RFP For Five Air Force Launches : GPS x 3, AFSPC-8, AFSPC-12 (FA8811-17-R-0004)

[gongora]

EELV Phase 1A Request for Proposal (RFP) 1A-4

Discussion thread for the draft of the RFP here:
Draft RFP for six AF launches (FA8811-17-R-0004)

Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) Phase 1A Competitive Acquisition for GPS III, AFSPC-8, and AFSPC-12 Launch Services.  One of the payloads from the draft RFP didn't make it into the final version.

[RedLineTrain]

The one that didn't make it to the final RFP was AFSPC-52, for which they required the bidder to have demonstrated 6,350 kg to GTO.

[gongora]

[SpaceflightNow] Air Force selects Atlas 5 to launch multipurpose satellite to high orbit

Proposals are due back to the Air Force no later than August 14. The contracts for the launches are expected to be awarded within about six months.

Further competitions are planned for a batch of five missions — NROL-85, L-87 and L-107, a SBIRS GEO satellite and AFSPC 44 — a standalone fight for AFSPC 52 and one for GPS 3-07.

That represents all Air Force missions needing to purchase rockets through 2020, except for the launches of three large-class NRO payloads that SpaceX has chosen not to contest. Those will be sole-sourced to Delta 4-Heavy rockets to carry in the early 2020s.

[gongora]

The one that didn't make it to the final RFP was AFSPC-52, for which they required the bidder to have demonstrated 6,350 kg to GTO.

Found this quote on the Air Force Magazine site:

That mission was not included in the final RFP because SMC decided that it required “a different set of evaluation criteria,” Claire Leon, director of SMC launch enterprise, told reporters in a conference call on June 30. She expects SMC to release a stand-alone RFP for AFSPC-52 by the end of 2017

Also this from Air Force Magazine:

They also plan to release two more RFPs for a total of seven additional stand-alone launches by the end of the year.

This is from the New York Times:

The new booster [Falcon Heavy] would need to fly successfully at least once before the Air Force would award SpaceX a Falcon Heavy launch contract, three times before any high-priority military satellites would fly on it, Claire Leon, the launch enterprise director for the Air Force Space and Missile Systems Center, told reporters during a conference call.

And this from Florida Today:

"It will be very important for the Falcon Heavy to actually fly," said Claire Leon, Launch Enterprise director at the Air Force's Space and Missile Systems Center, which buys rockets for national security launches.

[cppetrie]

SpaceX will have demonstrated 6700kg to GTO if they can get this darn booster to actually take off. That would mean just a regular F9 could be bid for AFSPC-52, yes?

[gongora]

SpaceX will have demonstrated 6700kg to GTO if they can get this darn booster to actually take off. That would mean just a regular F9 could be bid for AFSPC-52, yes?

Intelsat 35e isn't targeting a specific orbit, so doesn't quite fit those AFSPC-52 draft requirements.  We'll see if the requirements are the same whenever the new RFP comes out.

[gongora]

Good article on both the current RFP and the ones coming up later this year, has a few more quotes that aren't in the other articles.

[SpaceNews] Air Force ask SpaceX, ULA to bid on a five-launch contract

Leon said the service would put out an RFP for AFSPC-52 in August, and another batch of five launches grouped together sometime before the end of the year.

That next group of five launches would include three missions for the National Reconnaissance Office — NROL-85, -87, and -107 — one satellite for the Space Based Infrared Systems missile-warning constellation, and AFSPC-44. Leon said it’s possible that another GPS 3 launch might be added to the group as well.
...
SpaceX, however, would need a heavy-lift vehicle to successfully win some of the upcoming launch bids, Leon said. The company’s Falcon Heavy is not yet certified for military launches.

“It would need to be certified by the time that we awarded the contract,” Leon said. “We want to see one flight, and before we would actually fly a mission we would want to see three flights.”
...
For the first part of the Pentagon’s competitive space launch contracts — dubbed Phase 1A — the Air Force has decided not to allow previously flown boosters for any missions.

[cppetrie]

SpaceX will have demonstrated 6700kg to GTO if they can get this darn booster to actually take off. That would mean just a regular F9 could be bid for AFSPC-52, yes?

Intelsat 35e isn't targeting a specific orbit, so doesn't quite fit those AFSPC-52 draft requirements.  We'll see if the requirements are the same whenever the new RFP comes out.

Does the result of the launch today to an orbit of 43k km apogee for a 6700 kg bird suffice or does it not count because it was a MRS launch?

