RFI QA_03 Dec 24.pdf

RFI Questions – Responses 03 Dec 24

1. How will responses to the RFI and associated “additional market research” be incorporated into a decision to issue a lease for SLC-37?

Subject to the outcome of the environmental analysis and issuance of a record of decision (ROD), the additional market research will help inform the DAF’s way forward regarding the best use of SLC-37 consistent with DAF’s goal of maximizing assured access to space while ensuring the best use of the property.

2. What form will a future lease decision on SLC-37 be in, and will respondents be invited to make proposals for a SLC-37 lease?

Respondents are invited to respond to this RFI, which is part of our market research process. This additional market research will help to identify potential sources to lease SLC-37 and inform the way forward. The RFI will help the USSF determine whether respondents will be invited to submit proposals.

3. How will responses to the RFI and “additional market research” be incorporated into decisions to allocate any other CCSFS property?

The RFI and additional market research pertain to SLC-37.

4. The RFI states that “respondents should describe any unique capabilities of the intended launch vehicle (e.g., point-to-point delivery, payload return, survivability, reuse, crew transport) and the associated benefits for DoD, the space industry, and the U.S. economy.”

a. Are the “unique capabilities” described needed to support any particular DAF/USSF or other Government mission?

The RFI is intended to provide information regarding how any unique capabilities may benefit DoD, the space industry, and the U.S. economy. RFI respondents should describe the unique capabilities of their launch vehicles without limitation to specific USSF or Government missions.

b. If so, will an RFI respondent provide additional value in demonstrating how vehicle “unique capabilities” can meet such mission requirements, and how can such mission requirements be assessed to demonstrate such capabilities?

RFI respondents should describe the unique capabilities of their launch vehicles without limitation to specific USSF or Government missions.

c. Are the “unique capabilities” described based on any Joint Requirements Oversight Counsel (JROC)-validated requirements?

The RFI affords launch providers the opportunity to highlight its launch system’s unique attributes and how those attributes may benefit the DoD, the space industry, and the U.S.

economy. RFI respondents are not limited to JROC-validated requirements when describing their unique launch vehicles capabilities.

5. The RFI states: “The DAF will execute a lease after completion of the required environmental planning documentation and issuance of a record of decision.”

a. Is DAF/USSF seeking information on environmental planning documentation for SLC-37 and/or other environmental compliance?

The RFI does not seek information on environmental planning documentation for SLC-37 and/or other environmental compliance.

b. Does the initiation or completion of “required environmental planning documentation” constitute a factor in awarding the lease?

The initiation or completion of “required environmental planning documentation” is not a factor in this RFI.

c. Will DAF/USSF allow respondents access to SLC-37 to complete environmental planning documentation to determine use cases for SLC-37? If yes, when will access be provided?

This RFI seeks information from launch providers interested in leasing SLC-37 and offers them an opportunity to present information on their capabilities. The RFI does not address environmental planning.

6. The RFI requests information on “survivability” as a “unique capability.” How are DAF/USSF defining “survivability” and why is launch vehicle survivability germane to a launchpad?

For this RFI, survivability means the ability of a launch vehicle to survive kinetic and non-kinetic threats.

7. The RFI states: “SLD 45 seeks to bring new launch vehicles to CCSFS rather than providing second pads to any launch vehicle currently operating at CCSFS.”

a. How did DAF/USSF determine that providing a second CCSFS pad for a launch vehicle differs from providing a CCSFS pad for a launch vehicle with one or more launchpads outside of CCSFS?

SLD 45 seeks a diverse set of launch systems operating from CCSFS to execute DoD missions.

b. Is this determination based on JROC-validated requirements?

The SLD 45 Commander is authorized to establish CCSFS priorities based on current and projected needs and determine the optimal use of SLC-37. The SLD 45 Commander can include JROC-validated requirements in this determination.

c. How does allocating SLC-37 as an additional launchpad for a vehicle with launchpads outside of CCSFS “maximize the benefit to the space industry and the U.S. economy” in a manner that differs from allocating SLC-37 to a user with a launchpad within CCSFS?

