RFI to Support NSSL Program Planning .pdf

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

UNITED STATES SPACE FORCE

10 November 2020

Subject: Request for Information (RFI) to Support National Security Space Launch (NSSL) Program Planning

1. Background

The U.S. commercial launch industry is vital to providing our Nation’s warfighters and intelligence community with space-based capabilities. Given the rapidly increasing threat from our nation’s adversaries, the United States Space Force (USSF) is focused on ensuring our National space capabilities retain their technological advantage and maintain U.S. superiority in the space domain. To that end the USSF is considering establishing a Research, Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E) program to accelerate the development of transformational commercial space access, mobility, and logistics technologies that can be on-ramped when available; consistent with Space Capstone guidance, “Space Mobility and Logistics (SML) is the movement and support of military equipment and personnel into the space domain, from the space domain back to Earth, and through the space domain.”1 This RDT&E program will play a significant role in the shaping of the next NSSL launch service procurement strategy which will strive to incentivize and leverage industry innovation. All this must be achieved without sacrificing assured access to space or mission success.

2. Purpose

The objective of the NSSL RDT&E program is two-fold: establish a comprehensive effort to accelerate the development of transformational technologies, and to rapidly on-ramp these technologies to enhance our nation’s space access, mobility, and logistics capabilities.

Therefore, the Space and Missile Systems Center Launch Enterprise (SMC/ECL) is investigating innovative acquisition strategies to enable more flexibility in future NSSL acquisitions.

SMC/ECL is requesting information to develop a smart RDT&E strategy that meets existing NSSL requirements and enables future space access, mobility, and logistics capabilities that will support agile operations into, through, and from space. SMC/ECL is in the planning stages of this program and is considering RDT&E investments in technologies that can be implemented within the next three to five years as well as more revolutionary future capabilities which can be realized over the next decade and beyond.

3. Instructions to Respondents

Responses should include the timeframe technologies are anticipated to be ready for operational use (e.g., the next three to five years, the next five to ten years, etc.). The Government is interested in transformational approaches to space access, mobility, and logistics to maintain U.S. launch industry dominance. In your responses, please indicate whether any of your independent research and development decisions are dependent upon launch rate or investment

1 Space Capstone Publication, Spacepower (Headquarters United States Space Force, June 2020), 37.

commitments by the Government. All responses should also address actions that the Government can take to accelerate and enable progress, to include identifying those actions the Government can take to remove any perceived obstacles.

Additionally, SMC/ECL is developing a future program objective memorandum (POM) and associated acquisition strategy. Your company’s response to this RFI may inform the POM and shape the strategy. The Government appreciates your time and presents questions in the order that best supports our need for information. The Government understands the complexity of the questions may require more time to prepare a thoughtful response. In these cases please provide the response you can in the timeframe requested and include a note stating a more comprehensive response to follow, if required. The Government’s intent is to open communication with industry and may request one-on-one meetings for clarification.

Rounds Questions/ Cat I

Questions/ Cat II

Questions/ Cat III

Questions/ Cat IV

Questions/ Cat V

Due Date Total Page Limit Per Round*

1 1-5 6-8 N/A N/A N/A 24 Nov 20 25 2 9-12 N/A 13-14 N/A N/A 9 Dec 20 20 3 15 16 N/A 17 18-22 15 Jan 21 35

* Respond with the appropriate number of pages required to answer the questions not to exceed total page limit per round

4. Requested Information

Please provide a comprehensive response to the questions listed below that includes timeframes the capability or technology may be operational.

Round 1:

Category I – Space Access, Mobility, and Logistics

1. The Government is interested in space access, mobility, logistics, and innovation to meet existing NSSL requirements and future capabilities to provide increased resiliency and support multi-modal operations in diverse orbital regimes (e.g., beyond GEO, Cis-lunar, Trans-lunar, and Lagrange Points).

a) What technologies are you developing, and/or what enhancements to existing launch systems are you considering, to enable launch system/subsystem recovery/re-use, space vehicle servicing, orbital transfer, orbital debris collection, co-optimized space vehicle buses, standardized interfaces, and other similar services? Would you invest to develop these capabilities, participate in a design compatibility critical design review with a subcontractor, or use a U.S. government-furnished equipment product?

