The U.S. Space Force is polling the space launch industry as it tries to identify what companies might challenge United Launch Alliance and SpaceX when their current contracts are re-competed in 2024.“The government is identifying sources capable of providing NSSL-class launch services beginning in fiscal year 2025 and is requesting more detailed information on each provider’s capabilities, launch systems, to include when those capabilities will be available,” says a Jan. 27 request for information from the Space Systems Command’s launch enterprise. Responses are due Feb. 24.
Two space launch companies – United Launch Alliance and SpaceX – currently are under contract to launch military and intelligence satellites for the U.S. Space Force. But when these contracts are up for recompete in 2024, the Space Force might consider working with more than two companies, Chief of Space Operations Gen. John “Jay” Raymond told lawmakers April 27. “We are really at a transformation point in space,” Raymond said during a House Armed Services Committee hearing on the Department of the Air Force’s fiscal year 2023 budget request. Committee Chairman Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.) pressed Raymond to shed light on the Space Force’s future plans to buy space launch services as more companies enter the market. Smith has been a longtime critic of the military launch program, arguing that it does not provide enough opportunities for new entrants.
Space Force sees room for more competitors in national security launchQuote from: SpaceNewsTwo space launch companies – United Launch Alliance and SpaceX – currently are under contract to launch military and intelligence satellites for the U.S. Space Force. But when these contracts are up for recompete in 2024, the Space Force might consider working with more than two companies, Chief of Space Operations Gen. John “Jay” Raymond told lawmakers April 27. “We are really at a transformation point in space,” Raymond said during a House Armed Services Committee hearing on the Department of the Air Force’s fiscal year 2023 budget request. Committee Chairman Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.) pressed Raymond to shed light on the Space Force’s future plans to buy space launch services as more companies enter the market. Smith has been a longtime critic of the military launch program, arguing that it does not provide enough opportunities for new entrants.
House Armed Services Committee Chairman Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.) in a draft version of the 2023 National Defense Authorization Act pushes for changes in military launch services procurement, calling on the Space Force to replace the current two-vendor strategy with an open competition model.<snip>The language in the 2023 NDAA urges the Space Force to consider other procurement approaches in Phase 3 of the NSSL program in 2024 so more than two companies can win launch contracts.“It is the sense of Congress that the acquisition approach for Phase 3 of the National Security Space Launch program should account for changes in the launch industry and planned architectures of the Space Force,” according to a draft version of the chairman’s mark, a copy of which was obtained by SpaceNews.The Space Force should “explore new and innovative acquisition approaches to leverage launch competition within the commercial market,” says the draft bill.
House Armed Services chairman calls on Space Force to change how it buys launch servicesQuote from: SpaceNewsHouse Armed Services Committee Chairman Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.) in a draft version of the 2023 National Defense Authorization Act pushes for changes in military launch services procurement, calling on the Space Force to replace the current two-vendor strategy with an open competition model.<snip>The language in the 2023 NDAA urges the Space Force to consider other procurement approaches in Phase 3 of the NSSL program in 2024 so more than two companies can win launch contracts.“It is the sense of Congress that the acquisition approach for Phase 3 of the National Security Space Launch program should account for changes in the launch industry and planned architectures of the Space Force,” according to a draft version of the chairman’s mark, a copy of which was obtained by SpaceNews.The Space Force should “explore new and innovative acquisition approaches to leverage launch competition within the commercial market,” says the draft bill.
The "Sense of congress" (i.e., Congressman Smith of Washington) is supposed to be interpreted as "buy stuff from BO" and specifically "use New Glenn when it is available."
I would hope that USSF can re-interpret this to mean they can change the percentage split (currently 60% ULA 40% SpaceX is a stated policy) to a model that allows competition on price for each launch.
The big problem with NSSL phase 3 is that the industry is changing so rapidly that any sort of stable contractual arrangement will be obsolete by the time of the last launch and possibly by the time of the first launch.
Starship is the elephant in the room.
Quote from: DanClemmensen on 06/19/2022 01:45 pmThe "Sense of congress" (i.e., Congressman Smith of Washington) is supposed to be interpreted as "buy stuff from BO" and specifically "use New Glenn when it is available."Well Blue Origin did bid for NSSL, but didn't win. So just from a fairness standpoint I think it makes sense to use American taxpayer money to onboard more American launch capability.
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 06/19/2022 03:28 pmQuote from: DanClemmensen on 06/19/2022 01:45 pmThe "Sense of congress" (i.e., Congressman Smith of Washington) is supposed to be interpreted as "buy stuff from BO" and specifically "use New Glenn when it is available."Well Blue Origin did bid for NSSL, but didn't win. So just from a fairness standpoint I think it makes sense to use American taxpayer money to onboard more American launch capability.Yeah, that was in 2019, and BO protested after they lost. The procurement was for launches starting in 2022 and apparently USSF did not believe BO would be flying New Glenn by 2022.
NSSL needs more launch companies.
I disagree about "fairness". It's not fair to the American taxpayer to pay a bunch of extra money for a highly questionable return. It looks more like corporate welfare and zipcode subsidy to me.
I feel that alternatives to SpaceX need to be reasonably competitive on price. I suppose I would tolerate a 10% premium to support an alternative provider, but not a 100% premium. If I were SpaceX and confronted with the "alternate provider" argument, I would spin off the F9 business and bid Starship as the competitor.
