Author Topic: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement  (Read 62435 times)

Offline su27k

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6414
  • Liked: 9108
  • Likes Given: 885
USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« on: 02/10/2022 12:19 pm »
Space Force asks launch companies for insight on where the industry is going

Quote from: SpaceNews
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.

Offline su27k

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6414
  • Liked: 9108
  • Likes Given: 885
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #1 on: 04/29/2022 04:12 am »
Space Force sees room for more competitors in national security launch

Quote from: SpaceNews
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.

Offline Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5490
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1813
  • Likes Given: 1302
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #2 on: 04/29/2022 06:48 am »
Space Force sees room for more competitors in national security launch

Quote from: SpaceNews
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.
Rep. Adam Smith have a lost cause in trying to get new entrants (really means Below Orbit) into the military launch program. The Juggernaut from Hawthorne effectively can offer launch on demand with a small increase in their boosters fleet size for any potential DoD/NRO payloads. Only with the light orbital launchers can there be new entrants. However the business case don't appear to close for them, IMO. Otherwise why is almost all US launch providers moving up to at least the medium class launchers.

The meme from the first Highlander movie of "There can be Only One!" seems applicable.

Offline su27k

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6414
  • Liked: 9108
  • Likes Given: 885
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #3 on: 06/19/2022 03:48 am »
House Armed Services chairman calls on Space Force to change how it buys launch services

Quote from: SpaceNews
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.

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #4 on: 06/19/2022 09:58 am »
There definitely opportunities in &lt;1200kg LEO missions given number small LVs in this class. DoD are more likely to need a dedicated launch in this class than rideshare. They are also using more smaller cheaper satellites.

SpaceX and ULA should be save from competition with GEO as these are high value satellites and sometimes complicated missions. Blue's NG is only new LV going after this market and they will have tough time breaking into.

RL, Firefly and Relativity with their future reuseable medium class LVs are all contenders for &lt;8000kg LEO missions. Should be able to match or better F9R on price.
« Last Edit: 06/23/2022 11:34 pm by zubenelgenubi »

Online DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7501
  • Earth (currently)
  • Liked: 6099
  • Likes Given: 2553
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #5 on: 06/19/2022 01:45 pm »
House Armed Services chairman calls on Space Force to change how it buys launch services

Quote from: SpaceNews
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.
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.

Online Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9271
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10740
  • Likes Given: 12348
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #6 on: 06/19/2022 03:28 pm »
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."

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
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.

DoD launches have a wider variety of payload requirements than NASA launches, which is really where the variable costs come in. And though DoD may not use the launch costs negotiated by the NASA Launch Services (NLS) II contract, the U.S. Government is not going to allow for much variance regarding the basic launch costs.

Plus, there are some DoD payloads that could be lifted by New Glenn, but Blue Origin doesn't have the launch pad capabilities to handle the payloads - which is also a challenge for SpaceX, and the reason they are building new Pad 39A infrastructure for Falcon 9/H launches.

Quote
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.

Yeah, something should probably change. I would hope there could be some sort of yearly onboarding of new providers. So that the percentage split is always being adjusted.

Quote
Starship is the elephant in the room.

I think everyone has a better idea about Starship now that we've seen what the true pace of development is, but it is the payloads that drive the launch needs, and Starship will need to become operational before DoD truly invests in Starship-only payloads. And until then the U.S. Government will try to spread the launch work around to keep the existing launch providers available.
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Online DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7501
  • Earth (currently)
  • Liked: 6099
  • Likes Given: 2553
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #7 on: 06/19/2022 04:58 pm »
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."
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. As of now they have ULA with Atlas V and Delta IV heavy. both being retired, and SpaceX with F9 and FH. The first and only NSSL launch for Atlas V will be in Q4 2022. The remaining three Delta IV heavy launches one per year in (2022, 2023, 2024) are NRO launches (do those count as NSSL?) NSSL is counting on ULA having Vulcan qualified for NSSL, and until that happens they are basically dependent on a single company and a single rocket family.

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.

Online Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9271
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10740
  • Likes Given: 12348
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #8 on: 06/20/2022 12:53 am »
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."
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.

And apparently they were right...  :D

Quote
NSSL needs more launch companies.

There is likely a diminishing return as the number of launch companies goes over a certain number, and that number may be 2 or 3.

Plus, some DoD payloads require specialized handling that is not cheap to implement, so it may not make economic sense to have more than 2 or 3 certified to handle those.

Quote
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.

The USAF has a job to do, and they are always looking for ways to do that job as efficiently and cost effectively as possible, while trying to achieve very high success rates. Of course political influence does get in the way sometimes, but from a non-political view competition should be good, but too much competition for such a small amount of launch "demand" may not be good. It's a balance thing that I don't think we have achieved yet.

But the USAF should be allowed to pursue onboarding new launch entrants, regardless their political connections.

Quote
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.

SpaceX will continue to be the low cost launch provider, and ULA will be the high cost launch provider. So we need someone in the middle that can provide a good enough launch success record that allows the U.S. to have redundancy and "reasonable costs".

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.

And while I think ULA's owners have botched their future by sticking with expendable rockets, the reality is that America needs ULA, so we need to find a way to keep them in business. Horrible as that might sound.
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Online DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7501
  • Earth (currently)
  • Liked: 6099
  • Likes Given: 2553
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #9 on: 06/20/2022 03:08 am »
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.
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?

Online Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9271
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10740
  • Likes Given: 12348
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #10 on: 06/20/2022 04:46 am »
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.
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.
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 butters

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2419
  • Liked: 1731
  • Likes Given: 615
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #11 on: 06/20/2022 05:11 am »
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.

Online DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7501
  • Earth (currently)
  • Liked: 6099
  • Likes Given: 2553
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #12 on: 06/20/2022 05:23 am »
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.
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.

Online Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9271
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10740
  • Likes Given: 12348
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #13 on: 06/21/2022 12:41 am »
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.

Right, Atlas V and Delta IV M/H are end of life, so Vulcan is the only way forward for ULA. And Tory Bruno's job, and reputation, is on the line with his decision to rely on Blue Origin.

And yes, I do hope Vulcan launches soon. It looks like a fine expendable rocket, but unfortunately it is an expendable rocket...  :(

Quote
To participate, BO would need a launch pad and other infrastructure at SLC, right? Their facilities at KSC are not secure enough.

I don't know what situation is with that, but I would have to imagine that Blue Origin worked how things would work with the USAF many years ago, and we just don't know what was decided.

Plus, remember that SpaceX will be launching USAF/NRO payloads from Pad 39A, which is KSC, so maybe this isn't an insurmountable problem?
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 Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 38192
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 22664
  • Likes Given: 432
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #14 on: 06/21/2022 01:46 pm »

To participate, BO would need a launch pad and other infrastructure at SLC, right? Their facilities at KSC are not secure enough.

Based on what?

Online DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7501
  • Earth (currently)
  • Liked: 6099
  • Likes Given: 2553
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #15 on: 06/21/2022 01:53 pm »

To 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.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 38192
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 22664
  • Likes Given: 432
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #16 on: 06/21/2022 02:07 pm »

To 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?

Online DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7501
  • Earth (currently)
  • Liked: 6099
  • Likes Given: 2553
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #17 on: 06/21/2022 02:34 pm »

To 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.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 38192
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 22664
  • Likes Given: 432
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #18 on: 06/21/2022 02:50 pm »

To 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.

DOD Shuttle missions STS 51-C, 51-J, 27, 28, 33, 36, 38, 44 & 53 had no issue with using LC-39.  Same with NROL-108 & 76

Offline edzieba

  • Virtual Realist
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6896
  • United Kingdom
  • Liked: 10527
  • Likes Given: 48
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #19 on: 06/22/2022 02:36 pm »
Or the pads at Wallops/MARS, which like KSC is a NASA site rather than Air Force / Space Force, but has hosted NROL launches before.

Offline Tywin

The knowledge is power...Everything is connected...
The Turtle continues at a steady pace ...

Offline Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5490
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1813
  • Likes Given: 1302

Offline whitelancer64

Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #22 on: 06/28/2022 09:25 pm »

To 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.

Blue Origin does not have a launch site at KSC. They are using LC-36 and LC-11, in CCSFS.

LC-36 was once called SLC-36 (from 1997 to 2010). It is still owned by the Space Force and is part of CCSFS, they leased it to Space Florida, who then leased it to Blue Origin.
"One bit of advice: it is important to view knowledge as sort of a semantic tree -- make sure you understand the fundamental principles, ie the trunk and big branches, before you get into the leaves/details or there is nothing for them to hang on to." - Elon Musk
"There are lies, damned lies, and launch schedules." - Larry J

Offline whitelancer64

Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #23 on: 06/28/2022 09:46 pm »
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.

Yes, it matters. Why should they do those things, you ask?

It's not about the volume of launches, but the high value of the contracts. The military / US gov tends to pay very well.

As an example, the company I work for assembles circuit boards. We have a few high volume customers for which we produce several tens of thousands of completed circuit boards per year. In spite of that, we get the most money per year from our military and aerospace contracts, even though they are for a much smaller number of completed circuit boards, just a few thousand per year. And we do bend over backwards to keep that money coming in, for example, by maintaining our AS9100  and ITAR certifications.
"One bit of advice: it is important to view knowledge as sort of a semantic tree -- make sure you understand the fundamental principles, ie the trunk and big branches, before you get into the leaves/details or there is nothing for them to hang on to." - Elon Musk
"There are lies, damned lies, and launch schedules." - Larry J

Offline su27k

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6414
  • Liked: 9108
  • Likes Given: 885
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #24 on: 07/03/2022 04:12 am »
Space Force considering strategy for procuring national security launch services

Quote from: SpaceNews
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.

Offline su27k

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6414
  • Liked: 9108
  • Likes Given: 885
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #25 on: 09/02/2022 03:03 am »
With billions at stake, lobbying heats up for future rights to Space Force launches

Quote from: breakingdefense.com
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.

Offline su27k

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6414
  • Liked: 9108
  • Likes Given: 885
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #26 on: 09/21/2022 01:37 am »
Draft solicitation for national security space launch services expected in early 2023

Quote from: SpaceNews
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.”

Offline FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 56661
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 93603
  • Likes Given: 43605
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #27 on: 11/19/2022 06:01 am »
https://twitter.com/ussf_ssc/status/1593800616219901953

Quote
#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

Offline su27k

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6414
  • Liked: 9108
  • Likes Given: 885
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #28 on: 12/24/2022 03:06 am »
Op-ed | Space Force faces key questions ahead of next launch services procurement

Quote from: SpaceNews
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.

Offline su27k

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6414
  • Liked: 9108
  • Likes Given: 885
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #29 on: 01/14/2023 01:42 am »
Space Force weighing new approach for selecting national security launch providers

Quote from: SpaceNews
“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.

Offline FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 56661
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 93603
  • Likes Given: 43605
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #30 on: 02/17/2023 03:43 am »
https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/1626400068868661249

Quote
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.

Quote
Space Systems Command Releases National Security Space Launch Phase 3 Draft Request for Proposals

Summary: 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 Indefinite
Delivery 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
« Last Edit: 02/17/2023 03:44 am by FutureSpaceTourist »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 38192
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 22664
  • Likes Given: 432
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #31 on: 02/17/2023 01:39 pm »
Just following NASA's lead.

Offline FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 56661
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 93603
  • Likes Given: 43605
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #32 on: 02/24/2023 05:27 pm »
https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1629182133510995969

Quote
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.

twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1629182750832852993

Quote
After a solicitation period, SSC is targeting summer 2024 to announce contract awards under NSSL Phase 3.

https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1629185616192626688

Quote
Expected NSSL Phase 3 breakdown:

Lane 1
- 30 missions
- designed for flexibility, for both new missions and launch vehicles

Lane 2
- 40 missions
- 60%/40% split between two companies
- "hardest orbit" requirements

Offline FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 56661
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 93603
  • Likes Given: 43605
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #33 on: 02/24/2023 05:46 pm »
https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/1629190538908893189

Quote
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.

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #34 on: 02/25/2023 09:45 am »
Can ULA and SpaceX compete for Lane #1 missions?.

Online VSECOTSPE

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1856
  • Liked: 5686
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #35 on: 02/25/2023 11:47 pm »
Can ULA and SpaceX compete for Lane #1 missions?.

