Delta IV Heavy NRO Launches 2021-2022

[joek]

Statement of Intent to Sole Source two Delta Heavy Launches to ULS, 7-Dec-2015:

This is a PRE-SOLICITATION NOTICE for information purposes and a statement of intent issued by the Launch Enterprise Directorate (LE) at the Space and Missile Systems Center (SMC).

The Department of the Air Force, Space and Missile Systems Center (SMC) issues this notice to award a sole source contract to United Launch Services, LLC, for launch services for two Delta IV Heavy launch vehicles with an anticipated award date of 1st Quarter Fiscal Year 2018 and with anticipated launch quarters of 3rd Quarter Fiscal Year 2021 and 4th Quarter Fiscal Year 2022. This service includes the manufacture, test, and transportation of the launch vehicles to the designated launch site. The locations of performance are Centennial, Colorado; Decatur, Alabama; and Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida.

Any persons or companies interested in providing Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) class launch services consistent with the launch schedule are to respond to the requirements and submit a statement of their capabilities. This posting will be augmented with a classified notice of each mission's launch vehicle interface requirements on the National Reconnaissance Office's Acquisition Research Center (ARC) 2.0 website.

...

A bit unusual in that these types of sole source notices historically have not been posted until much closer to the expected solicitation or award date.  Then again, times are changing.

Relationship to other acquisition plans is unclear: Phase 1 acquisitions are through FY2017 with flyout ending in CY2019 (or maybe 2020); Phase 2 acquisitions are planned to start in FY2018, but that is not expected to be in place until next year.

[Prober]

Statement of Intent to Sole Source two Delta Heavy Launches to ULS, 7-Dec-2015:

This is a PRE-SOLICITATION NOTICE for information purposes and a statement of intent issued by the Launch Enterprise Directorate (LE) at the Space and Missile Systems Center (SMC).

The Department of the Air Force, Space and Missile Systems Center (SMC) issues this notice to award a sole source contract to United Launch Services, LLC, for launch services for two Delta IV Heavy launch vehicles with an anticipated award date of 1st Quarter Fiscal Year 2018 and with anticipated launch quarters of 3rd Quarter Fiscal Year 2021 and 4th Quarter Fiscal Year 2022. This service includes the manufacture, test, and transportation of the launch vehicles to the designated launch site. The locations of performance are Centennial, Colorado; Decatur, Alabama; and Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida.

Any persons or companies interested in providing Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) class launch services consistent with the launch schedule are to respond to the requirements and submit a statement of their capabilities. This posting will be augmented with a classified notice of each mission's launch vehicle interface requirements on the National Reconnaissance Office's Acquisition Research Center (ARC) 2.0 website.

...

A bit unusual in that these types of sole source notices historically have not been posted until much closer to the expected solicitation or award date.  Then again, times are changing.

Relationship to other acquisition plans is unclear: Phase 1 acquisitions are through FY2017 with flyout ending in CY2019 (or maybe 2020); Phase 2 acquisitions are planned to start in FY2018, but that is not expected to be in place until next year.

even stranger, if kept to the ULA plan this is way past the Delta IV retirement.  So what would ULA do, build the launchers and store them?  Plus the other costs

[Targeteer]

It's interesting that neither launch will be from Vandenberg...

[koyotez]

ULA had said in the spring
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/space/2015/03/15/ula-delta-iv-retire-rd180-russia-spacex/70231994/
That they would retire the single core delta's
I think I recall an article that said they would make the heavies as long as the customer wanted.

An NSF article from a month ago (mars roadmap?) also suggested that NASA would switch to DIVH for heavy lift in the 20s (mars 2020 rover?)

[koyotez]

Chris G. 's article on NASA DIVH  in the 20s
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/09/sls-manifest-phobos-mars-2039/

[Zed_Noir]

Statement of Intent to Sole Source two Delta Heavy Launches to ULS, 7-Dec-2015:

This is a PRE-SOLICITATION NOTICE for information purposes and a statement of intent issued by the Launch Enterprise Directorate (LE) at the Space and Missile Systems Center (SMC).

