I'm a bit surprised this RFP was released before the Defense spending bill is finalized, you'd think they wouldn't do this unless they're sure of getting the funding?
Quote from: gongora on 10/06/2017 07:26 PMI'm a bit surprised this RFP was released before the Defense spending bill is finalized, you'd think they wouldn't do this unless they're sure of getting the funding?Would not the current Continuing Resolution provide sufficient authority?
It's appears Rob a draft RFP and not the final RFP.
Per national policy, the Air Force intends to ensure that there are two reliable sources for all nationalsecurity launches
Offerors may submit no more than two proposals per company. Each proposal shall only include oneproposed EELV Launch System prototype. The prototype can be developed using an incrementalapproach, such as achieving the launch capability for Payload Categories A and B prior to achievinglaunch capability for Payload Category C. The Government will award a maximum of one agreementfor one EELV Launch System prototype per company. The Government plans to award a portfolio ofat least three agreements, but reserves the right to award any number of agreements, including none
3.1.2 Section II: Factor 1 EELV ApproachThe Offeror shall describe its approach to develop and qualify a launch system that meets EELVlaunch service requirements. The SPRD and SIS are listed in Annex C, Attachment 4. At a minimum,the Offeror shall address the following topics:1. The ability to meet all EELV reference orbits defined in Table 10 at the orbital insertionaccuracy required in SPRD 3.2.42. The ability to support up to five NSS launches per year3. The ability of the launch system to meet the payload orientation requirement in SPRD 3.2.74. The ability of the launch system to meet the basing requirement in SPRD 3.2.115. The ability of the launch system to meet the EELV mated payload protection requirement inSPRD 3.3.26. The ability of the launch system to meet the payload envelope requirement in SIS 3.1.37. The proposed mission assurance approach to ensure low risk and high confidence in launchingNSS missions8. The ability to slow or surge production to accommodate uncertain NSS, commercial, and civillaunch forecasts
3.1.6.2 Non-Exclusivity of Rocket Propulsion System (RPS) SalesThe Offeror shall provide a signed letter acknowledging understanding of the FY15 NDAA Section1604 (E) requirement that any RPSs developed under this LSA will be available for purchase by allspace launch providers of the United States. The implementation of this requirement is addressed inArticle XIX of the Model Agreement (Annex C). If the Offeror is not proposing to develop anyRPSs under this LSA, the Offeror shall provide a letter with that statement.3.1.6.3 RPS Developed By Not Later Than 2019The Offeror shall provide a signed letter stating whether or not the RPS(s) developed under this LSAare scheduled to complete development by 31 December 2019. The letter shall include a reference tothe related tasks in the schedule (Section 3.1.3.2).
The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s schedule to determine the risk of delayed developmentfor:1. Launch system(s) capable of launching Category A and Category B payloads by 1 October2021 from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station/Kennedy Space Center or Vandenberg AirForce Base2. Launch system(s) capable of launching Category A and Category B payloads from VandenbergAir Force Base by 1 October 20243. Launch system(s) capable of launching Category C payloads by 1 October 2024 fromVandenberg Air Force Base
Quote from: rocketmantitan on 10/07/2017 04:46 AMGotta love the Air Force using nautical miles in the requirements documents! Haven't changed in 20 years. Do any of their industrial base or their Aerospace Corporation technical arm even use those units anymore? Probably not. Must be a bit of a pain for industry to rewrite their GNC performance analyses to convert back to nautical miles in order to submit their proposal. Hard to believe that the U.S. adopted the metric system in 1866. Still, nautical miles remain widely used in aeronautics and sailing in the U.S.. - Ed Kyle
Gotta love the Air Force using nautical miles in the requirements documents! Haven't changed in 20 years. Do any of their industrial base or their Aerospace Corporation technical arm even use those units anymore? Probably not. Must be a bit of a pain for industry to rewrite their GNC performance analyses to convert back to nautical miles in order to submit their proposal.
Has anyone done an analysis of whether the main contenders (Vulcan, New Glenn, BFR) as currently designed can meet the payloads required for each reference orbit?
I don't think I'd call BFR a main contender for this, the Falcon family would be more likely.
Quote from: gongora on 10/11/2017 03:04 PMI don't think I'd call BFR a main contender for this, the Falcon family would be more likely. I suppose that depends on how seriously you take Elon Musk's claim to transition in the early 2020s away from the Falcon 9/FH to BFR. It doesn't look like SpaceX needs much development money for Falcon 9/FH.
Quote from: rockets4life97 on 10/11/2017 04:13 PMQuote from: gongora on 10/11/2017 03:04 PMI don't think I'd call BFR a main contender for this, the Falcon family would be more likely. I suppose that depends on how seriously you take Elon Musk's claim to transition in the early 2020s away from the Falcon 9/FH to BFR. It doesn't look like SpaceX needs much development money for Falcon 9/FH.I don't think anyone is going to count on SpaceX meeting that schedule for BFR flights, and you may be underestimating the amount left to spend on development of vehicles and facilities for the Falcon line to fully meet the DoD requirements.
Quote from: edkyle99 on 10/09/2017 02:53 AMHere are those reference payloads in metric units.The "C" Category missions, especially "GEO2", are the "Heavy" missions. Everything else appears to be "Medium" type. EELV REFERENCE ORBITSORBIT MASS CATEGORY-----------------------------------------------------------LEO 926 km x 63.4 deg 6,804 kg A&BPolar 1 833 km x 98.2 deg 7,030 kg A&BPolar 2 833 km x 98.2 deg 17,010 kg C MEO 1 18,177 km x 50 deg 5,330 kg A&BMTO 1 1,000 x 20,368 km x 55 deg 4,082 kg A&BMEO 2 20,368 km x 55 deg 4,082 kg A&BMTO 2 1,000 x 20,368 km x 55 deg 5,080 kg A&BGTO 185 x 35,786 km x 27 deg 8,165 kg A&BMolniya 1,204 x 39,170 km x 63.4 deg 5,216 kg A&BGEO 1 35,786 km x 0 deg 2,268 kg A&BGEO 2 35,786 km x 0 deg 6,577 kg C---------------------------------------------------------CategoriesA: 4 meter diameter PLFB: 5 meter diameter PLFC: 5 meter diameter Extended PLFI'm going to modify my original statement about Heavy versus Medium type missions. The "MEO 1" and "MEO 2" look like they might also fit in to the "Heavy" category, or what used to be "Heavy". These payloads have increased from today's 1.6-ish tonnes to more than 5.3 tonnes - quite a jump. My assessment is that Falcon 9, NGL 500, and the lower-end Vulcan-Centaur variants can handle the "Medium" missions. (Some of the F9 first stages could be recovered, but probably not all). The "Heavy" missions require Falcon Heavy Recoverable or possibly Falcon 9 expendable, NGL 500XL, or Vulcan with "Enhanced" Centaur. The crossover point between Falcon 9 expendable and Falcon Heavy Recoverable is uncertain to me.FWIW, two-stage New Glenn looks capable of handling any of these missions, Medium or Heavy, but that assumes a long-coast to third restart capability is available. - Ed Kyle
Here are those reference payloads in metric units.The "C" Category missions, especially "GEO2", are the "Heavy" missions. Everything else appears to be "Medium" type. EELV REFERENCE ORBITSORBIT MASS CATEGORY-----------------------------------------------------------LEO 926 km x 63.4 deg 6,804 kg A&BPolar 1 833 km x 98.2 deg 7,030 kg A&BPolar 2 833 km x 98.2 deg 17,010 kg C MEO 1 18,177 km x 50 deg 5,330 kg A&BMTO 1 1,000 x 20,368 km x 55 deg 4,082 kg A&BMEO 2 20,368 km x 55 deg 4,082 kg A&BMTO 2 1,000 x 20,368 km x 55 deg 5,080 kg A&BGTO 185 x 35,786 km x 27 deg 8,165 kg A&BMolniya 1,204 x 39,170 km x 63.4 deg 5,216 kg A&BGEO 1 35,786 km x 0 deg 2,268 kg A&BGEO 2 35,786 km x 0 deg 6,577 kg C---------------------------------------------------------CategoriesA: 4 meter diameter PLFB: 5 meter diameter PLFC: 5 meter diameter Extended PLF
EELV REFERENCE ORBITSORBIT MASS CATEGORY-----------------------------------------------------------LEO 926 km x 63.4 deg 6,804 kg A&BPolar 1 833 km x 98.2 deg 7,030 kg A&BPolar 2 833 km x 98.2 deg 17,010 kg C MEO 1 18,177 km x 50 deg 5,330 kg A&BMTO 1 1,000 x 20,368 km x 55 deg 4,082 kg A&BMEO 2 20,368 km x 55 deg 4,082 kg A&BMTO 2 1,000 x 20,368 km x 55 deg 5,080 kg A&BGTO 185 x 35,786 km x 27 deg 8,165 kg A&BMolniya 1,204 x 39,170 km x 63.4 deg 5,216 kg A&BGEO 1 35,786 km x 0 deg 2,268 kg A&BGEO 2 35,786 km x 0 deg 6,577 kg C---------------------------------------------------------CategoriesA: 4 meter diameter PLFB: 5 meter diameter PLFC: 5 meter diameter Extended PLF
Quote from: TrevorMonty on 10/13/2017 09:48 AMBlue's NG would most likely require 3rd stage for GEO 2 mission. At 13t to GTO it only has 6t of fuel to deliver 7t payload plus stage dry mass to GEO. After looking at my model in detail, I agree. New Glenn would need a third stage for GEO and for the two MEO missions. - Ed Kyle
Blue's NG would most likely require 3rd stage for GEO 2 mission. At 13t to GTO it only has 6t of fuel to deliver 7t payload plus stage dry mass to GEO.
New Glenn would also need a launch site for the polar orbit missions. Are there plans for a west coast launch site for New Glenn? Even Orbital has plans to take over Vandenberg SLC-2 (after the last 2018 Delta II mission) for NGL.May the initial plan be launching from the cape at the highest azimuth to the north and then performing a (quite expensive) orbit inclination change with the third stage?
So how many bids can we expect on November 20th? I hope that every established players and new entrants submit their own bids as Prime contractor to maximize competition:- ULA with Vulcan centaur (with BE-4 a priori) and then Vulcan ACES (which upper stage engine supplier?)- SpaceX with Falcon Heavy and then BFR - Orbital ATK (soon Northrop Grumman) with NGL 500 and then NGL500XL. Who will be their upper stage engine supplier ? - Blue Origin with new Glenn (2-stage version) and then New Glenn (3-stage)- Aerojet Rocketdyne with an "Atlas VI" based on AR-1 & RL-10 provided that they should not be part of ULA tea for Vulcan. But who will be their partner for structures and integration ? Any ideas ?
A company can submit up to two proposals, but only one family of vehicles can get chosen according to the documents. That would mean SpaceX could get funding for either Falcon or BFR family, not both. I assume the Air Force would lean towards the one that actually exists already.
Some interestings tidbits from the RFP:Quote3.1.2 Section II: Factor 1 EELV ApproachThe Offeror shall describe its approach to develop and qualify a launch system that meets EELVlaunch service requirements. The SPRD and SIS are listed in Annex C, Attachment 4. At a minimum,the Offeror shall address the following topics:1. The ability to meet all EELV reference orbits defined in Table 10 at the orbital insertionaccuracy required in SPRD 3.2.4<snip>
3.1.2 Section II: Factor 1 EELV ApproachThe Offeror shall describe its approach to develop and qualify a launch system that meets EELVlaunch service requirements. The SPRD and SIS are listed in Annex C, Attachment 4. At a minimum,the Offeror shall address the following topics:1. The ability to meet all EELV reference orbits defined in Table 10 at the orbital insertionaccuracy required in SPRD 3.2.4<snip>
The AF Space Command is downright enamored with reusable rockets at the moment,
If I'm reading the conference report correctly this RFP just died. (Can't copy/paste well on phone, will post the text later tonight if someone else doesn't get to it first.)
The amendment would terminate the authority todevelop a domestic rocket propulsion system and to develop thenecessary interfaces of a domestic rocket propulsion system oncethe Secretary of the Air Force certifies to the congressionaldefense committees that a successful full-scale test of adomestic rocket engine has occurred.
...FWIW, two-stage New Glenn looks capable of handling any of these missions, Medium or Heavy, but that assumes a long-coast to third restart capability is available. - Ed Kyle
QuoteThe amendment would terminate the authority todevelop a domestic rocket propulsion system and to develop thenecessary interfaces of a domestic rocket propulsion system oncethe Secretary of the Air Force certifies to the congressionaldefense committees that a successful full-scale test of adomestic rocket engine has occurred. This seems to be only about the engine, the RFP is for a launch system so should still stand. Also since Merlin is domestic, wouldn't that terminate the authority right now?
Quote from: gosnold on 11/10/2017 04:51 PMQuoteThe amendment would terminate the authority todevelop a domestic rocket propulsion system and to develop thenecessary interfaces of a domestic rocket propulsion system oncethe Secretary of the Air Force certifies to the congressionaldefense committees that a successful full-scale test of adomestic rocket engine has occurred. This seems to be only about the engine, the RFP is for a launch system so should still stand. Also since Merlin is domestic, wouldn't that terminate the authority right now?The legislation doesn't provide funding for the program described in the RFP. It explicitly says that spending money on the program described in the RFP is not allowed in FY18. The engine they're talking about is the RD-180 replacement. Merlin is not the RD-180 replacement.
If I read this correctly, no more money for BE4 development? Doesn't seem like that would be a problem however, because BE4 is pretty far along anyway. As far as it applies to the Vulcan LV I supposed BO and ULA would have to work out who pays for development costs. But I don't think it would kill the engine. What does this do to the AJ proposal for vulcan though? Does it make it more or less likely?
"(C) develop capabilities necessary to enable existing or planned commercially available spacelaunch vehicles or infrastructure that are primarily for national security space missions to meet the assured access to space requirements pursuant to section 2273 of title 10, United States Code."
It still allows the Air Force to spend money to Quote"(C) develop capabilities necessary to enable existing or planned commercially available spacelaunch vehicles or infrastructure that are primarily for national security space missions to meet the assured access to space requirements pursuant to section 2273 of title 10, United States Code." (stuff like long coast, vertical integration, launch pads at both CC and Vandenberg, large fairings, etc.)
When is this last bill supposed to be passed ? Why is this RFP not cancelled or postponed in such context where no funding would be appropriated for launch vehicle development ?
Further, the bill defines “rocket propulsion system” as a main booster, first-stage rocket engine, or motor. The term does not include a launch vehicle, an upper stage, a strap-on motor, or related infrastructure.
Another provision in the bill relates to the engines under development for Vulcan. This language states that the Air Force may terminate funding for other rocket propulsion systems when “the Secretary of the Air Force certifies to the congressional defense committees that a successful full-scale test of a domestic rocket engine has occurred.”
Good article by Eric Berger on the NDAA funding language and thus the flexibility it does, and does not, give the USAF:https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/11/a-new-law-gives-air-force-some-wiggle-room-in-picking-its-new-rockets/Two crucial quotes:QuoteFurther, the bill defines “rocket propulsion system” as a main booster, first-stage rocket engine, or motor. The term does not include a launch vehicle, an upper stage, a strap-on motor, or related infrastructure.QuoteAnother provision in the bill relates to the engines under development for Vulcan. This language states that the Air Force may terminate funding for other rocket propulsion systems when “the Secretary of the Air Force certifies to the congressional defense committees that a successful full-scale test of a domestic rocket engine has occurred.”So first stage funding is fine, but not second or other stages, and AR-1 funding can be dropped once BE-4 achieves a 'full-scale test'.
(e) Rocket Propulsion System Defined.—In this section, the term “rocket propulsion system” means, with respect to the development authorized by subsection (a)(1), a main booster, first-stage rocket engine (including such an engine using kerosene or methane-based or other propellant) or motor. The term does not include a launch vehicle, an upper stage, a strap-on motor, or related infrastructure.
Mr Berger added a comma there.
Quote from: envy887 on 11/21/2017 05:39 PMMr Berger added a comma there.Good catch. I think you're saying the original intent was to specify "a main booster (i.e. first-stage) rocket engine or motor."Another case of the panda who "Eats, Shoots & Leaves."
1.1. Overview:1.1.1. Prior to 2011, all National Security Space (NSS) payloads were considered as Class Arepresenting the most critical payloads. Launch vehicles (LVs) that launch Class A payloadshave met the highest level of certification requirements with commensurate demonstratedreliability and must have the lowest risk tolerance rating. Class B, C and D payloads areconsidered more tolerant to risk, and can be flown on LVs with progressively higher risk.1.1.2. This instruction defines the process on how payload risk classification will beaccomplished and how the resultant risk classifications are incorporated into the overalllaunch mission risk classification. It provides the SMC/CC the flexibility to certify flightworthiness commensurate with payload risk tolerance. Risk Classification will not takeprecedence over Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS)requirements documentation nor affect system design, acquisition, or build methodologyprior to the launch flow decision process. Unlaunched missions over a year from initiallaunch capability (ILC) will be reassessed annually, to provide opportunity for updated riskacceptance decisions. Payloads introduced to an unlaunched mission under a year from ILCwill reviewed on an individual basis for potential changes to launch mission riskclassification. Consistent mission assurance (MA) will preserve operational flexibility in aContested, Degraded, or Operationally-limited (CDO) environment.
(Apologies, text was oddly only partially copyable on the updated PDF.)
3.1.6.4 Primarily NSS CapabilitiesIn accordance with FY18 NDAA Section 1605, the Offeror shall provide a signed letter certifying that the proposed Government cost share will only be used to develop capabilities necessary to enable existing or planned commercially available space launch vehicles or infrastructure that are primarily for national security space missions.
IMHO, this small addition could be a sign that the RFP was more designed in part to assist SpaceX (among others) in the development of a cryogenic Raptor S2 for Falcon than the development of BFR. Nevertheless, I'm out of my depth here, and would love to hear opinions on the significance (if any) of this small change.
Quote from: vaporcobra on 02/04/2018 12:11 AMIMHO, this small addition could be a sign that the RFP was more designed in part to assist SpaceX (among others) in the development of a cryogenic Raptor S2 for Falcon than the development of BFR. Nevertheless, I'm out of my depth here, and would love to hear opinions on the significance (if any) of this small change.I'm equally clueless but I think the change is made so that the RFP follows the language in FY18 NDAA Section 1605, the change itself has nothing to do with SpaceX or BFR. We can certainly speculate how SpaceX would respond, for example I don't see they go back to Raptor S2 for Falcon. A lot would depend on how everyone involved interpret the text. For example what does "develop capabilities necessary to enable existing or planned commercially available space launch vehicles or infrastructure that are primarily for national security space missions" mean exactly? I'm having trouble parsing this sentence. And what does "development effort necessary to provide the capability to launch Category A/B payloads to NSS reference orbits" cover? Seems to me any work on first or second stage could be argued to be necessary to reach NSS reference orbits.
It looks like the Air Force has already awarded SpaceX $20 million to develop a vertical integration facility, according to this article just published on teslarati.https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-20m-us-air-force-contract-spy-satellites/(Apologies if this is the wrong place to put this. First post!)
$20m is a huge amount for the AF to award SpaceX for a simple "study." For comparison, that's about 25% of what the AF has paid SpaceX for previous launches and contracts.
Quote from: vaporcobra on 02/20/2018 07:39 PM $20m is a huge amount for the AF to award SpaceX for a simple "study." For comparison, that's about 25% of what the AF has paid SpaceX for previous launches and contracts. You made me go look at the SpaceX contracts again (like I didn't have enough to do today, thanks alot). I see about $600M total in publicly known DoD contracts now, which includes four launches (DSCOVR, STP-2, and 2xGPS) and the Raptor development funds.
I think Vc meant 25% of what the AF paid Sx for*one* launch....If we get a few more posts we can carve them out to a new thread.... for now I am not sure this isn't the best place?
The Air Force signed cost-sharing partnerships with ULA, SpaceX, Orbital ATK and Aerojet Rocketdyne. The original request for proposals noted the Air Force wants to “leverage commercial launch solutions in order to have at least two domestic, commercial launch service providers.”The next step is to select three companies this summer to move forward with enginet prototypes.“We are on schedule to make LSA awards in July 2018,” a spokesman for the Air Force Space and Missile Systems Center told SpaceNews.
http://spacenews.com/air-force-stakes-future-on-privately-funded-launch-vehicles-will-the-gamble-pay-off/QuoteThe Air Force signed cost-sharing partnerships with ULA, SpaceX, Orbital ATK and Aerojet Rocketdyne. The original request for proposals noted the Air Force wants to “leverage commercial launch solutions in order to have at least two domestic, commercial launch service providers.”The next step is to select three companies this summer to move forward with enginet prototypes.“We are on schedule to make LSA awards in July 2018,” a spokesman for the Air Force Space and Missile Systems Center told SpaceNews.
Quote from: su27k on 03/26/2018 05:22 AMhttp://spacenews.com/air-force-stakes-future-on-privately-funded-launch-vehicles-will-the-gamble-pay-off/QuoteThe Air Force signed cost-sharing partnerships with ULA, SpaceX, Orbital ATK and Aerojet Rocketdyne. The original request for proposals noted the Air Force wants to “leverage commercial launch solutions in order to have at least two domestic, commercial launch service providers.”The next step is to select three companies this summer to move forward with enginet prototypes.“We are on schedule to make LSA awards in July 2018,” a spokesman for the Air Force Space and Missile Systems Center told SpaceNews.If the development of AR-1 is being scaled back (discussion in the ULA thread about the BE-4 vs AR-1 competition), does this indicate the Air Force will continue to fund raptor development?
Quote from: rockets4life97 on 03/26/2018 05:42 PMQuote from: su27k on 03/26/2018 05:22 AMhttp://spacenews.com/air-force-stakes-future-on-privately-funded-launch-vehicles-will-the-gamble-pay-off/QuoteThe Air Force signed cost-sharing partnerships with ULA, SpaceX, Orbital ATK and Aerojet Rocketdyne. The original request for proposals noted the Air Force wants to “leverage commercial launch solutions in order to have at least two domestic, commercial launch service providers.”The next step is to select three companies this summer to move forward with enginet prototypes.“We are on schedule to make LSA awards in July 2018,” a spokesman for the Air Force Space and Missile Systems Center told SpaceNews.If the development of AR-1 is being scaled back (discussion in the ULA thread about the BE-4 vs AR-1 competition), does this indicate the Air Force will continue to fund raptor development?Raptor and AR-1 have absolutely nothing to do with each other.
One thing I'm not certain about in the above article, however, is Sandra's comment that "the next step is to select three companies this summer to move forward with enginet prototypes." If I understood this RFP correctly, the AF would actually be looking to fund three EELV prototypes - they've already funded prototypes of propulsion systems, systems now deep into hot-fire testing. I believe this was where we were anticipating potential proposals for OATK's NGL, Vulcan, FH/BFR/Raptor US, and perhaps even New Glenn.
Quote from: vaporcobra on 03/26/2018 07:29 PMOne thing I'm not certain about in the above article, however, is Sandra's comment that "the next step is to select three companies this summer to move forward with enginet prototypes." If I understood this RFP correctly, the AF would actually be looking to fund three EELV prototypes - they've already funded prototypes of propulsion systems, systems now deep into hot-fire testing. I believe this was where we were anticipating potential proposals for OATK's NGL, Vulcan, FH/BFR/Raptor US, and perhaps even New Glenn.I don't think that article is particularly well-written, it mixes together two separate programs.
Quote from: gongora on 03/26/2018 05:47 PMQuote from: rockets4life97 on 03/26/2018 05:42 PMQuote from: su27k on 03/26/2018 05:22 AMhttp://spacenews.com/air-force-stakes-future-on-privately-funded-launch-vehicles-will-the-gamble-pay-off/QuoteThe Air Force signed cost-sharing partnerships with ULA, SpaceX, Orbital ATK and Aerojet Rocketdyne. The original request for proposals noted the Air Force wants to “leverage commercial launch solutions in order to have at least two domestic, commercial launch service providers.”The next step is to select three companies this summer to move forward with enginet prototypes.“We are on schedule to make LSA awards in July 2018,” a spokesman for the Air Force Space and Missile Systems Center told SpaceNews.If the development of AR-1 is being scaled back (discussion in the ULA thread about the BE-4 vs AR-1 competition), does this indicate the Air Force will continue to fund raptor development?Raptor and AR-1 have absolutely nothing to do with each other.Sorry. My mistake. I was reading the comment as the Air Force will select 2 and their are 3 options. If you take one away, you get 2 competitors for 2 options.