USAF EELV/NSSL Phase 2 Launch Service Procurement (Winners Announced)

[Coastal Ron]

Blue Origin says it will chase civil space and commercial.  Civil space would also be the only option for Omega, but does NASA want an Omega?  It would support SLS.  For that matter, does NASA want a New Glenn?

Omega doesn't "support" the SLS. It's just a rocket that has intrinsic capabilities, none of which are particularly special or unique.

Looks like ULA put together a cost-competitive bid.  We'll see if SpaceX prices rise now that it will have to jump through all of the DoD hoops.

DoD launches cost more because of their unique needs, but the cost of the basic launch of a Falcon 9 or Falcon Heavy doesn't change.

For instance, SpaceX has to build a Mobile Service Tower for these payloads, so the cost of that will have to be amortized over the life of the NSSL Phase 2 contract. That has nothing to do with the cost of the Falcon 9/H, it is related to the processing of the specialized payloads that need vertical integration.

So looking at a future NSSL launch contract and thinking that SpaceX is raising their prices would be ignoring the differences between an NSSL launch versus a basic Falcon 9/H launch.

[arachnitect]

There was no realistic universe where SpaceX expected to win 60%. This is not surprising, but a big win. ULA was essentially locked in as one of the winners, SpaceX was the one that could have lost out.

I actually don't see it that way. As the only offeror currently flying their offering* SpaceX was in a strong position.

NGIS had a small but real chance of winning. ULA and Blue were offering a new fuel/cycle engine vs. NGIS' solids and RL-10s. Omega was new but NGIS has done tons of government work.

Or, with SpaceX flying and totally dissimilar to Blue, the government could have chosen to take a huge risk on New Glenn.

I think SpaceX was locked in. The contest was just to see if anyone could beat ULA.

*except ULA having some ability to offer Atlas V

[TrevorMonty]

Omega Heavy wouldn't be ready until 2024-2025, leaving those missions to other provider. Also leaves DoD without alternative heavy LV for few years.

[meberbs]

And I agree with others who noted that the NSSL win takes LC 39A away from Super Heavy/Starship.

What are you talking about? I thought I read through all the recent posts on this thread, and none said that. It makes no sense, since we have seen the Starship site plan for 39A and it does not interfere with Falcon launches.

[joek]

Watch SN4 explode again, then think about a rocket more than twice as big filled with 50 times more propellant (or whatever).  It would level the place.  LC 39A is now going to be an irreplaceable National Security Space Launch asset and an irreplaceable NASA crew launch asset .  US Gov is not going to want SpaceX doing its explosive rapid engineering testing anywhere near this site, in my opinion.

Might be worth a separate thread to discuss or conjecture about future pad-site availability (not just for SpaceX).

[yg1968]

I guess SpaceX really are on holiday, not a word from them about the announcement? Not even a tweet from Elon.

I find that a little odd, surely they could have had a prepared statement for release?

Elon didn't tweet about their GLS win either, if it's not Starship/Starlink, he's not interested....

There's also the LSA lawsuit to consider, if SpaceX still want to continue it, they need to be careful about what they say in public. Or they may want to drop it, which also requires careful decision.

I wonder if SpaceX will now drop its lawsuit for LSA. It would make sense for them to drop it.

[gongora]

I may have missed it, what happened to the Adam Smith markup to help Spacex out if they won a phase 2 slot?
Did it go away? Or possibly I never really understood what was going on ;-0

I don't think that made it through the legislative process.

[gongora]

Does this mean that ULA is getting $337M for two flights ($158.5M each) and SpaceX $316M for one flight?

I think it's more accurate to say that ULA is getting $337M for two flights plus fixed costs and SpaceX is getting $316M for one flight plus fixed costs.

Yes, and they should both be getting some more money from NRO.

[Coastal Ron]

So looking at a future NSSL launch contract and thinking that SpaceX is raising their prices would be ignoring the differences between an NSSL launch versus a basic Falcon 9/H launch.

If the NSSL jobs make SpaceX expend first stages, won't that also affect its entire fleet reuse plan?

SpaceX has, for years, advertised the price of putting up to 5.5mT of payload to GTO as $62M. There is no asterisk next to that offering meaning that SpaceX realizes that they may not recover the 1st stage.

