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

[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.