greece
  • Liked: 835
  • Likes Given: 539
Re: USAF releases GPS III launch RFP
« Reply #50 on: 10/04/2015 01:46 pm »
When was the last no bid contract for launch services?

Asking if ULA can't bid & SpaceX can't bid cause 1.2 isn't certified.

Sounds like we need to stock up on the popcorn. ::)

Is there an actual news source or public industry source that states the 1.2 is not certified?

At no point anywhere in any official releases does it state it is not certified, on the contrary, USAF themselves have mentioned that SpaceX remain certified even after the CRS-7 failure.

If I understand correctly, SpaceX as a launch provider is certified. Falcon v1.1 is also certified. Falcon v1.1 FT needs to be certified. The procedure for certifying F9 v1.1 FT is a lot easier (faster and less costly) than it was to certify the provider and F9 v1.1
« Last Edit: 10/04/2015 01:47 pm by Dante80 »

Offline Nomadd

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8840
  • Lower 48
  • Liked: 60431
  • Likes Given: 1305
Re: USAF releases GPS III launch RFP
« Reply #51 on: 10/04/2015 02:30 pm »
 About what is the ongoing production cost for the GPS III birds? Is it worth paying an extra $50 million to use what they consider a 99% reliable ride opposed to a 95% one.
 And, has Ariane ever considered getting in the USAF game or is there some basic reason they couldn't do it?
Those who danced were thought to be quite insane by those who couldn't hear the music.

Offline Newton_V

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 842
  • United States
  • Liked: 822
  • Likes Given: 129
Re: USAF releases GPS III launch RFP
« Reply #52 on: 10/04/2015 02:31 pm »
When the USG stops paying ULA to keep Delta around, ULA will get rid of Delta.  The only exceptions are for a handful of missions where no other options are available, and those specific customers will have to foot the bill.  It won't be paid for under ELC.
For the 100th time, Delta is too expensive.  It's too expensive! (101).  There is absolutely zero point in bidding it against a SpaceX rocket.  A $200-$250 million rocket will not be launching a $300 SV.  The tradeoff of price/reliability is still not worth it.   I can't say it any other way.  This whole discussion has nothing to do with ELC and what ELC pays for.
The RD-180 ban just threw a wrench in ULA's plans.  In the end, it might actually work out good for them because it's forcing Vulcan.
Again, ULA doesn't choose which LV family launches which payload:  GOES, WGS, GPS-IIF, AFSPC, NRO.
When switching to a competitive bid, ULA will decide which LV to use/bid.  They won't bid the one they think will lose.

Offline Dante80

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 893
  • Athens : Greece
  • Liked: 835
  • Likes Given: 539
Re: USAF releases GPS III launch RFP
« Reply #53 on: 10/04/2015 03:07 pm »
When the USG stops paying ULA to keep Delta around, ULA will get rid of Delta.  The only exceptions are for a handful of missions where no other options are available, and those specific customers will have to foot the bill.  It won't be paid for under ELC.
For the 100th time, Delta is too expensive.  It's too expensive! (101).  There is absolutely zero point in bidding it against a SpaceX rocket.  A $200-$250 million rocket will not be launching a $300 SV.  The tradeoff of price/reliability is still not worth it.   I can't say it any other way.  This whole discussion has nothing to do with ELC and what ELC pays for.
The RD-180 ban just threw a wrench in ULA's plans.  In the end, it might actually work out good for them because it's forcing Vulcan.
Again, ULA doesn't choose which LV family launches which payload:  GOES, WGS, GPS-IIF, AFSPC, NRO.
When switching to a competitive bid, ULA will decide which LV to use/bid.  They won't bid the one they think will lose.

Ok. So, if they don't want to bid with Delta, why didn't they keep the exempt from the ban RD-180s to bid with Atlas, and buy more engines for NASA/commercial payloads?
« Last Edit: 10/04/2015 03:09 pm by Dante80 »

Offline Newton_V

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 842
  • United States
  • Liked: 822
  • Likes Given: 129
Re: USAF releases GPS III launch RFP
« Reply #54 on: 10/04/2015 03:26 pm »
When the USG stops paying ULA to keep Delta around, ULA will get rid of Delta.  The only exceptions are for a handful of missions where no other options are available, and those specific customers will have to foot the bill.  It won't be paid for under ELC.
For the 100th time, Delta is too expensive.  It's too expensive! (101).  There is absolutely zero point in bidding it against a SpaceX rocket.  A $200-$250 million rocket will not be launching a $300 SV.  The tradeoff of price/reliability is still not worth it.   I can't say it any other way.  This whole discussion has nothing to do with ELC and what ELC pays for.
The RD-180 ban just threw a wrench in ULA's plans.  In the end, it might actually work out good for them because it's forcing Vulcan.
Again, ULA doesn't choose which LV family launches which payload:  GOES, WGS, GPS-IIF, AFSPC, NRO.
When switching to a competitive bid, ULA will decide which LV to use/bid.  They won't bid the one they think will lose.