As for non-standard services, of course SpaceX may charge more. Pretty much every company would charge more for non-standard services, so I'm not sure why anyone would think SpaceX is being unusual if it does.

I don't see how you easily unwind all of that.

We in the public have never been able to "unwind" DoD launch prices, and we likely never will. That doesn't mean we should automatically assume that SpaceX is sneaking in price increases behind everyones back.

The U.S. Government knew exactly what SpaceX would be charging for the NSSL Phase 2 contract period when they awarded them the contract, and the GAO does pricing audits on large contracts to ensure fair pricing (I've experienced this, and it is pretty thorough). And unless the requirements change SpaceX can't change the prices of their services.

SpaceX may not be able to match ULA's capabilities for unique DoD payloads, but the U.S. Taxpayer should rest easy at night knowing that SpaceX is providing a great value. 

[meberbs]

Watch SN4 explode again, then think about a rocket more than twice as big filled with 50 times more propellant (or whatever).  It would level the place.  LC 39A is now going to be an irreplaceable National Security Space Launch asset and an irreplaceable NASA crew launch asset .  US Gov is not going to want SpaceX doing its explosive rapid engineering testing anywhere near this site, in my opinion.

Might be worth a separate thread to discuss or conjecture about future pad-site availability (not just for SpaceX).

Agree this is getting off topic, so I will just mention that nothing in NSSL would give the authority to block SpaceX use of 39A. If an off chance of destroying pad infrastructure was an issue, then all Falcon launches should be forced to pad 40. (Unlike the Starship pad, Falcons are directly on the launch infrastructure, amount of fuel is less relevant.) And yes, I mean off chance, higher risk early testing is already happening elsewhere.

No more responses on this from me unless it is splintered to a more appropriate thread (or if this somehow gets focused more on topic, but too many of the relevant points are off topic here.)

Edit: This was brought up in another, more appropriate thread for this discussion, though with woods170's response there, not much more to say.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48478.msg2117819#msg2117819

[joek]

Those numbers only cover 2 ULA launches and 1 SpaceX launch in fiscal year 2022. As gongora already stated upthread, no conclusion about the overall cost breakdown can be made from those numbers, especially since it's likely SpaceX included at least part of the expenses of a new VIF and extended fairing development onto that single award for 2022.

Agree.  The award includes NRE/DDT&E (non-recurring engineering / design development test & engineering)[1] plus the per-mission task orders (2 for ULA, 1 for SpaceX).  Breaking out the NRE/DDT&E vs. per-mission task order pricing is not possible based on current publicly available information.

Conjecture: the award to ULA for two mission task orders includes minimal NRE/DDT&E; the award to SpaceX includes significant NRE/DDT&E for extended fairing and vertical integration capabilities, plus one mission task order.

In short: This award amount $Z - $Y (NRE/DDT&E minus prior award carry-over) = $P / Q (number of missions) = $R (approximate per-mission price).  Unfortunately we know only $Z and can only speculate about $Y.  We will not have better insight into $R--or the actual $ split between ULA and SpaceX on an ongoing basis--until we see future task orders / awards.


[1] Some of which was presumably included in the previous award, but we don't know how much has been spent or is being carried forward.

[RedLineTrain]

I guess SpaceX really are on holiday, not a word from them about the announcement? Not even a tweet from Elon.

I find that a little odd, surely they could have had a prepared statement for release?

Elon didn't tweet about their GLS win either, if it's not Starship/Starlink, he's not interested....

There's also the LSA lawsuit to consider, if SpaceX still want to continue it, they need to be careful about what they say in public. Or they may want to drop it, which also requires careful decision.

I wonder if SpaceX will now drop its lawsuit for LSA. It would make sense for them to drop it.

What is the incentive to drop it?  SpaceX seems to lose little from keeping the lawsuit plus challenging the Phase 2 award.

[TrevorMonty]

Omega Heavy wouldn't be ready until 2024-2025, leaving those missions to other provider. Also leaves DoD without alternative heavy LV for few years.

A good point.  Northrop had tested the first and second stages for the base Omega, but not for the biggie.  Of course ULA also has to develop a new upper stage (closely derived though it may be) for Vulcan Heavy.

