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

[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.