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.
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1636095723425988608QuoteBruno: 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.
Quote from: FutureSpaceTourist on 03/15/2023 07:08 pmhttps://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1636095723425988608QuoteBruno: 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.
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?
Oops -- got my lanes mixed up . lane 2 for full-range of NSSL missions , not small sat launchers .
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:
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
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.
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." 🤔
OpinionSenate defense panel leaves National Security Space Launch unsecuredErik SeedhouseJuly 13, 2023Erik Seedhouse, Ph.D. is an Associate Professor of Spaceflight Operations at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical UniversityIn 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.
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1679902235998793749QuoteFrom 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.
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):
#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:
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.
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?
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.
Quote from: deltaV on 07/19/2023 12:00 amHas 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/255QuoteAfter 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.