The Department of the Air Force, Space and Missile Systems Center (SMC) issues this notice to award a sole source contract to United Launch Services, LLC, for launch services for two Delta IV Heavy launch vehicles with an anticipated award date of 1st Quarter Fiscal Year 2018 and with anticipated launch quarters of 3rd Quarter Fiscal Year 2021 and 4th Quarter Fiscal Year 2022. This service includes the manufacture, test, and transportation of the launch vehicles to the designated launch site. The locations of performance are Centennial, Colorado; Decatur, Alabama; and Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida.

Any persons or companies interested in providing Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) class launch services consistent with the launch schedule are to respond to the requirements and submit a statement of their capabilities. This posting will be augmented with a classified notice of each mission's launch vehicle interface requirements on the National Reconnaissance Office's Acquisition Research Center (ARC) 2.0 website.

...

A bit unusual in that these types of sole source notices historically have not been posted until much closer to the expected solicitation or award date.  Then again, times are changing.

Relationship to other acquisition plans is unclear: Phase 1 acquisitions are through FY2017 with flyout ending in CY2019 (or maybe 2020); Phase 2 acquisitions are planned to start in FY2018, but that is not expected to be in place until next year.

even stranger, if kept to the ULA plan this is way past the Delta IV retirement.  So what would ULA do, build the launchers and store them?  Plus the other costs

Does the hi-lite part from the statement of Intent implies that someone else can bid on the flights with hardware equivalent to the Delta IV Heavy?

[joek]

Does the hi-lite part from the statement of Intent implies that someone else can bid on the flights with hardware equivalent to the Delta IV Heavy?

Possibly, although similar verbiage is fairly standard.  A sole source justification and approval (J&A) document would provide more insight, although that probably won't be seen (if ever) until closer to the actual solicitation or award date.

[zubenelgenubi]

It's interesting that neither launch will be from Vandenberg...

To elaborate:

According to the content and discussion in another NSF forum thread Next round of U.S. optical spy satellites to start launching in 2018, the KH-11 replacements will also launch on Delta Heavy vehicles.

We've seen one NROL (deduced?) assigned to this role: September 15, 2018 - NROL-71 - Delta IV-H - Vandenberg SLC-6.  No reference to a second or third launch of the KH-11 replacement (yet).

[gosnold]

It's interesting that neither launch will be from Vandenberg...

To elaborate:

According to the content and discussion in another NSF forum thread Next round of U.S. optical spy satellites to start launching in 2018, the KH-11 replacements will also launch on Delta Heavy vehicles.

We've seen one NROL (deduced?) assigned to this role: September 15, 2018 - NROL-71 - Delta IV-H - Vandenberg SLC-6.  No reference to a second or third launch of the KH-11 replacement (yet).

So it could be big GEO/MEO birds. Since they cannot do it with an Atlas V, that means it's at least 8.5t to GTO (and less than 12t) or 4t to GEO (and less than 6t). Maybe Orion follow-on.

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

With an award date of Oct-Dec 2017 (1st qtr FY2018), 3 FH flights followed by a year certification effort may be a bit difficult. But it is still not out of the realm of possibility. Also this is outside of the block buy as well so the AF is checking to see if there is any plans by anyone (SpaceX) to try for this contract. If not then SpaceX will not be able to complain when they do a sole source. It is also a notice to ULA by the AF that no matter what their plans involving Vulcan that the pad and production for DIVH are to remain open, else they will just sole source every thing starting in 2018 to SpaceX.

[WindnWar]

Statement of Intent to Sole Source two Delta Heavy Launches to ULS, 7-Dec-2015:

This is a PRE-SOLICITATION NOTICE for information purposes and a statement of intent issued by the Launch Enterprise Directorate (LE) at the Space and Missile Systems Center (SMC).

The Department of the Air Force, Space and Missile Systems Center (SMC) issues this notice to award a sole source contract to United Launch Services, LLC, for launch services for two Delta IV Heavy launch vehicles with an anticipated award date of 1st Quarter Fiscal Year 2018 and with anticipated launch quarters of 3rd Quarter Fiscal Year 2021 and 4th Quarter Fiscal Year 2022. This service includes the manufacture, test, and transportation of the launch vehicles to the designated launch site. The locations of performance are Centennial, Colorado; Decatur, Alabama; and Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida.

