Here is an early study of a methane powered SSME for the shuttle program that we advocate should be looked at again for the SLS and EELV programs
19780006151 (1)
This paper discusses dual mode SSME operations so this encourages my idea that you could cross feed LCH4 into a LH2 core stage on SLS or an EELV and the possibility of researching Gelled LHC4 systems
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/Fuels-And-Space-Propellants/GELLED.htm (2)
The above paper on methane gels in LH2 suggest that the 1978 paper could be modified to incorporate duel fuels with fewer modifications to the hardware and less R&D costs
the idea in more detail in an earlier post below
https://yellowdragonblog.com/2014/11/04/methane-powered-rs-25e-1-5/
my thoughts are you use a dual fuel engine with methane gels in LH2 as suggested in the paper above (Gelled Methane) and that we can use a “dial a fuel” by varying the Mix and or flow rates of gelled LH2 into a LH2 core stage
(2)
Grc.nasa.gov
Gelled Liquid Hydrogen: A White Paper
Grc.nasa.gov,. 2014. ‘Gelled Liquid Hydrogen: A White Paper’. Accessed November 20 2014. http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/Fuels-And-Space-Propellants/GELLED.htm.
(A)(1) Would a California high-speed rail terminating at the San Jose Diderot station fuel BART and Caltrain passengers onto high-speed rail? And how many passengers would result from this combination of connections?
(A)(2) Would these passenger volumes justify a three way partnership between VTA/BART and Caltrain and high speed rail to jointly tunnel under downtown San Jose?
(A)(3) We propose a three way meet up at Alum Rock Station with high speed rail coming up highway 101 from the south;this ads back in the canceled/delayed Alum Rock station
(B)(1) HSR would cover 50% of the costs of the tunnel and Caltrain would cover 20% .VTA/Bart would agree to amortize these costs back down to 1/3 each starting 15 years after service entry date.
(B)(2) Alum Rock special property tax district and high rise mixed use buildings pays for a portion of the station.
(B)(3) Do we want to make it mandatory for all three systems to transfer only at Alum Rock Station at first? I.E no HSR stop at Diderot?(4) HSR does the other downtown stations as in infill only when the San Francisco route is built( HSR would not stop at the downtown station)
(B)(5) HSR bond arbitrage for the tunnel costs involve a trade between VTA/BART feed in passenger levels and VTA/BART taking responsibility for some of HSR bond payments after a period of time.(B)(6)The Value to HSR is the East Bay VTA/BART traffic feed and that is the logic with a common tunnel boring project(B)(7) possibly a passenger might ride the BART system from San Francisco down the East Bay to connect with the HSR without a Caltrain to the transbay terminal connection?
(C)(1) VTA light rail as “infill” (share route with HSR) stations off Highway 101 south of Alum Rock Station( close the loop with Ohlone station or Santa Teresa)(C)(2) HSR and VTA light rail share environmental and planning reports along the highway 101 portion of the route.(C)(3) these eastern neighborhoods could also feed into the proposed HSR Alum Rock station and the VTA/BART stations to the north and East Bay destinations.(C)(4) in some cases it might be a shorter trip for many passengers to ride VTA light rail up the proposed HSR/VTA corridor up highway 101.(C)(5) Run an express from Santa Teresa to Alum Rock to connect east side San Jose to HSR.(C)(6) Caltrains Blossom hill station is a VTA connection so this might be a logical connection from a future incoming VTA from Alum Rock train (C)(7) running a VTA further down highway 101 might not make sense without a lot of urban density, however(C)(8) it could connect with a system from the valley?(C)(9) most likely the HSR it self makes the most logical connection between VTA light rail and any station from the valley where population densities are light such as between Gilroy and Merced
newsroom_July2014_Auth_Awards_Station_Area_Planning_Grant_Gilroy
Click to access Vision_Report_Final_web.pdf
(C)(10) Future VTA light rail could share HSR environmental and planning for a common shared route through to Morgan Hill and San Martin reducing costs to both parties(C)(11) HSR would carry passengers over the 156 corridor as current planning calls for to connect to valley local transit systems.
(D)(1) Santa Cruz
Santa_Cruz-Los_Gatos_Rail_Corridor_study
Recycled wastewater pumped storage power plant planning
- Allocate funding away from proposed Bay Delta projects(the tunnel project) and redirect to total waste water recycling
- Build nighttime recycled waste water storage facilities at elevations above San Vicente reservoir incorporation recycled water into a pump storage power plant.