Yup, per last sentence below:

Quote
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.

https://spacenews.com/space-force-looks-to-energize-industry-with-next-round-of-launch-contracts/

Another summary:

https://spacepolicyonline.com/news/space-force-reimagining-launch-service-procurement/
« Last Edit: 02/25/2023 11:51 pm by VSECOTSPE »

Offline FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 56661
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 93603
  • Likes Given: 43605
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #36 on: 03/06/2023 12:37 pm »
https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/1632736456379715586

Quote
The US military is finally leaning heavily into the nation's commercial launch industry. It's a pretty big deal.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2023/03/the-gold-rush-for-the-next-round-of-military-launch-contracts-has-started/

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #37 on: 03/06/2023 04:22 pm »
 

"As we talk to the Rocket Labs, Relativities, the ABLs, they all talk about how they’re expanding from their smaller launch focus into medium lift," Pentecost said. "And everybody has plans to go even higher."

This bit interested me especially plans to go even higher.
Don't necessarily need bigger LV,  inorbit refuelling will also give same result, something that is mention later in article.

Offline FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 56661
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 93603
  • Likes Given: 43605
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #38 on: 03/07/2023 07:48 pm »
https://spacenews.com/rocket-lab-very-happy-with-space-force-plan-to-procure-launch-services/

Quote
Rocket Lab ‘very happy’ with Space Force plan to procure launch services
CEO Peter Beck says the company played an active role reshaping the government’s approach to buying launch services

Sandra Erwin
March 7, 2023

WASHINGTON — 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.

Offline FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 56661
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 93603
  • Likes Given: 43605
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #39 on: 03/08/2023 03:31 pm »
twitter.com/free_space/status/1633502198570143744

Quote
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’m with Eric:

https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/1633505686503170049

Quote
I would love to see the Space Launch System in a real, actual competition for launch contracts. I think that would be fun.
« Last Edit: 03/08/2023 03:32 pm by FutureSpaceTourist »

Offline FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 56661
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 93603
  • Likes Given: 43605
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #40 on: 03/15/2023 07:08 pm »
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1636095723425988608

Quote
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.

Offline RedLineTrain

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2873
  • Liked: 2734
  • Likes Given: 11229
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #41 on: 03/15/2023 07:31 pm »
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1636095723425988608

Quote
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.

This is so self-serving it's disgusting.  I am sure that SpaceX is more than willing to accommodate them on their manifest.

Online mn

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1243
  • United States
  • Liked: 1164
  • Likes Given: 418
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #42 on: 03/15/2023 07:52 pm »
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1636095723425988608

Quote
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.

This is so self-serving it's disgusting.  I am sure that SpaceX is more than willing to accommodate them on their manifest.

Oh don't worry ULA (or whatever it is by then) will also accommodate them block buy or not.

But he still wants a block buy, can't blame him.

Offline FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 56661
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 93603
  • Likes Given: 43605
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #43 on: 04/14/2023 03:02 pm »
twitter.com/free_space/status/1646883653413224449

Quote
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?   

https://sam.gov/opp/bc16bbbd24074a7b9d715b341a0aa567/view

https://twitter.com/free_space/status/1646889447839916033

Quote
Oops -- got my lanes mixed up . lane 2 for full-range of NSSL missions , not small sat launchers .

Offline FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 56661
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 93603
  • Likes Given: 43605
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #44 on: 04/21/2023 03:58 am »
https://twitter.com/wehavemeco/status/1649152079150354433

Quote
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:

https://www.youtube.com/live/wmmNuU8-Tr8

Quote
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

https://twitter.com/wehavemeco/status/1649153131790635008

Quote
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.

Offline abaddon

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3328
  • Liked: 4482
  • Likes Given: 6058
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #45 on: 05/08/2023 02:06 pm »
“Relying on an entire new generation of vehicles…”?  Last I recall lane one is open to all bidders including SpaceX, which seems likely to clean up in this category.

Offline DeimosDream

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 153
  • Atlanta
  • Liked: 122
  • Likes Given: 58
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #46 on: 05/08/2023 07:22 pm »
Interesting.

One observation: the Lane-1 requirement is 10 short tons, or approximately 9 metric tons. That threshold might be just low enough to let Antares 330 bid.

It looks like smaller rockets (400lb/180kg+ LEO) are covered by OSP-4 (Orbital Services Program). https://sam.gov/opp/324d7a776a8f8ce29d9369ab8684a5be/view


Offline FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 56661
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 93603
  • Likes Given: 43605
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #47 on: 07/14/2023 05:45 pm »
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1679902235998793749

Quote
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." 🤔

Offline FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 56661
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 93603
  • Likes Given: 43605
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #48 on: 07/14/2023 05:47 pm »
https://spacenews.com/senate-defense-panel-leaves-national-security-space-launch-unsecured/

Quote
Opinion
Senate defense panel leaves National Security Space Launch unsecured
Erik Seedhouse
July 13, 2023

Erik Seedhouse, Ph.D. is an Associate Professor of Spaceflight Operations at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University

In 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.

Offline deltaV

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2843
  • Change in velocity
  • Liked: 1167
  • Likes Given: 4490
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #49 on: 07/14/2023 06:35 pm »
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1679902235998793749

Quote
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." 🤔

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.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 38192
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 22664
  • Likes Given: 432
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #50 on: 07/14/2023 06:37 pm »

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.

No, they have to make their intentions known at the beginning of the procurement.

Offline FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 56661
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 93603
  • Likes Given: 43605
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #51 on: 07/14/2023 08:41 pm »
https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1679952920396066818

Quote
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):
« Last Edit: 07/14/2023 08:41 pm by FutureSpaceTourist »

Offline FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 56661
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 93603
  • Likes Given: 43605
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #52 on: 07/18/2023 06:12 am »
https://twitter.com/ussf_ssc/status/1681097641889857536

Quote
#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:

https://www.ssc.spaceforce.mil/Portals/3/Documents/PRESS%20RELEASES/Space%20Systems%20Command%20Releases%20National%20Security%20Space%20Launch%20Phase%203%20Draft%202%20Request%20for%20Proposals.pdf

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #53 on: 07/18/2023 09:01 am »
Neutron maybe contender if 3rd awardee doesn't have to meet maximum payload requirements for each mission. DoD has help fund Neutron's US development, this maybe to meet all NSSL Phase 3 complex mission requirements eg direct GEO insertion.

Neutron should mean low launch costs for lighter payloads compared to F9 and Vulcan.

Neutron can't compete with New Glenn for performance but RL has launch record that Blue is long way from matching.
« Last Edit: 07/28/2023 05:06 pm by zubenelgenubi »

Offline DeimosDream

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 153
  • Atlanta
  • Liked: 122
  • Likes Given: 58
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #54 on: 07/18/2023 02:21 pm »
It looks like they quietly lowered the Lane-1 requirements. The new standard calls for 6.8 tons to 926km (15,000 lbm to 500 nmi), but now allows that to be split over multiple launches, 1ton minimum per launch.

Lane 2 requirements are fuzzier.
Quote
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.
That does sort of sounds like the 3rd place may have different requirements than the others. Probably still created just for New Glenn, but Neutron might have a chance.

https://sam.gov/opp/bd1fa759be3c4b8285575337fa166d0b/view#attachments-links



Offline deltaV

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2843
  • Change in velocity
  • Liked: 1167
  • Likes Given: 4490
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #55 on: 07/19/2023 12:00 am »
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?

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #56 on: 07/19/2023 12:44 am »
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?
There was zip file download with half dozen documents but none containing orbits or mass requirements.

Offline FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 56661
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 93603
  • Likes Given: 43605
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #57 on: 07/21/2023 11:05 am »
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?

Anthony Colangelo has done some analysis:

https://mainenginecutoff.com/podcast/255

Quote
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.

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.

Offline AstroWare

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 301
  • Arizona
  • Liked: 234
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #58 on: 07/21/2023 02:43 pm »


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?

Anthony Colangelo has done some analysis:

https://mainenginecutoff.com/podcast/255

Quote
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.

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.

If they specified GPS and GSO orbits for winner 3, why would they require a west coast launch site?

Online gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10815
  • US
  • Liked: 15026
  • Likes Given: 6589
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #59 on: 07/21/2023 03:08 pm »
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.

Offline abaddon

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3328
  • Liked: 4482
  • Likes Given: 6058
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #60 on: 07/21/2023 08:49 pm »
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.
SpaceX doesn’t have VI and ULA doesn’t have a rocket (that can fly all missions).

Online DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7501
  • Earth (currently)
  • Liked: 6099
  • Likes Given: 2553
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #61 on: 07/21/2023 09:12 pm »
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.
SpaceX doesn’t have VI and ULA doesn’t have a rocket (that can fly all missions).
ULA will not have an LV for Phase 3 until Vulcan is certified, but that is planned for NET Q1 2024.

SpaceX cannot currently do Vertical Integration, but I thought VI capability was planned for CCSFS SLC-40 and for  VSFB SLC-4. Is this incorrect?

Online gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10815
  • US
  • Liked: 15026
  • Likes Given: 6589
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #62 on: 07/21/2023 10:08 pm »
VI capability has been planned for 39A at least

Offline russianhalo117

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8950
  • Liked: 4893
  • Likes Given: 768
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #63 on: 07/22/2023 12:25 am »
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.
Well SpaceX is choosing for F9/FH VI, at least initially, to use existing newly surplus infrastructure with MST's i.e  SLC-6 (announced) and some discussions about SLC-37's soon to be available Bravo Pad (yet to be officially confirmed) with the Alpha pad ready for new builds.
« Last Edit: 07/22/2023 12:26 am by russianhalo117 »

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #64 on: 07/22/2023 04:09 am »
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?

Anthony Colangelo has done some analysis:

https://mainenginecutoff.com/podcast/255

Quote
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.

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.
NG and maybe Terran R are only HLVs in pipeline that could compete. There is possibility Firefly &amp; Northrop Grumman Corporation could add SRBs to new Antares with liquid US.
« Last Edit: 07/22/2023 04:09 am by TrevorMonty »

Offline FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 56661
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 93603
  • Likes Given: 43605
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #65 on: 07/22/2023 03:55 pm »
https://twitter.com/nasaspaceflight/status/1682746189358198785

Quote
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).

Online gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10815
  • US
  • Liked: 15026
  • Likes Given: 6589

Offline deltaV

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2843
  • Change in velocity
  • Liked: 1167
  • Likes Given: 4490
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #67 on: 07/22/2023 08:09 pm »
The GEO semi-major axis in that tweet is wrong (GEO != LEO). It should be 22,767 nmi.
« Last Edit: 07/22/2023 08:14 pm by deltaV »

Offline deltaV

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2843
  • Change in velocity
  • Liked: 1167
  • Likes Given: 4490
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #68 on: 07/22/2023 09:45 pm »
Of those orbits GEO 2 (14,500 lb to GEO) looks like it should be the hardest for most launch vehicles. Vulcan is just about the perfect size for this - it can get 15,400 lb to GEO. This good fit is unsurprising since Vulcan was designed for an earlier version of the DOD requirements.

Falcon Heavy looks like it can also do all these missions.

New Glenn and Terran R can probably handle all these missions (they have more LEO performance than Vulcan) but only with an additional expendable upper stage to boost their performance to high energy orbits. However it's unclear if Terran R can meet the Oct 2026 deadline for first flight and pads on both coasts since they're currently planning to have first flight in 2026. Meeting that deadline would be especially challenging since they'd also need to spend resources building or buying an additional upper stage, maybe using the AeonVac from Terran 1's upper stage.

Firefly's MTV, Neutron, and Antares all have around half the LEO capacity of Vulcan, which is way too small for the GEO 2 mission. Edit: a three-core heavy upgrade of these vehicles could possibly do it.

With only $100M/year available for fixed costs and AFAICT no money for development costs I don't think anyone will bid for Lane 2 unless they already have a rocket under development for other applications. So I expect SpaceX's Falcon, ULA's Vulcan, Blue Origin's New Glenn, and maybe Relativity's Terran R to be the only bidders for Lane 2. Terran R may or may not bid and if they do bid they're a long shot to win anything.
« Last Edit: 07/22/2023 09:56 pm by deltaV »

Offline Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39822
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 33662
  • Likes Given: 10411
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #69 on: 07/23/2023 06:14 am »
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

Here's the metric version.