Make no mistake though, any new launch entrant is going to be taking away business from ULA, and that is a concern for the USAF, since ULA is the only launch provider CURRENTLY certified to launch all of the payloads USAF needs launched.
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 06/20/2022 12:53 amMake no mistake though, any new launch entrant is going to be taking away business from ULA, and that is a concern for the USAF, since ULA is the only launch provider CURRENTLY certified to launch all of the payloads USAF needs launched.ULA has two "certified" launch vehicles and both are out of production and are being retired. All 23 remaining Atlas V and the three remaining Delta IV heavies are already allocated to launches, so they cannot launch all of those payloads. They cannot launch any payloads that are not already contracted for, which appears to be three USSF Atlas V launches, one NRO Atlas V launch, and three NRO Delta IV Heavy launches.Vulcan is not yet certified.I'm not sure exactly what you mean, but Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy are both "certified" for NSSL payloads. does USSF have payloads that cannot be launched on these?
Quote from: DanClemmensen on 06/20/2022 03:08 amQuote from: Coastal Ron on 06/20/2022 12:53 amMake no mistake though, any new launch entrant is going to be taking away business from ULA, and that is a concern for the USAF, since ULA is the only launch provider CURRENTLY certified to launch all of the payloads USAF needs launched.ULA has two "certified" launch vehicles and both are out of production and are being retired. All 23 remaining Atlas V and the three remaining Delta IV heavies are already allocated to launches, so they cannot launch all of those payloads. They cannot launch any payloads that are not already contracted for, which appears to be three USSF Atlas V launches, one NRO Atlas V launch, and three NRO Delta IV Heavy launches.Vulcan is not yet certified.I'm not sure exactly what you mean, but Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy are both "certified" for NSSL payloads. does USSF have payloads that cannot be launched on these?Jim could better explain, but you are just focused on the rockets, and forgetting about the infrastructure it takes to mount the payloads and provide "unique" services that commercial payloads don't need. Remember we're talking about USAF & NRO payloads here, with national security hardware.ULA was built to handle ALL of those payloads, but SpaceX is just now getting ready to build some of the infrastructure needed to handle some of those payloads - not sure if they will be able to handle all of them though.Maybe Blue Origin is taking those infrastructure needs into account as they build out their launch facilities, but even so they need to get certified by the USAF - or have a plan to get there when they are bidding, like SpaceX was able to do.So no, it isn't just the rockets that are the concern, but the launch infrastructure.
Thanks for the explanation. However, even if ULA has all of the infrastructure that USSF, USAF, and/or NRO will ever need, it is of no use unless they also have a certified launch vehicle. Let's hope Vulcan launches soon and gets certified quickly.
To participate, BO would need a launch pad and other infrastructure at SLC, right? Their facilities at KSC are not secure enough.
Quote from: DanClemmensen on 06/20/2022 05:23 amTo participate, BO would need a launch pad and other infrastructure at SLC, right? Their facilities at KSC are not secure enough.Based on what?
Quote from: Jim on 06/21/2022 01:46 pmQuote from: DanClemmensen on 06/20/2022 05:23 amTo participate, BO would need a launch pad and other infrastructure at SLC, right? Their facilities at KSC are not secure enough.Based on what?Based on a misunderstanding on my part. I thought USSF (or NRO or whoever makes these decisions) preferred to launch from SLC. I now know I was wrong. I should have made it part of the question, not an assertion.
Quote from: DanClemmensen on 06/21/2022 01:53 pmQuote from: Jim on 06/21/2022 01:46 pmQuote from: DanClemmensen on 06/20/2022 05:23 amTo participate, BO would need a launch pad and other infrastructure at SLC, right? Their facilities at KSC are not secure enough.Based on what?Based on a misunderstanding on my part. I thought USSF (or NRO or whoever makes these decisions) preferred to launch from SLC. I now know I was wrong. I should have made it part of the question, not an assertion.Salt Lake City?
Quote from: Jim on 06/21/2022 02:07 pmQuote from: DanClemmensen on 06/21/2022 01:53 pmQuote from: Jim on 06/21/2022 01:46 pmQuote from: DanClemmensen on 06/20/2022 05:23 amTo participate, BO would need a launch pad and other infrastructure at SLC, right? Their facilities at KSC are not secure enough.Based on what?Based on a misunderstanding on my part. I thought USSF (or NRO or whoever makes these decisions) preferred to launch from SLC. I now know I was wrong. I should have made it part of the question, not an assertion.Salt Lake City?I meant a pad whose abbreviation starts with "SLC" (e.g., SLC-40) , which I think means "Space Launch Complex". What I should have said was "Cape Canaveral Space Force Station", which under control of USSF, in contrast to a pad whose abbreviation starts with "LC" (e.g., LC-39A) which is part of "Kennedy Space Center" and is under control of NASA.
https://breakingdefense.com/2022/06/with-billions-at-stake-lobbying-heats-up-for-future-rights-to-space-force-launches/The war is coming...