- Recover recycled water costs to ratepayers by selling power!
- The remainder of recycled water to direct reuse as potable water. This is the capital expensive version of this idea see page 6 for a capital light version!
- Use San Diego manufactured shipping(NASSCO) To transport Alaska water for 40 years to San Diego pumped storage power project
The 2012 San Diego water reuse study did not consider pumped storage energy sales
The 2012 san Diego water reuse study did not consider building or own transport fleet to import water
240 million gallons per day recycled water should be our goal not 80 million per day
Enough to no longer need the EPA waiver for Point Loma
Enough for pumped storage to El capstan and San Vicenti at 80 million per day each!
The proposed El Capitan pumped storage project would be more expensive but again power ratepayers would pay a part of the costs along with water ratepayers!
Recycled water pump storage power plant
Needs 80 million gallon per day storage facility at an elevation above san Vicenti reservoir
Receives water overnight and releases it for morning hour power demand
Needs a right sized pipe to move 80 million gallons over night in less than a 10 hour period
Needs power turbines between storage and the reservoir and between the reservoir and lower elevations
180 MGD split between San Vicente and El Capitan for pumped storage
In the event direct potable use is allowed?
Proceed with pumped storage if;
Power sells make it feasible divert Point Loma plus stored storm water*** to a pumped storage project
Storm water storage would need to handle many days at 320 MGD X 3 days = 660 MG
Gradually empty storm water storage into the water recycling system
*** http://www.water-technology.net/projects/g-cans-project-tokyo-japan/
Winter months total drain water recycling allows for additional reservoir storage of imported water and storm water storage is located close to the proposed pumped storage projects
Run imported water to a pumped storage power plant?
This would be a San Diego aqueduct pumped storage project
http://www.sdcwa.org/sites/default/files/files/projects-facilities-ops/aqueduct-operating-plan.pdf
Decentralized distributed recycled water pumped storage power plants
These would be direct recycled potable water and recycled storm water that is stored overnight as part of pumped storage power plant.This replaces the proposed San Vicenti and El Capitan recycled water pumped power plants.An example would be the North plant recycled water and recycled stormwater would be stored overnight atop Soledad mountain in La Jolla and would produce power the next day at peak periods.Another example would be Sweetwater reservoir and El Cajon mountain pumped storage combined with the south bay recycled water plant.
Candidate sites
Mount Soledad la jolla
Mount El Cajon
Rodrigues mountain
Helix water district
North plant
South plant
Escondido project
Helix mountain
Alaskan LGN & water transported by ship, powers waste water pumped storage
Ships built in San Diego By NASSCO, As many as 5 ships at $100 Million apiece
$500 Million
10 ships at $75 Million per unit $750 Million delivered over 20 years and amortized over 40 years per ship
$20 Million per year plus operations and water purchase costs
15 ships at $1.25 billion should deliver amortization costs and operations costs of under $100 Million per year for 40 years
http://conversionai.com/unit/volume/ton-displacement/acre-foot
http://www.convertunits.com/from/gallons/to/acre+foot
So the San Diego desalination plant at 50 MGD equals to 154 acre feet per day while one ship with 200,000 tons of water equals out to 160 acre feet.The San Diego desalination plant at 50 MGD equals 10% of the region’s water supply.Water transported by ship would be the worlds most expensive so the goal should be to have this supply at less than 10% of water delivered so as to reduce the burden on San Diego water rate payers while at the same time stimulating San Diego ship building with mass-produced ships.
18 ships at 200,000 tons of water each day would be about 11% of San Diego’s water supply so lets half that amount to 9 ships arriving in port every other day and Sitka Alaska is 7 days travel time to San Diego.9 ships built in San Diego’s NASSCO ship yard represents a bulk buy so we should receive a discount that represents under $100 million per ship so 9 x $80 Million is $710 Million with a ship delivered every 2 years this is a build out over 18 years and each ship amortized over 40 years.this would be a 60 year payout period.The ships would cost $45 Million per year plus operations costs after the 18 year build out period ended
Dual manifested LGN/Water carrier ships?
