Author Topic: USAF EELV/NSSL Phase 2 Launch Service Procurement (Winners Announced)  (Read 136279 times)

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10130
  • US
  • Liked: 13700
  • Likes Given: 5871
Draft RFP released for EELV Phase 2 LSP on December 3, 2018.
Final RFP released on May 3, 2019.  Responses due August 1, 2019.

Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) Phase 2 Launch Service Procurement (LSP) Draft Request for Proposals (dRFP)
Solicitation Number: FA8811-19-R-0002
Quote
This request is to survey industry, for planning purposes, and does not constitute an invitation for bids, request for proposals, quotes, or indication that the Government will contract for the items contained in this notice.  The Government will not reimburse respondents for any costs associated with submission of the information being requested or reimburse expenses incurred to interested parties for responses.

The Air Force is seeking industry's feedback on the EELV Phase 2 Launch Service Procurement (LSP) draft Request for Proposal (RFP), which is designed to provide Assured Access to Space for National Security Space (NSS) Requirements. This is industry's opportunity to provide the Air Force feedback on this draft RFP and how industry can best meet NSS launch requirements, provide the warfighters the launch flexibility they need, while leveraging commercial launch capability. This is the first of two draft EELV Phase 2 RFPs the Air Force plans to release.

edit : I keep an updated list of links for recent EELV solicitations which is currently buried in the middle of the US Launch Manifest, I need to find somewhere else to move it eventually.  There is a link to it below the SpaceX Manifest.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=8184.msg1755716#msg1755716
« Last Edit: 08/10/2020 10:14 pm by gongora »

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10130
  • US
  • Liked: 13700
  • Likes Given: 5871
I've just started skimming through this.  Some interesting points:

It mentions documenting the performance reserves for recovering launch vehicle hardware.  It also mentions giving insight into recovery and landing operations for reusable systems (and allowing government representatives to participate in recovery activities on NSS missions.)

The government intends to award contracts to two providers, with the best value provider getting a larger ratio of the flights.  You can submit separate pricing for the cases where you are performing the larger or smaller ratio of the launches.  I guess this would allow a company to propose a volume discount if they were given the larger share of the launches.  There will also be annual Launch Service Support payments to cover NSS specific expenses for each provider.

The sample manifest that needs to be priced (attachment 5 page 44) has 5 launches each year to various orbits.

Vertical integration capabilities are definitely still in there.  Class C Polar payloads have special mounting hardware.

Offline vaporcobra

Updated draft RFP was published in the last few weeks. Lots to go through but this is the most interesting tidbit I've found yet - a minimum of 29 missions on the "potential manifest", to be procured between FY2020 and 2024.

Quote
The Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) Phase 2 Launch Service Procurement allows the Air Force to procure the necessary services in order to reliably launch National Security Space (NSS) space vehicles, placing payloads into their appropriate earth orbit. The Potential Manifest could include the listed missions: GPSIII-7/8/9/10/11/12/13, AFSPC-10/16/23/29/31/36/51/55/59/67/70/87/106, NROL-57/69/73/77/94/97, SBIRS G-6, SBIRS FO-1, STP-5.

Offline PM3

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1466
  • Germany
  • Liked: 1827
  • Likes Given: 1284
The mission list in the previous post is from attachment 2. It is unchanged in the second revision.

The government intends to award contracts to two providers, with the best value provider getting a larger ratio of the flights.

According to addendum 1, the ratio is 60:40 % - three launches per year for one provider, two for the other.

Attachment 1: "For all recovered flight equipment to be reused on NSS missions, the Contractor shall provide all inspection and refurbishment data ..." Does this indicate that EELV-2 missions may actually launch on reused hardware?


Attachment 8 (appended to this post) contains a chronological list of all 30 missions - one more than listed in attachment 2. Four heavy missions for different orbits are further detailed in section 6 of attachment 5. Units converted to metric:

LEO - 6.8 t - 770 km - 63.5 ° - MDA 2022 or NRO 2023
Polar - 17 t - 833 km - 98.2° - NRO Heavy 2023
Molnyia - 5.8 t - 2315/17200 km - 63.4° - NRO 2021
GEO - 6.6 t - 35786 km - 0° - NRO Heavy 2022
« Last Edit: 02/25/2019 02:22 pm by PM3 »
"Never, never be afraid of the truth." -- Jim Bridenstine

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10130
  • US
  • Liked: 13700
  • Likes Given: 5871
Attachment 1: "For all recovered flight equipment to be reused on NSS missions, the Contractor shall provide all inspection and refurbishment data ..." Does this indicate that EELV-2 missions may actually launch on reused hardware?

