RFI - OTV NOZZLE.pdf

This Request for Information (RFI) is issued as market research. All requirements identified in this RFI are tentative and will be finalized prior to the release of any request for proposal (RFP). The Government may use the HERMES Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) Solicitation FA9300-20-S-0001, (https://sam.gov/opp/5224c4683d66452289704b0ffe3f4877/view) for the eventual RFP request . The applicable Statements of Need from the HERMES BAA are RQRE Topic 1 (Liquid Rocket Engines) and/or RQRE Topic 3 (Advanced Material and Manufacturing). The Government DOES NOT intend to award a contract or purchase order in response to this RFI or otherwise pay for the information submitted.

The information provided is entirely voluntary and will not impact the ability to bid on future requirements. This RFI is for planning purposes only and shall not be considered a request for proposal (RFP), request for quote (RFQ), or as an obligation on the part of the Government to acquire any products or services. The information provided may be utilized by the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) in developing its acquisition strategy should a decision be made to proceed with acquiring the items/services listed in this RFI. The information received in response to this RFI may be included in one or more future solicitations.

All responses shall include the following information:

1. Company Name

2. Business Size for subject NAICS

3. Cage Code

4. Details on which line items your company is able to provide and any applicable restrictions

AFRL is seeking U.S. sources with the capability to provide the items/services listed in this RFI. All replies are to be provided to the Contracting Specialist, Brandy Forbes, brandy.forbes@us.af.mil and Contracting Officer, Alvaro Guzman, alvaro.guzman.1@us.af.mil. All responses to this RFI must be received NO LATER THAN Wednesday, February 18, 2024 at 4:00 p.m. PST.

Requirements— OTV (Orbital Transfer Vehicle) Nozzle Extension Development

The Air Force Research Laboratory Rocket Propulsion Division (AFRL Rocket Lab, AFRL/RQR) is requesting information and comments from industry pertaining to the development, transition, and application of advanced material technologies (especially Ceramic Matrix Composites (CMCs)) to high performance liquid rocket engine (LRE) nozzle extensions. CMC LRE nozzle extensions have been identified as a high-payoff technology with pervasive benefit to high performance orbital transfer vehicles (OTVs) and on-orbit maneuvering stages needed to meet emerging responsive space access needs, among other rocket propulsion applications. This RFI seeks to capture industry perspectives, capabilities, and projections from both the rocket propulsion and advanced material engineering/manufacturing sectors.

OTV (Orbital Transfer Vehicle) Nozzle Background

The AFRL Rocket Lab is standing-up a new effort with the purpose of enabling the affordable proliferation of novel high performance LRE nozzle extensions. Small launch vehicles have inherent limitations for delivering payloads to high energy orbits. One approach to enable this capability is to use on orbit enhancement with nozzle extensions. Recent work by partners at NASA Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) and AFRL Materials Directorate (AFRL/RX) shows promise with CMC in component applications compared to conventional superalloy alternatives. Furthermore, CMC materials appear to be reaching parity with refractory metal alternatives on programmatic considerations (i.e. cost & schedule) while precluding foreign supply chain concerns.

As an initial starting point, AFRL lists out a notional set of parameters to provide context to the RFI questions in Table 1.

One aspect to put greater context is the nature of the part size. The nozzle being a thin-walled structure within a 3x3x3 foot (threshold goal) envelope of a general conical/bell shape, with attachment mechanism at the smaller diameter opening. As an example, if using C/SiC the part is expected to be around 20-30 lb of C/SiC material depending on design particulars.

mailto:brandy.forbes@us.af.mil mailto:alvaro.guzman.1@us.af.mil

Although CMC technology is not necessarily new (with many recent advances), the widespread adoption of CMC materials in LRE components has not yet been realized. The AFRL Rocket Lab believes this may be attributed to outstanding risks and constraints associated with the high technical barrier of entry to CMC material systems.

AFRL is interested in rapid development.

A maximum timeline is shown in Figure 1.

The AFRL Rocket Lab is not currently seeking fundamental material science nor non-traditional LRE concept development activities. The primary goal of the RFI is identify existing material system candidates and manufacturing process improvements directly to LRE propulsion systems in active development as quickly as possible. Moving from approximately Technology Readiness Level (TRL) 4 to a threshold of TRL 6 (with an objective of TRL 9). Proposed solutions would ideally utilize current in-development or mature systems with pre-existing bodies of knowledge.