Orbit     Mass (kg)   Orbit (km)  Inclination (°)
-------------------------------------------------
LEO           6,800          926  63.4
Polar 1       7,030          834  98.2
Polar 2      17,010          834  98.2
MEO Direct    9,070       18,178  50
MEO Transfer  4,080  1000x20,368  55
GEO Transfer  8,160   185x35,786  27
Molinya       5,220  1204x39,170  63.4
GEO 1         3,630       35,786   0
GEO 2         6,580       35,786   0
« Last Edit: 07/23/2023 06:15 am by Steven Pietrobon »
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #70 on: 07/23/2023 06:37 pm »
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

Here's the metric version.

Orbit     Mass (kg)   Orbit (km)  Inclination (°)
-------------------------------------------------
LEO           6,800          926  63.4
Polar 1       7,030          834  98.2
Polar 2      17,010          834  98.2
MEO Direct    9,070       18,178  50
MEO Transfer  4,080  1000x20,368  55
GEO Transfer  8,160   185x35,786  27
Molinya       5,220  1204x39,170  63.4
GEO 1         3,630       35,786   0
GEO 2         6,580       35,786   0

Do requirements allow for in orbit refuelling of US?.
« Last Edit: 07/23/2023 06:37 pm by TrevorMonty »

Offline deltaV

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2843
  • Change in velocity
  • Liked: 1167
  • Likes Given: 4490
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #71 on: 07/24/2023 05:23 am »
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.

Offline trimeta

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1877
  • Kansas City, MO
  • Liked: 2359
  • Likes Given: 61
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #72 on: 07/24/2023 06:33 am »
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.
Seems kind of moot, since Slot 3 will almost certainly be won by Blue Origin, who aren't likely to cancel New Glenn any time soon. And while in theory Lane 2 requires a plan to build a West Coast launch site, I don't know if Blue Origin would be bound to execute that plan should they get Slot 3. They'd still be on the hook for VI infrastructure, but if there's one thing Blue Origin is good it it's building lots and lots of ground infrastructure.

In the event that Relativity did somehow win Slot 3, they might be obligated to build or buy a third stage to enable GEO 2 orbits, an expense they wouldn't otherwise have, but since they should know that they cannot realistically expect to get Slots 1 or 2, presumably they'd base their prices exclusively on Slot 3.

Online DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7501
  • Earth (currently)
  • Liked: 6099
  • Likes Given: 2553
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #73 on: 07/24/2023 02:33 pm »
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.
My simplistic view of the original NSSL (phases 1 and 2) was that the Government knew it needed to support all of the launch scenarios, so the bidders were required to support all of them. They did not get to pick and choose, because that would have left the government with no way to address the more difficult ones. For NSSL phase 3, they split it into lane 1 and lane 2, so Lane 1 provides opportunities for bidders who cannot meet all the lane 2 requirements. But lane 2 remains "all or nothing", just like Phase 2 and for the same reasons. Providing more flexibility might make life easier for bidders but it would not meet all of the government's requirements. If the third bidder did not need to provide the sophisticated capabilities, then they would be at an unfair competitive advantage against the bidders that did have to pay for those capabilities.

Offline trimeta

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1877
  • Kansas City, MO
  • Liked: 2359
  • Likes Given: 61
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #74 on: 07/24/2023 02:49 pm »
In a way, it's almost kind of moot. If they're drawing such a distinction between the number (and type) of launches given to Slot 2 and Slot 3, a company gunning for Slot 3 is basically not even trying to compete with the Slot 1 or Slot 2 companies. So really, the competition is between ULA and SpaceX to see which of them gets Slot 1 vs. Slot 2, and then totally separately Blue Origin gets handed Slot 3 uncontested (unless Relativity makes a play).

(And yes, Blue Origin can't explicitly say "we're only 'competing' for Slot 3," but they can propose a plan for how they'd perform the Slot 1 or Slot 2 missions, knowing full well that they absolutely won't get Slot 1 or Slot 2 and can abandon that plan once they win Slot 3. And then ultimately only pay for the infrastructure and development needed to serve those Slot 3 missions.)

Offline Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5490
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1813
  • Likes Given: 1302
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #75 on: 07/25/2023 09:01 am »
As I see it, if the Firefly Beta/Northrop Grumman MLV booster don't work out. NG still have a shot at getting the NSSL slot 3. If they can build or buy an upper stage to put on top of a stack of Castor 120 solid motors. Launching out of pad SLC-39B. Maybe NG can do something like the early PPH Ariane 6 configuration using GEM 63XL as strapped-on solid boosters.

Yes, resurrecting the "Stick". I will see myself out. :P
« Last Edit: 07/30/2023 05:31 am by Zed_Noir »

Offline PM3

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1597
  • Germany
  • Liked: 1967
  • Likes Given: 1402
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #76 on: 07/28/2023 08:02 pm »
Tory Bruno regards Relativity as nothing. By saying "It’s not competition if everybody wins", with everybody = ULA, SpaceX and Blue Origin.

https://spacenews.com/ula-has-concerns-about-a-third-competitor-in-national-security-space-launch/

He is a smart man, and I agree.
"Never, never be afraid of the truth." -- Jim Bridenstine

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39464
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25599
  • Likes Given: 12246
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #77 on: 07/28/2023 09:03 pm »
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. All of them have the advantage of a design with a highly reusable first stage. So ULA has just a few years at most before they either do a Hail Mary with a better-than-SMART recovery system for their first stage (which is my pure speculation) or they become increasingly irrelevant; most likely I don’t think they’ll be even 3rd by 2030; they likely will be gone (acquired/merged) by then. And it’s not clear who will have spots 2 and 3.

Tory should be careful what he wishes for.

I think people are underestimating how well Terran-1 flew, given it had 9 novel engines. It really is a big accomplishment that speaks well of the team.

IMHO, it’s a toss up between Blue, Relativity, Firefly, and Rocket Lab. (Less likely for Firefly?) Each has their strengths and weaknesses and I distrust anyone who is certain they know which will succeed.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 56661
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 93603
  • Likes Given: 43605
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #78 on: 07/29/2023 10:48 am »
https://spacenews.com/ula-has-concerns-about-a-third-competitor-in-national-security-space-launch/

Quote
ULA has concerns about a third competitor in national security space launch
CEO Tory Bruno: ‘It’s not competition if everybody wins’
Sandra Erwin
July 28, 2023

WASHINGTON — 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 […]
.

Podcast links:

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/04/13/manifest-space-with-morgan-brennan.html

https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/manifest-space-with-morgan-brennan/id1680523433?i=1000622555771
« Last Edit: 07/29/2023 10:49 am by FutureSpaceTourist »

Offline PM3

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1597
  • Germany
  • Liked: 1967
  • Likes Given: 1402
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #79 on: 07/29/2023 12:23 pm »
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 R

Money 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.
"Never, never be afraid of the truth." -- Jim Bridenstine

Offline deltaV

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2843
  • Change in velocity
  • Liked: 1167
  • Likes Given: 4490
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #80 on: 07/29/2023 05:04 pm »
These discussions of NSSL bidders would be better in the NSSL thread, e.g. I listed the main potential bidders in https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=55784.msg2507739#msg2507739.

[zubenelgenubi: Posts split/merged.]
« Last Edit: 07/31/2023 02:55 pm by zubenelgenubi »

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39464
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25599
  • Likes Given: 12246
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #81 on: 07/29/2023 06:16 pm »
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 R

Money 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.
ULA is starting over in its flight reliability record with Vulcan and has fundamentally worse costs. Tory is not God; don’t take his reasoning without a grain of salt.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline deltaV

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2843
  • Change in velocity
  • Liked: 1167
  • Likes Given: 4490
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #82 on: 09/17/2023 06:13 pm »
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2023/07/nssl-phase-three-update/ says "The final RFP is currently targeted for release by September of this year, with proposals due by December." Also https://spacenews.com/space-force-to-select-three-providers-of-national-security-launch-services/ seems to agree, saying "in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2023", which ends at the end of September. Have then been any updates on the schedule during the two months since those articles were written?

Offline deltaV

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2843
  • Change in velocity
  • Liked: 1167
  • Likes Given: 4490
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #83 on: 10/01/2023 01:28 am »
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.
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?

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #84 on: 10/01/2023 09:57 am »
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.
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?
RL and Firefly would be happy to pick up few lower performance missions a year, why letting ULA and SpaceX fight it out for high performance missions. For both RL and Firefly cost of making HLV and building pads to support high performance missions just isn't worth the return from few possible extra missions a year.

Offline deltaV

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2843
  • Change in velocity
  • Liked: 1167
  • Likes Given: 4490
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #85 on: 10/05/2023 03:53 pm »
Do we know if NSSL lane 2 allows multi-launch architectures using propellant transfer and/or in-orbit assembly? If so, the hardest orbit is not direct GEO 2 but polar 2, which is 17,010 kg to 834 km 98.2 degrees. Polar 2 is unfortunately too much for Neutron and MLV (which can't get 17 tonnes to any LEO at all) so this wouldn't enable any new competitors. But it could help sometimes, e.g. allowing Terran R to do direct GEO with a low performing kick stage without expending any first stages.

Online gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10815
  • US
  • Liked: 15026
  • Likes Given: 6589
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #86 on: 10/05/2023 04:15 pm »
Realistically, Phase 3 Lane 2 will probably be Falcon, Vulcan, New Glenn.  Everything else can prove itself in Lane 1 and compete for the harder missions in the next round of contracts.

Online gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10815
  • US
  • Liked: 15026
  • Likes Given: 6589
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #87 on: 10/05/2023 05:10 pm »
Final RFP released.  Responses due Dec. 15.  Lane 1 contracts awarded in the spring, Lane 2 contracts awarded next fall.  It doesn't sound like there were any major changes from the last draft RFP.

Lane 1: https://sam.gov/opp/14202647513b4da2813235c362e5bcd6/view
Lane 2: https://sam.gov/opp/82c7b90b441f4dbf8df854a87792c2ce/view

Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #88 on: 10/06/2023 03:17 am »
Space News article on this:
https://spacenews.com/space-force-releases-final-call-for-bids-for-national-security-launch-services/

Quote
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.

Seems the Space Force, despite what may have been said previously, has made sure to clarify that only 2 may be selected initially if the value is not certain and/or the 3rd provider cannot meet certain requirements like having a west coast launch site. But the goal is still to have 3 providers fully certified to fulfill every need for the Space Force by the end of NSSL Phase 3, so they will likely onramp Blue or others later in the decade for that 3rd provider.
« Last Edit: 10/06/2023 03:17 am by spacenuance »

Online gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10815
  • US
  • Liked: 15026
  • Likes Given: 6589
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #89 on: 10/06/2023 01:07 pm »
In that case the later onramp would be Phase 4.  Phase 3 has onramps for Lane 1, not Lane 2.  It sounds like Blue just has to show they'd be certified by 2026.  If the third provider didn't make that certification date, the other providers would just pick up the flights.
« Last Edit: 10/06/2023 01:12 pm by gongora »

Offline deltaV

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2843
  • Change in velocity
  • Liked: 1167
  • Likes Given: 4490
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #90 on: 11/17/2023 12:01 am »
https://arstechnica.com/space/2023/11/sale-of-united-launch-alliance-is-nearing-its-end-with-three-potential-buyers/

Quote
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?

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?

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #91 on: 11/17/2023 04:07 am »


https://arstechnica.com/space/2023/11/sale-of-united-launch-alliance-is-nearing-its-end-with-three-potential-buyers/

Quote
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?

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?

Won't make any difference as two primary suppliers are ULA and SpaceX. Having 3rd option is nice to have but not essential. 

Offline abaddon

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3328
  • Liked: 4482
  • Likes Given: 6058
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #92 on: 11/18/2023 09:20 pm »
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.

Offline Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5490
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1813
  • Likes Given: 1302
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #93 on: 11/19/2023 12:22 am »
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.
Then the lawyers will be happy.  ;)

Offline trimeta

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1877
  • Kansas City, MO
  • Liked: 2359
  • Likes Given: 61
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #94 on: 11/19/2023 06:34 am »
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.
I seem to recall that the numbers for the third winner were considerably smaller. I don't remember the specifics offhand (and I'd gladly be corrected), but I thought it was closer to 60/35/5.

