USSF NSSL Phase 3 Launch Service Procurement

[deltaV]

https://techcrunch.com/2024/02/28/rocket-lab-has-misrepresented-neutron-launch-readiness-congressional-memo-says/

...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."

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/joroulette/status/1801365690206851368

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.

[StraumliBlight]

https://www.defense.gov/News/Contracts/Contract/Article/3806586/

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:

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

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.

[gongora]

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.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/joroulette/status/1801390692360462773

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

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

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.

[deltaV]

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

[deltaV]

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?

[StraumliBlight]

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

[deltaV]

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.

[DanClemmensen]

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.

[deltaV]

https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/space/boeing-passed-nssl-phase-3-bid-space-launch-system

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.

[StraumliBlight]

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

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.

[StraumliBlight]

Space Force Close to New Launch Contracts—But Only If Congress Passes a Budget [Sep 18]

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.

[deltaV]

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.

[sstli2]

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.

[deltaV]

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.

[sstli2]

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.

[sdsds]

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.

[TrevorMonty]

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.

[tbellman]

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.