[Ronsmytheiii]

I wonder if a bidder can submit a dual launch proposal to satisfy the lift requirements for two spacecraft, ULA was working on an Atlas V Dual Launch Capability awhile ago:

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=32308.0

[Targeteer]

http://www.losangeles.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/1328975/final-rfp-released-for-afspc-52-launch-services-contract/#.Wc2JJNwG0Ks.facebook

Final RFP Released for AFSPC-52 Launch Services Contract

SMC Public Affairs / Published September 28, 2017
0
PRINT | E-MAIL
LOS ANGELES AIR FORCE BASE, Calif. --

The Air Force released a final Request for Proposal for an Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) Launch Service supporting the Air Force Space Command (AFSPC)-52 mission.  After extensive industry engagements and government reviews, the final RFP was released on Sept. 28 with proposals due back to the Air Force no later than Oct. 30 in accordance with the solicitation instructions. The contract for this mission is expected to be awarded in Fiscal Year (FY) 2018.

The Air Force will award one firm-fixed price contract that will provide the government with a total launch solution for the AFSPC-52 mission. The award includes launch vehicle production, mission integration and launch operations. The Air Force’s acquisition strategy for this solicitation achieves a balance between mission success/operational needs, and lowering launch costs, through reintroducing competition for National Security Space missions.

“This solicitation marks another opportunity to foster competition on the EELV program in an effort to reduce launch costs while maintaining assured access to space with two or more launch providers,” said Lt. Gen. John Thompson, Space and Missile Systems Center commander.

The Air Force is procuring AFSPC-52, which is a classified mission.  AFSPC-52 is projected to launch in the 4th quarter of FY 2020.
 
This is the fifth competitive launch service solicitation under the current Phase 1A procurement strategy.  The Phase 1A procurement strategy reintroduces competition for National Security Space launch services.

The Air Force Space Command's Space and Missile Systems Center, located at the Los Angeles Air Force Base, California, is the U.S. Air Force's center of excellence for acquiring and developing military space systems. Its portfolio includes the Global Positioning System, military satellite communications, defense meteorological satellites, space launch and range systems, satellite control networks, space based infrared systems, and space situational awareness capabilities.

[Targeteer]

https://govtribe.com/person/dzung-dom-at-us-af-mil/activity

Way too many attachments to attach...

But this one seems most pertinent although I don't see any performance specifics

 The Space and Missile Systems Center (SMC), Launch Systems Enterprise (LE), Los Angeles Air Force Base, CA is releasing a Request for Proposals (RFP) for EELV Phase 1A-5 launch services for the AFSPC-52 mission. The RFP, FA8811-17-R-0005, is included as an attachment to this announcement. All additional sensitive RFP documents and any amendments to the RFP will be posted to the Phase 1A Bidder's Library. Interested contractors may request access to the Bidder's Library by emailing the points of contact listed above in sections 11 and 12 and signing a non-disclosure agreement prior to being granted access. All information in the Bidder's Library is at the unclassified level. Classified documents will not be posted. Interested contractors will contact the Contacting Officer to receive classified documents via the appropriate security measures.

Proposals must be submitted to this office no later than 30 October 2017 in accordance with instructions outlined in the subject RFP. Questions in reference to this RFP must only be addressed to the Contracting Officers, Captain Ashley Cunningham, and Ms. Dzung Dom, at the emails addressed above in sections 11 and 12; the questions and responses may be posted and shared with other Offerors. Classified questions should be vetted through the proper security channels. This is not a small business set-aside; however, responses from small and small disadvantage businesses are highly encouraged. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code for this effort is 481212. The small business size standard is 1500 employees.

The proposed period of performance for this effort is from Authority to Proceed to Initial Launch Capability as detailed in the attached RFP.

[gongora]

http://www.losangeles.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/1328975/final-rfp-released-for-afspc-52-launch-services-contract/#.Wc2JJNwG0Ks.facebook

Final RFP Released for AFSPC-52 Launch Services Contract
...