Online gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10815
  • US
  • Liked: 15026
  • Likes Given: 6589
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #95 on: 11/19/2023 04:45 pm »
The third provider in Lane 2 (which doesn't have to be awarded) gets up to 7 flights, the rest of the Lane 2 flights are split 60/40.  I'd guess if ULA is bought by Blue before contracts are awarded then the third slot doesn't end up being used.  At that point New Glenn would really be in the same category as Starship, an alternate vehicle from one of the top two companies.

Offline deltaV

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2843
  • Change in velocity
  • Liked: 1167
  • Likes Given: 4490
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #96 on: 12/17/2023 10:27 pm »
The proposals were due Dec 15. I was hoping that we'd see some of the bidders announce their plans after the deadline as sometimes happens but it doesn't look like that's happened this time.

Offline DeimosDream

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 153
  • Atlanta
  • Liked: 122
  • Likes Given: 58
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #97 on: 01/02/2024 01:53 pm »
Blue Origin was awarded a contract for "Early Integration studies for NSSL Phase 3 Lane 2".

https://sam.gov/opp/2ed77639ac3d42928bbbc4d1a3372338/view#description

I 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)
« Last Edit: 01/03/2024 08:08 pm by DeimosDream »

Online sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7708
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2459
  • Likes Given: 2289
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #98 on: 01/03/2024 01:16 am »
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?
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Offline jimvela

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1696
  • Liked: 965
  • Likes Given: 84
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #99 on: 01/03/2024 03:36 am »
From 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.

Offline deltaV

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2843
  • Change in velocity
  • Liked: 1167
  • Likes Given: 4490
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #100 on: 01/03/2024 05:57 am »
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?

Maybe it's $19 each for 49,211 satellites in a new mega constellation. Until the integration studies are done the DOD won't know exactly how many launches they need so they're paying for the studies per satellite, not per launch.

Just kidding. I doubt studying the prime factors of 935,009 will accomplish anything since the total contract value is probably a sum, not a product.

Online sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7708
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2459
  • Likes Given: 2289
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #101 on: 01/03/2024 06:39 am »
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.

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."

I count 16 "X" marks in the table below, plus the 3 mentioned above. That gets me 19.
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Offline deltaV

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2843
  • Change in velocity
  • Liked: 1167
  • Likes Given: 4490
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #102 on: 01/04/2024 03:38 am »
Blue Origin was awarded a contract for "Early Integration studies for NSSL Phase 3 Lane 2".

https://sam.gov/opp/2ed77639ac3d42928bbbc4d1a3372338/view#description

I 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)

That sam.gov link includes an attachment, a heavily redacted "justification and approval for other that full and open competition". That attachment includes information on which missions are covered, which rules out sdsds's theory of 19 missions for $49,211 each. It includes "The government did not receive any SOI submittals, and no other company has expressed interest in conducting EIS", which seems to confirm DeimosDream's conclusion that SpaceX, ULA, and Blue are the only phase 3 lane 2 bidders.

Online sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7708
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2459
  • Likes Given: 2289
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #103 on: 01/04/2024 10:20 pm »
From 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.

It's somewhat old news, but
Quote from: Sandra Erwin on July 19, 2023
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.
https://spacenews.com/space-force-changed-launch-procurement-plan-due-to-concerns-about-capacity/

So Blue submitted a "credible plan" showing New Glenn will be operational and certified by October 2026.
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Offline deltaV

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2843
  • Change in velocity
  • Liked: 1167
  • Likes Given: 4490
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #104 on: 01/05/2024 02:55 am »
So 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.

Online DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7501
  • Earth (currently)
  • Liked: 6099
  • Likes Given: 2553
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #105 on: 01/05/2024 03:19 am »
So 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. The current guess for BE-4 production rate is 2/mo, so seven months of production, while Vulcan would optimistically like to consume all of the production with one flight/mo. I think this means they must convince NSSL that they can ramp up the BE-4 production. But from NSSL's perspective, they will see two of their providers competing for the BE-4 resource.

Offline deltaV

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2843
  • Change in velocity
  • Liked: 1167
  • Likes Given: 4490
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #106 on: 01/05/2024 03:03 pm »
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.

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.

Online joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4970
  • Liked: 2874
  • Likes Given: 1118
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #107 on: 01/05/2024 03:42 pm »
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.
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?

Online DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7501
  • Earth (currently)
  • Liked: 6099
  • Likes Given: 2553
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #108 on: 01/05/2024 04:00 pm »
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.
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.

Offline AndrewM

  • Global Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 489
  • United States
  • Liked: 569
  • Likes Given: 947
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #109 on: 01/13/2024 08:47 pm »
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.
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.

Online DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7501
  • Earth (currently)
  • Liked: 6099
  • Likes Given: 2553
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #110 on: 01/13/2024 09:36 pm »
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.
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.
Alternatively ULA had to be considered "credible" for NSSL Phase 2 because that was the only way to avoid a sole source to SpaceX. Since it's nearly certain that both ULA and SpaceX really are credible for NSSL 3, there is no particular reason to be lenient for a third vendor for lane 2. Let new rockets including NG compete for lane 1.

Lane 2 caveats:   SpaceX has not yet demonstrated vertical integration, and Vulcan Centaur has not yet flown two demo flights, but I think their plans are still quite credible.

Offline deltaV

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2843
  • Change in velocity
  • Liked: 1167
  • Likes Given: 4490
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #111 on: 01/18/2024 05:01 pm »
From another thread:

Another example of space tug domination...

https://twitter.com/GoToImpulse/status/1747646045549744318

Impulse Space's Helios kick stage seems like it could be used by LEO-optimized launchers such as New Glenn, Terran R and/or Starship for the NSSL lane 2 direct GEO mission. The owners of those launchers may prefer to build their own kick stages so I'm not sure how likely this is but it seems worth mentioning.

Offline DeimosDream

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 153
  • Atlanta
  • Liked: 122
  • Likes Given: 58
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #112 on: 01/21/2024 12:21 pm »
Quote from: impulsespace
GEO
4,000 kg* 4,500 kg‡
GTO
7,500kg* 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.
« Last Edit: 01/21/2024 12:23 pm by DeimosDream »

Offline Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5490
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1813
  • Likes Given: 1302
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #113 on: 01/21/2024 11:06 pm »
Quote from: impulsespace
GEO
4,000 kg* 4,500 kg‡
GTO
7,500kg* 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.
At least for the standard Falcon payload fairing. Don't think the Helios module with just 14 tonnes of propellant will take up much volume as long as the payload is no bigger than current 5 tonnes comsats. Plus there is the optional stretched Falcon payload fairing.

Should have no issues in either the Vulcan or the Ariane 6 with a long payload fairing from Beyond Gravity (formerly RUAG) producing a common payload fairing family for both launchers.

Impulse can increase the propellants capacity in the Helios to meet the NSSL GEO standard.


Offline deltaV

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2843
  • Change in velocity
  • Liked: 1167
  • Likes Given: 4490
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #114 on: 01/23/2024 12:45 am »
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.

Expending Terran R boosts its LEO performance by 43% (23.5 to 33.5 tonnes). Reuse usually hurts performance by a much larger factor at higher energies so I bet Terran R would get at least the 47% boost it needs (4.5 to 6.6 tonnes) from expendability. I don't know if the payload fairing issue would be difficult to solve. Too bad Relativity hasn't talked about their NSSL lane 2 plans AFAIK.

Edit: maybe not, the reuse penalty from Terran R + Helion may differ from the reuse penalty of Terran R alone.
« Last Edit: 01/23/2024 12:46 am by deltaV »

Online gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10815
  • US
  • Liked: 15026
  • Likes Given: 6589
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #115 on: 02/28/2024 10:41 pm »
https://techcrunch.com/2024/02/28/rocket-lab-has-misrepresented-neutron-launch-readiness-congressional-memo-says/
Quote
...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.

Offline deltaV

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2843
  • Change in velocity
  • Liked: 1167
  • Likes Given: 4490
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #116 on: 02/29/2024 12:25 am »
I'm surprised that lane 1 has on-ramp opportunities only yearly (i.e. the deadline Neutron is trying to meet). That's a lot more frequent on-ramps than the ~5 year cadence for lane 2 but it still means companies may have to wait almost a year after they're ready before being eligible for launches. Why artificially put lane 1 on a yearly schedule? Why not set a separate deadline for each lane 1 payload a certain number of months before the desired launch date?

Offline deltaV

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2843
  • Change in velocity
  • Liked: 1167
  • Likes Given: 4490
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #117 on: 03/01/2024 04:16 am »
https://techcrunch.com/2024/02/28/rocket-lab-has-misrepresented-neutron-launch-readiness-congressional-memo-says/

According to the NSSL phase 3 industry day slides last year (https://govtribe.com/file/government-file/nsslph3indday2-nssl-phase-3-industry-day-2-briefing-for-sam-dot-pdf slide 30) lane 1 providers need a credible plan to launch within a year to bid for IDIQ contracts but to bid for actual task orders one year later they need to have actually launched. Assuming the final RFP has similar rules, if Neutron doesn't launch in time it won't be assigned any payloads. According to https://payloadspace.com/clean-up-in-nssls-lane-1/ SpaceX, ULA and Blue Origin have also bid for lane 1 so the lane 1 payloads will get other rides. If the only lane 1 providers that are eligible for task orders the first year are the three lane 2 providers that doesn't quite match the Space Force's intent to help new entrants but that seems like the appropriate outcome if no one else is ready yet. It seems the Space Force has done a good job protecting themselves against over-optimistic providers - the only harm Neutron's delay can cause seems to be wasting Space Force time processing their IDIQ application a year earlier than it should have been. So why is Neutron's schedule worthy of Congressional staffer attention?

Offline Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5490
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1813
  • Likes Given: 1302
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #118 on: 03/01/2024 05:32 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.

Offline deltaV

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2843
  • Change in velocity
  • Liked: 1167
  • Likes Given: 4490
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #119 on: 03/01/2024 03:32 pm »
<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.

I guess one possibility is Rocked Lab's unrealistic optimism isn't directly consequential but a competitor is pointing it out to hurt their reputation.

Offline deltaV

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2843
  • Change in velocity
  • Liked: 1167
  • Likes Given: 4490
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #120 on: 05/07/2024 05:32 am »
https://techcrunch.com/2024/02/28/rocket-lab-has-misrepresented-neutron-launch-readiness-congressional-memo-says/
Quote
...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.

It turns out that the Congressional staffers were right and Rocket Lab was wrong by half a year (so far). I still don't see any reason why Congressional staffers should be concerned about this slip though.

According to Rocket Lab's 1Q2024 financial results, Neutron's first flight is now "no earlier than mid-2025."

Offline FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 56661
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 93603
  • Likes Given: 43605
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #121 on: 06/13/2024 09:28 pm »
https://twitter.com/joroulette/status/1801365690206851368

Quote
New on @Reuters wire - Pentagon has picked SpaceX, Blue Origin, and ULA to be eligible to compete for missions under its Lane 1, Phase 3 rocket launch awards, valued as much as $5.6 billion.

Online StraumliBlight

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1718
  • UK
  • Liked: 2839
  • Likes Given: 389
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #122 on: 06/13/2024 09:47 pm »
https://www.defense.gov/News/Contracts/Contract/Article/3806586/

Quote
Blue Origin Florida LLC, Merritt Island, Florida (FA8811-24-D-B002); Space Exploration Technologies Corp., Hawthorne, California (FA8811-24-D-B003); and United Launch Services LLC, Centennial, Colorado (FA8811-24-D-B001), have been awarded a multiple-award, firm-fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract with a maximum cumulative ceiling of $5,600,000,000 for the National Security Space (NSS) Launch Phase 3 Lane 1 launch services procurement.

The contract is for launch services delivering NSS payloads into their intended orbits. The location of performance will be determined at the task order level. The contract will include a five-year ordering period, which will go through June 2029, with an option for an additional ordering period of five years. This award is the result of a competitive acquisition, and seven offers were received. Fiscal 2024 space procurement funds in the amount of $8,000,000 (the cumulative amount for the minimum guarantee) are being obligated at the time of award. Space Systems Command, Assured Access to Space, Los Angeles Air Force Base, El Segundo, California, is the contracting activity.