 - Ed Kyle

ULA still have D4H for high performance missions until Vulcan is ready.

Between ULA and SpaceX all DoD missions are covered with redundant LVs.

If Omega or NG were picked DoD wouldn't have alternative LV for years, especially high performance missions.

[joek]

What is the incentive to drop it?  SpaceX seems to lose little from keeping the lawsuit plus challenging the Phase 2 award.

Because there is nothing to gain from it; water under the bridge. Would SpaceX gain from pursuing? Maybe, but likely little to gain as those contracts are being shut down. (if anything, might be Blue in a better position to challenge.) If SpaceX got what they wanted in the Phase 2 award (which I expect they did), no reason for them to pursue.

[Newton_V]

Wouldn't surprise me if NGIS makes a bid for ULA.  That's how they operate.  When they lose, they just buy up who won.

[RedLineTrain]

Because there is nothing to gain from it; water under the bridge. Would SpaceX gain from pursuing? Maybe, but likely little to gain as those contracts are being shut down. (if anything, might be Blue in a better position to challenge.) If SpaceX got what they wanted in the Phase 2 award (which I expect they did), no reason for them to pursue.

On the contrary, I think they have the 60% slot and Starship certification to gain.

I have never seen SpaceX take the meek approach in national security space.  There has never been any incentive for them to do so.

[ChrisWilson68]

I'll be really interested in reading the justification for giving ULA 60%.

Just speculation, but maybe because ULA has arranged their orbital insertion capabilities, payload handling and scheduling around DOD requirements, while with SpaceX, they're just another customer, and might not get quite the white glove treatment on flexibility? I think that people may discount the desire the DOD has to have a captive provider of launch services focused primarily on their needs, which is essentially what ULA is.

Just because a company has other customers doesn't mean it can't service a particular customer at least as well as a company with no other customers.  In fact, the opposite might well be true, as the company can have more people employed for the other customers who can be pulled off to help with a DoD need on short notice.  Since SpaceX has many customers, they have lots of Falcon 9 rockets around, so if the DoD suddenly needs something, they could react more quickly.

I've never heard the government complaining that SpaceX ever failed to give good service because they prioritized some other customer.  I've never heard any evidence at all that this ever happened.

Presumably there will be a contract debrief, and maybe that will become public.

Yes, I hope so!  It may become public if someone protests this award.

[ChrisWilson68]

I'll be really interested in reading the justification for giving ULA 60%.

Just speculation, but maybe because ULA has arranged their orbital insertion capabilities, payload handling and scheduling around DOD requirements, while with SpaceX, they're just another customer, and might not get quite the white glove treatment on flexibility? I think that people may discount the desire the DOD has to have a captive provider of launch services focused primarily on their needs, which is essentially what ULA is.

Just because a company has other customers doesn't mean it can't service a particular customer at least as well as a company with no other customers.  In fact, the opposite might well be true, as the company can have more people employed for the other customers who can be pulled off to help with a DoD need on short notice.  Since SpaceX has many customers, they have lots of Falcon 9 rockets around, so if the DoD suddenly needs something, they could react more quickly.

I've never heard the government complaining that SpaceX ever failed to give good service because they prioritized some other customer.  I've never heard any evidence at all that this ever happened.

Also, by law, if this was actually a factor that played into the decision, the space force would have had to have disclosed it at the start of the competition, before any bids were submitted.  If so, we would have heard about it, and SpaceX and Blue Origin both would have complained about it.

[Newton_V]

I've never heard the government complaining that SpaceX ever failed to give good service because they prioritized some other customer.  I've never heard any evidence at all that this ever happened.

And you probably never will, as award fee letters aren't public information.  Shouldn't be, anyway.

[ChrisWilson68]

I've never heard the government complaining that SpaceX ever failed to give good service because they prioritized some other customer.  I've never heard any evidence at all that this ever happened.

And you probably never will, as award fee letters aren't public information.  Shouldn't be, anyway.

That's ridiculous.  I wasn't talking about an "award fee letter", I'm talking about just general information about how SpaceX's government contracts have been going.  We hear tons about how these programs have gone, from many different channels.  The idea that the government is somehow unhappy with SpaceX because they have other customers and yet we've never heard a word of it is not credible.