That's the goal.  Use the rest of Phase 1A to gather data and figure out their qualification plans for reused hardware, then allow its use in Phase 2.  We'll see if that actually happens... (Hey, if we choose ULA and NG then we don't have to worry about reused hardware!)

Offline PM3

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1466
  • Germany
  • Liked: 1827
  • Likes Given: 1284
That's the goal.  Use the rest of Phase 1A to gather data and figure out their qualification plans for reused hardware, then allow its use in Phase 2.  We'll see if that actually happens... (Hey, if we choose ULA and NG then we don't have to worry about reused hardware!)

Every provider can offer different configurations for each mission. For sure SpaceX will offer both, new and reused hardware. So they can't escape SpaceX by eventually excluding reused parts. ;)
"Never, never be afraid of the truth." -- Jim Bridenstine

Offline Arb

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 553
  • London
  • Liked: 514
  • Likes Given: 430
That's the goal.  Use the rest of Phase 1A to gather data and figure out their qualification plans for reused hardware, then allow its use in Phase 2.  We'll see if that actually happens... (Hey, if we choose ULA and NG then we don't have to worry about reused hardware!)
Every provider can offer different configurations for each mission. For sure SpaceX will offer both, new and reused hardware. So they can't escape SpaceX by eventually excluding reused parts. ;)
Except:
Quote
@elonmusk
Replying to @SpaceXUpdates @CanzyD
Including Heavy, which is 3 cores, around 20 or so
2:35 AM - 22 Feb 2019
Given that limited fleet size, new has got to become increasingly exceptional; once they've all had a first flight...

Ditto expendables.

Offline PM3

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1466
  • Germany
  • Liked: 1827
  • Likes Given: 1284
Except:
Quote
@elonmusk
Replying to @SpaceXUpdates @CanzyD
Including Heavy, which is 3 cores, around 20 or so
2:35 AM - 22 Feb 2019
Given that limited fleet size, new has got to become increasingly exceptional; once they've all had a first flight...

Ditto expendables.

A fleet size of 20 does not mean that SpaceX will stop building new boosters when there are 20. If a customer like US government wants a new one and is ready to pay for that, SpaceX will build a new one (or three if it's for a FH). Then you have 21 or 23, then the new one(s) are expended and you have 20 again.
"Never, never be afraid of the truth." -- Jim Bridenstine

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15341
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8471
  • Likes Given: 1340
A fleet size of 20 does not mean that SpaceX will stop building new boosters when there are 20. If a customer like US government wants a new one and is ready to pay for that, SpaceX will build a new one (or three if it's for a FH). Then you have 21 or 23, then the new one(s) are expended and you have 20 again.
The problem is that once shut down, production restart will increase costs.  I don't see how this works.

 - Ed Kyle

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8822
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10169
  • Likes Given: 11893
A fleet size of 20 does not mean that SpaceX will stop building new boosters when there are 20. If a customer like US government wants a new one and is ready to pay for that, SpaceX will build a new one (or three if it's for a FH). Then you have 21 or 23, then the new one(s) are expended and you have 20 again.
The problem is that once shut down, production restart will increase costs.  I don't see how this works.

Except the Falcon 9 production line will never shut down as long as Falcon 9 is flying, since every flight requires a new 2nd stage and a new Merlin Vacuum engine.

The 2nd stage is built on the same production line as the 1st stage, and the Merlin Vacuum is built in the same production area as the Merlin 1D. Plus Merlin 1D engines will likely be refurbished on the same production line that they were built, so that part of the factory needs to be stay active.

I think SpaceX will be able to build new 1st stages for a couple of years to come...
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline Eric Hedman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2296
  • The birthplace of the solid body electric guitar
  • Liked: 1945
  • Likes Given: 1127
EELV Has been renamed: "On March 1, the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) program officially became the National Security Space Launch (NSSL) program."

https://aviationweek.com/space/usaf-drops-expendable-launch-program-name
« Last Edit: 03/05/2019 04:06 pm by gongora »

Offline Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6807
  • California
  • Liked: 8462
  • Likes Given: 5371
EELV Has been renamed: "On March 1, the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) program officially became the National Security Space Launch (NSSL) program."

https://aviationweek.com/space/usaf-drops-expendable-launch-program-name

I guess this answers the question about whether or not the government is embracing reusable vehicles. (if it was still up for debate)

Offline russianhalo117

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8742
  • Liked: 4646
  • Likes Given: 768
EELV Has been renamed: "On March 1, the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) program officially became the National Security Space Launch (NSSL) program."

https://aviationweek.com/space/usaf-drops-expendable-launch-program-name

I guess this answers the question about whether or not the government is embracing reusable vehicles. (if it was still up for debate)
The name change was first proposed to the Secretary of the Air Force by the the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff two years ago as part of a directive which also touched on what nowadays is the beginnings of the USSF per say.