The solicitation is at:
https://www.fbo.gov/spg/USAF/AFSC/SMCSMSC/FA8811-17-R-0005/listing.html

The mission requirements appear to be classified.  Quickly skimmed a couple of the documents, the only interesting information I saw so far is:

For unclassified proposal responses, the Offeror shall reference the payload as the “AFSPC-52 Payload” and the aft end shall be referred to as the “aft end of the Payload” if referencing is required.
...
If an Offeror is unable to perform calculations utilizing the requirements contained in the Interface Requirements Document (IRD) Table 3.2.2-1, the Offeror may utilize the reference orbit for calculations (27°, 6,350kg to a GTO of at least 35,188km X 185km). If an Offeror chooses this reference orbit, sufficient supporting data to include engineering analysis, technical justification and rationale must be provided to demonstrate the ability to meet the actual orbital accuracy requirement (Ref IRD Table 3.2.2-1).

[Michael Baylor]

United Launch Services, Centennial, Colorado, has been awarded a $354,811,947 firm-fixed-price contract for launch services to deliver the AFSPC-8 and AFSPC-12 satellites to their intended orbit.  This contract provides launch vehicle production, mission integration/launch operations/spaceflight worthiness, mission unique activities, and mission unique options for the AFSPC-8 and AFSPC-12 missions.  Work will be performed in Centennial, Colorado; Decatur, Alabama; and Cape Canaveral, Florida, and is expected to be complete by June 2020; and March 2020, respectively.  This award is the result of a competitive acquisition and two offers were received.  Fiscal 2017 and 2018 space procurement; and fiscal 2018 research, development, test, and evaluation funding in the amount of $354,811,947 will be obligated at the time of award.  The Contracting Division, Launch Systems Enterprise Directorate, Space and Missile Systems Center, Los Angeles Air Force Base, California is the contracting activity (FA8811-18-C-0002).

 

Space Exploration Technologies Corp., Hawthorne, California, has been awarded a $290,594,130 firm-fixed-price contract for launch services to deliver the GPS III to its intended orbit.  This contract provides launch vehicle production, mission integration/launch operations/spaceflight worthiness and mission unique activities for a GPS III mission, with options for two additional GPS III launch services.  Work will be performed in Hawthorne, California; Cape Canaveral Air Force Space Station, Florida; and McGregor, Texas, and is expected to be complete by March 2020.  This award is the result of a competitive acquisition and two offers were received.  Fiscal 2017 and 2018 space procurement funding in the amount of $96,937,905 will be obligated at the time of award.  The Contracting Division, Launch Systems Enterprise Directorate, Space and Missile Systems Center, Los Angeles Air Force Base, California is the contracting activity (FA8811-18-C-0001).

https://www.defense.gov/News/Contracts/Contract-View/Article/1466539//

[gongora]

Exactly one year after the last GPS-III award.  Is that space launch contract day at the USAF?

[vaporcobra]

United Launch Services, Centennial, Colorado, has been awarded a $354,811,947 firm-fixed-price contract for launch services to deliver the AFSPC-8 and AFSPC-12 satellites to their intended orbit.  This contract provides launch vehicle production, mission integration/launch operations/spaceflight worthiness, mission unique activities, and mission unique options for the AFSPC-8 and AFSPC-12 missions.  Work will be performed in Centennial, Colorado; Decatur, Alabama; and Cape Canaveral, Florida, and is expected to be complete by June 2020; and March 2020, respectively.  This award is the result of a competitive acquisition and two offers were received.  Fiscal 2017 and 2018 space procurement; and fiscal 2018 research, development, test, and evaluation funding in the amount of $354,811,947 will be obligated at the time of award.  The Contracting Division, Launch Systems Enterprise Directorate, Space and Missile Systems Center, Los Angeles Air Force Base, California is the contracting activity (FA8811-18-C-0002).

Space Exploration Technologies Corp., Hawthorne, California, has been awarded a $290,594,130 firm-fixed-price contract for launch services to deliver the GPS III to its intended orbit.  This contract provides launch vehicle production, mission integration/launch operations/spaceflight worthiness and mission unique activities for a GPS III mission, with options for two additional GPS III launch services.  Work will be performed in Hawthorne, California; Cape Canaveral Air Force Space Station, Florida; and McGregor, Texas, and is expected to be complete by March 2020.  This award is the result of a competitive acquisition and two offers were received.  Fiscal 2017 and 2018 space procurement funding in the amount of $96,937,905 will be obligated at the time of award.  The Contracting Division, Launch Systems Enterprise Directorate, Space and Missile Systems Center, Los Angeles Air Force Base, California is the contracting activity (FA8811-18-C-0001).

The missions have very different requirements, and the price differential is not exactly news, but it really helps to bring that gap home with the awards side-by-side: $355m for two ULA GEO launches, $290m for three SpaceX MEO launches. I'll be eagerly awaiting the first proposals/awards for an equivalent SpaceX GEO launch to compare these against.