This Appropriations report was published yesterday:

Quote
$2,141,614,000 for the procurement of 11 National Security Space Launches;

Quote
The Committee supports the Space Force’s acquisition approach for the National Security Space Launch (NSSL) program phase III launch service procurements.
The dual-lane approach provides flexibility in Lane 1 for more risk-tolerant missions and provides an on-ramp for new providers when they are ready.
Lane 2 provides assured access for the most critical national security payloads with full mission assurance via three certified providers, as proposed in the acquisition strategy.
The Committee directs the Department of Defense and the Intelligence Community to utilize the NSSL program to the maximum extent possible for launch service procurements, unless the Secretary of the Air Force or the Director of the National Reconnaissance Office provides a written justification with supporting data to the congressional defense and intelligence committees that a commercial launch or delivery-in-orbit procurement for a designated mission is in the national security interest of the government or significantly less expensive than an NSSL procured launch.
« Last Edit: 06/13/2024 10:13 pm by StraumliBlight »

Online gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10815
  • US
  • Liked: 15026
  • Likes Given: 6589
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #123 on: 06/13/2024 10:40 pm »
U.S. Space Force’s Space Systems Command Awards Three Contracts for National Security Space Launch Phase 3 Lane 1

Summary: At least 30 National Security Space Launch Lane 1 missions are expected to be competed over the five-year base ordering period. Emerging launch providers and systems will have the opportunity to on-ramp to the Phase 3 Lane 1 contract starting next year and annually thereafter.

EL SEGUNDO, Calif. – The U.S. Space Force’s Space Systems Command (SSC) awarded National Security Space Launch (NSSL) Phase 3 Lane 1 contracts to Blue Origin, SpaceX, and ULA. The base Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) award includes Firm Fixed Price (FFP) Task Orders to each awardee to conduct an initial capabilities assessment and provide an explanation of how they will approach tailored mission assurance.

Mission Assurance is the extensive integration and sharing of methods, resources, tools and results between commercial launch service providers and the government to maximize the probability of launch success. Tailored Mission Assurance is a tiered approach based on the needed breadth and depth of understanding of the launch vehicle baseline and the associated risks to the mission.

New provider, Blue Origin will receive $5 million to conduct an initial capabilities assessment and understand how the launch provider will approach tiered mission assurance; Space X and ULA will receive $1.5 million each since they are incumbent Phase 2 providers, and SSC already understands their launch systems and approaches to mission assurance.

“As the Space Force continues to streamline processes and increase resiliency, the NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement contracts provide the opportunity to include the most current domestic commercial innovation into our launch program as soon it becomes available,” explained Mr. Frank Calvelli, assistant secretary of the Air Force for Space Acquisition and Integration. “Today marks the beginning of this innovative, dual-lane approach to launch service acquisition, whereby Lane 1 serves our commercial-like missions that can accept more risk and Lane 2 provides our traditional, full mission assurance for the most stressing heavy-lift launches of our most risk-averse missions.”

In conjunction with the IDIQ award, SSC will release two Requests for Proposals: one task order for seven U.S. Space Force Space Development Agency launches and one for the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO). Any launch provider on the base IDIQ contract can bid for launch service task orders provided they have completed a successful orbital launch prior to the proposal due date.

“As we anticipated, the pool of awardees is small this year because many companies are still maturing their launch capabilities,” said Brig. Gen. Kristin Panzenhagen, program executive officer for Assured Access to Space. “Our strategy accounted for this by allowing on-ramp opportunities every year, and we expect increasing competition and diversity as new providers and systems complete development.” The next opportunity for providers to on-ramp their emerging systems to the Lane 1 IDIQ contract will occur in the first quarter of fiscal year 25, followed by several more Task Orders for launch services.

The Phase 3 Lane 1 award period consists of a five-year base ordering period from FY25 to FY29 plus a five-year option. At least 30 NSSL Lane 1 missions are expected to be competed over the five-year base ordering period.

“In this era of Great Power Competition, we designed Lane 1 to leverage commercial innovation and give the Space Force increased resiliency through diversity of launch providers, systems, and sites. Launching more risk-tolerant satellites on potentially less mature launch systems using tailored independent government mission assurance could yield substantial operational responsiveness, innovation, and savings,” added Gen Panzenhagen.

The second part of the NSSL Phase 3 dual-lane strategy will be the Lane 2 competitively awarded FFP Indefinite Delivery Requirements contracts. The Government intends to award up to three contracts for the NSSL Phase 3 Lane 2 Launch Service Procurement later this fall. Lane 2 contracts will include missions that require full mission assurance with NSSL-certified launch vehicles. The payloads included in Lane 2 require launches to more stressing orbits than Lane 1, necessitating higher performance launch systems, and complex security and integration requirements.

Space Systems Command is the U.S. Space Force’s field command responsible for acquiring and delivering resilient war fighting capabilities to protect our nation’s strategic advantage in, from, and to space. SSC manages a $15.6 billion space acquisition budget for the DoD and works in partnership with joint forces, industry, government agencies, and academic and allied organizations to accelerate innovation and outpace emerging threats. Our actions today are making the world a better space for tomorrow.
« Last Edit: 06/13/2024 10:44 pm by gongora »

Offline FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 56661
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 93603
  • Likes Given: 43605
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #124 on: 06/13/2024 11:08 pm »
https://twitter.com/joroulette/status/1801390692360462773

Quote
SpaceX pitched Starship, Blue Origin pitched New Glenn, and ULA pitched Vulcan.

More from Space Systems Command’s Assured Access To Space office:

Quote
AATS received seven (7) bidders for Lane 1. Only three (3) were successful during this initial award, but each unsuccessful bidder will have another chance during the next on-ramping opportunity in FY25. As identified in the RFP, each Lane 1 launch service provider must have a previously demonstrated flight or propose a credible plan to achieve first launch by 15 December 2024 to be eligible for contract award in FY24. Offerors also had to provide evidence their launch system is capable of meeting at least 15,000 Ibm MTO, 500 nmi circular orbit, 63.4 deg inclination with single or multiple launches within 90-day window of ILC and multiple launch configurations (min of 2,200 1bm/1000kgs per launch). Offerors also had to provide evidence of an existing AS9100 certification or a credible plan to obtain AS9100 certification, as well as a Mission Assurance Plan that addresses all tiers. Only three (3) awardees met the minimum requirements this
year.

Offline deltaV

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2843
  • Change in velocity
  • Liked: 1167
  • Likes Given: 4490
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #125 on: 06/14/2024 04:00 am »
Quote
SpaceX pitched Starship...
Later tweets by the same person took that back and indicate that he doesn't know whether the SpaceX award was for Starship or Falcon and he guessed it was Falcon.

https://twitter.com/joroulette/status/1801458640404037738

Offline deltaV

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2843
  • Change in velocity
  • Liked: 1167
  • Likes Given: 4490
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #126 on: 06/14/2024 04:53 am »
Quote
AATS received seven (7) bidders for Lane 1. Only three (3) were successful during this initial award...

So who do we think the 4 unsuccessful bidders were who thought on December 15 2023 that they'd have a 1000+ kg to 63.4 degree inclination 500 nmi launch vehicle operational by December 15th 2024? Relativity, Firefly, and ABL apparently didn't bid this year (https://payloadspace.com/clean-up-in-nssls-lane-1/). Neutron seems likely to have bid and lost because their schedule slipped. But what about the other three? Minotaur? People purposefully submitting non-compliant bids for some reason? Maybe Starship counted as a separate bidder?
« Last Edit: 06/14/2024 04:58 am by deltaV »

Online StraumliBlight

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1718
  • UK
  • Liked: 2839
  • Likes Given: 389
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #127 on: 06/14/2024 12:56 pm »
So who do we think the 4 unsuccessful bidders were who thought on December 15 2023 that they'd have a 1000+ kg to 63.4 degree inclination 500 nmi launch vehicle operational by December 15th 2024? Relativity, Firefly, and ABL apparently didn't bid this year (https://payloadspace.com/clean-up-in-nssls-lane-1/). Neutron seems likely to have bid and lost because their schedule slipped. But what about the other three? Minotaur? People purposefully submitting non-compliant bids for some reason? Maybe Starship counted as a separate bidder?

I can guess one...

https://twitter.com/Free_Space/status/1633502198570143744

Offline deltaV

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2843
  • Change in velocity
  • Liked: 1167
  • Likes Given: 4490
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #128 on: 06/16/2024 03:45 am »
So who do we think the 4 unsuccessful bidders were

I can guess one... [Boeing]

You're probably right. However Boeing seems to be wasting their time - I don't see how SLS could possibly succeed at lane 1 since SLS is probably an order of magnitude more expensive than their competitors, even if the lane 1 bid covered the marginal costs only and left NASA with all the fixed costs. Even if the DOD is interested in heavier or larger payloads than lane 2, Starship and New Glenn provide that for much lower cost.

Online DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7501
  • Earth (currently)
  • Liked: 6099
  • Likes Given: 2553
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #129 on: 06/16/2024 11:03 am »
So who do we think the 4 unsuccessful bidders were

I can guess one... [Boeing]

You're probably right. However Boeing seems to be wasting their time - I don't see how SLS could possibly succeed at lane 1 since SLS is probably an order of magnitude more expensive than their competitors, even if the lane 1 bid covered the marginal costs only and left NASA with all the fixed costs. Even if the DOD is interested in heavier or larger payloads than lane 2, Starship and New Glenn provide that for much lower cost.
It's ludicrous to pretend that SLS can be "commercialized" for non-Artemis missions, but Congress/NASA/Boeing are trying anyway. That means among other things that there must be a group responsible for trying to sell SLS for non-Artemis missions. They must make a proposal for every opportunity, no matter how ludicrous.

Offline deltaV

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2843
  • Change in velocity
  • Liked: 1167
  • Likes Given: 4490
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #130 on: 06/19/2024 12:51 am »
https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/space/boeing-passed-nssl-phase-3-bid-space-launch-system

Quote
Boeing ended up passing up the opportunity to bid on a planned commercial variant of NASA’s Space Launch System (SLS) Moon rocket for the U.S. Space Force’s national security space launch Phase 3 program, the company confirmed on June 17.

It's not 100% clear whether Boeing didn't bid on lane 1, lane 2, or both.

Online StraumliBlight

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1718
  • UK
  • Liked: 2839
  • Likes Given: 389
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #131 on: 09/16/2024 08:06 pm »
Assessing the Impact of U.S. Air Force National Security Space Launch Acquisition Decisions [Sep 16] (106 page report revised in April 2024).

Quote
The RAND team was asked to update its assessment of the launch markets to better understand how the USSF might shape future acquisition strategies or prepare for operational risks introduced by past acquisition decisions. The authors examine historical and projected levels of supply and demand in the global and NSS heavy lift launch markets. They forecast demand over the next ten years (2024–2033) and explore how assumptions regarding future market dynamics might affect the USSF's ability to meet NSS demand and sustain at least two certified suppliers.

Key Findings
 • The average yearly global launch demand addressable by U.S. firms is largely unchanged since the 2019 assessment; while demand is diversifying, only slight overall growth can be expected in the next five years.
 • There are few viable competitors in the global addressable launch market; SpaceX dominates, with a 70-percent share of the addressable demand in 2022 (compared with a 40-percent share in 2019).
 • Given the current lack of competitors, several firms are seeking to enter the heavy lift launch market; should any be successful, rapid consolidation should be expected in the market.
 • Despite the diversity offered by the possible new entrants, there is little diversity in the key resources (fuel, launch complexes, and engine suppliers) needed for launch.
 • NSS Phase 2 awards to ULA's Vulcan launch vehicle and subsequent delays in Vulcan's development have created a significant backlog; the last payloads awarded under the Phase 2 contract are likely to experience a two-and-one-half-year delay as this backlog is serviced.

Recommendations
 • The USSF should make prudent preparations for a future that has only two U.S. providers of NSS-certified heavy lift launch, at least one of which may have little support from the commercial addressable marketplace.
 • The USSF should continue to provide support to enable three U.S. providers to enter and/or continue in the heavy lift launch market.
 • The USSF should recognize and mitigate the risks of adding to backlogs of firms that have not yet been certified for NSS launch.
 • The USSF may want to consider adding diversity of launch sites or of fuel sources as a secondary consideration in future launch acquisition source selections.

