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.

[deltaV]

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?

Rocket Lab has a launcher of about the right size that's supposed to launch this year. They're New Zealand based however and IIRC the solicitation requires 50% of the work to be done in the US. Moving work to the US to meet that requirement would likely be expensive.

Firefly's launcher is a bit big (400 kg to LEO) and pricey ($9 million) but I wouldn't rule them out yet.

[meekGee]

Rocket lab has some customers already, and are at a pretty advanced stage.  If they have a business case, this solicitation will not make a significant change to it.

However, it adds credence to the small-sat market, and so companies at an earlier stage than Rocketlab can point to it when trying to raise funds.

It does no harm, and will be interesting to see how much market actually develops.

[Kryten]

 Could an orbital version of STARS work for this? I've not seen a precise estimate of how much one would be able to launch.

[deltaV]

Yet another possible bidder: SPARK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPARK_%28rocket%29).

[Comga]

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.

I agree that this seems premature at best, but can you explain how you see this as "co-opting" the nascent small launch providers?  A naive view could be that NASA is just becoming the first paying customer, but it is never that simple, is it?

[QuantumG]

I agree that this seems premature at best, but can you explain how you see this as "co-opting" the nascent small launch providers?  A naive view could be that NASA is just becoming the first paying customer, but it is never that simple, is it?

Yup. Look at the Flight Opportunities program or the Innovative Lunar Demonstrations and Data program. What happens when the government becomes their customer? They stop hustling, to focus on the paperwork. All other markets become secondary.

[JH]

Generation Orbit is still going as of about 2 months ago.

[Danderman]

The argument is that NASA may kill the emerging small launcher industry with kindness, ie suffocating the industry by imposing NASA requirements onto a fragile set of companies.

[Kabloona]

The argument is that NASA may kill the emerging small launcher industry with kindness, ie suffocating the industry by imposing NASA requirements onto a fragile set of companies.

I still don't think that logic makes much sense. Did DARPA suffocate Pegasus by committing to buy the first 6 launches?

But if the small launcher companies don't need NASA money because there's sufficient commercial demand and/or development funding without NASA, then they can simply choose not to respond to the RFP. No one has a gun to his/her head.

[Danderman]

The argument is that NASA may kill the emerging small launcher industry with kindness, ie suffocating the industry by imposing NASA requirements onto a fragile set of companies.

I still don't think that logic makes much sense. Did DARPA suffocate Pegasus by committing to buy the first 6 launches?

But if the small launcher companies don't need NASA money because there's sufficient commercial demand and/or development funding without NASA, then they can simply choose not to respond to the RFP. No one has a gun to his/her head.

The reality is that there are a large class of investors who are eager to see the NASA stamp of approval before they put their money in. Now that NASA is planning to issue such "stamps of approval", those companies that don't win are going to have a tougher time securing private investment than those companies that win; more to the point, if they don't win, they are going to have a tougher time securing private investment than if there were no NASA program for small launchers.

[QuantumG]

That's one problem. The other problem is that NASA becomes the brass ring. It's bad for the companies that don't get a lick it, sure, but it's worse for the companies that do. They simply stop innovating, and chasing customers, instead getting their direction from NASA. An example: right now RocketLabUSA is making the bold claim that they will fly once a week. In order to pay up on that drunken boast they'll have to find a lot of customers, cut costs to the bone and streamline their operations. Now imagine NASA says (as they almost certainly will) that they have no interest in launching once a week, but here's a big bunch of money to do paperwork and also could you make a bigger vehicle? *pivot* They're a government contractor now.

[CameronD]

That's one problem. The other problem is that NASA becomes the brass ring. It's bad for the companies that don't get a lick it, sure, but it's worse for the companies that do. They simply stop innovating, and chasing customers, instead getting their direction from NASA. An example: right now RocketLabUSA is making the bold claim that they will fly once a week. In order to pay up on that drunken boast they'll have to find a lot of customers, cut costs to the bone and streamline their operations. Now imagine NASA says (as they almost certainly will) that they have no interest in launching once a week, but here's a big bunch of money to do paperwork and also could you make a bigger vehicle? *pivot* They're a government contractor now.

It doesn't seem all that clear exactly what aspects of a RocketLab flight happen in the US and what will happen in NZ - indeed AFAICT, with the CEO racking up frequent flyer miles it's rather fluid at the moment.

With that in mind, you don't think ITAR compliance might slow them down a bit?!?

[QuantumG]

It doesn't seem all that clear exactly what aspects of a RocketLab flight happen in the US and what will happen in NZ - indeed AFAICT, with the CEO racking up frequent flyer miles it's rather fluid at the moment.