This would open the doors to a lot of possibilities; such ships could transfer Alaskan North slope LGN without a $8 Billion pipeline.The ships would also be built in San Diego to deliver LGN to San Diego.If the ships could be designed to carry both water and LGN on separate voyages we could amortize costs between San Diego water and power ratepayers and inject billions more into a San Diego mass produced shipbuilding industry
The north slope is 15 days by sea to San Diego so a ship arriving every day would be 30 ships at sea at any given time, most likely we do not need a ship a day.A shipment every other day would be a fleet of 15 ships but let’s have that again since PG&E already has an existing long-term supplier.8 ships delivered from the NASSCO ship yard further increases the rate of launch to perhaps 1 per year when combined with water delivery needs
LGN would be delivered to San Diego Gas & Electric and Southern California Gas company both SEMPRA company operating units,if the Southern California gas company unit has LGN delivered to it then this might be the bases for a fleet of larger than 8 ships. Ratepayers of Southern California Gas company would want to know that we would do ship repairs and refurbishing in the rate payers territory
The first LGN/water carrier ship shall be named the Robert Estavillo my foster father and WW-2 veteran who worked at NASSCO for 30 years in San Diego, the second LGN/water ship shall be named the Patrick B Miller my step father who also a WW-2 veteran worked in San Diego for 30 years for Teledyne Ryan The third LGN/water carrier ship shall be named the Don W rappolee also a WW-2 veteran who served as a medical corpsman at the Balboa park hospital
Terrestrial & Cislunar Exploration technologies, A post 9/11 Veteran owned concern
(A)(1) Design an engine that can except a narrow range of LH2 Methane gelled slushes and crossfeed methane CBC into a LH2 core stage,
(A)(2) This configuration assumes that the Core stage LH2 RS-25E can burn in the first few minutes of flight a diluted crossfeed Methane or Methane gelled in LH2
(A)(3) after the more dense fueled CBC’s separate the core stage flys on with only LH2, does this burn off any coking?
(A)(4) The alternative is a LNG with a large Propane mix CBC with no crossfeed
(A)(5) This CBC in (4) becomes the bases for a EELV system
(B))(1) If The Japanese were to contribute to A methane powered SLS EUS then japan would receive in exchange for this contribution Japanese astronauts in BEO missions
http://global.jaxa.jp/projects/engineering/components/lng/index.html
http://www.ihi.co.jp/ia/en/research.html
selenianboondocks.com/2013/11/random-thoughts-integral-payload-fairing-habitats-as-an-alternative-to-inflatables/
http://www.dlr.de/Portaldata/55/Resources/dokumente/sart/0095-0212prop.pdf
Navaho Air and army National Guard
The Constitution calls for the states to have a well-regulated militia however the congress has established guard units in the district of Columbia and most of the territory’s
Guam
http://gu.ng.mil/Pages/Default.aspx
virgin Islands
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Islands_National_Guard
Puerto Rico
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puerto_Rico_National_Guard
District of Columbia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_National_Guard
How to extend legal statutes to a guard unit on a native american government?
the best way would be to provide for this would be through a treaty and adoption by congress of the treaty.native american treaty rights are well established through the federal courts and provide some sovereignty VS the rights of states.30 % of the AGR and civilian civil service slots could be hired under the OPM native american set aside rules.
reestablish the code talker language branch as a 10% set aside OPM rule in a partnership with the NSA and the qualifications for these military and civil service positions would be Navajo language abilities
establish a full service VA hospital along with my proposed VA guard/reserve joint associates unit program;
The guard reserve Veterans administration associate unit program
The guard reserve Veterans administration associate unit program
A proposed program to base an armed forces medical command unit at every Veterans administration hospital and clinic.
proposal inspired by the Air force/Guard associate unit program and the joint forces bases program.
veteran patient population and veteran administration hospital buildings and medical equipment would be the base of unlimited opportunities for reserve guard medical command units and personal.
partnerships between active duty and civil service veterans administration employees and reserve guard unit administrators could lead to unique and novel ideas and techniques for deployment,and demobilization.
Hypothesis; each component manufacturer masters the art of mass producing one of its products and contributes them to a commonly owned corporation that assembles the mass produced spacecraft,the effort is t0 reduce costs.The corporation then sells science data obtained or sovereign sales
please enjoy these powerpoints
The use of mass manufactured NEO Scout
CubeSat’s0930_Thu_Castillo_NEAScout (1)
transform the mars lander network to a rover
The ARM will be a challenging system to develop and there will be costs, Brophy compares GEO Comsats with the current state of the art and the proposed ARM
is there a middle ground?
perhaps an all-electric comsat could carry Xenon tanks in place of the communications payload with alternative missions such as a tug or surveillance missions. gradually the systems would be upgraded as ARM infused technologies become available. Brophy writes the opposite ARM will infuse commercial comsats! I think both are true.