Ok. So, if they don't want to bid with Delta, why didn't they keep the exempt from the ban RD-180s to bid with Atlas, and buy more engines for NASA/commercial payloads?

There is a lead time to purchase (and get) the engines in time to be used.  ULA has already shuffled engines to use as many as possible under the law.  Even for L-79 (before it was eventually sole-sourced under the block buy), ULA had to show which engine would go on that booster.  That engine had to already be on contract.  To do what you suggest mean the NASA/commercial missions would lose their launch slots, and move to the back of the line.  NASA would say no, I don't think so.  Not even sure what commercial missions if any are manifested that far out.

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7202
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2050
  • Likes Given: 1962
Re: USAF releases GPS III launch RFP
« Reply #55 on: 10/04/2015 06:24 pm »
The [Delta IV] tradeoff of price/reliability is still not worth it.   I can't say it any other way.

Please don't stop saying it, but understand the rest of us can't assume it is "inside track" information, coming more or less directly from the USAF decision authority!

Or what? Are there quotable USAF statements which have indicated this same sentiment?

Regardless of the Delta IV cost question, the rest of the world would like ULA to bid on this. What we see is ULA, in a way rather reminiscent of a petulant child, saying it doesn't want to do so.
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Offline oldAtlas_Eguy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5305
  • Florida
  • Liked: 5005
  • Likes Given: 1444
Re: USAF releases GPS III launch RFP
« Reply #56 on: 10/04/2015 06:38 pm »
Um, what ever happened to the "we have two years of RD-180's stockpiled"?

I guess that wasn't anything other than the time between engine delivery and launch (2 years). There were no additional engines unallocated sitting in storage.

Things at ULA were not as rosy as it was painted if they no longer have any engines to do launches other than the ones already on contract through 2018 with some being delayed into 2019. Meaning there really is no engines available. That means that for new launches in 2018 ULA will not be able to support since they don't have enough engines on order or delivered to support. But that begs the question that for those NASA and commercial launches an order placed when they were contracted could have made available additional engines that could have been used for this bid. If ULA expects a 4 year purchase before fly timeline like in the past their competition SpaceX has abused them of such assumptions so that the contract competition is barely 3 years with just over 2 years build time from purchase. ULA will have to speculatively buy engines to have them on hand in order to meet the launch dates for contracts they win. No more gov funding for buying the engines up front. That ship has sailed.
« Last Edit: 10/04/2015 06:39 pm by oldAtlas_Eguy »

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8356
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2539
  • Likes Given: 8273
Re: USAF releases GPS III launch RFP
« Reply #57 on: 10/04/2015 06:56 pm »
I believe LM is on contract for at least 4 GPS III(A) sats. The next ones after that will be built by Orbital ATK. The specifications from LM for the GPS III sats show launch weight 3860kg.

http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/navstar-3.htm

The first 2 of the 4 is scheduled on DIVM(4,2)'s which don't have the capability to circularize without a kick motor.
What do you mean that DIVm can't circularize? It has been doing it with IIF and it was an EELV requirement. Or you mean that it the (4,2) lacks the performance to send the IIIA to direct injection?

Offline oldAtlas_Eguy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5305
  • Florida
  • Liked: 5005
  • Likes Given: 1444
Re: USAF releases GPS III launch RFP
« Reply #58 on: 10/04/2015 07:22 pm »
I believe LM is on contract for at least 4 GPS III(A) sats. The next ones after that will be built by Orbital ATK. The specifications from LM for the GPS III sats show launch weight 3860kg.

http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/navstar-3.htm

The first 2 of the 4 is scheduled on DIVM(4,2)'s which don't have the capability to circularize without a kick motor.
What do you mean that DIVm can't circularize? It has been doing it with IIF and it was an EELV requirement. Or you mean that it the (4,2) lacks the performance to send the IIIA to direct injection?
Yes it can circularize a 1600kg IIF but not a 3860kg IIIA. A 125% weight growth is not believable. But a 25% weight growth and a 1800kg prop add on is believable.
« Last Edit: 10/04/2015 07:23 pm by oldAtlas_Eguy »

Offline Roy_H

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1209
    • Political Solutions
  • Liked: 450
  • Likes Given: 3163
Re: USAF releases GPS III launch RFP
« Reply #59 on: 10/05/2015 12:09 am »
USAF has gone through F9 design with a fine-toothed comb to certify SpaceX. Since it is so recent, and SpaceX has been working on the v1.1 full thrust version for several years, I cannot imagine that the USAF didn't include all proposed design changes for the full thrust variation in their investigation (up to end of last year). I expect that a delta certification will be required, but I also expect it to be relatively simple because they already knew about it. 3 qualifying flights seems about right to me.
"If we don't achieve re-usability, I will consider SpaceX to be a failure." - Elon Musk
Spacestation proposal: https://politicalsolutions.ca/forum/index.php?topic=3.0

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1