USAF RFP for new EELV Launch Service Agreements (2017-10-05)

[1]

Well, alright. Today, there was this.

https://spacenews.com/lawmakers-air-force-launch-procurement-strategy-undermines-spacex/

I'm not entirely sure what to make of it, and I'm not entirely sure where discussion should go. Space policy, perhaps, to better contain the inevitable debate?

[gongora]

It's not clear to me how the LSA funding affects the LSP competition.  They can still give the LSP winners money for stuff like building out vertical integration facilities.  SpaceX doesn't really need more development money for Falcon unless they still need to do some tweaking on the FH second stage or something like that, and even then they could still get money for those improvements to support national security missions.  The real risk I could see is if someone feels a need to justify the money spent in the LSA phase by picking from that pool.  If the letter to the Air Force doesn't have any effect other than to remind everyone to keep it fair in the next round then I guess it will have served a purpose.

[su27k]

From https://spacenews.com/lawmakers-air-force-launch-procurement-strategy-undermines-spacex/

OTA awards cannot be protested through the appeals channels that exist for traditional contracts.

But there're other channels to file a protest? PlanetSpace filed protest with GAO for the COTS awards. The fact that SpaceX didn't do this may mean they don't want to escalate this thing, but if they don't win LSP I suspect a lawsuit will be incoming.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

Some details of SpaceX’s bid now publicly available through their recently filed complaint:

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48188.msg1948853#msg1948853

Includes:

SpaceX bid its existing, operational Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy vehicles for all missions set to occur before late 2025 and a newer, even more capable and cost effective system, the Big Falcon Rocket (now Starship), for a tiny fraction of NSS missions to launch no earlier than late 2025.