Comsat space act agreements,NASA/DARPA/NRO want ARM technologies transfused into the commercial comsat industry in exchange for a Mini-Me Comsat based ARM/surveillance.tug/refueling/repair capability
So camsat companies want in exchange an actual mission flown in exchange for the space act funding they employed
space systems loral
Lockheed Martin Space Systems
Boeing Satellite Development Center
this space act agreement should be for the commercial procurement of three items or goals
A a modest NEO or boulder
B transfer a decommissioned comsat into solar orbit with the return of the tug to LEO
C refueling a comsat
this commercial ARM based vehicle should have infused at least 1/3 of the capabilities of the ARM subsystems
Osiris-REx-II and NEO Scout-II joint operations with ARM (asteroid redirect mission)
and sunjammer has been canceled
Proposed conops,
(A)(1) ARM flies after Osiris-REx has departed its target or has stopped operating so a second is built
(A)(2) this Osiris-REx-II has a grapple point
(A)(3) The Orion translation boom is flown on the ARM instead with the ability to grapple Osiris-REx-II at asteroid departure
(A)(4) Osiris-REx-II assist ARM with visual observations of the ARM asteroid approach and capture
(A)(5) ARM would grapple Osiris-REx-II at asteroid departure/capture and transport the spacecraft to the vicinity of a second asteroid and released.*** This is the chosen option
(A)(6) Arm or OSIRIS-REx needs the Electra radio
secondary alternative,
(B)(1) NEO Scout-II performs the above mission along with the ARM mission
(B)(2) build a copy of NEO scout or fly the first NEO scout for joint operations with ARM
(B)(3) ARM needs the electra space communications system to communicate with NEO Scout
Both A and B above most likely involve Osiris-REx and or NEO Scout arriving first to verify asteroid characteristics and rotation rates to better inform suitability for ARM
Third alternative
Osiris-REx and NEO Scout joint operations proposal
(C)(1) Fly the approved Osiris-REx mission with a Electra radio on board and formation fly with a no more than .5 AU distance with NEO scout to the same target or possibly two targets
(C)(2) At earth departure NEO Scout leaves first, design a trajectory for a later launch of OSIRIS-REX that zigzags ahead of and behind NEO Scout or vice versa by a million kilometers when NEO Scout exceeds .5 AU. Electra radio should work well enough at 600,000 kilometers so that this range is met occasionally but does not have to be constantly maintained
Challenges;
AR&D between these spacecraft with the boom and transport to another target (A)(1) through (A)(5)
Osiris-REx on a ballistic trajectory with chemical engine TMI and the NEO Scout solar Sail tracking the solar wind need to keep with in 500,000 K for communications, unless with in .5 AU of earth (B)(1) through (B)(3).Can a NEO scout/ solar sail follow ion powered ARM to a send target and stay with in range of Electra?
according to this IAC paper by Friedman et al I am reporting that Sunjammer solar sail mission has been canceled *
The Friedman paper reports that a Sunjammer solar sail with a 20 Kg payload could yield; “yield an A/m> 100 m2 /kg” (Sunjammer now has 20 m2/kg do to a larger payload)The NEO Scout on the other hand is a 6U 12 Kg cubesat, this comes to 8.0 A/m m2/kg with its 27 M per side solar sail.Sunjammers solar sail is 37 M per side. But what if a future NEO Scout cubesat could deploy some solar sail intermediate in size to that of Scout and Sunjammer? perhaps then Sunjammer might still be in the running using stepping stone missions along the way552572main_OSIRIS_REx_Factsheet
IAC-14-A5_3-B3_6_7x26388_Brophy
0930_Thu_Castillo_NEAScout (1)
EDIT 20 December 2014
Please note that having the ARM spacecraft grapple another spacecraft and deliver it to another target more closely adheres to the requirements of the decade survey, SBAG_ARM_SAT_07_30_14 (1) I quote,“Characterizing and returning a sample from an asteroid not already, or planned to be,
sampled is of higher science priority than characterizing and returning a sample from
one that has been” And another statement, “Support of
ARM with planetary science resources is not appropriate”
My opinion is that having ARM partially funded by the science mission directorate at less than 1/3 makes sense only if the ARM delivers SMD spacecraft to another different target
Mission design unplugged 🙂
ARM spacecraft bus replace bag with a modified payload fairing that when opened deploys a Kevlar blanket in a great circle that has a foamed aerogel surface.If the payload fairing is 15 meters long then
Osiris-REx-II and NEO Scout-II joint operations with ARM (asteroid redirect mission)
Nuclear powered spacecraft in night-time orbits
(A)(1) An “A train” of nuclear powered spy sats removed from a sun/dusk polar orbit into permanent darkness (nighttime polar synchronous orbit) for concealment from visual observers. This orbit would be in permanent ellipse.(Rappolee orbit 1) Rappolee orbit 1 is an eclipse synchronous orbit or ES-O as compared to a SS-O
(A)(2) A spy sat that is in an elliptical orbit with an apogee permanently in darkness (rappolee orbit 2) apogee would most likely be over the equator at local midnight?(or would it drift?) its been Rightly pointed out to me a higher Molniya orbit is not going to be in permanent eclipse
(B)(1) This “A train” of radar/sigint/inferred spy sats could offset their costs with hosted payloads such as military and science comsat equipment to support naval assets at sea and the Antarctic science missions.Comnav customers could route communications through to geosynchronous from remote locations in partnership with commercial maritime communications providers
(B)(2) Does not have to be an “A train” at all, Launching into polar orbit from Vandenburg at Midnight , 2 AM , 4 AM could give you better coverage.
