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!)