In 2026, is NSSL a significant enough sliver of the launch market to matter? Why should launch providers care about NSSL requirements when there's Kuiper and other megaconstellations driving the vast majority of demand growth? Why should Blue Origin support direct-to-GEO missions with a reusable Jarvis upper stage? Why should Rocket Lab scale Neutron to cover the range of NSSL payload classes?The US military is talking about buying *maybe* 30-34 launches over a five year period. It could be significantly less than that. There could be six missions one year and two missions the next. Amazon placed a firm order for 83 launches over a five year period, and there will be more where that came from. Whose requirements are more important? Who has more clout to drive requirements for launch providers?ULA supports NSSL requirements. SpaceX had already developed FH and was all but forced to promise a vertical integration tower and a special expendable payload fairing. That's enough providers bending over backwards for a vanishingly small number of snowflake payloads. Other providers should be able to bid on the missions that they are capable of executing.Blue Origin, in particular, needs to resist the urge to make any more pivots to win a government contract. Forget about the stodgy military customers and skate to where the puck is going.
The Space Force launch procurement command in Los Angeles later this year will send to the Pentagon a proposed strategy for selecting national security launch services providers for the next round of contracts expected to be awarded in 2024. “The NSSL [National Security Space Launch] team is off working the strategy for Phase 3, but nothing has been agreed to yet,” Frank Calvelli, the Space Force’s senior acquisition executive, told reporters June 28.
Some 25 House members have signed onto a draft letter being circulated by Rep. Doug Lamborn, R-Colo., pushing restrictions on the contenders. That letter was drafted by current incumbent, United Launch Alliance, according to industry sources; ULA is a joint venture of defense behemoths Boeing and Lockheed Martin.The undated draft, addressed to Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall and obtained by Breaking Defense, encourages the Space Force to “continue requiring launch providers meet all critical mission requirements.” This would effectively limit the contest to those companies with large, “high energy” rockets that can loft satellites all the way up to Geosynchronous Orbit (GEO, some 36,000 kilometers in altitude) and block out small launch providers who can only reach Low Earth Orbit (LEO, between 100 and 2,000 kilometers) even for missions that only need to reach that lower zone, according to several industry sources.
The U.S. Space Force is working to finalize a procurement strategy for the next national security launch services contracts expected to be awarded in 2024. A draft request for industry proposals could be issued as early as February 2023, Brig. Gen. Stephen Purdy, the Space Force’s program executive officer for assured access to space, told SpaceNews on the sidelines of the Air, Space & Cyber conference. Before the Space Systems Command can release a draft request for proposals, the strategy has to be approved by the Department of Defense, said Purdy. “We are trying to get everyone at DoD to agree … there are a lot of stakeholders.”
#SpaceSystemsCommand’s Assured Access to Space directorate signed a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement today, paving the way for @BlueOrigin to compete for the next NSSL launch service competition and is an example of how we foster innovation! https://www.ssc.spaceforce.mil/Portals/3/Documents/PRESS%20RELEASES/Space%20Systems%20Command%20Opens%20the%20Door%20for%20Blue%20Origin%20to%20Provide%20.pdf?ver=RqasqnwR0Vc4WckL8ggAFQ%3d%3d
The U.S. Space Force is in the process of defining the framework for Phase 3 of the National Security Space Launch program (NSSL). The follow-on from the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) program, NSSL ensures that the Department of Defense has access to launch services to put the most critical military and intelligence collection assets into orbit — assets like GPS, space-based early warning, and other classified payloads. Right now the program’s requirements are being met by two providers: United Launch Alliance (ULA) and SpaceX. The decisions that will shape Phase 3 are being made against an evolving geopolitical and commercial landscape, which are critical considerations for ensuring the United States has the launch services it needs now and in the future.
“A dual-lane contracting approach is being considered,” he said. One would be an IDIQ contract, short for indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity “with an unlimited number of providers.” An IDIQ contract would allow the government to purchase launch services on an as-needed basis without committing to a specific amount. Pentecost said this vehicle would be used for less complex NSSL launches where there is likely to be more competitors. “This allows annual on-ramping of new capabilities for the less stressing NSSL missions.” The second lane would be like Phase 2, or an indefinite delivery requirements contract with two selected providers for the more demanding NSSL missions.
Big changes are coming in how the US military buys launch. DOD will still require its two big contractors to hit all orbits (SpaceX and ULA, most likely) but will open another procurement lane for more risk tolerant missions. Big win here for Blue Origin, Rocket Lab, others.