Big thermodynamics questions here……………………:):):)
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
HEADQUARTERS SPACE AND MISSILE SYSTEMS CENTER (AFSPC)
LOS ANGELES AIR FORCE BASE, CALIFORNIA
August 20, 2014
TO: All Potential Respondents
SUBJECT: Booster Propulsion and Launch System Request for Information (RFI)
Reference: RFI No. 14-090 – Post Under Special Notice
- Background
Air Force Space Command (AFSPC) is considering an acquisition strategy to stimulate the commercial development of booster propulsion systems and/or launch systems for Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV)-class spacelift applications. The Air Force has relied upon foreign sources for booster propulsion systems in the past. However, consistent with the 2013 National Space Transportation Policy, we are pursuing alternative domestic capability. The Government is seeking insight into booster propulsion and/or launch system materiel options that could deliver cost-effective, commercially-viable solutions for current and future National Security Space (NSS) launch requirements. The Air Force needs this information to inform near term decisions about how to best ensure that future launch requirements are fulfilled by reliable, commercially-viable sources.
- Purpose
In order to maintain assured access to space, and get the best value for the taxpayer, the Air Force is requesting information from U.S. Industry to help determine the best way to ensure that future launch requirements can be met by reliable, commercially-viable sources of production. The Air Force is open to a range of possible options including but not limited to: a replacement engine with similar performance characteristics to currently used engines, alternative configurations that would provide similar performance (such as a multiple engine configuration) to existing EELV-class systems, and use of alternative launch vehicles for EELV-class systems. The Air Force is particularly interested in exploiting any available synergies with commercial space launch systems. The Air Force is also highly interested in business opportunities for public-private ventures and would like to identify specific opportunities that capitalize on potential synergies between military and non-military space needs.
Additionally, this RFI is intended to give launch vehicle and propulsion system contractors an opportunity to comment on proposed program requirements as well as identify any needed risk reduction areas and possible technology maturation efforts. In defining these objectives, the Government is interested in launch/propulsion strategies that are designed for affordability throughout the lifecycle and that potentially could result in greater U.S. competitiveness in the commercial space arena. The government is also interested in how government-industry cost-sharing arrangements should be structured. Results of this RFI may constitute sufficient market research for any follow-on procurement by SMC. The Government encourages respondents to leverage analysis and work conducted in previous efforts. This RFI is for market research purposes only.
- Technical Approach:
The Government needs to understand the contractor’s proposed propulsion and/or launch architecture mission capabilities in order to compare various technical and business solutions.
- Acquisition Approach:
The Government is currently evaluating various booster propulsion and launch system investments ranging from traditional government acquisition to shared investment between Government and Industry under public-private partnerships to stimulate the commercial development of such capabilities. The Government would welcome feedback from Industry members recommending strategies or creative development and/or production approaches which result in a cost-effective solution for the government and commercially-viable units for industry. Proposed Industry investment strategies are encouraged to address the following criteria:
1) The credibility and attractiveness of the business case to both Industry and Government, including how the business case closes (e.g., the balance of Government and Industry investment levels and the relationship of future launch commitments)
2) The value and utility to Industry and Government stakeholders, including the ability to meet both commercial and Government launch needs
3) The applicability and impact to the entire U.S. Government Launch System enterprise, with specific focus on the performance capability currently provided by the Atlas V launch vehicle system
4) Risk implications for Industry and the Government.