Any persons or companies interested in providing Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) class launch services consistent with the launch schedule are to respond to the requirements and submit a statement of their capabilities. This posting will be augmented with a classified notice of each mission's launch vehicle interface requirements on the National Reconnaissance Office's Acquisition Research Center (ARC) 2.0 website.

...

A bit unusual in that these types of sole source notices historically have not been posted until much closer to the expected solicitation or award date.  Then again, times are changing.

Relationship to other acquisition plans is unclear: Phase 1 acquisitions are through FY2017 with flyout ending in CY2019 (or maybe 2020); Phase 2 acquisitions are planned to start in FY2018, but that is not expected to be in place until next year.

even stranger, if kept to the ULA plan this is way past the Delta IV retirement.  So what would ULA do, build the launchers and store them?  Plus the other costs

This has been the question that hasn't made sense from a business standpoint for some time for dropping Delta medium. As long as they are still building Delta Heavy, the cost savings of dropping Delta medium doesn't amount to much, it simply eliminates the SRB's and the 4 meter DCSS and its fairing. While that amounts to some savings, it can't be much unless the plan is to build a number of Heavy cores, store them and hope they have enough for any needs until Vulcan with ACES can replace it. If they guess low, would they even be able to restart production, and if they guess high they could end up with extra Delta Heavy cores that no one wants due to price. If they don't end production of Delta altogether than other than some trivial savings associated with the medium parts they wouldn't need, all the other Delta production costs remain, but not having medium does help them argue for more engines for Atlas.

[pippin]

If they store them and aim high, couldn't they just put a centaur on top of the heavy core to make a medium?
I know, Legos.... But with the common avionics and the common payload interface. Ground support interface might be an issue and it might not be worthwhile adapting that for three launches, but maybe 6...

[Prober]

With an award date of Oct-Dec 2017 (1st qtr FY2018), 3 FH flights followed by a year certification effort may be a bit difficult. But it is still not out of the realm of possibility. Also this is outside of the block buy as well so the AF is checking to see if there is any plans by anyone (SpaceX) to try for this contract. If not then SpaceX will not be able to complain when they do a sole source. It is also a notice to ULA by the AF that no matter what their plans involving Vulcan that the pad and production for DIVH are to remain open, else they will just sole source every thing starting in 2018 to SpaceX.

Have you given thought that these missions just might be outside of even what a FH can deliver?

[LastStarFighter]

With an award date of Oct-Dec 2017 (1st qtr FY2018), 3 FH flights followed by a year certification effort may be a bit difficult. But it is still not out of the realm of possibility. Also this is outside of the block buy as well so the AF is checking to see if there is any plans by anyone (SpaceX) to try for this contract. If not then SpaceX will not be able to complain when they do a sole source. It is also a notice to ULA by the AF that no matter what their plans involving Vulcan that the pad and production for DIVH are to remain open, else they will just sole source every thing starting in 2018 to SpaceX.

Have you given thought that these missions just might be outside of even what a FH can deliver?

Sure do wish SpaceX would post some actual performance numbers.

[Jim]

If they store them and aim high, couldn't they just put a centaur on top of the heavy core to make a medium?
I know, Legos.... But with the common avionics and the common payload interface. Ground support interface might be an issue and it might not be worthwhile adapting that for three launches, but maybe 6...

Centaur can't mated horizontally.

[pippin]

If they store them and aim high, couldn't they just put a centaur on top of the heavy core to make a medium?
I know, Legos.... But with the common avionics and the common payload interface. Ground support interface might be an issue and it might not be worthwhile adapting that for three launches, but maybe 6...

Centaur can't mated horizontally.

Couldn't you stack it using the he MST?

[Jim]

Couldn't you stack it using the he MST?

doubt there is a platform at the interface.

[Newton_V]

With an award date of Oct-Dec 2017 (1st qtr FY2018), 3 FH flights followed by a year certification effort may be a bit difficult. But it is still not out of the realm of possibility. Also this is outside of the block buy as well so the AF is checking to see if there is any plans by anyone (SpaceX) to try for this contract. If not then SpaceX will not be able to complain when they do a sole source. It is also a notice to ULA by the AF that no matter what their plans involving Vulcan that the pad and production for DIVH are to remain open, else they will just sole source every thing starting in 2018 to SpaceX.