Space Systems Command Releases National Security Space Launch Phase 3 Draft Request for ProposalsSummary: SC NSSL RFP release reflects Command's acquisition strategy of dual-lane approach for access to diverse commercial systems for greater resilience, integration, affordability and more.EL SEGUNDO, Calif. - Space Systems Command released two National Security Space Launch (NSSL) Phase 3 Draft Requests for Proposals (RFP) based on a dual-lane acquisition approach to solicit industry feedback on the RFPs prior to finalization."Today's draft RFP release builds upon the historic successes of the NSSL program and responds to our nation's need to address the pacing challenge," said Maj. Gen. Stephen Purdy, program executive officer, Assured Access to Space. "We developed an acquisition strategy consisting of a dual-lane approach that provides access to diverse commercially available systems, increases resiliency through alternate launch sites and streamlined integration timelines, allows annual on-ramping of emerging launch providers and systems, secures launch capacity, enables supply chain stability, and enhances affordability for the most stressing National Security Space missions."Lane 1 will use a multiple Firm Fixed Price Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract open to all qualified bidders. Bidders are not required to meet all NSSL orbits to compete in Lane 1. Lane 1 will have annual on-ramping opportunities as emerging providers or systems are ready. Lane 1 covers procurements from FY25 to FY34 consisting of a five-year base ordering period plus a five-year option. Lane 1 serves more risk-tolerant space vehicles launching to commercially addressable orbits. Task orders for launch services are competed on an annual basis among all IDIQ awardees. The government may order missions individually or in blocks. Launch providers must propose fully-burdened launch service prices that include all applicable launch service support. Lane 1 also incorporates tiered mission assurance as required by each mission's risk tolerance.The government will select two awardees for Lane 2. The competitively awarded FFP IndefiniteDelivery Requirements contracts will be awarded to the best value and next best value launch service providers who meet all NSSL orbits and unique mission capabilities. The contracts will have a five-year ordering period from FY25 to FY29. Lane 2 includes missions that require full mission assurance with certified launch vehicles. Lane 2 payloads require launches to more stressing orbits, necessitating higher performance
As the military prepares to buy more launches with NSSL Phase 3, @USSF_SSC's Col. Douglas Pentecost says in a briefing they expect "a greater than 50% increase" in missions.Phase 2 expected ~35 (but is now targeting ~40), whereas Phase 3 is expected to have over 60 to 70.
After a solicitation period, SSC is targeting summer 2024 to announce contract awards under NSSL Phase 3.
Expected NSSL Phase 3 breakdown:Lane 1- 30 missions- designed for flexibility, for both new missions and launch vehiclesLane 2- 40 missions- 60%/40% split between two companies- "hardest orbit" requirements
Col. Douglas Pentecost of the Air Force has referred to companies including Rocket Lab, Relativity Space, Blue Origin, and ABL Space as "Lane 1" entrants for national security launch. He revealed that ABL is also working on larger rocket, which the company hasn't talked about.
Can ULA and SpaceX compete for Lane #1 missions?.
For Phase 3 the Space Force projects anywhere from 60 to 70 missions. About 30 of those will be less demanding “Lane 1” launches that could be performed by emerging launch providers flying medium-size vehicles. The other 40 in “Lane 2” would be heavy-lift missions to high orbits carrying the most sensitive military and intelligence satellites. — Lane 1 will run from 2025 to 2034, with a five-year base period plus a five-year option. Bids will be solicited annually throughout the contract period, so will be opportunities to “on ramp” new companies. These launches could be performed from nontraditional spaceports. — Lane 2 requires certified national security launch vehicles that fly from the Eastern and Western ranges. The contract period will run from 2025 to 2029. As in NSSL Phase 2, two winners will be selected, with the top scorer getting 60% of the missions.— Based on market research and conversations with launch providers, Pentecost said, there could be at least four new competitors in Phase 3: Rocket Lab, ABL Space, Relativity Space and Blue Origin. These companies would compete in the more “risk tolerant” Lane 1, although Blue Origin could have a shot at Lane 2 if New Glenn completes three flights and gets certified. — Incumbents ULA and SpaceX would be eligible to compete in either lane.
The US military is finally leaning heavily into the nation's commercial launch industry. It's a pretty big deal.
Rocket Lab ‘very happy’ with Space Force plan to procure launch servicesCEO Peter Beck says the company played an active role reshaping the government’s approach to buying launch servicesSandra ErwinMarch 7, 2023WASHINGTON — Rocket Lab’s chief executive Peter Beck is candid about his company’s role in reshaping the U.S. government’s approach to buying launch services.“We’re very happy with the outcome,” Beck says of the recent draft solicitation for the next round of national security space launch contracts.
Boeing is interested in offering commercial Space Launch System flight services under the National Security Space Launch Phase 3 program. "We believe the proven SLS capabilities can be an asset for the ... [NSSL] Phase 3 contract," Boeing tells @AviationWeek
I would love to see the Space Launch System in a real, actual competition for launch contracts. I think that would be fun.
Bruno: NSSL Lane 2, for demanding national security missions, "is for grownups." Government will need to do block buys or else funding they have trouble getting on manifests.
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1636095723425988608QuoteBruno: NSSL Lane 2, for demanding national security missions, "is for grownups." Government will need to do block buys or else funding they have trouble getting on manifests.
Quote from: FutureSpaceTourist on 03/15/2023 07:08 pmhttps://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1636095723425988608QuoteBruno: NSSL Lane 2, for demanding national security missions, "is for grownups." Government will need to do block buys or else funding they have trouble getting on manifests.This is so self-serving it's disgusting. I am sure that SpaceX is more than willing to accommodate them on their manifest.
Space Force plans to award sole-source study contract to on-ramp Blue Origin for National Security Space Launch Phase 3 contract -- Lane 2 (which, if for New Glenn, certainly indicates Lane 2 not just for small satellite launchers ). SLS next?
Oops -- got my lanes mixed up . lane 2 for full-range of NSSL missions , not small sat launchers .