5) Mission assurance for meeting US government launch requirements if non-military business opportunities do not meet expectations or do not materialize.
6) Mission assurance for meeting US government launch requirements if foreign sources of launch and/or propulsion are utilized.
- Questions
The Government is seeking the insight from propulsion system and launch system contractors. The Government particularly requests Industry answer questions in sections 5A.1a and 5A.2a (propulsion supplier specific) and sections 5B.1a and 5B.2 (launch provider specific). All the remaining questions in Section 5, if applicable, should be answered to the extent possible in the time provided for responses.
5A Propulsion System Contractors
5A.1a Technical Questions
What solution would you recommend to replace the capability currently provided by the RD-180 engine?
- (A) A cryogenic Methane or LGN variant of the RS-25
(B)A funded space act agreement fly off between three methane powered engines, RS-68M, RS-25M and the Raptor.
NASA would pay a portion of the Space act agreement the air force would pay for the fully completed fly off mission.
The RS-25M could lend itself to multiple engine systems and possibly engine out.
These three systems could be inter operable with one another and with a cross feed component.
Special attention should be given to the idea cross feeding gelled Methane liquid hydrogen cross feed into a LH2/LO2 core
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/Fuels-And-Space-Propellants/GELLED.htm
and
- Do you believe such an engine could be developed to support multiple users and a range of launch requirements? What would you have to know about the various launch vehicles in order for you to build such a multi-use engine? (A) Fuel density, behaviors and ISP of a cryogenic hydrogen methane slush in a RS-68M, RS-25M and the Raptor as a SLS and Delta Heavy CBC and as a stand-alone core stage. Can we feed briefly a cryogenic slush to a liquid hydrogen only core stage ?
- What is your recommended propulsion system cycle and propellant combination for the propulsion system you propose?
- What is your recommended booster propulsion system performance for the lowest practical life cycle cost (e.g. sea level thrust, vacuum thrust, sea level Isp, vacuum Isp, throttling capability, weight, dimensions, schematics, etc.)? RS-25M Methane system shared between Air force and NASA as a SLS and Delta heavy CBC and as a stand-alone launcher combined with a Raptor based system( no crossfeed between the methane and hydrogen engines systems
- What are your key development technical risks, their current Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs), and mitigation plans? (A)The proposed crossfeed between the methane CBC and the hydrogen core stage is high risk and represents a R&D cost
- Provide the extent of compatibility of the new booster propulsion system with any existing and/or to-be-certified EELV-class launch vehicle(s) in terms of lift capability and propulsion/stage interface as appropriate. A methane powered RS-25M could be compatible with existing RS-68 and RS-25 Delta and SLS systems
- What changes to the existing launch pad infrastructure(s) used by the potential launch vehicles would have to be made to use such an engine? (A) combined LH2 and LCH4 systems for blending into gels or as standalone fuels for differing stages
5A.1b Additional Technical Questions
- What are your current capabilities for developing/producing a propulsion system meeting the reference Requirements Document?
- If booster propulsion system concepts or designs currently exist within your company, provide plan/schedule to mature full-scale booster propulsion system/components to TRL 5 or greater.
- What is your past relevant propulsion development experience?
- Provide schedule to mature booster propulsion system manufacturing processes to a Manufacturing Readiness Level (MRL) of 7. MRL 7 is defined as: capability to produce systems, subsystems or components in a production representative environment. MRLs provide a better understanding of the maturity and risks involved with respect to the products manufacturing readiness.
- Describe test facilities (private, commercial, government) that would be used for propulsion components as well as integrated booster propulsion system /propulsion hot-fire testing for development and qualification.
- What is your recommended qualification test plan?
- What would you recommend to mitigate potential environmental impacts associated with your propulsion system (atmospheric contamination, manufacturing site, launch site, etc.)?
5A.2a Acquisition Questions
- What are your recommendations to the USG regarding developing a new booster propulsion system, in particular, business arrangements (contractor teaming, shared investment, etc.) relating to propulsion system procurement and vehicle integration? (A)NASA space act agreement with substantial Air force contribution, private sector must contribute 25% or more. Three engines are guaranteed to fly it least once in a fly off competition and would be future buys in further competitions. keep RD-68 as is and fly a RP-1 vehicle as CBC.If RD-25M proves to be a good candidate for multiple engine stage for Delta and SLS this might be the engine of choice if we are looking for fuel density and gravity loss.
- Were the USG to seek a shared investment with you for propulsion system development, what co-investment arrangement would you likely seek to ensure a viable business case? How would the suggested co-investment be phased by Government Fiscal Year? Given the government’s need for both cost effective business arrangements and assured access to space and the need for data rights consistent with those goals, what data rights, if any, would you desire or require? (A)NASA and Air Force fund 70% of two to three engines to first flight, these manufactures are guaranteed to recover their costs later through work or some form of contract termination costs paid over time
- If applicable, what relationships would you recommend between yourself and launch vehicle providers (possibly more than one provider)? We propose to be consultants to contractors as a disabled veteran small business
- If your recommendations include the use of non-US sources, what are your recommendations to the USG regarding utilizing foreign-supplied propulsion systems and other components while developing US manufacturing capability?
- What is your recommended development and production schedule?
- How would your answers change if the USG needed to have a propulsion system in place at the earliest possible date and was prepared to accept some risk to achieve that goal?(A) A Methane powered RS-25 stand-alone stage with two engines using existing common upper stages with Delta and the possibility of a RS-25 with a RS-68 core engine on a heavy variant. Use a space act agreement borrowed from NASA.NASA enter into a space act agreement for the Raptor with Air Force non funded cooperation. Sounds counter intuitive for the air force to adopt a NASA engine but this provides the multi-engine capability this RFP seems to ask for. SpaceX already has a launcher that might meet air force needs in the near future. Perhaps an Air force RS-25 Methane burner should be kept in the realm of possibility of commercial use, NASA no doubt would build it in house which would be unfortunate, and Rapter is beyond the reach of Government to turn into a purely government project and thus lends itself to NASA space act agreements.
5A.2b Additional Acquisition Question
- What is your nominal and accelerated development schedule and costs? What is your production cost vs. production rate and learning rate assumptions?
5B Launch System Contractors
5B.1a Technical Questions
What solution would you recommend to replace the capability currently provided by the RD-180 powered Atlas V family of launch vehicles?
Methane/LGN powered RS-25 powered Delta in commonality with future Methane powered SLS systems
- Do you believe an engine could be developed that support multiple users and a range of launch requirements? What complications do you see in using such an engine?
- Given the anticipated NSS referenced mission model (attached), Civil payload projections, the need for lower-cost and more responsive launch capability, what launch system solution (evolved or new) would you suggest best supports these needs? What portion of the NSS referenced mission model would your system support?
- What are your propulsion needs for your business model (e.g. need dates, recurring cost, thrust, Isp, engine/motor cluster strategy, and propellant combination, thrust to weight, mixture ratio, and throttling)?
- What are your key launch vehicle system risks, associated Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs), and mitigation plans?
5B.1b Additional Technical Questions
- If you propose a new launch vehicle, what are your current capabilities for developing/producing a vehicle to support development of a launch system capable of supporting NSS and Civil missions?
- What is your past relevant launch vehicle development experience and current capabilities?
- Describe your launch architecture and booster propulsion specifications relevant to this RFI.
- Provide an overall description of each configuration — dry mass, loaded mass, diameter, overall length, and general construction of each stage/element (include each stage’s propellant combination, mixture ratio, number of engines/motors, unit weight, sea level thrust, vacuum thrust, sea level Isp, vacuum Isp, and throttling capability).
- Provide intended launch lift capability (e.g. mass-to-orbit for 100 nmi circular orbit at 28.5 deg inclination) and associated launch site(s).
- Provide estimate of when each configuration will reach Initial Operational Capability (IOC) and Full Operational Capability (FOC).
- Provide estimated average annual launch rate for each configuration at FOC.
5B.2 Acquisition Questions
- What are your recommendations to the USG regarding development of a booster propulsion system, in particular, business arrangements (contractor teaming, shared investment, etc.) relating to propulsion system development, procurement and integration into an existing or new launch system?
- Would a Government-developed booster propulsion system fit in your business model?
- What is your current and/or to-be-certified EELV-class vehicle(s) that would use this propulsion system?
- What would be needed for your business case to favor integration of such a booster propulsion system?
- What system selection issues drive the cost of integrating such a booster propulsion system to your vehicle?
- What booster propulsion system selection issues impact the launch system life cycle cost and schedule (development, production, and operations)?
- What are your launch system and booster propulsion system development schedule and cost?
- What are your launch system and booster propulsion system production cost vs. production rate and learning rate assumptions?