[Newton_V]

The missions have very different requirements, and the price differential is not exactly news, but it really helps to bring that gap home with the awards side-by-side: $355m for two ULA GEO launches, $290m for three SpaceX MEO launches. I'll be eagerly awaiting the first proposals/awards for an equivalent SpaceX GEO launch to compare these against.

GPS are not MEO's from the LV perspective.  The separation orbit is a transfer orbit. (Unlike GPS IIF)

[Michael Baylor]

Interesting that SpaceX bid on the GEO launches. Wouldn't those be best on Falcon Heavy? But FH isn't certified for them. Could an expendable Falcon 9 really pull it off?

[gongora]

Interesting that SpaceX bid on the GEO launches. Wouldn't those be best on Falcon Heavy? But FH isn't certified for them. Could an expendable Falcon 9 really pull it off?

They can bid FH (and have already done it before).  They're just not all that likely to win a contract with it yet.  Hopefully if STP-2 goes well they'll get a shot to use it on one of the Phase 1A launches (if all of the launches haven't already been awarded by then).

[AncientU]

United Launch Services, Centennial, Colorado, has been awarded a $354,811,947 firm-fixed-price contract for launch services to deliver the AFSPC-8 and AFSPC-12 satellites to their intended orbit.  This contract provides launch vehicle production, mission integration/launch operations/spaceflight worthiness, mission unique activities, and mission unique options for the AFSPC-8 and AFSPC-12 missions.  Work will be performed in Centennial, Colorado; Decatur, Alabama; and Cape Canaveral, Florida, and is expected to be complete by June 2020; and March 2020, respectively.  This award is the result of a competitive acquisition and two offers were received.  Fiscal 2017 and 2018 space procurement; and fiscal 2018 research, development, test, and evaluation funding in the amount of $354,811,947 will be obligated at the time of award.  The Contracting Division, Launch Systems Enterprise Directorate, Space and Missile Systems Center, Los Angeles Air Force Base, California is the contracting activity (FA8811-18-C-0002).

Space Exploration Technologies Corp., Hawthorne, California, has been awarded a $290,594,130 firm-fixed-price contract for launch services to deliver the GPS III to its intended orbit.  This contract provides launch vehicle production, mission integration/launch operations/spaceflight worthiness and mission unique activities for a GPS III mission, with options for two additional GPS III launch services.  Work will be performed in Hawthorne, California; Cape Canaveral Air Force Space Station, Florida; and McGregor, Texas, and is expected to be complete by March 2020.  This award is the result of a competitive acquisition and two offers were received.  Fiscal 2017 and 2018 space procurement funding in the amount of $96,937,905 will be obligated at the time of award.  The Contracting Division, Launch Systems Enterprise Directorate, Space and Missile Systems Center, Los Angeles Air Force Base, California is the contracting activity (FA8811-18-C-0001).

The missions have very different requirements, and the price differential is not exactly news, but it really helps to bring that gap home with the awards side-by-side: $355m for two ULA GEO launches, $290m for three SpaceX MEO launches. I'll be eagerly awaiting the first proposals/awards for an equivalent SpaceX GEO launch to compare these against.

I think what is interesting here is that the Atlas V prices are half of what Block Buy plus ELC flights are priced... and the GPS flights are about what ELC alone cost per flight, or much less than half of what BB+ELC prices.

The USAF and taxpayer are winning twice with this competition.

[gongora]

I kinda doubt ULA's ELC payments are going to totally disappear, I bet NRO is still going to be paying it (although probably less than the current USAF + NRO amounts).

[john smith 19]

Good article on both the current RFP and the ones coming up later this year, has a few more quotes that aren't in the other articles.

“It would need to be certified by the time that we awarded the contract,” Leon said. “We want to see one flight, and before we would actually fly a mission we would want to see three flights.”
...
For the first part of the Pentagon’s competitive space launch contracts — dubbed Phase 1A — the Air Force has decided not to allow previously flown boosters for any missions.

Interesting.

So RFP for these close in mid August and SX have to have at least 3 successful FH launches by the time of contract award to have a chance.

USAF say the contract will be awarded "within 6 months" but is that 6 months from now or 6 months after final RFP submission date?