What is the nature of the market have you identified that would incentivize you to make these investments?

b) Please explain what capabilities your system would include, and what timescale such capabilities would be ready to support commercial or NSS missions.

c) What technologies is your company considering, developing, or have developed to support orbital sustainment (i.e., support spacecraft life extension) and recovery to allow for replenishment of consumables and expendables on spacecraft that cannot be recovered back to Earth (e.g., spacecraft inspection/servicing, refueling, hardware maintenance, and technology upgrades)?

2. What advances in launch systems would increase your mass to orbit (MTO) capability to support the full range of NSS mission orbits (i.e., LEO through Cis/Trans-lunar)? When would these capabilities be available?

3. What residual MTO capability will your launch system have beyond current NSS MTO requirements as defined in the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) System Performance Requirements Document (SPRD)?

4. What infrastructure and system improvements could be incorporated into launch systems to enhance resiliency and responsiveness (e.g., shortened mission integration timelines to accelerate launch)? Examples include: manufacturing, re-useable launch system refurbishment facilities to improve turnaround times, increased launch rate, rapid reconstruction/launch, survivable sites, and freight train CONOPS where payloads are delivered to LEO/GTO orbits and to operational orbit via orbital transfer vehicle)?

5. Is there anything else you are considering or recommend that would provide revolutionary changes to the Space Force Space Access, Mobility and Logistics?

Category II - Innovative Acquisition Strategies

6. What acquisition strategies best enable rapid on-ramping, tech insertion, or responsiveness to

“tech refresh” industry innovation to the launch enterprise?

7. Are there preferred contracting mechanisms to enable integration of your SML technology (e.g. On-orbit servicer, upper stage, etc.) into the NSSL fleet, whether subcontractor to prime Launch Service Provider (LSP), as Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) to prime LSP, or other agreements?

8. What are the top three changes in program execution that would improve contractor and/or

NSSL program performance? If applicable, what have been your company's three biggest challenges related to the NSSL program and do you have any actionable recommendations to address them?

Round 2:

Category I - Space Access, Mobility, and Logistics

9. What investments in payload fairing flexibility are being considered to address current and emerging commercial requirements? Please identify investment opportunities to enhance multi-manifesting within current or planned payload fairings.

10. What new spacecraft systems and/or improvements is your company working on that would enable the ability to protect and defend space assets from hostile interference in the full range of mission orbits?

11. Please describe any innovative launch and/or on-orbit propulsion technologies needed to support the full range of mission orbits to include Cis-lunar operations and beyond? Are there agencies or organizations that you are currently cooperating with in this regard?

12. What is the plausibility and anticipated benefits of on-orbit assembly of hardware? Is your company considering or developing any on-orbit assembly capabilities/technology? What is the requirement and timeline being pursued?

Category III - Security

13. What operational and technical security challenges are of the greatest concern to your company? What mitigations are you pursuing and what investments or actions might the Government consider in order to address these challenges?

14. How does your company plan to improve security (i.e., cyber, facilities, supply chain, etc.) to protect space access, mobility, and logistics?

Round 3:

Category I - Space Access, Mobility and Logistics

15. How can the NSSL program better leverage commercial capabilities to accelerate improvements in resiliency and responsiveness? What is the USG doing that is inhibiting technical advancement/innovations?

Category II - Innovative Acquisition Strategies

16. Do you recommend any improvements to past data/intellectual property rights practices for

NSSL RDT&E activities? What type of rights do you think the Government should require for the products of space access, mobility, and logistics RDT&E (unlimited, limited, etc.) and why?