Something else that came up during the live shows yesterday: @Peter_J_Beck of @RocketLab pointed out that vehicles bidding for NSSL Phase 3 Lane 1 need to be able to lift 10 tons to LEO at a minimum:
I hadn’t gone back to check, but the NSSL Phase 3 Industry Day Briefing is up on SAM.gov now, where that info is disclosed: https://sam.gov/opp/e5d778c9278a47c9a759927901e35bf6/view
Quite an interesting limit. It excludes vehicles like @Firefly_Space’s Alpha, @ablspacesystems’ RS1, @RocketLab’s Electron, whatever @Astra ends up working on, etc. Relying on basically an entire new generation of vehicles—Neutron, Terran R, Firefly MLV—is a bit…interesting.
From a Space Force release about a new draft RFP for National Security Space Launch Phase 3: "The most substantive change since the U.S. Space Force released the first draft Request for Proposals is that the U.S. Space Force will add a third provider to the Lane 2 construct." 🤔
OpinionSenate defense panel leaves National Security Space Launch unsecuredErik SeedhouseJuly 13, 2023Erik Seedhouse, Ph.D. is an Associate Professor of Spaceflight Operations at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical UniversityIn the misguided effort to promote increased competition, the U.S. Senate Armed Service Committee has proposed changes to how the U.S. Space Force selects providers of national security launch services. Their attempted legislative override of the U.S. Space Force’s proposed contractor standards is reckless, and U.S. space leaders fear that it may compromise the success of the National Security Space Launch (NSSL) — the government program intended to assure access to space for the U.S. Department of Defense.
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1679902235998793749QuoteFrom a Space Force release about a new draft RFP for National Security Space Launch Phase 3: "The most substantive change since the U.S. Space Force released the first draft Request for Proposals is that the U.S. Space Force will add a third provider to the Lane 2 construct." 🤔
I hope the Space Force waits until the bids are submitted before making a final decision about whether they'll accept 0, 1, 2 or 3 bids. Retaining this sort of flexibility got NASA a better deal with HLS then they would have gotten if they'd accepted 2 bids during the first competition.
Space Force is expanding "Lane 2" of the NSSL Phase 3 to three rocket companies, from two – specifically calling out "the pacing challenge" of China as part of the need for more launches and providers.SSC press release (highlights mine):
#SpaceSystemsCommand released a 2nd round of National Security Space Launch Phase 3 draft Requests for Proposals that incorporate industry comments from the first draft RFPs. SSC is seeking additional industry feedback. Learn more and submit feedback:
The Government will award three contracts for the NSSL Phase 3 Lane 2 Launch Service 70 Procurement for “Requirement 1”, “Requirement 2”, and “Requirement 3.” The “Requirement 71 1” or “Requirement 2” launch service distributions will be as described in Table 1 in 52.212-4 72 (z) Ordering, in the model contract. The “Requirement 3” launch service distribution portion of 73 the NSSL manifest is described in Table 2 in 52.212-4 (z) Ordering, in the model contract.
Has anyone found the important parts of those lengthy multi-part draft RFPs? For example for lane 2 how many launches, what mass, and what orbits for the three winners?
After the most recent show, I found a few nuggets of information in the NSSL Phase 3 documents, plus some more updates came out in a call that the Space Force had with some reporters.
Quote from: deltaV on 07/19/2023 12:00 amHas anyone found the important parts of those lengthy multi-part draft RFPs? For example for lane 2 how many launches, what mass, and what orbits for the three winners?Anthony Colangelo has done some analysis:https://mainenginecutoff.com/podcast/255QuoteAfter the most recent show, I found a few nuggets of information in the NSSL Phase 3 documents, plus some more updates came out in a call that the Space Force had with some reporters.What Anthony found: 58 launches total for the 3 winners, but only 7 to the 3rd winner (5 GPS satellites and 2 direct to GSO).The remaining 51 are split 60/40 between the other 2 winners. So very heavily biased to main 2 winners, presumably to ensure a minimum number of launches per annum (the speculation being to guarantee that ULA remains in business whatever else happens in the launch market).Also although a winner does not need a current launch vehicle, they must have (successfully?) launched by 1st October 2026. Furthermore, they need an operational West Coast launch site by that date too.So, as currently written, not as beneficial to Blue Origin as some headlines might suggest.
You don't bid to be 3rd place. Everyone bidding for Lane 2 is expected to have a plan to meet all of the requirements. Of course that was the case in Phase 2 also, and SpaceX had to plan for vertical integration but hasn't needed to build out the infrastructure yet.
Quote from: gongora on 07/21/2023 03:08 pmYou don't bid to be 3rd place. Everyone bidding for Lane 2 is expected to have a plan to meet all of the requirements. Of course that was the case in Phase 2 also, and SpaceX had to plan for vertical integration but hasn't needed to build out the infrastructure yet.SpaceX doesn’t have VI and ULA doesn’t have a rocket (that can fly all missions).
More launch providers are encouraged as the United States Space Force (USSF) released a second draft of a request for proposals (RFP) for the forthcoming phase three of the national security space launch (NSSL) program.https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2023/07/nssl-phase-three-update/ - By Danny Lentz.The NSSL program provides most of the space launch contracts for the United States Department of Defense (DOD), including flights for the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO).