Wikipedia has a 2nd FH launch listed at June 13th but the 3rd is no date for the 3rd FH launch other than "Late 2018"

So, if contract award is within 6 months of now the SX don't have a chance of using FH. OTOH if it's 6 months from August they would seem to have quite a good shot at using FH as an option.

I note the USAF is not permitting flight proven booster stages at this point, suggesting
a) they do not believe that flying a stage previously does not reduce the chances of finding unseen faults or
b) They don't want SX having an "unfair" advantage on price. Which is odd because AFAIK SX policy is not to offer price reductions for using pre flown hardware.

[cppetrie]

Snip

I note the USAF is not permitting flight proven booster stages at this point, suggesting
a) they do not believe that flying a stage previously does not reduce the chances of finding unseen faults or
b) They don't want SX having an "unfair" advantage on price. Which is odd because AFAIK SX policy is not to offer price reductions for using pre flown hardware.

Or c) they have not yet finalized a process for certifying previously flown boosters for launch and therefore don’t have a process in place that can be used.

The Air Force has previously stated on multiple occasions that they have strong interest in booster re-use and are working towards a process that permits it. They just aren’t there yet.

[gongora]

Good article on both the current RFP and the ones coming up later this year, has a few more quotes that aren't in the other articles.

“It would need to be certified by the time that we awarded the contract,” Leon said. “We want to see one flight, and before we would actually fly a mission we would want to see three flights.”
...
For the first part of the Pentagon’s competitive space launch contracts — dubbed Phase 1A — the Air Force has decided not to allow previously flown boosters for any missions.

Interesting.

So RFP for these close in mid August and SX have to have at least 3 successful FH launches by the time of contract award to have a chance.

USAF say the contract will be awarded "within 6 months" but is that 6 months from now or 6 months after final RFP submission date?

Wikipedia has a 2nd FH launch listed at June 13th but the 3rd is no date for the 3rd FH launch other than "Late 2018"

So, if contract award is within 6 months of now the SX don't have a chance of using FH. OTOH if it's 6 months from August they would seem to have quite a good shot at using FH as an option.

I note the USAF is not permitting flight proven booster stages at this point, suggesting
a) they do not believe that flying a stage previously does not reduce the chances of finding unseen faults or
b) They don't want SX having an "unfair" advantage on price. Which is odd because AFAIK SX policy is not to offer price reductions for using pre flown hardware.

That quote sounds like they need 3 flights before actually flying a USAF payload under an EELV contract.  They are already allowed to bid FH for the contracts, but there wasn't a chance in hell of winning one before the vehicle flew, and probably only a slim chance after just the demo flight.  FH is going against well-established launch vehicles from ULA.

For the next big set of contracts the bids have to be submitted in about a month from now, and if they take 6 months to award them then STP-2 should have happened in the middle of that time period.  There may also be a couple more Phase 1A contracts being bid later in the year.  (Summary of the various RFP's can be found here.)

[john smith 19]

That quote sounds like they need 3 flights before actually flying a USAF payload under an EELV contract.  They are already allowed to bid FH for the contracts, but there wasn't a chance in hell of winning one before the vehicle flew, and probably only a slim chance after just the demo flight.  FH is going against well-established launch vehicles from ULA.

Yes, that's exactly how I'm reading the situation. It's The Aerospace Corps 3/5 (or 3/8?) rule.

For the next big set of contracts the bids have to be submitted in about a month from now, and if they take 6 months to award them then STP-2 should have happened in the middle of that time period.  There may also be a couple more Phase 1A contracts being bid later in the year.  (Summary of the various RFP's can be found here.)

The schedule is the joker.  If it's 6 months after solicitations close then SX could (should?) have 3 launches of FH by then.  If not then there isn't enough launch record for them to have a shot with this batch.

[woods170]

I kinda doubt ULA's ELC payments are going to totally disappear, I bet NRO is still going to be paying it (although probably less than the current USAF + NRO amounts).

That would result in yet another lawsuit that would be won (one way or the other) by SpaceX. There is no such thing as a truly competitive environment if the uneven playing field remains in place.
ELC is mandated by law to terminate in 2020 at the latest.

[gongora]

I kinda doubt ULA's ELC payments are going to totally disappear, I bet NRO is still going to be paying it (although probably less than the current USAF + NRO amounts).

That would result in yet another lawsuit that would be won (one way or the other) by SpaceX. There is no such thing as a truly competitive environment if the uneven playing field remains in place.
ELC is mandated by law to terminate in 2020 at the latest.