Diversifying the types of launch vehicles that operate on CCSFS to provide resilience is an important consideration for the USSF to achieve the best use of SLC-37.

8. The RFI is limited to collecting market information for “super-heavy” launch vehicle use cases, which the RFI defines as providing launch capability for 50,000 kg to low Earth orbit

(LEO).

a. How did the DAF/USSF determine that the definition of super-heavy launch vehicles is based on 50,000 kg to LEO, and is this definition based on any JROC-validated requirements?

The RFI uses NASA’s definition of super-heavy vehicle classification.

b. Why is the RFI limited to super-heavy launch vehicles and not to include “heavy” vehicles, like the Delta IV Heavy that launched at SLC-37?

The USSF lacks a super-heavy launch capability at CCSFS. The USSF is interested in allocating SLC-37 to a super-heavy class vehicle because it will provide the USSF with the first and only super-heavy lift capability at CCSFS to support DoD and U.S. Government needs.

c. Can DAF/USSF provide more detailed orbital parameters defining the super-heavy mass limit, given that mass requirements to LEO can vary based on particular mission requirements?

The DAF anticipates the RFI and additional market research will provide information relevant to the USSF’s priority of maximizing mass to orbit per launch. RFI respondents should provide the intended vehicle’s super-heavy lift capability to low Earth orbit (LEO).

d. Are DAF/USSF seeking information on vehicle capabilities for other unique mission capabilities besides being able to launch 50,000 kg to LEO, such as high mass launches to higher energy orbits without refueling?

This RFI is focused on launch vehicles that have a lift capability greater than 50,000 kg to LEO but also requests information on other unique capabilities of such a launch system.

e. What are the “unique attributes” of SLC-37 the RFI is referring to that allow it to be a super-heavy launchpad?

SLC-37’s geographic location and separation from other operations make it better positioned on CCSFS than other launch pads to support the large explosive arcs that come from a super-heavy class vehicle. SLC-37 was recently an active launch site, so the land was already used for launch operations, which tends to present lower environmental impacts than greenfield sites.

f. Is SLC-37 the only CCSFS launchpad with “unique attributes” allowing it to be a super-heavy launchpad, or do other active or inactive launchpads at CCSFS also allow super-heavy launch?

SLC-37 is the only existing and available launch site on CCSFS that DAF/USSF is considering supporting a super-heavy class vehicle.

g. Will the DAF/USSF make any other super-heavy-capable launchpads available for use by the commercial space launch industry?

This is beyond the scope of the RFI. DAF/USSF may make other super-heavy capable launchpads available for use by the commercial space launch industry if/when they become available.

h. Will a launch provider be required to have access to a super-heavy launchpad in order to compete for any future national security missions?

Access to a super-heavy launch pad would only be relevant to those missions which require a super-heavy launch capability.

i. If a national security mission requires a super-heavy launchpad and a user has access to a super-heavy launchpad outside of DAF/USSF property, will that launchpad be acceptable for use to accomplish the mission?

The RFI is limited to SLC-37. Whether a super-heavy launch pad outside of DAF/USSF property will be acceptable to accomplish a particular mission will be dependent upon the requirements of that mission.

j. Why does USSF need a super-heavy launchpad located on CCSFS when national security missions can be launched from the super-heavy launchpads available outside of CCSFS, including the adjacent Kennedy Space Center launchpads, and is any such need based on JROC-validated requirements?

Establishment of a super-heavy launch capability at CCSFS meets Congress’ direction to the Secretary of Defense to maximize the use of the capacity of the DoD’s space transportation infrastructure. KSC and CCSFS serve different priorities for NASA and USSF, respectively. Given its need to execute an increasingly diverse set of DoD missions, SLD 45 requires a diverse set of launch systems operating from CCSFS, which SLD 45 controls.