Online StraumliBlight

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1718
  • UK
  • Liked: 2839
  • Likes Given: 389
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #132 on: 09/19/2024 12:21 am »
Space Force Close to New Launch Contracts—But Only If Congress Passes a Budget [Sep 18]

Quote
Brig. Gen. Kristin L. Panzenhagen, SSC’s program executive officer for Assured Access to Space, told reporters at AFA’s Air, Space & Cyber Conference that much work remains to be done. The Space Force took a “dual-lane” approach to this phase—Lane 1 prioritizes commercial-like missions where a higher risk tolerance is allowable, while Lane 2 is for the “most stressing heavy-lift launches” where full mission assurance is essential.

Contract winners will get to compete for task orders for specific missions within the program. ULA, Blue Origin, and SpaceX all got contracts for Lane 1 in June. Source selection is ongoing for Lane 2 and awards are expected toward the end of this year, Panzenhagen said.

“It’s a big important contract, we’re definitely doing a lot of due diligence on that,” she said.

Panzenhagen and SSC commander Lt. Gen. Philip A. Garrant both said the contract award could be complicated if Congress fails to pass a budget by the start of fiscal 2025 on Oct. 1. If they pass instead a a continuing resolution, spending levels will be frozen at 2024 levels and new programs can’t be started.

“Pending a budget, we will make those awards,” Garrant told reporters in a virtual roundtable.

Offline deltaV

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2843
  • Change in velocity
  • Liked: 1167
  • Likes Given: 4490
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #133 on: 09/19/2024 08:02 am »
Quote
Recommendations
 • The USSF may want to consider adding diversity of launch sites or of fuel sources as a secondary consideration in future launch acquisition source selections.

If everyone were using RP-1 I'd be a little concerned that we might run out of the unusual crude needed to make it. But everyone is using LOX, methane, and/or hydrogen, and all of those are available from US sources. Even if we somehow run out of fossil fuels we can make methane and hydrogen using water, CO2 from the air, and electricity. So diversifying propellants seems like a great way to increase costs for very little gain.

It would be a shame if someone put submarines off both Vandenberg and the Cape, launched some cruise missiles, and the military lost access to space. Unfortunately diversifying launch sites would only make this sort of attack a bit harder - an adversary would then need 4-6 subs to target 4-6 launch sites, 2 subs with longer range cruise missiles to target 4-6 launch sites, 2-3 subs that target key factories, or some ICBMs. So if launching during a major war is considered a priority that should probably be a requirement, not just launch site diversity.

Offline sstli2

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 171
  • New York City
  • Liked: 222
  • Likes Given: 81
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #134 on: 09/19/2024 11:06 am »
The problem is not running out of fossil fuels. The problem is diversity in the supply chain. How many different suppliers of indsutrial quantities of methane are there at the Cape? Do they all have the same underlying supply chain? Consolidation being ever present, possibly not that many.
« Last Edit: 09/19/2024 11:07 am by sstli2 »

Offline deltaV

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2843
  • Change in velocity
  • Liked: 1167
  • Likes Given: 4490
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #135 on: 09/19/2024 02:32 pm »
The problem is not running out of fossil fuels. The problem is diversity in the supply chain. How many different suppliers of indsutrial quantities of methane are there at the Cape? Do they all have the same underlying supply chain? Consolidation being ever present, possibly not that many.

If the goal is supply chain diversity they need to add a requirement that addresses that directly. Diversifying propellants would both do too much, since it's likely cheaper to find several LOX and methane suppliers than engineering a whole new engine and stage, and do too little, since distinct propellants could still have overlapping supply chains.

Offline sstli2

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 171
  • New York City
  • Liked: 222
  • Likes Given: 81
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #136 on: 09/19/2024 02:45 pm »
they need to add a requirement that addresses that directly

I have not historically seen the NSSL provide requirements that tell people how to conduct their business. Instead, they make decisions based on proposed attributes and capabilities. I am skeptical that they have any interest in telling SpaceX that they must use supplier A of liquid oxygen and ULA must use supplier B, if they even had the expertise to do so. What they can do is evaluate whether the solutions in the aggregate present a supply chain risk or not, and factor it into their decision.

engineering a whole new engine and stage

That's not the NSSL's problem. If a company doesn't fit their needs, they just get passed over. It's the company's problem. Now, right now NSSL can't be a chooser since there aren't many options. But I think that report is fundamentally forward-looking towards the eventual reality that there will be multiple options to choose from, and with price not being the primary concern.

distinct propellants could still have overlapping supply chains.

Not being in the propellant procurement line of work, I don't know if this is true or not. It might not be.
« Last Edit: 09/19/2024 02:47 pm by sstli2 »

Online sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7708
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2459
  • Likes Given: 2289
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #137 on: 09/20/2024 10:33 am »
Assessing the Impact of U.S. Air Force National Security Space Launch Acquisition Decisions [Sep 16] (106 page report revised in April 2024).

RAND is trying to predict demand for heavy-lift out through 2033 and nowhere does their report mention Starship.

Hmm.
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #138 on: 09/20/2024 11:48 am »


Assessing the Impact of U.S. Air Force National Security Space Launch Acquisition Decisions [Sep 16] (106 page report revised in April 2024).

RAND is trying to predict demand for heavy-lift out through 2033 and nowhere does their report mention Starship.

Hmm.

Its about which launch providers can meet launch requirements. SpaceX F9 family covers NSSL requirement so no need to mention SS.

Offline tbellman

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 706
  • Sweden
  • Liked: 1034
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #139 on: 09/20/2024 04:23 pm »
Assessing the Impact of U.S. Air Force National Security Space Launch Acquisition Decisions [Sep 16] (106 page report revised in April 2024).

RAND is trying to predict demand for heavy-lift out through 2033 and nowhere does their report mention Starship.

Hmm.

Yes they do.  Pages 10, 11, 13 and 14.

(And note also that "heavy lift" in this report is defined as being capable of reaching any one of the NSSL targets, e.g. 7 tonnes to LEO.)

In terms of market, the report is mostly looking backwards in time, and trying to extrapolate future market size from past market size (market has been price incensitive in the past, so it will be that in the future as well).  They don't look into factors that have potential to change the market this time (e.g. step functions as launch prices gets lower, or as satellites become cheaper to design and build).  I feel that's the biggest limitation of the analysis.

Offline ugordan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8662
    • My mainly Cassini image gallery
  • Liked: 3885
  • Likes Given: 808
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #140 on: 09/20/2024 05:03 pm »
(And note also that "heavy lift" in this report is defined as being capable of reaching any one of the NSSL targets, e.g. 7 tonnes to LEO.)
Did you mean GEO? Because 7 tonnes to LEO hardly classifies as heavy lift.

Offline sstli2

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 171
  • New York City
  • Liked: 222
  • Likes Given: 81
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #141 on: 09/20/2024 05:18 pm »
To make it easy on everyone (so yes, it is 7 metric tons to LEO per their definition)

« Last Edit: 09/20/2024 05:20 pm by sstli2 »

Offline ugordan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8662
    • My mainly Cassini image gallery
  • Liked: 3885
  • Likes Given: 808
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #142 on: 09/20/2024 05:23 pm »
Weird definition of "heavy lift", but I stand corrected.

Online sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7708
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2459
  • Likes Given: 2289
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #143 on: 09/20/2024 06:47 pm »
Yes they do.  Pages 10, 11, 13 and 14.

Ah, I stand corrected. The "New Entrants" section does explicitly cover Starship/Super-Heavy, and says among other things, "As of early 2024, there are few signals of viable commercial business cases enabled by super heavy lift, and hence few potential buyers."

Quote
They don't look into factors that have potential to change the market this time (e.g. step functions as launch prices gets lower, or as satellites become cheaper to design and build).  I feel that's the biggest limitation of the analysis.

Yes, good point. Thanks.
« Last Edit: 09/20/2024 06:48 pm by sdsds »
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Offline Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39822
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 33662
  • Likes Given: 10411
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #144 on: 09/26/2024 08:14 am »
To make it easy on everyone (so yes, it is 7 metric tons to LEO per their definition)

Here's the table in metric units. Note Polar LEO launches are up to 17 t, which would define a "heavy" payload.

Reference Orbit       Apogee  Perigee  Inclination  Mass to Orbit
                       (km)     (km)      (°)           (kg)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Low Earth orbit (LEO)    926     926      63.4      6,800
Polar                    833     833      98.2      7,030-17,010
MEO direct inject 1   18,177  18,177      50        5,330
MEO direct inject 2   20,350  20,350      55        4,080
MEO transfer orbit    20,350   1,000      55        4,080-5,080
GEO transfer orbit    35,618     185      27        8,160
GEO direct inject     35,786  35,786       0        2,270-6,580
Molniya orbit         39,170   1,204      63.4      5,220
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Offline AndrewM

  • Global Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 489
  • United States
  • Liked: 569
  • Likes Given: 947
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #145 on: 09/28/2024 11:43 pm »
The RFP for NSSL Phase 3 Lane 2 was modified on June 20, 2024. The most notable change to me was the 3rd provider slot no longer specifies which five GPS IIIF missions will be awarded.

https://sam.gov/opp/b5287289cb174251a26086a5962faf95/view

Offline AndrewM

  • Global Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 489
  • United States
  • Liked: 569
  • Likes Given: 947
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #146 on: 09/29/2024 12:41 am »
There was an industry day help for Lane 1 in August. It includes the NRO, SDA, and USSF planned contract awards & launches. Looks like the 1st task orders are planned for FY25 Q1 and are SDA-1 and NTO-2. SDA-1 consists of 7 missions planned to launch between FY27 Q1 and FY27 Q3 (Tranche 2 Transport) while NTO-2 consists of an offerer proposed number of launches occurring roughly between FY25 Q3 and FY26 Q4. It also includes updates on plans for Vandenberg and Cape Canaveral.

https://sam.gov/opp/7111789df59149cd81596402c35e33d3/view

Offline deltaV

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2843
  • Change in velocity
  • Liked: 1167
  • Likes Given: 4490
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #147 on: 10/01/2024 03:22 am »
I posted a poll about who will win lane 2: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=61602.0.

Offline deltaV

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2843
  • Change in velocity
  • Liked: 1167
  • Likes Given: 4490
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #148 on: 10/01/2024 07:59 am »
https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1682743141890179072

I just noticed that the phase 3 industry day slides from last year (https://sam.gov/opp/e5d778c9278a47c9a759927901e35bf6/view) slide 48 includes 12 orbits, whereas the tweet quoted above only includes 9.

The extra 3 orbits are all circular:
MEO Direct 2, 55.0 degrees inclination, 6,450 lb, 14,442 nmi semi-major axis
GEO 1.5, 0.0 degrees inclination, 8,000 lb, 22,767 nmi semi-major axis
Retrograde, 120 degrees inclination, 15,000 lb, 7,444  nmi semi-major axis

The first two new orbits appear uninteresting since they're similar to other listed orbits. The third new orbit seems important because 120 degrees inclination seems to require extreme dog-legs to reach from any standard US launch facilities other than Vandenberg and Kodiak.

Edit: GEO 1 is 5000 lb in the slides, 8000 lb in the tweet.
« Last Edit: 10/02/2024 08:57 pm by deltaV »

Online StraumliBlight

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1718
  • UK
  • Liked: 2839
  • Likes Given: 389
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #149 on: 10/04/2024 08:46 pm »
The RFP for NSSL Phase 3 Lane 2 was modified on June 20, 2024. The most notable change to me was the 3rd provider slot no longer specifies which five GPS IIIF missions will be awarded.

The RFP was amended again on September 30th.

Quote from: Para 3.5 LS/LSS/FS: MISSION OPERATIONS
Is: All launches on this contract shall occur from CCSFS, VSFB, or KSC. The Contractor Launch System shall be capable of performing Category B & C missions from the Eastern Range (including missions that require vertical integration, if ordered under subsection 3.8.5.3) and Category B & C missions from the Western Range on this contract NLT 1 October 2026. There is not currently a requirement for vertical integration for missions launching from the Western Range.
« Last Edit: 10/04/2024 08:46 pm by StraumliBlight »

Offline FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 56661
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 93603
  • Likes Given: 43605
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #150 on: 10/18/2024 07:50 pm »
https://twitter.com/spcplcyonline/status/1847360399357919681

Quote
Space Systems Command has made 2  NSSL phase 3 lane 1 task order awards to SpaceX totaling $733.6 million.  One is  for 7 SDA launches.  Other is for an NRO mission.