For those curious, these are the 9 reference orbits that a rocket needs to be able to hit to be eligible to win under Lane 2 in NSSL Phase 3
Quote from: gongora on 07/22/2023 06:45 pmFor those curious, these are the 9 reference orbits that a rocket needs to be able to hit to be eligible to win under Lane 2 in NSSL Phase 3Here's the metric version.Orbit Mass (kg) Orbit (km) Inclination (°)-------------------------------------------------LEO 6,800 926 63.4Polar 1 7,030 834 98.2Polar 2 17,010 834 98.2MEO Direct 9,070 18,178 50MEO Transfer 4,080 1000x20,368 55GEO Transfer 8,160 185x35,786 27Molinya 5,220 1204x39,170 63.4GEO 1 3,630 35,786 0GEO 2 6,580 35,786 0
Can companies decline to receive a Lane 2 slot 3 award (i.e. winning just a handful of launches) or offer different prices for slot 3 and the main slots 1-2 (with 60%/40%)? I ask because for a launch provider that needs government business to close their business case a slot 3 award could be worse than no award since they'd be stuck paying the fixed costs for a launch vehicle they wish they could cancel. If this "curse of slot 3" is possible the rules should probably be changed to address it.
ULA has concerns about a third competitor in national security space launchCEO Tory Bruno: ‘It’s not competition if everybody wins’Sandra ErwinJuly 28, 2023WASHINGTON — United Launch Alliance CEO Tory Bruno said he has “a bunch of questions” about the latest changes announced by the Space Force for the procurement of national security space launch services.Speaking on the CNBC “Manifest Space with Morgan Brennan” podcast that aired July 27 […]
Only heavy lifters (> 25 t to LEO) can fully compete on NSSL contracts. This excludes Firefly and Rocket Lab. The candidates are- SpaceX with Falcon Heavy and Starship- ULA with Vulcan- Blue Origin with New Glenn- Relativity with Terran RMoney will decide who survives, and Relativity has by far the highest near-term bankruptcy risk. They need to raise several hundred million $ by 2024, and about another billion in the years thereafter. I strongly believe that this is the reasoning behind Tory discarding Relativity. ULA is well financed for the upcoming 5+ years by contracted Atlas and Vulcan launches.
I don’t think ULA will stay a winner for long. There will be Blue, Relativity, Rocket Lab, and Firefly all vying for the second & third spot.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 07/28/2023 09:03 pmI don’t think ULA will stay a winner for long. There will be Blue, Relativity, Rocket Lab, and Firefly all vying for the second & third spot.I agree that ULA is unlikely to stay a winner for long but I don't think Rocket Lab and Firefly are likely competitors for lane 2 since their biggest launch vehicles are Neutron and Antares 300 respectively which are about half the size needed for the 6.6 tonnes to GEO mission. I guess they could do it with a three-core heavy upgrade or a multi-launch mission with propellant transfer or in-orbit rendezvous of stage and payload, but is there any reason to believe they're planning one of these? Also do the NSSL rules allow multiple launches?
Plans to select a third provider in Lane 2 would open the door to a new entrant like Blue Origin, which is developing its New Glenn rocket. However, if the vehicle is not certified by October 2026, the Space Force may decide to only award two contracts. “If the government determines there are less than three awardable offerors, the government may award less than three contracts,” said the final RFP. Lane 2 providers have to demonstrate a capability to perform at least eight national security missions per year.
https://arstechnica.com/space/2023/11/sale-of-united-launch-alliance-is-nearing-its-end-with-three-potential-buyers/QuoteLockheed Martin and Boeing are close to selecting a buyer for United Launch Alliance, two sources told Ars. The jointly owned rocket company, which was founded in 2006 and for a time had a monopoly on US government launch contracts, has been up for sale most of this year.The sources say three buyers have emerged for the Colorado-based launch company. These include a private equity fund, the Jeff Bezos-owned space company Blue Origin, and a well-capitalized aerospace firm that is interested in increasing its space portfolio.
Lockheed Martin and Boeing are close to selecting a buyer for United Launch Alliance, two sources told Ars. The jointly owned rocket company, which was founded in 2006 and for a time had a monopoly on US government launch contracts, has been up for sale most of this year.The sources say three buyers have emerged for the Colorado-based launch company. These include a private equity fund, the Jeff Bezos-owned space company Blue Origin, and a well-capitalized aerospace firm that is interested in increasing its space portfolio.
If Blue DOES buy ULA, what would be the near and mid-term effects?
Quote from: FutureSpaceTourist on 11/14/2023 04:53 pmhttps://arstechnica.com/space/2023/11/sale-of-united-launch-alliance-is-nearing-its-end-with-three-potential-buyers/QuoteLockheed Martin and Boeing are close to selecting a buyer for United Launch Alliance, two sources told Ars. The jointly owned rocket company, which was founded in 2006 and for a time had a monopoly on US government launch contracts, has been up for sale most of this year.The sources say three buyers have emerged for the Colorado-based launch company. These include a private equity fund, the Jeff Bezos-owned space company Blue Origin, and a well-capitalized aerospace firm that is interested in increasing its space portfolio.Quote from: Robotbeat on 11/16/2023 03:58 pmIf Blue DOES buy ULA, what would be the near and mid-term effects?I wonder how NSSL Phase 3 lane 2 bidding would be affected by a possible merger of Blue Origin and ULA. Such a merger presumably wouldn't be final (due to anti-trust review) until well after the Dec 15 2023 NSSL phase 3 lane 2 bid submission deadline. So would ULA and Blue submit a single combined bid in hopes that the merger happens or two separate bids in case not? How would the DOD react if they submitted two bids but it looked like they'd probably merge? A merger would frustrate the DOD's goals of competition and redundancy so maybe the DOD would only accept one of the bids even if they'd otherwise have accepted both? How would the DOD react if they submitted one bid but the merger wasn't final when awards were decided?
I don’t remember if NSSL 3 is going to be a different model from NSSL 2. If it’s a similar model (e.g. say a 50/30/20 split versus the 60/40 split of NSSL2) it would make a HUGE difference; Imagine BlueLA winning a 50+20% share of NSSL 3 because they won separate awards and then immediately merged.
Blue Origin was awarded a contract for "Early Integration studies for NSSL Phase 3 Lane 2".
From the linked source: "$935,009.00." That's $935k, plus $9 for postage and handling?
Seriously, the prime factors of 935,009 are 19 and 49,211. Is it plausible Space and Missile Systems Center is paying Blue $49,211 each for 19 different early integration studies?
Quote from: gosnold on 05/08/2019 08:26 amAnyone know where to find the reference orbit and the associated requirements? They were in a table in the draft RFP but I can't find them in the latest one.The table from the the LSA RFP matches what's in the pricing table from Attachment 8 of the LSP RFP but adds options for 9,000 pounds to "MEO Direct 2," 11,200 pounds to "MEO Transfer 2," and 8,000 pounds to "GEO 1.5."
Anyone know where to find the reference orbit and the associated requirements? They were in a table in the draft RFP but I can't find them in the latest one.
Blue Origin was awarded a contract for "Early Integration studies for NSSL Phase 3 Lane 2".https://sam.gov/opp/2ed77639ac3d42928bbbc4d1a3372338/view#descriptionI haven't seen any similar awards to any other new comers, so that looks like confirmation that Blue is the only new company being considered alongside the SpaceX/ULA incumbents.(Edit: changed link to sam.gov)
Quote from: sdsds on 01/03/2024 01:16 amFrom the linked source: "$935,009.00." That's $935k, plus $9 for postage and handling?Maybe it's six full time folks for half a year to come up with some plausible theory how an organization that has existed for 23 years but never launched a single thing into any orbit will magically be able to support national security launches in anything less than a decade from now.
Pentecost said a launch company with a new rocket in development can still be selected if it submits a credible plan showing its vehicle will be ready to fly by October 2026, Pentecost said. That is the start of fiscal year 2027 when Phase 3 missions have to be ordered.If any of the selected launch companies are not able to fly by that date, the missions will be reassigned to one of the other Lane 2 providers. A new entrant like Blue Origin, for example, could be awarded a Lane 2 contract on the assumption that its New Glenn rocket will be operational and certified by October 2026.
So Blue submitted a "credible plan" showing New Glenn will be operational and certified by October 2026.
Quote from: sdsds on 01/04/2024 10:20 pmSo Blue submitted a "credible plan" showing New Glenn will be operational and certified by October 2026.I don't think we can conclude that yet. The Space Force is probably still evaluating Blue's plan. They probably made the recent contract with Blue as a cheap way to hedge their bets in case they find Blue's plan credible when they finish evaluating it later this year. When they do evaluate it they will likely find it credible since Blue can afford to take almost three times the scheduled time and still make October 2026 and if the Space Force rejects Blue's plan they won't be able to make the planned three awards.
Are we sure of that time? "Operational and certified" requires two successful "certification" missions. Those are not NSSL missions. For example Vulcan Centaur is using the Peregrine mission and a Dream chaser mission, and those mission must fly and then be evaluated. Realistically, I think this means the first NG flight must occur by Q1 2026, and then everything must work perfectly. That's two years from now: 24 months.
Quote from: DanClemmensen on 01/05/2024 03:19 amAre we sure of that time? "Operational and certified" requires two successful "certification" missions. Those are not NSSL missions. For example Vulcan Centaur is using the Peregrine mission and a Dream chaser mission, and those mission must fly and then be evaluated. Realistically, I think this means the first NG flight must occur by Q1 2026, and then everything must work perfectly. That's two years from now: 24 months.Good point, I forgot that multiple launches are required for "operational and certified". Blue has quite a bit of margin but not the 3x I said.
Quote from: deltaV on 01/05/2024 03:03 pmQuote from: DanClemmensen on 01/05/2024 03:19 amAre we sure of that time? "Operational and certified" requires two successful "certification" missions. Those are not NSSL missions. For example Vulcan Centaur is using the Peregrine mission and a Dream chaser mission, and those mission must fly and then be evaluated. Realistically, I think this means the first NG flight must occur by Q1 2026, and then everything must work perfectly. That's two years from now: 24 months.Good point, I forgot that multiple launches are required for "operational and certified". Blue has quite a bit of margin but not the 3x I said.Depends on whether you are talking about what is required for contract award vs. flight. Contract award does not require certification. Flight does require that the vehicle be certified. In short, contract can be awarded prior to certification if there is a credible plan (as determined by DoD, NASA, whoever) to achieve certification prior to flight of a mission requiring certification. Hope that makes sense?