Have you given thought that these missions just might be outside of even what a FH can deliver?

Sure do wish SpaceX would post some actual performance numbers.

There are many hundreds more requirements than just performance capability.  It could be a handful of other ones...

[pippin]

Couldn't you stack it using the he MST?

doubt there is a platform at the interface.

Yes, sure, it's clear there have to be some changes to pad infrastructure and there's probably a minimum number of flights to make it worthwhile.

[LastStarFighter]

With an award date of Oct-Dec 2017 (1st qtr FY2018), 3 FH flights followed by a year certification effort may be a bit difficult. But it is still not out of the realm of possibility. Also this is outside of the block buy as well so the AF is checking to see if there is any plans by anyone (SpaceX) to try for this contract. If not then SpaceX will not be able to complain when they do a sole source. It is also a notice to ULA by the AF that no matter what their plans involving Vulcan that the pad and production for DIVH are to remain open, else they will just sole source every thing starting in 2018 to SpaceX.

Have you given thought that these missions just might be outside of even what a FH can deliver?

Sure do wish SpaceX would post some actual performance numbers.

There are many hundreds more requirements than just performance capability.  It could be a handful of other ones...

I'm sure there's more than a handful. But still would like to see the number.

[WindnWar]

Couldn't you stack it using the he MST?

doubt there is a platform at the interface.

I'm curious if this was why the idea to use Centaur on Delta never went anywhere? If Centaur could not be mated horizontally, and the pad needed reconfig to mate it vertically, does that also mean that ACES could not either, or would ACES have needed extensive redesign to allow it to be used on Delta horizontally, effectively creating two versions of ACES, one for Delta, one for Atlas, or a single version that was less optimized in order to make it compatible with both.

[Dante80]

With an award date of Oct-Dec 2017 (1st qtr FY2018), 3 FH flights followed by a year certification effort may be a bit difficult. But it is still not out of the realm of possibility. Also this is outside of the block buy as well so the AF is checking to see if there is any plans by anyone (SpaceX) to try for this contract. If not then SpaceX will not be able to complain when they do a sole source. It is also a notice to ULA by the AF that no matter what their plans involving Vulcan that the pad and production for DIVH are to remain open, else they will just sole source every thing starting in 2018 to SpaceX.

Have you given thought that these missions just might be outside of even what a FH can deliver?

For a theoretical discussion. SX has a heavy payload attach fitting good for 24.000lb, and a fairing that has about the same internal width as that of DIVH. Assuming a mass of 10tons and dimensions compatible with the fairing, an expendable FH could put that into GTO.

GEO is a question mark, due to the long coasting period that could gel the RP-1. ULA has said a number of times that SX does not have GEO cap for EELV missions, and Shotwell is on the record that this is patently untrue.

In the end though, performance is only one of the metrics that go into a mission like this. For example, if the birds are to fly in the early '20s, then it is somewhat safe to assume that construction may have started already (or - at the least - design is close to complete). There are a lot of factors that could make the payload incompatible with a certain LV, especially due to the pretty exotic integration and servicing needs a big spy sat may have.

And even if you can work around that, there is always the money question. A payload like this costs multiple billions of dollars, so NRO would want to maximize launch success odds (especially since launching it is a very dangerous part of the mission, as well as not the most expensive part). Reliability and past performance are paramount for something like this.

Would you choose to assign this payload on a largely unproven (by 2018 I presume) rocket?

[WHAP]

Couldn't you stack it using the he MST?

doubt there is a platform at the interface.

I'm curious if this was why the idea to use Centaur on Delta never went anywhere? If Centaur could not be mated horizontally, and the pad needed reconfig to mate it vertically, does that also mean that ACES could not either, or would ACES have needed extensive redesign to allow it to be used on Delta horizontally, effectively creating two versions of ACES, one for Delta, one for Atlas, or a single version that was less optimized in order to make it compatible with both.

OT, but generally the cost of integrating Centaur wasn't deemed to be worth the savings.  These were just a couple of the items to be considered.  I don't recall much discussion of ACES on Delta, although I'm sure it occurred.  Doesn't matter now, since ACES won't fly on either Atlas or Delta, per the current plans.