Online sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7708
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2459
  • Likes Given: 2289
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #151 on: 10/19/2024 03:12 am »
PDF of the announcement here.
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Offline Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39822
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 33662
  • Likes Given: 10411
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #152 on: 10/19/2024 03:58 am »
Text of the announcement.

SPACE SYSTEMS COMMAND Office of Public Affairs (SSC/PA) 483 N. Aviation Blvd. El Segundo, Calif. 90245-2808
Date: Oct 18, 2024 Contact: Media Relations Division Telephone: (310) 653-3145 [email protected]

U.S. Space Force’s Space Systems Command Issues Two (2) Task Orders for National Security Space Launch Phase 3 Lane 1

Summary: First Phase 3 Lane 1 task orders issued under dual-lane acquisition strategy expands launch service provider pool for national security launches.

EL SEGUNDO, Calif. – The U.S. Space Force’s Space Systems Command (SSC) awarded National Security Space Launch (NSSL) Phase 3 Lane 1 Launch Service Task Orders (LSTOs) totaling $733,566,001 to SpaceX. These are the first two NSSL Phase 3 Lane 1 LSTOs issued under an Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract awarded in June 2024. They include one Task Order for seven Space Development Agency (SDA) launches, and one for a National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) mission set.

The SDA-1 LSTO will support the launch of Space Vehicles (SVs) for the Tranche 2 Transport Layer satellite constellation.

The NTO-2 LSTO will support an NRO mission set that will be launched into orbit during 4QFY25 and 4QFY26. The awardee, SpaceX, will launch the NRO mission set from Vandenberg SFB.

“In this era of Great Power Competition, it is imperative to not leave capability on the ground,” said Brig. Gen. Kristin Panzenhagen, program executive officer for Assured Access to Space. “The Phase 3 Lane 1 construct allows us to execute launch services more quickly for the more risk-tolerant payloads, putting more capabilities on orbit faster in order to support National Security.”

“We are excited to kick off our innovative NSSL Phase 3 Lane 1 effort with two task orders that support critical NRO and SDA missions,” said Lt. Col. Douglas Downs, SSC’s materiel leader for Space Launch Procurement. “Industry stepped up to the plate and delivered on this competition. Our innovative dual-lane strategy is enabling a streamlined process from mission acquisition to launch, getting our assets on orbit for our warfighters’ benefit more quickly. Plus, with the ability to on-ramp new providers and systems annually, we expect to see increasing competition and diversity.”

The next opportunity for providers to on-ramp their emerging systems to the Lane 1 IDIQ contract will occur later this year followed by several more Task Order RFPs for launch services in the third quarter of FY25. The Phase 3 Lane 1 award period consists of a five-year base ordering period from FY25 to FY29 plus a five-year option. At least 30 NSSL Lane 1 missions are expected to be competed over the five-year base ordering period.

Space Systems Command is the U.S. Space Force’s field command responsible for acquiring and delivering resilient war fighting capabilities to protect our nation’s strategic advantage in, from, and to space. SSC manages a $15.6 billion space acquisition budget for the DoD and works in partnership with joint forces, industry, government agencies, and academic and allied organizations to accelerate innovation and outpace emerging threats. Our actions today are making the world a better space for tomorrow.
-30-
Media representatives can submit questions for response regarding this topic by sending an e-mail to [email protected]
« Last Edit: 10/19/2024 04:01 am by Steven Pietrobon »
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Offline sstli2

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 171
  • New York City
  • Liked: 222
  • Likes Given: 81
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #153 on: 10/19/2024 01:32 pm »
733 million for 8 launches is 91M. Where do we think ULA's bid came in?

Online gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10815
  • US
  • Liked: 15026
  • Likes Given: 6589
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #154 on: 10/19/2024 02:13 pm »
733 million for 8 launches is 91M. Where do we think ULA's bid came in?

9 launches

Offline Greg Hullender

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 794
  • Seattle
    • Rocket Stack Rank
  • Liked: 584
  • Likes Given: 410
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #155 on: 10/19/2024 02:48 pm »
SSC manages a $15.6 billion space acquisition budget for the DoD and works in partnership with joint forces, industry, government agencies, and academic and allied organizations to accelerate innovation and outpace emerging threats.
I wonder what fraction of that $15.6 billion dollars goes to SpaceX.

Offline AmigaClone

Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #156 on: 10/19/2024 03:08 pm »
733 million for 8 launches is 91M. Where do we think ULA's bid came in?

733 million for 9 launches is 81.5M.

I suspect that ULA's bid to have been between 85-100M, but even if their bid had been lower than SpaceX's the U.S. Space Force’s Space Systems Command didn't have confidence that Vulcan-Centaur would reach needed to launch the missions already awarded as part of Phase 2 and the additional launches in their proposed timeline.

Online gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10815
  • US
  • Liked: 15026
  • Likes Given: 6589
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #157 on: 10/19/2024 03:13 pm »
I wonder what fraction of that $15.6 billion dollars goes to SpaceX.

Rising over 5%?  May depend on who exactly is paying for the Starshield stuff, NRO is a separate bucket.  Launch is a small part of SSC budget.

Online StraumliBlight

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1718
  • UK
  • Liked: 2839
  • Likes Given: 389
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #158 on: 10/19/2024 03:14 pm »
733 million for 9 launches is 81.5M.

I suspect that ULA's bid to have been between 85-100M, but even if their bid had been lower than SpaceX's the U.S. Space Force’s Space Systems Command didn't have confidence that Vulcan-Centaur would reach needed to launch the missions already awarded as part of Phase 2 and the additional launches in their proposed timeline.

The press release stated 8 launches.

They include one Task Order for seven Space Development Agency (SDA) launches, and one for a National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) mission set.

Online gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10815
  • US
  • Liked: 15026
  • Likes Given: 6589
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #159 on: 10/19/2024 03:16 pm »
733 million for 9 launches is 81.5M.

I suspect that ULA's bid to have been between 85-100M, but even if their bid had been lower than SpaceX's the U.S. Space Force’s Space Systems Command didn't have confidence that Vulcan-Centaur would reach needed to launch the missions already awarded as part of Phase 2 and the additional launches in their proposed timeline.

The press release stated 8 launches.

They include one Task Order for seven Space Development Agency (SDA) launches, and one for a National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) mission set.

and where does it say the NRO mission set is one launch?  It gives two dates a year apart for that mission set.

Online StraumliBlight

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1718
  • UK
  • Liked: 2839
  • Likes Given: 389
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #160 on: 10/19/2024 03:40 pm »
and where does it say the NRO mission set is one launch?  It gives two dates a year apart for that mission set.

True and Air and Space Forces magazine concurs.

Quote
Space Systems Command awarded two task orders to SpaceX Oct. 18, covering seven launches for the Space Development Agency’s data transport satellites and an undisclosed number of launches for the secretive National Reconnaissance Office.

Arstechnica and SpaceNews said eight launches.

Online sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7708
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2459
  • Likes Given: 2289
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #161 on: 10/19/2024 06:33 pm »
The press release says the NRO mission set "will be launched into orbit during 4QFY25 and 4QFY26." It doesn't specify the number of launches, but plain reading of the language implies at least two in the set.
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Online gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10815
  • US
  • Liked: 15026
  • Likes Given: 6589
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #162 on: 10/19/2024 11:10 pm »
https://x.com/StephenClark1/status/1847766538482290822
Quote
I've updated this story with additional information from Space Systems Command. There are actually nine launches in these task orders, not eight, at an average price of $81.5 million per mission. Six will launch from Vandenberg, three from Cape Canaveral.

Offline deltaV

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2843
  • Change in velocity
  • Liked: 1167
  • Likes Given: 4490
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #163 on: 10/19/2024 11:41 pm »
A SpaceX tweet confirms it's 9 launches: https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/1847777433954767313
Quote
Falcon 9 was selected by the @SpaceForceDoD to launch nine new national security missions!

Online StraumliBlight

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1718
  • UK
  • Liked: 2839
  • Likes Given: 389
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #164 on: 10/21/2024 10:58 am »
Designation name and launch site clarified in the GovConWire release.

Quote
SDA-1 LSTO
One of the task orders will support the Space Development Agency’s launch of seven space vehicles for the Tranche 2 Transport Layer satellite network. The launches will be designated T2TL-D through J.

Three of the SDA launches will lift off from Cape Canaveral Space Force Station in Florida and the four remaining missions will launch from Vandenberg Space Force Base in California.

Online StraumliBlight

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1718
  • UK
  • Liked: 2839
  • Likes Given: 389
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #165 on: 10/30/2024 08:46 pm »
National Security Space Launch (NSSL) Phase 3 Lane 1 Fiscal Year (FY) 2025 On-Ramp Request for Proposal (RFP) [Oct 30]

Quote
Lane 1 provides awardees who can meet a subset of the NSSL requirements the opportunity to compete for ~30 missions via annual task order competitions.  The NSSL program has implemented a tiered mission assurance approach that inherently accepts a higher risk to mission success to address mission specific needs.

 • For this FY25 on-ramp, the Government intends to competitively award multiple award IDIQ contracts.  These IDIQ contracts will have a four (4)-year basic ordering period and a 5-year option ordering period.  The Government will reopen the original IDIQ solicitation on an annual basis to on-ramp emerging providers.
 • As stated in Attachment 9, Evaluation Criteria, of the FY25 On-Ramp RFP, Offerors must comply with the U.S. Commercial Provider definition of the Commercial Space Act of 1998, Title II P.L. 105-303.  Sec. 2(8)(A) defines US Commercial Provider as organized under the laws of the United States and is more than 50% owned by United States nationals.  See also Sec. 2(2) and Sec. 2(8) of the Act.
 • The FY25 On-Ramp RFP is attached to this notice.  Sensitive RFP documents will be provided via DoD SAFE.  Potential offerors must contact the Contracting Officer, Kirsten Prechtl, and courtesy copy the Contract Specialist, Andrea DeMars, listed in this notice to receive the sensitive RFP documents.
 • Proposals are due by 1200 Pacific Time on Friday, 13 December 2024.

Offline deltaV

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2843
  • Change in velocity
  • Liked: 1167
  • Likes Given: 4490
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #166 on: 10/31/2024 05:08 am »
National Security Space Launch (NSSL) Phase 3 Lane 1 Fiscal Year (FY) 2025 On-Ramp Request for Proposal (RFP) [Oct 30]
I guess this is just the yearly lane 1 on-ramp opportunity that the DOD has been planning for years?

Any US launch company with a launcher capable of 1 ton to 926km minimum (according to https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=55784.msg2506594#msg2506594) that's planned to have the first launch in 2025 is a likely bidder. This includes Neutron and Antares. The initial RS 1 isn't quite big enough but they're planning an upgraded version that will be (https://payloadspace.com/clean-up-in-nssls-lane-1/); it's unclear if the upgraded version will launch in 2025. Firefly Alpha may also be big enough if upgraded; I don't know if such upgrades are planned. Firefly MLV, Nova, and Terran R will probably on-ramp a year from now.

Offline AndrewM

  • Global Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 489
  • United States
  • Liked: 569
  • Likes Given: 947
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #167 on: 11/03/2024 01:46 am »
There was another amendment to the Lane 2 RFP on Oct. 24, 2024.

https://sam.gov/opp/340d8355d29f4f96a15670cd0d8a2d62/view

The most notable change is the quantity of missions planned increased from 49 to 54. A total of 9 new missions were added and 4 were removed including one GPS IIIF. Along with the updated mission count, the distribution per order year was updated.

Offline deltaV

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2843
  • Change in velocity
  • Liked: 1167
  • Likes Given: 4490
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #168 on: 11/05/2024 10:39 pm »
As expected Rocket Lab is apparently bidding for lane 1 this year using Neutron: https://spacenews.com/rocket-lab-confirms-plan-to-bid-for-pentagon-launch-contracts-with-new-medium-rocket/.

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #169 on: 11/06/2024 06:14 am »
As expected Rocket Lab is apparently bidding for lane 1 this year using Neutron: https://spacenews.com/rocket-lab-confirms-plan-to-bid-for-pentagon-launch-contracts-with-new-medium-rocket/.

30 missions for $5.6B = $183m a piece on average. SpaceX has been awarded 7 missions for $733m. Could be very lucrative for RL if they win a few especially as they will most likely bid lot higher than $55m(Neutron list price).