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10130
  • US
  • Liked: 13700
  • Likes Given: 5871
Solicitation Number: FA8811-19-R-0007
Notice of Intent (NOI) for Blue Origin, Northrop Grumman Innovation Systems (NGIS), Space Exploration Technologies Corp. (SpaceX), and United Launch Services (ULS) future competitive National Security Space Launch (NSSL) mission Early Integration Studies
Quote
Synopsis:
Added: Mar 20, 2019 7:05 pm

THIS IS A PRE-SOLICITATION NOTICE for information purposes issued by the United States Air Force (USAF), Launch Systems Enterprise Directorate (LE) at the Space and Missile Systems Center (SMC) located in El Segundo, CA. SMC intends to issue a sole-source contract award to the following four (4) contractors:
Blue Origin, LLC Cage Code: 5VWN7, located in Kent, WA
Northrop Grumman Innovation Systems (NGIS) Cage Code: 0MVU3, located in Dulles, VA
Space Exploration Technologies Corporation (SpaceX), Cage Code: 3BVL8, located in Hawthorne, CA
United Launch Services (ULS) Cage Code: 43HC6, located in Centennial, CO

The contracts are to provide early integration studies for the above mentioned launch service provider's NSSL-class launch vehicles with USAF space vehicles projected to launch from FY (Fiscal Year) 22-23. The statutory authority of this action is contracting by Other than Full and Open Competition, 10 USC § 2304(c)(1), as implemented by FAR 6.302-1(a)(2). The early integration studies are unique to each potential launch service provider and their launch vehicle configurations. Each launch service provider, as the sole owner and manufacturer of their NSSL-class launch vehicles, possesses the knowledge and resources to assess the integration of satellite systems on their own launch vehicles. Based on these unique capabilities, early integration studies can only be satisfied by the launch service provider responsible for their NSSL-class launch vehicles.

This is part of the normal planning process for companies that might be competing for the payloads in the early Phase 2 time frame.  ULA and SpaceX have gotten contracts like this ahead of the Phase 1A payload competitions.

edit: We can't just search on EELV anymore, it's the end of an era.
« Last Edit: 03/23/2019 12:53 pm by gongora »

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10130
  • US
  • Liked: 13700
  • Likes Given: 5871
Reports that the RFP could be released on March 29 after a meeting of USAF/DoD acquisition officials on March 28.
Ars Technica
Space News

Offline Newton_V

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 842
  • United States
  • Liked: 820
  • Likes Given: 129
Many people in the industry think it will be one "Heritage Space" company and one "Millenial Space" company (assuming 2 total are chosen).

So no NGIS/ULA, or no BO/SpX combos.

Should be interesting...

Offline rockets4life97

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 798
  • Liked: 538
  • Likes Given: 365
It seems like for assured access to space you wouldn't want the two chosen companies operating vehicles using the same engine. So no, ULA and BO.

Online TorenAltair

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 507
  • Germany
  • Liked: 588
  • Likes Given: 116
I guess OmegA is set due to the big solids. For #2 I assume either ULA or Blue Origin, depending on which one is further ahead in development. If I had to, I would bet on ULA. SpaceX is lacking the high energy upper stage and doesn‘t operate by the book.

Offline Newton_V

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 842
  • United States
  • Liked: 820
  • Likes Given: 129
I guess OmegA is set due to the big solids. For #2 I assume either ULA or Blue Origin, depending on which one is further ahead in development. If I had to, I would bet on ULA. SpaceX is lacking the high energy upper stage and doesn‘t operate by the book.
Not sure what you mean by the OmegaA comment.  SpaceX can brute-force it with expendable FH for the GSO mission.  No more performance is needed.

Online TorenAltair

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 507
  • Germany
  • Liked: 588
  • Likes Given: 116
OmegA uses big solids as first and second stages and imo the Air Force wants a running production and development line for those to preserve the skills for their ICBMs. With a questionable SLS future perhaps even more.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1