Quote from: joek on 01/05/2024 03:42 pmQuote from: deltaV on 01/05/2024 03:03 pmQuote from: DanClemmensen on 01/05/2024 03:19 amAre we sure of that time? "Operational and certified" requires two successful "certification" missions. Those are not NSSL missions. For example Vulcan Centaur is using the Peregrine mission and a Dream chaser mission, and those mission must fly and then be evaluated. Realistically, I think this means the first NG flight must occur by Q1 2026, and then everything must work perfectly. That's two years from now: 24 months.Good point, I forgot that multiple launches are required for "operational and certified". Blue has quite a bit of margin but not the 3x I said.Depends on whether you are talking about what is required for contract award vs. flight. Contract award does not require certification. Flight does require that the vehicle be certified. In short, contract can be awarded prior to certification if there is a credible plan (as determined by DoD, NASA, whoever) to achieve certification prior to flight of a mission requiring certification. Hope that makes sense?It does indeed, and that is where we started. We are discussing the factors the NSSL team (not NASA) must consider to determine the credibility of the plan. Will the NSSL team believe that BO can fly and evaluate two certification flights prior to 1 October 2026, and presumably also build a third NG by then to actual undertake an NSSL mission?This really depends on their internal rules. The industry's track record for meeting schedules for new hardware is a complete joke, but the NSSL team has historically bought into the shared fantasy. ULA was allowed to bid on Phase 2 because they had a "credible plan" for Vulcan to be fully certified before October 2021. A case can be made that it would be unfair to BO for the team to suddenly change the implicit rules and start doing realistic evaluations for NSSL Phase 3.
Quote from: DanClemmensen on 01/05/2024 04:00 pmQuote from: joek on 01/05/2024 03:42 pmQuote from: deltaV on 01/05/2024 03:03 pmQuote from: DanClemmensen on 01/05/2024 03:19 amAre we sure of that time? "Operational and certified" requires two successful "certification" missions. Those are not NSSL missions. For example Vulcan Centaur is using the Peregrine mission and a Dream chaser mission, and those mission must fly and then be evaluated. Realistically, I think this means the first NG flight must occur by Q1 2026, and then everything must work perfectly. That's two years from now: 24 months.Good point, I forgot that multiple launches are required for "operational and certified". Blue has quite a bit of margin but not the 3x I said.Depends on whether you are talking about what is required for contract award vs. flight. Contract award does not require certification. Flight does require that the vehicle be certified. In short, contract can be awarded prior to certification if there is a credible plan (as determined by DoD, NASA, whoever) to achieve certification prior to flight of a mission requiring certification. Hope that makes sense?It does indeed, and that is where we started. We are discussing the factors the NSSL team (not NASA) must consider to determine the credibility of the plan. Will the NSSL team believe that BO can fly and evaluate two certification flights prior to 1 October 2026, and presumably also build a third NG by then to actual undertake an NSSL mission?This really depends on their internal rules. The industry's track record for meeting schedules for new hardware is a complete joke, but the NSSL team has historically bought into the shared fantasy. ULA was allowed to bid on Phase 2 because they had a "credible plan" for Vulcan to be fully certified before October 2021. A case can be made that it would be unfair to BO for the team to suddenly change the implicit rules and start doing realistic evaluations for NSSL Phase 3.ULA only has to complete 2 Vulcan flights for DoD certification since the DoD was heavily involved in the design of it. It's quite likely New Glenn would require more than 2 certification flights.
Another example of space tug domination...https://twitter.com/GoToImpulse/status/1747646045549744318
GEO4,000 kg* 4,500 kg‡GTO7,500kg* 10,500 kg‡…* Assumes launch to LEO (300km circular) on SpaceX F9-5500 (Reusable)‡ Assumes launch to LEO (300km circular) on Relativity Terran R (Reusable)
Quote from: impulsespaceGEO4,000 kg* 4,500 kg‡GTO7,500kg* 10,500 kg‡…* Assumes launch to LEO (300km circular) on SpaceX F9-5500 (Reusable)‡ Assumes launch to LEO (300km circular) on Relativity Terran R (Reusable)Very impressive! …but not quite NSSL GEO standard. Maybe a Terran-R (expended) would hit the 6.6t target, but even then the kick stage probably takes up too much space to still hit the payload fairing payload volume specifications. Maybe for New Glenn / Starship.
Very impressive! …but not quite NSSL GEO standard. Maybe a Terran-R (expended) would hit the 6.6t target, but even then the kick stage probably takes up too much space to still hit the payload fairing payload volume specifications.
...This memo, which was written by Congressional staffers and circulated on Wednesday to other offices, including those in the Senate Armed Services Committee, states that Rocket Lab has “repeatedly assured” these staffers that the company has a credible path to launch by Dec. 15.That is the date by which the Space Force’s Space Systems Command said launch providers must be ready to fly in order to qualify for launch contracts under a program called National Space Security Launch (NSSL) Phase 3.
https://techcrunch.com/2024/02/28/rocket-lab-has-misrepresented-neutron-launch-readiness-congressional-memo-says/
<snip>......So why is Neutron's schedule worthy of Congressional staffer attention?
Quote from: deltaV on 03/01/2024 04:16 am<snip>......So why is Neutron's schedule worthy of Congressional staffer attention?Think that staffer's district don't have a RocketLab footprint or is in Virginia or Maryland. But has the presences of other space industry entities.