Online gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10815
  • US
  • Liked: 15026
  • Likes Given: 6589
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #170 on: 11/06/2024 10:27 pm »
SpaceX has been awarded 7 missions for $733m.

9 missions

Online ThatOldJanxSpirit

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1006
  • Liked: 1590
  • Likes Given: 3972
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #171 on: 11/22/2024 07:22 am »
USSF Lt. Col. Phillip Garrant states that NSSL Phase 3 Lane 2 awards are on hold until there is a full appropriation. So likely well into 2025.

https://spacenews.com/space-force-adjusts-timeline-as-vulcans-national-security-launches-slip-to-2025/

That would seem quite politically convenient for ULA as they look increasingly unlikely to fly a single NSSL Phase 2 launch on Vulcan this year.

Offline deltaV

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2843
  • Change in velocity
  • Liked: 1167
  • Likes Given: 4490
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #172 on: 01/12/2025 05:17 am »
3 is more than enough competitors to service lane 2.

For best results there should be frequent new entrants to keep the incumbents on their toes. SpaceX made a big difference as a lane 2 new entrant previously and Blue Origin is the current new entrant. I was hoping that Relativity would be the next new entrant, but there are hints that Relativity may not survive due to insufficient money (see Relativity thread e.g. https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40975.msg2653796#msg2653796). So another new entrant is desirable. Maybe Stoke Space will build a lane 2 sized vehicle if their current Nova vehicle is successful?

Online DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7501
  • Earth (currently)
  • Liked: 6099
  • Likes Given: 2553
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #173 on: 01/12/2025 01:50 pm »
3 is more than enough competitors to service lane 2.

For best results there should be frequent new entrants to keep the incumbents on their toes. SpaceX made a big difference as a lane 2 new entrant previously and Blue Origin is the current new entrant. I was hoping that Relativity would be the next new entrant, but there are hints that Relativity may not survive due to insufficient money (see Relativity thread e.g. https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40975.msg2653796#msg2653796). So another new entrant is desirable. Maybe Stoke Space will build a lane 2 sized vehicle if their current Nova vehicle is successful?
(This is a personal perspective based on reading this forum. Feel free to disagree.)
I disagree. USSF's goal for NSSL is assured access to space. Starting at least as early as the formation of ULA, they try to achieve this by awarding enough steady funding to the launch providers to ensure their viability. If you subdivide the funds, you cannot keep all the participants alive. They need one provider with very high reliability. This is currently SpaceX. They feel the need for a second provider. They thought this would be ULA, but Vulcan ended up being five years late. They now need to award 60% of Lane 2 to ULA to keep ULA viable, and 40% to SpaceX to actually launch reliably. Fairness is not a goal. Nurturing new entrants is at best a low-priority goal.

Online VSECOTSPE

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1856
  • Liked: 5686
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #174 on: 01/17/2025 04:59 pm »

It depends on the size of the national security launch market relative to the size of the commercial launch market.

If the former is a small fraction of the latter, the more confidence DOD can have in bringing on more providers and the less expensive it is for DOD to onboard each provider.  That’s more or less the outlook today, although it is tempered by the fact that StarLink is what’s driving commercial launch numbers today.

If there is more parity between the sizes of the national security and commercial launch sectors, as has been the rule in prior decades, then DOD has to be careful about how many providers it can afford to on-ramp and support.  However, being too conservative, as happened with EELV consolidation a couple decades ago, can impose costs that far exceed the risks that conservatism is suppossed to manage.

The real missed national opportunity over the decades has been the failure to consolidate the civil human space flight market (NASA astronaut and supporting flights) with the commercial and national security launch sectors. Although commercial cargo/crew finally made this transition for LEO, the continued isolation of human space exploration in its own industrial base has driven the nation’s flagship human space program into fragile, unsafe, unaffordable, and almost unusable launch solutions, while denying national security and commercial launch providers a market that could have smoothed economic ups and downs and enabled more and more capable providers over the past decades.  It’s unclear whether and when this silo will be torn down.

Offline RedLineTrain

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2873
  • Liked: 2734
  • Likes Given: 11229
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #175 on: 01/17/2025 07:07 pm »
If ULA wins 60 and SpaceX wins 40, SpaceX will sue.

Offline AndrewM

  • Global Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 489
  • United States
  • Liked: 569
  • Likes Given: 947
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #176 on: 02/01/2025 10:43 pm »
Some discussion of phase 3 from SpaceCom 2025.

https://twitter.com/SpaceflightNow/status/1884674287291822322 [Jan 29]

Quote
Col. Jim Horne, Senior Materiel Leader, Launch Execution Delta, Assured Access to Space, Space Systems Command, notes that they can’t talk about the National Security Space Launch (NSSL) Phase 3 Lane 2 contract because it’s still in solicitation.

He says that will hopefully be awarded this year.

Quote
Horne says of NSSL Phase 3 Lane 1, SSC opens up solicitation for onboarding new launch providers each December. They then go onto open competition for task orders.

https://twitter.com/SpaceflightNow/status/1884682947770347622

Quote
Horne says they have 49 missions specified on NSSL Phase 3 Lane 2, which have not yet been awarded.

Lane 1 is not quite as stringent and will be tackled on “a case by case basis” when it comes to integration requirements.

Offline AndrewM

  • Global Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 489
  • United States
  • Liked: 569
  • Likes Given: 947
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #177 on: 02/01/2025 10:45 pm »
Some other discussion from the Space Mobility conference.

Quote
Panzenhagen further noted that the service is planning to begin launches under the next phase of the NSSL program, called Phase 3, in 2025. Those would be under Phase 3 Lane 1, which covers launches to easier to reach orbits, payloads with less mass, and missions that are not absolute must-gos. Lane 1 launch providers also face fewer “certification requirements,” she said, including only having to complete one successful launch meeting Space Force requirements.

For example, while she said that all the data has yet to be collected and analyzed, Blue Origin’s New Glenn rocket is expected to become Phase 3 Lane 1 certified. New Glenn made its maiden launch on Jan. 16.

https://breakingdefense.com/2025/01/space-force-plans-18-nssl-launches-in-2025-including-on-ulas-vulcan/ [Jan 28]

Online DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7501
  • Earth (currently)
  • Liked: 6099
  • Likes Given: 2553
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #178 on: 02/01/2025 10:51 pm »
If ULA wins 60 and SpaceX wins 40, SpaceX will sue.
On what basis? USSF has an explicit mandate to maintain assured access to space, and their assertion that this requires two viable providers is defensible. Also, it's probably not worth SpaceX' time to bother to sue. Also, building a VIF for the FH would be a distraction, so they might quietly let USSF know that they will not sue as long as USSF grants all the missions that require vertical integration to Vulcan, at least until Starship is certified.

Offline RedLineTrain

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2873
  • Liked: 2734
  • Likes Given: 11229
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #179 on: 02/02/2025 03:34 pm »
If ULA wins 60 and SpaceX wins 40, SpaceX will sue.
On what basis? USSF has an explicit mandate to maintain assured access to space, and their assertion that this requires two viable providers is defensible. Also, it's probably not worth SpaceX' time to bother to sue. Also, building a VIF for the FH would be a distraction, so they might quietly let USSF know that they will not sue as long as USSF grants all the missions that require vertical integration to Vulcan, at least until Starship is certified.

On the basis of all of those criteria that "assured access to space" overrode.  I think SpaceX would and should do this for the principle of the matter.

Online DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7501
  • Earth (currently)
  • Liked: 6099
  • Likes Given: 2553
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #180 on: 02/02/2025 03:55 pm »
If ULA wins 60 and SpaceX wins 40, SpaceX will sue.
On what basis? USSF has an explicit mandate to maintain assured access to space, and their assertion that this requires two viable providers is defensible. Also, it's probably not worth SpaceX' time to bother to sue. Also, building a VIF for the FH would be a distraction, so they might quietly let USSF know that they will not sue as long as USSF grants all the missions that require vertical integration to Vulcan, at least until Starship is certified.
On the basis of all of those criteria that "assured access to space" overrode.  I think SpaceX would and should do this for the principle of the matter.
I agree with you in principle: The current situation is not "fair". However, we are where we are, and I think USSF needs to keep ULA on life support until SpaceX or another party can support vertically-integrated payloads from both Vandenberg and CCSFS or until they can remove the requirement for vertical integration.

I don't like it either, but I don't have a solution.

Online Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9271
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10740
  • Likes Given: 12348
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #181 on: 02/02/2025 04:12 pm »
If ULA wins 60 and SpaceX wins 40, SpaceX will sue.
...Also, building a VIF for the FH would be a distraction, so they might quietly let USSF know that they will not sue as long as USSF grants all the missions that require vertical integration to Vulcan, at least until Starship is certified.

Not sure how building something for SpaceX would be a "distraction". They can obviously do multiple things at once, and they likely already have the plans created but are waiting until launch contracts clarify.

However, we are where we are, and I think USSF needs to keep ULA on life support until SpaceX or another party can support vertically-integrated payloads from both Vandenberg and CCSFS or until they can remove the requirement for vertical integration.

While the USAF may have some flexibility to move things around, it is not up to the USAF to decide what companies succeed and which ones die. That is for Congress to decide. And the companies that got themselves into this situation, which is NOT the fault of the U.S. Taxpayer.
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 RedLineTrain

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2873
  • Liked: 2734
  • Likes Given: 11229
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #182 on: 02/02/2025 04:27 pm »
If ULA wins 60 and SpaceX wins 40, SpaceX will sue.
On what basis? USSF has an explicit mandate to maintain assured access to space, and their assertion that this requires two viable providers is defensible. Also, it's probably not worth SpaceX' time to bother to sue. Also, building a VIF for the FH would be a distraction, so they might quietly let USSF know that they will not sue as long as USSF grants all the missions that require vertical integration to Vulcan, at least until Starship is certified.
On the basis of all of those criteria that "assured access to space" overrode.  I think SpaceX would and should do this for the principle of the matter.
I agree with you in principle: The current situation is not "fair". However, we are where we are, and I think USSF needs to keep ULA on life support until SpaceX or another party can support vertically-integrated payloads from both Vandenberg and CCSFS or until they can remove the requirement for vertical integration.

I don't like it either, but I don't have a solution.

You are presenting a solution in search of a problem.  Life support's not 60, it's 40 or less.  Vulcan has plenty of business.

Online DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7501
  • Earth (currently)
  • Liked: 6099
  • Likes Given: 2553
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #183 on: 02/02/2025 05:10 pm »
If ULA wins 60 and SpaceX wins 40, SpaceX will sue.
On what basis? USSF has an explicit mandate to maintain assured access to space, and their assertion that this requires two viable providers is defensible. Also, it's probably not worth SpaceX' time to bother to sue. Also, building a VIF for the FH would be a distraction, so they might quietly let USSF know that they will not sue as long as USSF grants all the missions that require vertical integration to Vulcan, at least until Starship is certified.
On the basis of all of those criteria that "assured access to space" overrode.  I think SpaceX would and should do this for the principle of the matter.
I agree with you in principle: The current situation is not "fair". However, we are where we are, and I think USSF needs to keep ULA on life support until SpaceX or another party can support vertically-integrated payloads from both Vandenberg and CCSFS or until they can remove the requirement for vertical integration.

I don't like it either, but I don't have a solution.

You are presenting a solution in search of a problem.  Life support's not 60, it's 40 or less.  Vulcan has plenty of business.
Fair enough. I do not have access to ULA's books or their negotiations with USSF, so I do not know if they need the traditional 60% to stay alive. I do think that they would be crushed if it were a completely unbiased competition. I think USSF needs them to stay in the game at least until SpaceX can support vertical integration on Starship. After that, they have "assured access to space" even if SpaceX wins all the bids.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 38192
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 22664
  • Likes Given: 432
Re: USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement
« Reply #184 on: 02/02/2025 05:49 pm »

Fair enough. I do not have access to ULA's books or their negotiations with USSF, so I do not know if they need the traditional 60% to stay alive. I do think that they would be crushed if it were a completely unbiased competition. I think USSF needs them to stay in the game at least until SpaceX can support vertical integration on Starship. After that, they have "assured access to space" even if SpaceX wins all the bids.

Therefore stop speculating on the eminent demise of ULA

Tags:
 

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