The current form of ELC will terminate, but I think the vision for EELV 2 included some payments for supporting government specific infrastructure and ULA will soon be maintaining two launch pads solely for NRO use.

[gongora]

https://www.defense.gov/News/Contracts/Contract-View/Article/1468905/

CORRECTION: The contract announced on March, 14, 2018, to United Launch Services, Centennial, Colorado (FA8811-18-C-0002) for $354,811,947 was announced with an incorrect amount.  The correct dollar amount is $351,839,510.  All other contract information is correct.

[woods170]

I kinda doubt ULA's ELC payments are going to totally disappear, I bet NRO is still going to be paying it (although probably less than the current USAF + NRO amounts).

That would result in yet another lawsuit that would be won (one way or the other) by SpaceX. There is no such thing as a truly competitive environment if the uneven playing field remains in place.
ELC is mandated by law to terminate in 2020 at the latest.

The current form of ELC will terminate, but I think the vision for EELV 2 included some payments for supporting government specific infrastructure and ULA will soon be maintaining two launch pads solely for NRO use.

The cost for upkeep of those two pads will be rolled into the cost of launches from those pads. No separate contract for upkeep. In other words: no ELC look-alike.

[gongora]

I kinda doubt ULA's ELC payments are going to totally disappear, I bet NRO is still going to be paying it (although probably less than the current USAF + NRO amounts).

That would result in yet another lawsuit that would be won (one way or the other) by SpaceX. There is no such thing as a truly competitive environment if the uneven playing field remains in place.
ELC is mandated by law to terminate in 2020 at the latest.

The current form of ELC will terminate, but I think the vision for EELV 2 included some payments for supporting government specific infrastructure and ULA will soon be maintaining two launch pads solely for NRO use.

The cost for upkeep of two pads will be rolled into the cost of launches from those pads. No separate contract for upkeep. In other words: no ELC look-alike.

Maybe.  The launches have already been contracted out to at least 2023.

[gongora]

Neither SpaceX nor ULA needs 3 flights to get an award.  They need multiple flights (depending on the particular certification options for that vehicle) before they can carry out the awarded mission.  ULA is developing their vehicle with the highest level of government insight and Tory Bruno recently referenced flying two commercial payloads before they start to fly government missions.  (I bet a STP flight could be one of those if they have trouble finding other customers.)

If the EELV 2 process described by the Air Force actually happens (it hasn't really been funded yet) then the winners will each be guaranteed some flights.

[joek]

No one needs any flights for an award (up to and including Class D payloads).  All they need is an approved plan to achieve certification prior to launch.

[Lars-J]

I kinda doubt ULA's ELC payments are going to totally disappear, I bet NRO is still going to be paying it (although probably less than the current USAF + NRO amounts).

That would result in yet another lawsuit that would be won (one way or the other) by SpaceX. There is no such thing as a truly competitive environment if the uneven playing field remains in place.
ELC is mandated by law to terminate in 2020 at the latest.

The current form of ELC will terminate, but I think the vision for EELV 2 included some payments for supporting government specific infrastructure and ULA will soon be maintaining two launch pads solely for NRO use.

If ULA is pursuing commercial contracts, they will not be solely for NRO use.

[gongora]

I kinda doubt ULA's ELC payments are going to totally disappear, I bet NRO is still going to be paying it (although probably less than the current USAF + NRO amounts).

That would result in yet another lawsuit that would be won (one way or the other) by SpaceX. There is no such thing as a truly competitive environment if the uneven playing field remains in place.
ELC is mandated by law to terminate in 2020 at the latest.

The current form of ELC will terminate, but I think the vision for EELV 2 included some payments for supporting government specific infrastructure and ULA will soon be maintaining two launch pads solely for NRO use.

If ULA is pursuing commercial contracts, they will not be solely for NRO use.

I was talking about the Delta IV pads, which will probably be solely used by NRO for several years.

[john smith 19]

No one needs any flights for an award (up to and including Class D payloads).  All they need is an approved plan to achieve certification prior to launch.

I did not realize that.  It sounds remarkably relaxed, given how much trouble the USAF has gone to to keep ULA in business.

[AncientU]

No one needs any flights for an award (up to and including Class D payloads).  All they need is an approved plan to achieve certification prior to launch.

I did not realize that.  It sounds remarkably relaxed, given how much trouble the USAF has gone to to keep ULA in business.

