Author Topic: USAF releases GPS III launch RFP  (Read 89241 times)

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32419
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11159
  • Likes Given: 331
Re: USAF releases GPS III launch RFP
« Reply #60 on: 10/05/2015 12:47 AM »
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).

Why?  NASA hasn't either.  It has to be presented to them for them to certify it.

Offline tj

  • Member
  • Posts: 40
  • Liked: 15
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: USAF releases GPS III launch RFP
« Reply #61 on: 10/05/2015 03:23 AM »
LM  GPS-III
Source LM Public URL
SV Launch Wt: 8553 lbs.
SV On-Orbit Wt: 5003 lbs.

Therefore, GPS-III is lifted by an Atlas  401, Delta IV-M,4-2 or Falcon 9 v1.1 into a transfer orbit
The GPS-III SV circularizers the orbit (i.e. reducing the SV load by 3500 lbs or so)

Boeing GPS-IIF launch vehicle places the SV directly into circular orbit.

Given the GPS-III GTO, the Atlas V can launch two SVs at a time (assuming a packing regime to deal with such.

GPS-IIA, and -IIR were launched by a Delta II into a transfer orbit and the GPS-II SV solid rocket ABM circularized it.

It will be interesting what a Boeing offering will be for specifying the LV lift criteria of a "GPS-IIIF" SV may be.

Offline tj

  • Member
  • Posts: 40
  • Liked: 15
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: USAF releases GPS III launch RFP
« Reply #62 on: 10/05/2015 03:29 AM »
GPS-III not GTO but transfer to MEO (i.e maybe MTO)

Offline macpacheco

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 860
  • Vitoria-ES-Brazil
  • Liked: 346
  • Likes Given: 2666
Re: USAF releases GPS III launch RFP
« Reply #63 on: 10/05/2015 05:28 AM »
GPS-III not GTO but transfer to MEO (i.e maybe MTO)
GPS satellites are direct insertion, they don't have spare fuel for large deltaV post launch.
They are inserted on slightly higher orbit (100Km I think), just a few quick burns to bring it down to regular orbit.
Looking for companies doing great things for much more than money

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32419
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11159
  • Likes Given: 331
Re: USAF releases GPS III launch RFP
« Reply #64 on: 10/05/2015 01:03 PM »

It will be interesting what a Boeing offering will be for specifying the LV lift criteria of a "GPS-IIIF" SV may be.


what Boeing offering?  Boeing has no launch vehicles.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32419
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11159
  • Likes Given: 331
Re: USAF releases GPS III launch RFP
« Reply #65 on: 10/05/2015 01:10 PM »
I guess this says it all

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed/data/space/documents/gps/GPS-III-Fact-Sheet-2014.pdf

It will be a change from previous EELV GPS missions.  But it will prevent the permanent disposal of LV upperstages near the GPS constellation.

The LV's will put the GPS-III spacecraft in a transfer orbit, with circularization performed by the spacecraft.

Mea culpa

Offline JamesH

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 525
  • United Kingdom
  • Liked: 283
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: USAF releases GPS III launch RFP
« Reply #66 on: 10/05/2015 02:01 PM »
I guess this says it all

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed/data/space/documents/gps/GPS-III-Fact-Sheet-2014.pdf

It will be a change from previous EELV GPS missions.  But it will prevent the permanent disposal of LV upperstages near the GPS constellation.

The LV's will put the GPS-III spacecraft in a transfer orbit, with circularization performed by the spacecraft.

Mea culpa

I like this quote from the document

Quote
Altitude 10,898 nautical miles
Design life 15 years; 13-year MMD
Launch weight 8,553 lb
On-orbit weight 5,003 lb
Size 97 in wide, 70 in deep, 134 in high
Position accuracy Under one meter, with daily updates
 from the control segment

All imperial, until they suddenly start saying 1 meter accuracy.

Offline OnWithTheShow

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 305
  • Philadelphia, PA
  • Liked: 123
  • Likes Given: 18
Re: USAF releases GPS III launch RFP
« Reply #67 on: 10/05/2015 02:19 PM »
What would 13 year MMD be? I assume micro meteoroid debris. Does that mean that MMD protection only has a 13 year life instead of the full period? Or does it mean main mission duration?

Offline Dante80

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 886
  • Athens : Greece
  • Liked: 810
  • Likes Given: 503
Re: USAF releases GPS III launch RFP
« Reply #68 on: 10/05/2015 06:05 PM »
What would 13 year MMD be? I assume micro meteoroid debris. Does that mean that MMD protection only has a 13 year life instead of the full period? Or does it mean main mission duration?

Its Main Mission Duration.

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7437
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 1446
  • Likes Given: 4499
Re: USAF releases GPS III launch RFP
« Reply #69 on: 10/05/2015 07:11 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.

Quote
Unlike the GPS IIF satellite, the GPS III satellite feature an apogee propulsion system.

