NASA's LSP issues a draft RFP for Venture Class Launch Services (VCLS)

[Chris Bergin]

May 07, 2015
MEDIA ADVISORY M15-073
NASA Hosts Media Call on Draft Solicitation for New Class of Launch Services

NASA’s Launch Services Program has issued a draft Request for Proposal (RFP) for a new Venture Class Launch Services (VCLS), which would be commercial launch services for small satellites and experiments on science missions using a smaller than currently available class of rockets.

NASA will host a media teleconference at 1 p.m. EDT Monday, May 11 to discuss this strategic initiative, the RFP and the expectation for this class of launch services.

At present, launch opportunities for small satellites -- often called CubeSats or nanosatellites -- and small science missions are mostly limited to ride-share type arrangements, flying only when space is available on NASA and other launches. The Launch Services Program seeks to develop alternatives to this approach and help foster other launch services dedicated to transporting smaller payloads into orbit. The services acquired through such a contract will constitute the smallest class of launch services used by NASA.

Participants in the media briefing are:

    Mark Wiese, chief, Flight Projects Branch, Launch Services Program Business Office, NASA’s Kennedy Space Center
    Garrett Skrobot, mission manager, Educational Launch of Nanosatellites (ELaNa), Launch Services Program, NASA’s Kennedy Space Center

This solicitation, and resulting contract or contracts, is intended to demonstrate a dedicated launch capability for smaller payloads that NASA anticipates it will require on a recurring basis for future science and CubeSat missions. CubeSats already are used in markets, such as imagery collection and analysis. In the future, CubeSat capabilities will include abilities, such as ship and aircraft tracking, improved weather prediction, and broader Internet coverage.

NASA intends to award one or more firm fixed-price VCLS contracts to accommodate 132 pounds (60 kilograms) of CubeSats a single launch or two launches carrying 66 pounds (30 kilograms) each. The launch provider will determine the launch location and date, but the launch must occur by April 15, 2018.

To listen to the media teleconference, call 321-867-1220, 321-867-1240 or 321-867-1260 or listen online at:

http://www.nasa.gov/newsaudio

[tea monster]

Heres for an afordable cubesat armada to blanket the solar system!

[AnalogMan]

Notice and documents relating to this draft RFP can be found here:

https://www.fbo.gov/spg/NASA/KSC/OPDC20220/NNK15542801R/listing.html

(the most interesting document is the 5-page Statement of Work (SOW))

[CameronD]

Notice and documents relating to this draft RFP can be found here:

https://www.fbo.gov/spg/NASA/KSC/OPDC20220/NNK15542801R/listing.html

(the most interesting document is the 5-page Statement of Work (SOW))

Interesting reading indeed.. especially the bit where the Contractor is to make their own arrangements for not just the launch vehicle but the launch site and range services also, and apparently anywhere they choose - not strictly continental USA.

[rayleighscatter]

Those requirements even fall far below the capabilities of the old Scout rocket (210kg).

[TrevorMonty]

Notice and documents relating to this draft RFP can be found here:

https://www.fbo.gov/spg/NASA/KSC/OPDC20220/NNK15542801R/listing.html

(the most interesting document is the 5-page Statement of Work (SOW))

Interesting reading indeed.. especially the bit where the Contractor is to make their own arrangements for not just the launch vehicle but the launch site and range services also, and apparently anywhere they choose - not strictly continental USA.

Not strictly continental USA could be referring to Hawaii and USA territories which are mainly islands eg Guam.
Not sure if it covers other countries eg New Zealand in case of Rocket Lab.

[CameronD]

Notice and documents relating to this draft RFP can be found here:

https://www.fbo.gov/spg/NASA/KSC/OPDC20220/NNK15542801R/listing.html

(the most interesting document is the 5-page Statement of Work (SOW))

Interesting reading indeed.. especially the bit where the Contractor is to make their own arrangements for not just the launch vehicle but the launch site and range services also, and apparently anywhere they choose - not strictly continental USA.

Not strictly continental USA could be referring to Hawaii and USA territories which are mainly islands eg Guam.
Not sure if it covers other countries eg New Zealand in case of Rocket Lab.

I suppose it's easiest to wait for the briefing..  I wonder if a RocketLab rep will attend?

[deltaV]

From the SOW, NASA wants a single flight carrying a 60 kg payload or two flights of 30 kg each to "an orbital altitude of 425 km with an orbit inclination between 33 to 98 degrees" to occur "no later than June 15, 2018".