9. Throughout the RFI, information is sought based on achieving launch operations within five years of the date of the RFI.

a. How did DAF/USSF determine that the five-year period is appropriate?

The DAF/USSF determined that five years is a reasonable period to complete the selection and leasing process, including environmental planning, and ready the launch system and launch site for operations.

b. Is the five-year period based on accomplishing any particular Government mission(s), and if so, what mission(s)?

No, the five-year period represents the reasonable period of time to make the launch pad operational for USSF/DAF needs.

c. Will DAF/USSF allow RFI respondents access to SLC-37 to complete environmental planning documentation timely to support a five-year operational date?

This RFI is focused on gathering information on launch providers who are interested in leasing SLC-37 and offering them an opportunity to present information on their capabilities. Environmental planning will be addressed separately consistent with the National Environmental Policy Act and other relevant laws and regulations.

10. What type of information is sought by the RFI language “maximize the benefit to the space industry and the U.S. economy,” and what criteria are used to evaluate such benefits?

Respondents should describe any unique capabilities of the intended launch vehicle (e.g., point-to-point delivery, payload return, survivability, reuse, crew transport) and the associated benefits for the DoD, the space industry, and the U.S. economy.

11. The RFI states: “The DAF will assess the impact of the launch vehicle’s explosive arcs and CONOPS on other CCSFS launch complexes, processing facilities, and transit routes. For vehicles that use LOX/LNG propellant, the SLD 45 Safety Office will define the explosive arcs for consistency. To demonstrate ability to meet this requirement, respondents should provide: projected launch rate, mass to orbit per launch, quantities of fuels needed, explosive arcs and hazard areas, including explosive siting maps in work or approved, mitigation alternatives for anticipated impacts to neighboring operations and transportation routes, and projected launch rates across all the company’s launch sites on CCSFS.”

a. What methodology will the SLD 45 Safety Office use to define the explosive arcs?

SLD 45 Safety Office will follow its standard processes and methodology for defining the explosive safety arcs for LOX/LNG vehicles.

b. Is the SLD 45 Safety Office using the same methodology for current operations at CCSFS?

Yes.

c. Will that methodology be duplicated for other launchpads?

Yes.

d. If not, what factors is the SLD 45 Safety Office using to define explosive arcs for SLC-37 that differ from other launchpads?

N/A.

e. What explosive arcs and hazard areas should respondents provide if the SLD 45 Safety Office will be defining explosive arcs?

Respondents should provide explosive arcs and hazard areas, including explosive siting maps in work or approved. If this is a new vehicle that does not have an explosive analysis in work with SLD 45, then the response should include the necessary information needed to develop an explosive site plan for the launch vehicle. This is related to the vehicle itself. A complete site layout for SLC-37 is not required.

12. Will DAF/USSF “competitive procedures” to select the lessee as specified in 10 USC § 2667(h)(1), and if so, what are the “competitive procedures”?

This RFI intends to collect additional market research to inform the way forward regarding future use of SLC-37.

13. The RFI states that SLC-37 will be leased under the authority of 10 USC § 2276, Commercial Space Launch Cooperation. Has the Secretary of Defense prescribed regulations as specified by 10 USC § 2276(f) as required to carry out that section?

SLC-37, if and when leased, will be done under the authority of 10 USC § 2667. The action of assigning and leasing SLC-37 for the purpose stated in the RFI furthers the objectives of

10 USC § 2276.

14. Have DAF/USSF provided reports to Congress related to SLC-37 as required under 10 USC § 2662 and § 2667 and related agency procedures (including the Enhanced Use Lease Playbook)?

The DAF and USSF will comply fully with all applicable Congressional reporting requirements in the event the final decision is to lease SLC-37. The Government does not intend to award any lease or contract based on this RFI. This RFI shall not be used as a proposal.

15. When will responses to these questions be posted and will answers be posted in time to incorporate answer information into the RFI response?

Responses will be posted by COB 5 December 2024.