Edit: Reading more closely is LM on order for 4 or are they building 8?

Edit:
Yes LM is building 8. Just looked up more recent info. The GPS IIIB contract just this year went to Orbital ATK for the next 8. If it is structured like the LM contract the order is for 2 sats and 3 more options for 6 more in orders of 2 at a time.

So the next 6 GPS IIIA sats will all be the same size and configuration. But the launch contracts will be done singularly. The A2100M bus uses hydrazine AKM not solids.
Where do you get the information on the GPS IIIB contract going to OrbitalATK?
Last I knew they are still discussing if they order the extra 2 IIIA for a total of 10 birds. The OCX (the ground segment) is so overbudget and delayed that the expected cost of storing the satellites is ballooning not for LM's fault (even though Excelis payload is extremely delayed), but simply because the ground segment to test and validate the design simply won't be ready until 2017, at the earliest. And this is all current to middle 2015.
How could a GPS IIIB contract have been bid and won by OrbitalATK without it being the top news on SpaceNews, at least.

http://spacenews.com/u-s-air-force-shifts-gears-on-future-gps-procurement-strategy/

Offline oldAtlas_Eguy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3479
  • Florida
  • Liked: 1887
  • Likes Given: 223
Re: USAF releases GPS III launch RFP
« Reply #70 on: 10/05/2015 07:55 PM »
Maybe you are correct. I could not find a second reference to Orbital for GPS III satellites other than a recent contract to Orbital ATK from LM for Orbital ATK to manufacture all of the A2100 titanium prop tanks. Either the IIIB award is completely under the radar or it has yet to happen. But I know there has been opinions made by the AF of unhappiness with LM over the GPS III satellites schedule slipping 2 years. But it must not have been too much since they continued to buy more  as recently as  2013 for GPS3-6 & 7.

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7437
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 1446
  • Likes Given: 4499
Re: USAF releases GPS III launch RFP
« Reply #71 on: 10/05/2015 09:18 PM »
Well, they did paid Boeing and Grumman to mature all digital payloads. And they have also bid small contracts to study the possibility of doing a big (22 S/C) fixed-price procurement where development money is invested directly by the prime contractor. Which is very interesting regarding who would be left with the launch contract. Could they let the S/C handle launching? Would be an interesting situation. From a strategic POV I would expect USAF to pay for integration and one demonstration launch from SpaceX and ULA, and then bid each individual S/C or block.
But given the satellites expected life, this second batch of GPS III is not expected until 2023. So whatever we talk is futurology.

Offline oldAtlas_Eguy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3479
  • Florida
  • Liked: 1887
  • Likes Given: 223
Re: USAF releases GPS III launch RFP
« Reply #72 on: 10/05/2015 10:12 PM »
Well, they did paid Boeing and Grumman to mature all digital payloads. And they have also bid small contracts to study the possibility of doing a big (22 S/C) fixed-price procurement where development money is invested directly by the prime contractor. Which is very interesting regarding who would be left with the launch contract. Could they let the S/C handle launching? Would be an interesting situation. From a strategic POV I would expect USAF to pay for integration and one demonstration launch from SpaceX and ULA, and then bid each individual S/C or block.
But given the satellites expected life, this second batch of GPS III is not expected until 2023. So whatever we talk is futurology.
If your talking 2023 for the IIIB's then the LV's would be FH and Vulcan launching 3 or 4 sats at a time. If they can be stacked that many!

Now back to the current RFP. The F9v1.1 (not the FT) has the capability to launch the IIIA so the bid of the certified vehicle can be used with a later swap (at no charge to the government) through a contract mod with the certified F9 FT. This type of contract mods are done all the time with FFP contracts that have long duration between award and delivery (2+ years for the GPS III launch contract).

If it required a F9 FT to launch this sat then SpaceX could not bid since that vehicle was not certified.

Now this would be an interesting twist. SpaceX submits two bids: one with F9v1.1 at a 5% higher price and the other with a F9v1.1FT. This would be an incentive to the AF to get the FT certified before contract award so they can select the cheaper contract. 5% of a ~$80M+ contract is $4M+.

Offline Dante80

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 886
  • Athens : Greece
  • Liked: 810
  • Likes Given: 503
Re: USAF releases GPS III launch RFP
« Reply #73 on: 10/05/2015 11:32 PM »
Now this would be an interesting twist. SpaceX submits two bids: one with F9v1.1 at a 5% higher price and the other with a F9v1.1FT. This would be an incentive to the AF to get the FT certified before contract award so they can select the cheaper contract. 5% of a ~$80M+ contract is $4M+.

This would be indeed interesting, although I think that USAF would probably not be able to accept the FT bid anyway (since its not certified).

Any idea on the $80M+ quote though? I was thinking closer to $100M.