With that in mind, you don't think ITAR compliance might slow them down a bit?!?

I'm not sure why it's relevant to this thread.. they're a US company and are planning to launch ITAR sensitive payloads from US ranges. If they won a NASA contract right now they'd probably stop work on the NZ range.

[Kabloona]

The argument is that NASA may kill the emerging small launcher industry with kindness, ie suffocating the industry by imposing NASA requirements onto a fragile set of companies.

I still don't think that logic makes much sense. Did DARPA suffocate Pegasus by committing to buy the first 6 launches?

But if the small launcher companies don't need NASA money because there's sufficient commercial demand and/or development funding without NASA, then they can simply choose not to respond to the RFP. No one has a gun to his/her head.

The reality is that there are a large class of investors who are eager to see the NASA stamp of approval before they put their money in. Now that NASA is planning to issue such "stamps of approval", those companies that don't win are going to have a tougher time securing private investment than those companies that win; more to the point, if they don't win, they are going to have a tougher time securing private investment than if there were no NASA program for small launchers.

And the flip side of that is, the ones who get the "NASA stamp of approval" are probably the ones who were more likely to succeed anyway, because they were farther along in development, or had better designs, or had better people and/or facilities, and were therefore a better investment in the first place. Isn't that how the market is supposed to work?

And wouldn't you rather see the investment in this market segment concentrated on the few companies most likely to succeed than diffused among a larger number of weaker enterprises, some of whom are unlikely to succeed, with the result that more of the investment gets frittered away, and any one company is less likely to produce an operational vehicle, or if they do, it will take longer?

[CameronD]

It doesn't seem all that clear exactly what aspects of a RocketLab flight happen in the US and what will happen in NZ - indeed AFAICT, with the CEO racking up frequent flyer miles it's rather fluid at the moment.

With that in mind, you don't think ITAR compliance might slow them down a bit?!?

I'm not sure why it's relevant to this thread.. they're a US company and are planning to launch ITAR sensitive payloads from US ranges. If they won a NASA contract right now they'd probably stop work on the NZ range.

It's only relevant if NASA decided to limit suppliers to continental USA for ITAR reasons and saw a connection to NZ as being grounds for disqualification. I was surprised I didn't see any such limitation in the documents (but perhaps it is there and I missed it)...

[QuantumG]

It's only relevant if NASA decided to limit suppliers to continental USA for ITAR reasons and saw a connection to NZ as being grounds for disqualification. I was surprised I didn't see any such limitation in the documents (but perhaps it is there and I missed it)...

Huh? Why would having a subsidiary in NZ disqualify you? Boeing and Lockheed Martin both have subsidiaries in Australia and they seem to have no trouble getting NASA contracts.

 

[Danderman]

And wouldn't you rather see the investment in this market segment concentrated on the few companies most likely to succeed than diffused among a larger number of weaker enterprises, some of whom are unlikely to succeed, with the result that more of the investment gets frittered away, and any one company is less likely to produce an operational vehicle, or if they do, it will take longer?

Well, yes, that is the central planners' argument.

I should note that I don't actually have an opinion one way or the other, I am just laying out the argument.

And, yes, if Orbital were to win a launch contract, they would likely prove me wrong by orbiting something. I don't think the people behind this program intended to give dinosaurs or baby dinosaurs a market for small launch vehicles, but if the "little guys" can't put together a compelling bid, and Orbital does, c'est la vie.

[edkyle99]

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.

Interesting possibility.  It would provide back-door support for missile defense, and Pegasus, and Taurus (Minotaur-C). 

VAB buildup seems incredible overkill for this, or any similar, rocket though.  Here I'm assuming that this is what the new minipad at LC 39B is for.

 - Ed Kyle

[Lars-J]

That's one problem. The other problem is that NASA becomes the brass ring. It's bad for the companies that don't get a lick it, sure, but it's worse for the companies that do. They simply stop innovating, and chasing customers, instead getting their direction from NASA. An example: right now RocketLabUSA is making the bold claim that they will fly once a week. In order to pay up on that drunken boast they'll have to find a lot of customers, cut costs to the bone and streamline their operations. Now imagine NASA says (as they almost certainly will) that they have no interest in launching once a week, but here's a big bunch of money to do paperwork and also could you make a bigger vehicle? *pivot* They're a government contractor now.

That's just a theoretical argument with little (or no) basis in fact. Where are all these small sat customers that you and others claim are out there? Governments are not the ideal customer, but at least they EXIST and have real contracts to offer.

It's easy to sit in an ivory tower and demand that no one should take government money and just stay pure. But since the market is not responding DESPITE claims of low cost and flight frequency, they either close up shop or evolve to fit the *actual* market.

[newpylong]

I agree that this seems premature at best, but can you explain how you see this as "co-opting" the nascent small launch providers?  A naive view could be that NASA is just becoming the first paying customer, but it is never that simple, is it?

Yup. Look at the Flight Opportunities program or the Innovative Lunar Demonstrations and Data program. What happens when the government becomes their customer? They stop hustling, to focus on the paperwork. All other markets become secondary.

There are no other markets.

[Vultur]

How do we know that? I mean, there aren't really any current providers in this class (right?), so how do we know what % of current secondary payloads would become primary payloads if small, cheap launches were available?

[catdlr]

Venture Class Launch Services: Three Companies to Launch CubeSats

Published on Oct 14, 2015
NASA awarded contracts to three companies to build and operate launchers dedicated to CubeSats and small satellites. Firefly Space Systems, Rocket Lab USA and Virgin Galactic are each developing launch systems tailored to the needs of the small satellite community.

[catdlr]

New Vehicles for New Ventures

Published on Oct 14, 2015
NASA hosted a news conference at 1 p.m. EDT on Wednesday, Oct. 14, at the agency’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida to announce the outcome of the Venture Class Launch Service (VCLS) competition. The vehicles expected to meet the VCLS requirement represent an emerging class of commercial launch services for small satellites -- often called CubeSats or nanosatellites -- and science missions that are currently limited to ride-share arrangements, flying only when space is available on NASA and other launches.

[catdlr]

Firefly Space Systems Selected for Venture Class Launches

Published on Oct 14, 2015
Firefly Space Systems, based in Cedar Park, Texas, is developing its Alpha vehicle that uses an aerospike first stage engine powered by refined kerosene and liquid oxygen. The rocket is tailored to payloads weighing about 880 pounds, which means it could launch a variety of CubeSats all at once or a single small satellite or a mix.

[catdlr]

Rocket Lab USA Selected for Venture Class Launches

Published on Oct 14, 2015
Rocket Lab USA, based in Los Angeles, plans to use its carbon-composite Electron rocket to send CubeSats into space. The Electron is powered by Rocket Lab's Rutherford engine, a 3D printed engine that uses batteries to drive its pumps. Electron is designed to loft about 330 pounds to a 310-mile-high, sun-sychronous orbit, so the rocket can a combination of CubeSats or small satellites.

[catdlr]

Virgin Galactic Selected for Venture Class Launches

Published on Oct 14, 2015
Virgin Galactic’s LauncherOne is an air-launched system that can optimize each mission to customer requirements by operating from a variety of launch sites. Virgin Galactic has full, private funding in place for the program, which includes a dedicated and world-class team of 150 experienced aerospace professionals working from a state-of-the-art 150,000 square foot manufacturing and design facility in Long Beach, California.

[Kim Keller]

Latest addition to the LSP "Rocket Garden":

[Galactic Penguin SST]

Latest addition to the LSP "Rocket Garden":

I still wonder which "flower" will blossom and which one will wither.....the major thing that lead to me hesitate on the small LV market is that none of the new LSPs have announced the identity of the claimed payloads they are to carry (except for Virgin-OneWeb which is an "internal" payload). 

[catdlr]

Venture Class Launch Services: Small Rockets Carry Big Dreams


NASAKennedy
Published on Apr 11, 2018

Venture Class Launch Services short film was created by the VFX students at the DAVE School, in collaboration with the NASA Launch Services Program. 
 
Visual Effects Artists:
 
Matthew Bartley
Gabriela Brandes
Jeremy Brouwer
Daniela Campos
Justin Capestany
Cameron Dees
Kyle Garand
 
Gerardo Garcia
Mario L. Garcia
Charmaine Gilbreath
Shelby Hinote
Brittany Hoxie
Gabriel Holguin
Samuel Jean-Baptiste
Jermelle Jovellanos
Mason Koopman
 
Stephen Otto
Gabrielle Perrigo
Shawn Pryor
Andrew Tafuri
Kaitlyn Watkins
Josh Wendler
Dane Williams
 
Directed by: Matt Killian
Written by: Alexander Llanos & Matt Killian
VFX Supervisor: Anthony Marigliano
VFX Coordinator: Monica Duncan
Original Music & Sound Design by: Kays Alatrakchi

[Steven Pietrobon]

Seems like Scout and Pegasus don't get a lookin. :-(