A secondary goal of the RFI is to identify novel manufacturing concepts that offer game-changing improvements to cost and availability of their subject material systems. While oxidation resistant CMCs have been identified so far in this RFI as a key interest area, the AFRL Rocket Lab is also interested in learning more about and potentially applying other novel material solutions to LRE nozzle extensions under this activity that offer similar or better performance, cost, availability, and maturity to CMCs. To be clear, the intent of any effort from this RFI is to identify Industry Partners that have the capability to develop the "flight-like” nozzle unit. The goal is to transition technologies for affordable production, conduct full-scale nozzle extension integrated and even provide for hardware for flight demonstrations by 2028 or sooner, while developing a robust materials industrial base to support enduring USSF needs.

Figure 1: Example Notional Roadmap (faster preferred)

General Questions for All Respondents

Interested parties to this RFI may provide recommendations they have for such a program. Interested parties may request a meeting through the Contracting Officer to further explain their responses to these questions.

1. What type of entity best describes your company: either “LRE Designer/Manufacturer” or “Advanced Materials

Designer/Manufacturer.” Based on your type, please also refer to additional questions later in the RFI.

2. What are your teaming preferences for a potential future solicitation on such an activity. To conduct LRE nozzle extension demonstrations, AFRL anticipates that interaction between LRE and Advanced Materials must occur.

a. Single Call – a prime contractor submits a proposal that encompass an entire scope of activities (i.e.

engine & nozzle component areas /w integrated demonstration). Partnerships and responsibilities

Parameter Threshold Goal Thrust Class ~2-10k lbf @ ~1000 psi Pc 2-35klbf @2000 psi Pc Propellant Combination LOX/Hydrocarbon (RP-

1/CH4, etc.)

LOX/HC and LOX/LH2

Mission Duration >300 sec, >2 starts >600s, >10starts Nozzle Peak Pressure ~200 psi TBD Nozzle Exit Pressure Vacuum Vacuum Nozzle Operating Temp. >2500 °F >3000°F Nozzle Area Ratio >100:1 >200:1 Build Volume Within 3’x3’x3’ (thin walled Cones/Bells) Within 6’x6’x6’ (thin walled Cones/Bells)

Cost <$100k/unit (at <100 units/yr)

<$80k/unit (at <10 units/yr)

Production Lead Time <3 mo from order to 1st unit

<2 mo to 1st unit, <1 mo thereafter

Table 1: Notional Nozzle Extension Characteristics and Metrics between prime contractor/subcontractors are formed ahead of proposal submission by any entities at their own discretion.

b. Parallel Call – LRE entities and Advanced Materials entities submit proposals in parallel for engine system and nozzle component areas respectively. The proposals may include subcontractors but are focused on only one of the previously mentioned areas. The awardees are selected independently among the two areas and are joined in a partnership after individual selection to complete the demonstration activity together.

c. A Consortium – where multiple industry collaborators exchange information across the component (and/or program). Mechanism is done via a single joint contract or separate contracts for each task/effort.

d. Other teaming method you prefer or would like to engage in.

3. How feasible or aggressive are the AFRL Rocket Lab’s cost & lead-time technology goals identified in the nozzle development effort? Do they meet your potential threshold for availability/affordability for adoption (why/why not)?

4. What challenge areas should the AFRL Rocket Lab plan to address to encourage adoption and TRL maturation?

(i.e. integrated demonstration, lack of affordable/responsive production, other?)

5. Is the notional timeline of activities in Figure 1 appropriate in scope and duration to develop the proposed technologies to TRL 6 or even up to 9? Why/why not? Are there additional activities you think are necessary or desirable for the sake of TRL maturation?

a. For all activities you identify in the technology maturation effort, describe the timeline and Rough

Order of Magnitude level of funding expected to make those activities feasible.

6. Have you engaged in a formal nozzle relevant activity with or are you currently partnered with the following entities? AFRL/RQR, Other government partners (e.g. Other AFRL Directorate, NASA, MDA, etc.), LRE Engine Designers/Manufacturers, Advanced Materials Designers/Manufacturers. Please share any benefits or resources/capabilities you deem useful (if any) in concert with a future program/partnership (e.g. access to industry/Gov’t Facilities, SMEs, laboratory equipment, technical resources, hardware, programs such as SBIR, etc.).