[Zed_Noir]

Have you given thought that these missions just might be outside of even what a FH can deliver?

It would be surprising if there is a current payload that can be launch by the Delta IV Heavy that can not be launch by the Falcon Heavy in the total expendable mode. IIRC there was some issues about the Falcon Heavy's capability to direct GSO insertion.

[guckyfan]

It would be surprising if there is a current payload that can be launch by the Delta IV Heavy that can not be launch by the Falcon Heavy in the total expendable mode.

Maybe scientific missions beyond Mars where the advantage of a very efficient LH/LOX engine counts.

IIRC there was some issues about the Falcon Heavy's capability to direct GSO insertion.

ULA kept stating that the Falcon family cannot do direct GSO. They said so in Congress hearings. Each time they were immediately countered by SpaceX representatives who said, of course they can. It's a matter of loiter time for the upper stage, not payload capability.

[Zed_Noir]

It would be surprising if there is a current payload that can be launch by the Delta IV Heavy that can not be launch by the Falcon Heavy in the total expendable mode.

Maybe scientific missions beyond Mars where the advantage of a very efficient LH/LOX engine counts.

AFAIK with the exception of the EFT-1 mission. The Delta IV Heavy was not use for any scientific flights by NASA. The future Solar Probe Plus mission in 2018 is the only NASA space probe mission manifested with the Delta IV Heavy. Also the Falcon Heavy is suppose to have better Trans Lunar Injection & Trans Mars Injection mass performances. Probably better performance beyond Mars as well.

But we are getting off topic. Thread is about future NRO missions with the Delta IV Heavy after it's planned retirement date. 

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

The basic problem for ULA is that in order to bid and be awarded the contract the vehicle must be certified. That implies 3 flights and at least 1 year afterwards of review a ~2 year duration after Vulcan first flies in 2019 or 2020. Putting Vulcan able to bid and be awarded for contracts not until 2021 at the earliest. So that implies DIVH would still be in service until 2024 at least if not 2025 if ULA got awarded contracts. Also if ULA can get past the RD-180 problem Atlas would still be flying until 2022 or 2023 due to the same certification related bid problem.

This delay between certification and flying for Vulcan maybe why ULA is pushing the "Ready Launch and "Fast Buy" concepts of laucnh within the same year as purchase and not 2 or 3 years later. For Vulcan this could mean that it could be launching gov payloads much sooner as in 2021-2022 which would be program end for both the Atlas and DIVH not mid 2020s.

This certification problem is also plaguing SpaceX in regards to FH and bidding on these type of contracts. It has been commented by the certification process stakeholders that certification would take less time for FH than it did for F9 from Jan 2014 to May 2015 (16 months period) an almost 1 1/2 years from the third qualifying F9v1.1 flight. But how much less time. 6 months? 12 months? 15 months? If SpaceX has to do 3 qualifying flights of FH when would that occur? Dec 2016? June 2017? Jan 2018?

SpaceX may decide to pass on this one and plan to bid on the next one after FH has flown at least once. I doubt this because the actual bid and award is in late CY2017.

[MP99]

SpaceX bid an F9 v1, but changed that over to a v1.1 for Jason.

Could ULA do a more extreme version - bid DIV, but eventually switch over to Vulcan?

Cheers, Martin

[joek]

There are many hundreds more requirements than just performance capability.  It could be a handful of other ones...

I'm sure there's more than a handful. But still would like to see the number.

Most of those requirements are classified, but by all indications they are potentially substantive enough to require material tailoring of the LV.

Prior to actual contract award, there is typically an "integration study" award (or some such).  The studies require at least a year to complete.  The USG pays for them separately from launch services contracts.  SpaceX has (or now should have) an open contract for approximately 10 such studies; see Falcon 9 Early Integration Studies, 11-Aug-2015.

Interestingly, the time required to perform the integration study has been part of the rationale for at least one sole source awards to ULA.  In particular, it requires the integration study to be completed prior to contract award, "...and cannot be performed in parallel with the build and integration of the launch vehicle and payload..."; see J&A 15-61 for NROL-47 Launch Services, 1-Oct-2015

That strongly suggests that simply determining what will be required for a particular payload takes significant time and effort which varies significantly by payload, and that it may have--and in the case of NROL-47 does have--a material impact on the construction of the LV.