Offline oldAtlas_Eguy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3479
  • Florida
  • Liked: 1887
  • Likes Given: 223
Re: USAF releases GPS III launch RFP
« Reply #74 on: 10/05/2015 11:58 PM »
Now this would be an interesting twist. SpaceX submits two bids: one with F9v1.1 at a 5% higher price and the other with a F9v1.1FT. This would be an incentive to the AF to get the FT certified before contract award so they can select the cheaper contract. 5% of a ~$80M+ contract is $4M+.

This would be indeed interesting, although I think that USAF would probably not be able to accept the FT bid anyway (since its not certified).

Any idea on the $80M+ quote though? I was thinking closer to $100M.
I know that the mission assurance (paperwork) add-on on other SpaceX AF contracts was about $20M. The question is how much for the payload integration add-on? You may be correct in thinking the total of the basic launch+MA+PI being about $100M.

Offline macpacheco

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 860
  • Vitoria-ES-Brazil
  • Liked: 346
  • Likes Given: 2666
Re: USAF releases GPS III launch RFP
« Reply #75 on: 10/06/2015 01:02 AM »
GPS IIIB is pretty much dead.
If 12 GPS IIIA are ordered, and those have to be ordered/built/launched fairly quickly to satisfy the semi codeless sunset provisions, then there will be 24 operational L5 GPS birds, 31 L2C/M-Code capable and the core of the constellation will be 7 IIR-M, 12 IIF, 12 IIIA, but 12 IIR still available, OCX is claimed to be able to control 36 GPS sats, so 5 IIR might be kept healthy another 7 in residual. That's a lot of birds, perhaps enough to last 10 years without launches. Unless IIR / IIR-M last less than IIA, 10 years without launches would be not only possible but likely.
The most recent mention of GPS IIIB is from 2011 when the CBO recommended killing IIIB after the LockMart finished the requirements for that phase (back then IIIB and IIIC were planned).
Notice there are still 2 IIA operational and at least a half a dozen IIA residuals that could still be pressed into service if necessary.

The undocumented quirk about demand for new GPS birds is they assume satellites will last only their official mission assurance, but in reality they last 3x as much (GPS IIA) from 7.8 years assurance to average over 20 years. IIR are assured to last 12 years, what if they last 30+ years on average ? Is the DoD ready to dispose GPS birds if their only flaw is they are outdated ? The oldest IIR launch was 1997, so 30 year life would translate to 2027, with the youngest launched in 2009, lasting until 2039 !
« Last Edit: 10/06/2015 10:09 PM by macpacheco »
Looking for companies doing great things for much more than money

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7437
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 1446
  • Likes Given: 4499
Re: USAF releases GPS III launch RFP
« Reply #76 on: 10/06/2015 12:56 PM »
I would guess that the most interesting question of the RFP is if it would require vertical integration. If its anything like the A2100A platform, it would most probably not need VI. But it might well require quite a bit of extra certification for horizontal integration and thus it might increase the first mission cost. And here I wonder, would SpaceX press the VI facility for this mission or just eat the extra integration cost and delay such facilities implementation?

Offline Newton_V

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 580
  • United States
  • Liked: 423
  • Likes Given: 86
Re: USAF releases GPS III launch RFP
« Reply #77 on: 10/07/2015 01:13 PM »
I would guess that the most interesting question of the RFP is if it would require vertical integration.

It does not require VI.

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5479
  • "With peace and hope for all mankind."
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 580
  • Likes Given: 677
Re: USAF releases GPS III launch RFP
« Reply #78 on: 10/09/2015 07:28 AM »
Quote
A waiver is allowed [...] if "the space launch services and capabilities covered by the contract could not be obtained at a fair and reasonable price without the use of rocket engines designed or manufactured in the Russian Federation."

Musk said a waiver was unnecessary since SpaceX's Falcon 9 rocket, and ULA's Delta rockets were also available.

So Musk believes the price of Delta IV-M is "fair and reasonable" (though of course higher than that of F9), but Bruno believes ULA would be unfair or unreasonable in asking that price?

Quote
ULA has said it plans to discontinue production of all except the heaviest Delta 4 rockets because they are not and cannot ever be competitive with SpaceX's lower prices.

Competitive isn't the requirement, though. Only "fair and reasonable."
-- sdsds --

Offline Brovane

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1110
  • United States
  • Liked: 605
  • Likes Given: 1136
Re: USAF releases GPS III launch RFP
« Reply #79 on: 10/10/2015 02:46 PM »
Looks like based on what I am reading at Reuters is that the USAF has denied the ULA waiver.  Now we will see if ULA follows through on the threat.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/09/space-launch-ula-idUSL1N12929Z20151009
"Look at that! If anybody ever said, "you'll be sitting in a spacecraft naked with a 134-pound backpack on your knees charging it", I'd have said "Aw, get serious". - John Young - Apollo-16

Tags: