NASA Launch Services enabling exploration and technology next.

[Jim]

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=e3411e809ec7f4acb7b0fddc5903fb9f&tab=core&_cview=1

The Contractor shall provide a launch vehicle system for CubeSats as the primary payload that shall be capable of delivering, at a minimum, a total payload mass of 15kg to a minimum orbital altitude of 425km with a launch
inclination between 0 to 98 degrees.

[joek]

Thanks, this is very interesting.  Looks kinda-sorta-like NLS but for launch services dedicated to cubesats (but initially limited to a single launch?)...

1.1 Scope

The NASA Launch Services Program (LSP) is seeking a launch service for Nano-Satellites. This contract will consist of a single launch no later than December 15, 2016.

This Statement of Work (SOW) defines the NASA Launch Services (NLS) Enabling eXploration & Technology (NEXT) Contractor requirements to provide launch services for CubeSat-Class payloads. NASA LSP supports the CubeSat Launch Initiative by providing launch opportunities for well over 50 CubeSats that are currently on the manifest back log.

The Contractor shall provide a launch vehicle system for CubeSats as the primary payload that shall be capable of delivering, at a minimum, a total payload mass of 15kg to a minimum orbital altitude of 425km with a launch inclination between 0 to 98 degrees.

The stipulation for a launch vehicle system for CubeSats as the primary payload, implies they're looking for small class launchers vs. secondaries on medium or intermediate class launchers?  The statement that for well over 50 CubeSats that are currently on the manifest back log suggests NASA is having problems obtaining secondary slots on LV's?

[Prober]

Links real well to this thread... http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=30646.150
 
 

[edkyle99]

I suspect one or both of the following are potential launchers.  SWORDS has already planned to launch from Florida.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=30533.0

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=27685.0

 - Ed Kyle

[spectre9]

What are the smallest orbital launchers based in the United States?

[edkyle99]

What are the smallest orbital launchers based in the United States?

Currently operational would be Pegasus and Minotaur 1.  Those aren't microsat launchers though.  Pegasus can boost 400 kg to LEO and Minotaur can lift more than 600 kg.

The smallest believed to be under development include SWORDS (25 kg LEO), LauncherOne (225 kg), Super-Strypi (250 kg plus), and there are likely others.  Generation Orbit, with its small air-launched rocket plans, was in the news a while back, for example, and who knows what Blue Origin is up to.  There's also that DARPA ALASA program.

 - Ed Kyle

[Robotbeat]

LauncherOne is going to do 225kg to LEO. Virgin Galactic is quite serious about LauncherOne.

[spectre9]

Thanks for that Ed.

Seems like there is a market for under 200kg launches.

I wonder what the Lynx MkII with its little pod on top will do.

[baldusi]

So this is the magical 1M launch system. I mean magical in the level of applications that it will open. A lot of science and applications is limited by the total price. There are lot's of projects that might have atrocious USD/kg, but if the total amount is cheap enough, it could still get done. Let's say that they idea is to launch 9 Cubesats. At 1M it would cost USD 111k per kg. Yet, the total cost of the project could be as small as 150k, and probably easily capped at 250k. That's close to a one year contract for a professor on a university, or about a normal grant research. In other words, you could have a lot of those projects.
Currently, you can launch a cubesat for around 50k, but the launch opportunities are few and you depend on what's available. But the worse part is that since it's not dedicated, you have to make sure that the CS is not a risk for the main payload. Which usually implies horrendous orbits that decay fast. Since CS don't currently have propulsion (but they are working on it), this is an issue.
I think that the most critical issue here will be the total launch cost. It's quite probably that for 10M you could have 50% or even 80% cost reduction on a USD/kg basis. But the demand would hit a wall in that it can't be a dedicated launch.

[HappyMartian]

Thanks for that Ed.

Seems like there is a market for under 200kg launches.

I wonder what the Lynx MkII with its little pod on top will do.