[Rummy]

There are many hundreds more requirements than just performance capability.  It could be a handful of other ones...

I'm sure there's more than a handful. But still would like to see the number.

Most of those requirements are classified, but by all indications they are potentially substantive enough to require material tailoring of the LV.

Prior to actual contract award, there is typically an "integration study" award (or some such).  The studies require at least a year to complete.  The USG pays for them separately from launch services contracts.  SpaceX has (or now should have) an open contract for approximately 10 such studies; see Falcon 9 Early Integration Studies, 11-Aug-2015.

Interestingly, the time required to perform the integration study has been part of the rationale for at least one sole source awards to ULA.  In particular, it requires the integration study to be completed prior to contract award, "...and cannot be performed in parallel with the build and integration of the launch vehicle and payload..."; see J&A 15-61 for NROL-47 Launch Services, 1-Oct-2015

That strongly suggests that simply determining what will be required for a particular payload takes significant time and effort which varies significantly by payload, and that it may have--and in the case of NROL-47 does have--a material impact on the construction of the LV.

yep.

[edkyle99]

That strongly suggests that simply determining what will be required for a particular payload takes significant time and effort ....

I suspect that a lot of the money ends up in the vicinity of the intersection of El Segundo Blvd and Douglas Street.

 - Ed Kyle

[a_langwich]

That strongly suggests that simply determining what will be required for a particular payload takes significant time and effort ....

I suspect that a lot of the money ends up in the vicinity of the intersection of El Segundo Blvd and Douglas Street.

 - Ed Kyle

Time to rent a street-sweeping truck and go vacuum that intersection. 

[Vahe231991]

The basic problem for ULA is that in order to bid and be awarded the contract the vehicle must be certified. That implies 3 flights and at least 1 year afterwards of review a ~2 year duration after Vulcan first flies in 2019 or 2020. Putting Vulcan able to bid and be awarded for contracts not until 2021 at the earliest. So that implies DIVH would still be in service until 2024 at least if not 2025 if ULA got awarded contracts. Also if ULA can get past the RD-180 problem Atlas would still be flying until 2022 or 2023 due to the same certification related bid problem.

This delay between certification and flying for Vulcan maybe why ULA is pushing the "Ready Launch and "Fast Buy" concepts of laucnh within the same year as purchase and not 2 or 3 years later. For Vulcan this could mean that it could be launching gov payloads much sooner as in 2021-2022 which would be program end for both the Atlas and DIVH not mid 2020s.

This certification problem is also plaguing SpaceX in regards to FH and bidding on these type of contracts. It has been commented by the certification process stakeholders that certification would take less time for FH than it did for F9 from Jan 2014 to May 2015 (16 months period) an almost 1 1/2 years from the third qualifying F9v1.1 flight. But how much less time. 6 months? 12 months? 15 months? If SpaceX has to do 3 qualifying flights of FH when would that occur? Dec 2016? June 2017? Jan 2018?

The first three launches of the Falcon Heavy occurred in 2018-2019, and the FH was certified in September 2019 for the National Security Space Launch (NSSL) program.

It is important to note that the penultimate launch of the Delta IV Heavy will take place weeks before the first launch of the Vulcan, in which case the Vulcan will have started its process for being certified for the NSSL program by the time that the last Delta IV Heavy launch is conducted.

Link:
https://spacenews.com/air-force-certified-falcon-heavy-for-national-security-launch-but-more-work-needed-to-meet-required-orbits/

[Jim]

That strongly suggests that simply determining what will be required for a particular payload takes significant time and effort ....

I suspect that a lot of the money ends up in the vicinity of the intersection of El Segundo Blvd and Douglas Street.

 - Ed Kyle

I would say the vicinity of the intersection of Lee and Willard Roads

[Nighthawk117]

That strongly suggests that simply determining what will be required for a particular payload takes significant time and effort ....

I suspect that a lot of the money ends up in the vicinity of the intersection of El Segundo Blvd and Douglas Street.

 - Ed Kyle

I would say the vicinity of the intersection of Lee and Willard Roads

And not far from Conference Center Dr.