Seriously, the prime factors of 935,009 are 19 and 49,211. Is it plausible Space and Missile Systems Center is paying Blue $49,211 each for 19 different early integration studies?
Quote from: gosnold on 05/08/2019 08:26 amAnyone know where to find the reference orbit and the associated requirements? They were in a table in the draft RFP but I can't find them in the latest one.The table from the the LSA RFP matches what's in the pricing table from Attachment 8 of the LSP RFP but adds options for 9,000 pounds to "MEO Direct 2," 11,200 pounds to "MEO Transfer 2," and 8,000 pounds to "GEO 1.5."
Anyone know where to find the reference orbit and the associated requirements? They were in a table in the draft RFP but I can't find them in the latest one.
Blue Origin was awarded a contract for "Early Integration studies for NSSL Phase 3 Lane 2".https://sam.gov/opp/2ed77639ac3d42928bbbc4d1a3372338/view#descriptionI haven't seen any similar awards to any other new comers, so that looks like confirmation that Blue is the only new company being considered alongside the SpaceX/ULA incumbents.(Edit: changed link to sam.gov)
Quote from: sdsds on 01/03/2024 01:16 amFrom the linked source: "$935,009.00." That's $935k, plus $9 for postage and handling?Maybe it's six full time folks for half a year to come up with some plausible theory how an organization that has existed for 23 years but never launched a single thing into any orbit will magically be able to support national security launches in anything less than a decade from now.
From the linked source: "$935,009.00." That's $935k, plus $9 for postage and handling?
Pentecost said a launch company with a new rocket in development can still be selected if it submits a credible plan showing its vehicle will be ready to fly by October 2026, Pentecost said. That is the start of fiscal year 2027 when Phase 3 missions have to be ordered.If any of the selected launch companies are not able to fly by that date, the missions will be reassigned to one of the other Lane 2 providers. A new entrant like Blue Origin, for example, could be awarded a Lane 2 contract on the assumption that its New Glenn rocket will be operational and certified by October 2026.
So Blue submitted a "credible plan" showing New Glenn will be operational and certified by October 2026.
Quote from: sdsds on 01/04/2024 10:20 pmSo Blue submitted a "credible plan" showing New Glenn will be operational and certified by October 2026.I don't think we can conclude that yet. The Space Force is probably still evaluating Blue's plan. They probably made the recent contract with Blue as a cheap way to hedge their bets in case they find Blue's plan credible when they finish evaluating it later this year. When they do evaluate it they will likely find it credible since Blue can afford to take almost three times the scheduled time and still make October 2026 and if the Space Force rejects Blue's plan they won't be able to make the planned three awards.
Are we sure of that time? "Operational and certified" requires two successful "certification" missions. Those are not NSSL missions. For example Vulcan Centaur is using the Peregrine mission and a Dream chaser mission, and those mission must fly and then be evaluated. Realistically, I think this means the first NG flight must occur by Q1 2026, and then everything must work perfectly. That's two years from now: 24 months.
Quote from: DanClemmensen on 01/05/2024 03:19 amAre we sure of that time? "Operational and certified" requires two successful "certification" missions. Those are not NSSL missions. For example Vulcan Centaur is using the Peregrine mission and a Dream chaser mission, and those mission must fly and then be evaluated. Realistically, I think this means the first NG flight must occur by Q1 2026, and then everything must work perfectly. That's two years from now: 24 months.Good point, I forgot that multiple launches are required for "operational and certified". Blue has quite a bit of margin but not the 3x I said.
Quote from: deltaV on 01/05/2024 03:03 pmQuote from: DanClemmensen on 01/05/2024 03:19 amAre we sure of that time? "Operational and certified" requires two successful "certification" missions. Those are not NSSL missions. For example Vulcan Centaur is using the Peregrine mission and a Dream chaser mission, and those mission must fly and then be evaluated. Realistically, I think this means the first NG flight must occur by Q1 2026, and then everything must work perfectly. That's two years from now: 24 months.Good point, I forgot that multiple launches are required for "operational and certified". Blue has quite a bit of margin but not the 3x I said.Depends on whether you are talking about what is required for contract award vs. flight. Contract award does not require certification. Flight does require that the vehicle be certified. In short, contract can be awarded prior to certification if there is a credible plan (as determined by DoD, NASA, whoever) to achieve certification prior to flight of a mission requiring certification. Hope that makes sense?