7. What Market Trends do you identify in the application of CMC materials for OTV and other relevant applications that would use the same industrial base such as hypersonic systems, upper stage nozzles, SRM nozzles, etc.?

Additional Questions for LRE Designer/Manufacturers

1. What current engine systems do you have in development/production suited for OTV or On-orbit propulsion applications (specifically with applicability for high delta Vee propulsive stages/systems)?

a. Provide any pertinent details and specifications (product name, thrust class, propellant combination, current/planned applications, production rate projections, etc.).

2. Are high performance nozzle extensions part of your developmental roadmap or incremental upgrade plan? If so, what material systems are you considering for these nozzle extensions (current, preferred, alternate)?

3. What is the current stage of development / level of maturity (TRL) of your engine system and nozzle component?

a. Please reference any pertinent milestones/dates of interest (e.g. preliminary design completed, first ground level hot fire test, first developmental flight test, etc.) and how well they fit into a notional schedule.

b. Describe the priority that integrated vacuum testing will be given ahead of system first flight or production.

4. If a flight nozzle article is developed under/results from an AFRL technology maturation activity, is there a flight opportunity or system implementation that the component can be readily transitioned into?

5. What considerations and challenges do you observe regarding the implementation of CMC materials to nozzle extensions? Please include any benefits (technical/programmatic) compared to your current/conventional solutions.

6. In your view, what are the most significant risks/constraints/barriers (technical, cost, and/or schedule) that need to be addressed to enable implementation of CMC materials to nozzle extensions?

a. Describe any specific R&D activities needed to address those challenges, and their time criticality.

b. List any potential partners (if any) that might be best suited to assist in overcoming those challenges.

7. How well versed is your team in the analysis, design, and integration of CMC components?

8. Are there other engine/vehicle components that you believe can derive high pay-off from CMC materials?

9. Are you considering other advanced material alternatives to CMCs?

a. Describe how they compare to CMCs in terms of risks/constraints/barriers (technical, cost, and/or schedule) and what R&D activities are needed to address them.

Additional Questions for Advanced Materials Designer/Manufacturers

1. What ready capabilities do you hold for advanced materials (including CMCs and other alternatives) that are suited for application to nozzle extensions for OTV or On-orbit propulsion applications (specifically with applicability for high delta Vee propulsive stages/systems)?

a. Provide details on material systems and associated expertise areas (i.e. design & analysis, additive/subtractive manufacturing, specific production methods – performing, densification, coating, etc.)

b. List any products, fabrication capabilities, and/or specialty tools (e.g. name, material type/class/properties, build volumes, specialized codes/suites/databases, current/planned applications, production rates, etc.).

c. List current stage of development / level of maturity (TRL or MRL) for each material or method.

Describe how they compare to the technology goals and how well they fit into the notional development schedule.

2. What considerations and challenges do you observe regarding the production of advanced materials, especially CMCs, for nozzle extensions? Reference the most significant risks/constraints/barriers (technical, cost, and/or schedule) that need to be addressed to enable implementation of the material system to nozzle extensions.

a. Describe any specific R&D activities needed to address those challenges, and their time criticality.

b. List any potential partners (if any) that might be best suited to assist in overcoming those challenges.

3. What practical considerations (e.g. minimum viable production rate, economy of scale, etc.) would challenge or otherwise prevent sustaining long-term production of nozzle extensions at the rate & cost goals outlined in this

RFI?

a. List any proposed technologies or incentives (e.g. design licensing, production rights, etc.) that would make such long-term sustainment feasible.

b. Include any insight into “what might influence a producer to ‘no-bid’ a low volume production contract.”

c. Identify any common industries an LRE nozzle extension can leverage to overcome minimum volume/low demand issues (e.g. brakes, hypersonics, etc.).

4. How well versed is your team with Rocket Engine components, especially hot surfaces and mixed-material integration at relevant operating conditions?

5. What ways do you hope to leverage participation in a nozzle maturation activity so that your company can derive benefit, gain a competitive edge, or develop your product/technology?

ALVARO GUZMAN

Contracting Officer