So, is this a new rule since ULA was awarded the Block Buy?  SpaceX obviously was on track for certification when that award was 'competed'.  (They certified in year zero or 1 of Phase 1 and in year 4 they launched eighteen times.)

[gongora]

No one needs any flights for an award (up to and including Class D payloads).  All they need is an approved plan to achieve certification prior to launch.

I did not realize that.  It sounds remarkably relaxed, given how much trouble the USAF has gone to to keep ULA in business.

So, is this a new rule since ULA was awarded the Block Buy?  SpaceX obviously was on track for certification when that award was 'competed'.  (They certified in year zero or 1 of Phase 1 and in year 4 they launched eighteen times.)

When they were negotiating the block buy SpaceX had a flight rate of every 6 months with a vehicle that was half as capable as what they're flying now.  Looking back at the history of rocket development I can understand the USAF being a little skeptical about SpaceX getting certified soon.

[AncientU]

No one needs any flights for an award (up to and including Class D payloads).  All they need is an approved plan to achieve certification prior to launch.

I did not realize that.  It sounds remarkably relaxed, given how much trouble the USAF has gone to to keep ULA in business.

So, is this a new rule since ULA was awarded the Block Buy?  SpaceX obviously was on track for certification when that award was 'competed'.  (They certified in year zero or 1 of Phase 1 and in year 4 they launched eighteen times.)

When they were negotiating the block buy SpaceX had a flight rate of every 6 months with a vehicle that was half as capable as what they're flying now.  Looking back at the history of rocket development I can understand the USAF being a little skeptical about SpaceX getting certified soon.

Is that less risky than awarding flights on a launcher with not one but two engines that have never flown, with a propellant that has never flown, built by a company that has never flown anything to orbit?

Or just convenient rationalization?

[gongora]

No one needs any flights for an award (up to and including Class D payloads).  All they need is an approved plan to achieve certification prior to launch.

I did not realize that.  It sounds remarkably relaxed, given how much trouble the USAF has gone to to keep ULA in business.

So, is this a new rule since ULA was awarded the Block Buy?  SpaceX obviously was on track for certification when that award was 'competed'.  (They certified in year zero or 1 of Phase 1 and in year 4 they launched eighteen times.)

When they were negotiating the block buy SpaceX had a flight rate of every 6 months with a vehicle that was half as capable as what they're flying now.  Looking back at the history of rocket development I can understand the USAF being a little skeptical about SpaceX getting certified soon.

Is that less risky than awarding flights on a launcher with not one but two engines that have never flown, with a propellant that has never flown, built by a company that has never flown anything to orbit?

Or just convenient rationalization?

The government is getting much more insight into the development of Vulcan than had they with F9 development.  ULA has a history of successfully building and launching rockets for government missions.  The engines for Vulcan will go through a series of tests to make sure they work, and DoD would need to certify the manufacturing as part of the process.  You don't seem to have any problem with that propellant combination when SpaceX says they're going to use it.

[woods170]

So, is this a new rule since ULA was awarded the Block Buy?  SpaceX obviously was on track for certification when that award was 'competed'.  (They certified in year zero or 1 of Phase 1 and in year 4 they launched eighteen times.)

When they were negotiating the block buy SpaceX had a flight rate of every 6 months with a vehicle that was half as capable as what they're flying now.  Looking back at the history of rocket development I can understand the USAF being a little skeptical about SpaceX getting certified soon.

Is that less risky than awarding flights on a launcher with not one but two engines that have never flown, with a propellant that has never flown, built by a company that has never flown anything to orbit?

Or just convenient rationalization?

The government is getting much more insight into the development of Vulcan than had they with F9 development.  ULA has a history of successfully building and launching rockets for government missions.  The engines for Vulcan will go through a series of tests to make sure they work, and DoD would need to certify the manufacturing as part of the process.  You don't seem to have any problem with that propellant combination when SpaceX says they're going to use it.

Although I largely agree with you I do have a minor nit:

BFR/BFS, the vehicle intented to user Raptor, is not up for DoD certification, let alone contract awards.

[john smith 19]

Although I largely agree with you I do have a minor nit:

BFR/BFS, the vehicle intented to user Raptor, is not up for DoD certification, let alone contract awards.

True, although I don't think there's any doubt SX are studying the certification process carefully to ensure there are no "gotchas" that mean they'd have to keep F9 production going because there's something in the BFR design that simply makes certification impossible.

I'm not saying there is, but that's why have to study this stuff carefully.