Quote from: joek on 01/05/2024 03:42 pmQuote from: deltaV on 01/05/2024 03:03 pmQuote from: DanClemmensen on 01/05/2024 03:19 amAre we sure of that time? "Operational and certified" requires two successful "certification" missions. Those are not NSSL missions. For example Vulcan Centaur is using the Peregrine mission and a Dream chaser mission, and those mission must fly and then be evaluated. Realistically, I think this means the first NG flight must occur by Q1 2026, and then everything must work perfectly. That's two years from now: 24 months.Good point, I forgot that multiple launches are required for "operational and certified". Blue has quite a bit of margin but not the 3x I said.Depends on whether you are talking about what is required for contract award vs. flight. Contract award does not require certification. Flight does require that the vehicle be certified. In short, contract can be awarded prior to certification if there is a credible plan (as determined by DoD, NASA, whoever) to achieve certification prior to flight of a mission requiring certification. Hope that makes sense?It does indeed, and that is where we started. We are discussing the factors the NSSL team (not NASA) must consider to determine the credibility of the plan. Will the NSSL team believe that BO can fly and evaluate two certification flights prior to 1 October 2026, and presumably also build a third NG by then to actual undertake an NSSL mission?This really depends on their internal rules. The industry's track record for meeting schedules for new hardware is a complete joke, but the NSSL team has historically bought into the shared fantasy. ULA was allowed to bid on Phase 2 because they had a "credible plan" for Vulcan to be fully certified before October 2021. A case can be made that it would be unfair to BO for the team to suddenly change the implicit rules and start doing realistic evaluations for NSSL Phase 3.
Quote from: DanClemmensen on 01/05/2024 04:00 pmQuote from: joek on 01/05/2024 03:42 pmQuote from: deltaV on 01/05/2024 03:03 pmQuote from: DanClemmensen on 01/05/2024 03:19 amAre we sure of that time? "Operational and certified" requires two successful "certification" missions. Those are not NSSL missions. For example Vulcan Centaur is using the Peregrine mission and a Dream chaser mission, and those mission must fly and then be evaluated. Realistically, I think this means the first NG flight must occur by Q1 2026, and then everything must work perfectly. That's two years from now: 24 months.Good point, I forgot that multiple launches are required for "operational and certified". Blue has quite a bit of margin but not the 3x I said.Depends on whether you are talking about what is required for contract award vs. flight. Contract award does not require certification. Flight does require that the vehicle be certified. In short, contract can be awarded prior to certification if there is a credible plan (as determined by DoD, NASA, whoever) to achieve certification prior to flight of a mission requiring certification. Hope that makes sense?It does indeed, and that is where we started. We are discussing the factors the NSSL team (not NASA) must consider to determine the credibility of the plan. Will the NSSL team believe that BO can fly and evaluate two certification flights prior to 1 October 2026, and presumably also build a third NG by then to actual undertake an NSSL mission?This really depends on their internal rules. The industry's track record for meeting schedules for new hardware is a complete joke, but the NSSL team has historically bought into the shared fantasy. ULA was allowed to bid on Phase 2 because they had a "credible plan" for Vulcan to be fully certified before October 2021. A case can be made that it would be unfair to BO for the team to suddenly change the implicit rules and start doing realistic evaluations for NSSL Phase 3.ULA only has to complete 2 Vulcan flights for DoD certification since the DoD was heavily involved in the design of it. It's quite likely New Glenn would require more than 2 certification flights.
Another example of space tug domination...https://twitter.com/GoToImpulse/status/1747646045549744318
GEO4,000 kg* 4,500 kg‡GTO7,500kg* 10,500 kg‡…* Assumes launch to LEO (300km circular) on SpaceX F9-5500 (Reusable)‡ Assumes launch to LEO (300km circular) on Relativity Terran R (Reusable)
Quote from: impulsespaceGEO4,000 kg* 4,500 kg‡GTO7,500kg* 10,500 kg‡…* Assumes launch to LEO (300km circular) on SpaceX F9-5500 (Reusable)‡ Assumes launch to LEO (300km circular) on Relativity Terran R (Reusable)Very impressive! …but not quite NSSL GEO standard. Maybe a Terran-R (expended) would hit the 6.6t target, but even then the kick stage probably takes up too much space to still hit the payload fairing payload volume specifications. Maybe for New Glenn / Starship.
Very impressive! …but not quite NSSL GEO standard. Maybe a Terran-R (expended) would hit the 6.6t target, but even then the kick stage probably takes up too much space to still hit the payload fairing payload volume specifications.
...This memo, which was written by Congressional staffers and circulated on Wednesday to other offices, including those in the Senate Armed Services Committee, states that Rocket Lab has “repeatedly assured” these staffers that the company has a credible path to launch by Dec. 15.That is the date by which the Space Force’s Space Systems Command said launch providers must be ready to fly in order to qualify for launch contracts under a program called National Space Security Launch (NSSL) Phase 3.
https://techcrunch.com/2024/02/28/rocket-lab-has-misrepresented-neutron-launch-readiness-congressional-memo-says/
<snip>......So why is Neutron's schedule worthy of Congressional staffer attention?
Quote from: deltaV on 03/01/2024 04:16 am<snip>......So why is Neutron's schedule worthy of Congressional staffer attention?Think that staffer's district don't have a RocketLab footprint or is in Virginia or Maryland. But has the presences of other space industry entities.