DARPA ALASA's (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34350.0) is supposed to launch 100 pounds to LEO for $1 million. Assuming that's a due-east 200 km orbit it's unclear whether or not ALASA could meet the 30 kg requirement to the more challenging VCLS orbits.

Virgin's Launcher One can do 120 kg to sun synchronous (http://www.virgingalactic.com/satellite-launch/) for under $10 million. That's a bit pricy though. It's also unclear if Launcher One will be finished by 2018.

The XCOR Lynx looks to be a bit too small and anyway the version with LEO capability (Mark III) presumably won't be ready in 2018.

SpaceX could presumably resurrect Falcon 1 but like Launcher One it's oversized and expensive. Pegasus is another option but it is also too big and too expensive.

Who else in that size class could be ready to launch that quickly?

[deltaV]

Is there any single US launch site that can do the whole range of orbit inclination between 33 to 98 degrees? If not air launched solutions would have an advantage.

[arachnitect]

Who else in that size class could be ready to launch that quickly?

is Generation Orbit (the Learjet launched microrocket company) still active?

[Malderi]

I don't think that proposal means that the launch solution has to work for anything between 33 degrees and 98 degrees, just that you can propose your specific solution, which can meet it. So I could propose something that hits 33 degrees from the Cape, and you can propose something that hits 98 from Vandy, and we'd both be eligible. Maybe I'm reading it wrong, though.

[deltaV]

is Generation Orbit (the Learjet launched microrocket company) still active?

Good point I'd forgotten about them. Their thread is http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=27668 and AFAICT they're still active. They have a "GoLauncher 2" launch vehicle under development in roughly this size class and a "NEXT" contract with NASA to use it. The NEXT contract (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=32591) asks for a somewhat smaller launch vehicle, "15kg to a minimum orbital altitude of 425km with a launch inclination between 0 to 98 degrees", but it seems GoLauncher 2 is capable of somewhat more. I suspect that VCLS was designed in part for GoLauncher 2.

[Galactic Penguin SST]

While I'm sceptical if they could get to the orbital finish line, I wonder if the 2 most talked about companies - Rocket Lab and Firefly are eligible for this one? 

[Danderman]

OK, although this is a wonderful step from a policy point of view, let me play skeptic here and predict that no satellite will ever reach orbit from a rocket procured under this particular solicitation.

Having said that, this solicitation will have a dramatic impact on the small launcher industry, even if nothing is actually procured or launched the first time around.

[QuantumG]

I swear, if there was serious investment for launching payloads using gigantic rubber bands it would only be a few months before NASA announced how they planned to co-opt it. Remember when they announced how they planned to make use of suborbital tourism flights, should they ever actually start sometime perhaps? I doubt Congress will be issuing any edicts to block this one. Is it really so hard for NASA to just wait for services to come to market before jumping on them? Maybe if they did we'd actually see them flying.

[TrevorMonty]

Rocket lab are planning have test launch by end of 2015 and start commercial launches in 2016. I definitely think they will deliver but as for a 2015 launch,  industry history is not on their side.

[Kabloona]

Is it really so hard for NASA to just wait for services to come to market before jumping on them? Maybe if they did we'd actually see them flying.

I'm trying but failing to understand your objection. How does having a paying customer actually impede or prevent that service from coming to market? I'm confused.

For an analogy I'm thinking of Pegasus, which would never have come to market without Orbital having advance commitment from DARPA for the first several launches.

[strangequark]

Incidentally, 33 degrees is the exact latitude of Spaceport America.

[rayleighscatter]

Who else in that size class could be ready to launch that quickly?

Orbital ATK has a big heap of various solid motors which could be paired together in a cheap 2 or 3 stage system, and they already have the supporting infrastructure too. Any other contractor with enough of a military production background could probably cobble together something from existing military production lines (Lockheed Martin, Northrup Grumman, Boeing, etc.)

[strangequark]

Who else in that size class could be ready to launch that quickly?

Orbital ATK has a big heap of various solid motors which could be paired together in a cheap 2 or 3 stage system, and they already have the supporting infrastructure too. Any other contractor with enough of a military production background could probably cobble together something from existing military production lines (Lockheed Martin, Northrup Grumman, Boeing, etc.)

The existing OBV from Orbital would be about right already, plus significant savings to be realized since there's an existing production line that churns them out in quantity. If Orbital goes after this, that would be where I put my money, before a true de novo design.