- Were the USG to seek a shared-investment path with you to create launch capability for USG spacecraft, what co-investment arrangement would you likely seek to ensure a viable business case? How would the suggested co-investment be phased by Government Fiscal Year? Given the government’s need for both cost effective business arrangements and assured access to space and the need for data rights consistent with those goals, what data rights, if any, would you desire or require?
- What is your recommended development and production schedule?
- Does your company plan on teaming with a propulsion system provider? If so, explain your teaming strategy.
- If your recommendations include the use of non-US sources, what are your recommendations to the USG regarding utilizing foreign-supplied propulsion systems and/or launch systems and other components while developing US manufacturing capability? What would your system look like if you were to utilize “US-only” sources for propulsion and other major critical systems?
Regarding any/all of the above questions, how would your answers change if the USG needed a system in place at the earliest possible date and was prepared to accept some risk to achieve that goal?
(A) develop on an accelerated schedule the proposed LNG/Methane RS-25M for a non cross fed Delta heavy for NSS missions with an RS-68 LH2 core.(B) accelerate a upper stage engine that is powered by LH2 with a 5% by weight LGN slush with its claimed 4 seconds ISP improvement over LH2/LO2 propellant.( see white paper above)
- Industry Day and One-on-One Meetings
The Government plans to hold an initial Industry Day on 25-26 Sep 2014 at SMC. Launch vehicle and propulsion system providers, as well as critical suppliers, are welcome. As part of the Industry Day, there will be an option for prime launch and propulsion companies, who provide an RFI response, to meet with a Government team for one-on-one meetings for 60 minutes. RFI respondents should indicate if they would like to schedule one-on-one meeting to present their inputs.
- Response Information
RFI responses are due 19 Sep 2014. Supplemental information to provide more complete responses may be provided up until 1 October 2014. All RFI questions should be sent to Ms. Tiffany Trotter and Kathleen Scholefield per the instructions below.
This RFI is being conducted for information and planning purposes only. It does not constitute a request for proposal or a request for quote. Information contained in this RFI is based on the best information available at the time of publication, is subject to revision and is not binding on either the Government of the submitting firm. The Government will not recognize any cost associated with a submission in response. The RFI does not provide any authority for a change or adjustment to an existing contract or other form of agreement. The information received will be considered for the purposes of market research.
This RFI is unrestricted and encourages responses from all responsible contractors independent of size. Additionally, responses from small business and small, disadvantaged business firms are highly encouraged. Firms responding should indicate if they are a small business, a socially and economically disadvantaged business, 8(a) firms, historically black colleges or universities, and minority institutions. The NAICS 541712 size standard (1,000 employees) is applicable to the subcategory for “Guided missile and space vehicle engine research and development” (Classification code: “A” Research and Development).
Respondents shall provide responses electronically in Adobe Acrobat Exchange Portable Document Format (.pdf) (with copy/paste function enabled) on company letterhead with total page count limited to 50 pages, not including cover page and table of contents. A page is defined as each face of an 8.5 x 11 inch sheet, single-spaced with text no smaller than 11-point font size, Times New Roman. All graphics and figures (embedded as well stand-alone) must be legible and with text no smaller than 8 point font. Margins shall be one-inch on all sides.
SMC has created an Integrated Product Team (IPT) to review RFI responses. The Government-led team will include Aerospace (FFRDC) and System Engineering and Technical Assistance (SETA) contractors assigned to SMC and AFSPC. The RFI team will sign government Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDA). If your RFI response requires you have a NDA from any of the review team members, please contact Ms Tiffany Trotter via email by 28 Aug 2014.
The responses should be Unclassified (Controlled Unclassified information / For Official Use Only – CUI/FOUO). If there is a need to send classified information, please contact one of the Government POCs identified below. Please ensure proper marking, handling and distribution of your submittals. Company Proprietary and Export Controlled information must be portion marked.
The Government will take all necessary steps to protect/safeguard any confidential/proprietary information provided. The Government will NOT be responsible for any confidential/proprietary information not clearly marked. This RFI is subject to FAR Clause 52.215-3, Request for Information or Solicitation for Planning Purposes.
Submissions of RFI should be sent to:
- Kathleen Scholefield, Director of Contracts, SMC/XRC, (310) 653-9679, Kathleen.Scholefield@us.af.mil
- Tiffany Trotter, Contracts Specialist, SMC/XRC, (310) 653-9054, Tiffany.Trotter@us.af.mil
Yellow Dragon, a mission to repurpose existing ideas into new ideas 