"XCOR predict they would be able to send a payload to a 400 km circular, 28 degree inclined. orbit for a 15 kg payload on an XCOR expended upper stage." 

From: XCOR Aerospace’s multi-talented Lynx spaceplane set for KSC By Chris Bergin  August 27, 2012
At: http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/08/xcor-aerospaces-lynx-spaceplane-ksc/
 

[spectre9]

Thanks HM. Looks like they might have a nice extra revenue stream if XCOR succeed.

[HappyMartian]

Thanks HM. Looks like they might have a nice extra revenue stream if XCOR succeed.

Yep! And if they ever decide to sometimes launch the multi-talented Lynx Mark III spaceplane from Stratolaunch's giant carrier aircraft, they should be able to get a slightly heavier payload into LEO.

Eventually, the whole Lynx spaceplane may become be a reusable LEO vehicle. Time will tell. 

Note:

"Markets for microsat launch services are beginning to develop. As of December 2012, the U.S. government defense department is looking to have the capability to launch a "constellation of 24 micro-satellites (~20 kilograms (44 lb) range) each with 1-meter imaging resolution," through the DARPA SeeMe program."

From: Lynx (spacecraft)   Wikipedia
At: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynx_%28spacecraft%29


Edited.
 

[deltaV]

From https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&tab=core&id=8fccb39fa13700cc6ddadfe3c0884c66&_cview=0 :

"NASA has selected Generation Orbit Launch Services Inc., of Atlanta, Ga., to provide a CubeSat-class launch via the NASA Launch Services Enabling eXploration and Technology (NEXT) contract."

I'm guessing that company will be building the air-launched system described here: http://www.generationorbit.com/golauncher2.html .

Edit: there's a thread for this: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=32972.0 .

[Ben the Space Brit]

Interesting; maybe SpaceX should revisit their decision to indefinitely shelve Falcon-1e as there appears to be a market developing for its payload class.

Naturally, Orbital have a huge advantage here, though.  Minotaur and Pegasus are already proven launchers.

IIRC, Lockheed has negotiated launch rights for the Athena series; would they be useful in this role? It might mean that ULA get a new launcher in their manifest if NASA wants a smallsat launch capability.

[deltaV]

Interesting; maybe SpaceX should revisit their decision to indefinitely shelve Falcon-1e as there appears to be a market developing for its payload class.

...

IIRC, Lockheed has negotiated launch rights for the Athena series; would they be useful in this role? It might mean that ULA get a new launcher in their manifest if NASA wants a smallsat launch capability.

Falcon 1e (1010 kg to LEO) is substantially bigger than Lynx, LauncherOne and similar (15-250 kg to LEO). It's also far bigger than the payloads under discussion (1-20 kg) need. Its price of almost $10 million is also higher than desired. Athena I is about Falcon 1e size and the other Athenas are bigger. I don't see Falcon or Athena competing in this market unless the smaller launchers have runaway costs.

[Ben the Space Brit]

@ deltaV,

The key phrase here is: "Multiple payload launch capability".  Why have multiple super-small launches when you can pile up a 6-10 with common orbits on an LLV and launch them at the same time? It would mean that you are taking up fewer launch opportunities if the number of potential payloads is high.

[deltaV]

@ deltaV,

The key phrase here is: "Multiple payload launch capability".  Why have multiple super-small launches when you can pile up a 6-10 with common orbits on an LLV and launch them at the same time? It would mean that you are taking up fewer launch opportunities if the number of potential payloads is high.

Who on Earth has 500-1000 cubesats to launch all at once? You'd need that many to make full use of a Falcon 1e launch. Even a 15 kg capacity launcher can launch ~10 cubesats at once.

[Ben the Space Brit]

Extra delta-v margin also allows you the ability to launch to multiple orbits with one flight.

I understand what you're saying though about over-capacity. I suppose what I'm saying is that we shouldn't be afraid to challenge assumptions.  It's up to the bidder to provide a business case.