Category IV - Digital Engineering

17. In an effort to streamline mission integration, mission assurance, manifesting, and other process improvements, SMC/ECL is investing in digital engineering (DE). DE starts with a digital collaborative environment. It advances to Authoritative Source of Truth (ASoT) databases or models. It grows to Model Based Systems Engineering and possibly ends with interconnected 3D models and simulations with digital twins.

a) How is your company defining/implementing DE? How does your company plan to incorporate advances in DE into launch services to improve SMC/ECL launch processes and activities?

b) What innovations in DE would you suggest the NSSL program engage in to leverage commercial launch service providers and their digital data domain and data delivery processes?

c) How can a vendor-agnostic DE eco-system be developed and put on contract without compromising commercial proprietary information?

d) Are there any tools/applications, related to DE, that you would recommend the NSSL program investigate/research for future use?

Category V - Strategic Process Improvements

18. What aspects of current NSSL mission processes and operations (e.g., launch service and integration timelines) might be improved by implementing commercial practices without adversely affecting the current level of Government mission assurance? What specific commercial practices would you recommend for implementation in this area?

19. To reduce integration timelines, what enhancements (a) could your company make to your system(s) and (b) would your company require in order to support all categories of NSSL payloads with complex integration timelines? These integrations could involve the development and qualification of mission unique launch vehicle hardware and other accommodations, and incorporation of unusual spacecraft configurations. What are industry perspectives on an investment in a common payload fairing and/or adapter that would allow payloads to easily transition across U.S. launch platforms? Would you support an industry-wide collaborative discussion on launch vehicle/space vehicle features and related interface standards?

20. What manufacturing technology improvements are you pursuing to increase production capability and improve reliability for launch and/or spacecraft systems? Are there investments that can be made to help accelerate advancements in additive manufacturing or other technologies (e.g., increase production rate without sacrificing production quality)?

21. Are you developing or do you plan to develop artificial intelligence/machine learning technologies to improve launch service capabilities, or for any other space related purpose?

22. How does your company see the future launch architecture changing to make space access, mobility and logistics more responsive/resilient? How will the future launch architecture respond to possible needs during possible conflicts on the ground and in space?

5. Definition

Resiliency: The ability of an architecture to support the functions necessary for mission success with higher probability, shorter periods of reduced capability, and across a wider range of scenarios, conditions, and threats, in spite of hostile action or adverse conditions. Resilience may leverage cross-domain or alternative government, commercial, or international capabilities.

6. Submittal Instructions

All responses shall be submitted via email to all Government points of contact identified below.

All submissions shall include company name and point of contact information including name, position, telephone number, and email address.

Responses are requested no later than 10:00 AM Pacific Standard Time on the dates defined by Rounds in Section 3 of this RFI. Responses received after this time might not be considered in the Government’s analyses. The Government may subsequently contact respondents for clarification on the information submitted.

POINTS OF CONTACT:

Primary: Secondary: Technical POC:

Kirsten Prechtl Isabel Shvartsman Gregory Pierson Contracting Officer Contracts Specialist NSSL Engineer kirsten.prechtl@spaceforce.mil isabel.shvartsman@ spaceforce.mil gregory.pierson@ spaceforce.mil

(310) 653-3696 (310) 653-2552 (310) 653-3015

(310) 879-7530

7. Response Classification

All material provided in response to this RFI shall be submitted in Microsoft Word or Adobe Acrobat format and shall be kept at UNCLASSIFIED, non-confidential, and non-proprietary to the maximum extent practicable. Firms providing confidential/proprietary information shall separately and clearly identify and mark all confidential/proprietary information. The Government will take all necessary steps to protect/safeguard any confidential/proprietary information provided. The Government will NOT be held responsible for any proprietary information not clearly marked.

8. Small Business Consideration:

The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code and size standard are 481212 and 1500 employees, respectively. Small Businesses interested in subcontracting opportunities are encouraged to contact the launch service provider directly. SMC’s Small Business points of contact are Mr. Willard Strozier and Ms. Audrey Campbell. They can be reached at smallbus@us.af.mil.

9. Disclaimer:

THIS IS A REQUEST FOR INFORMATION ONLY. This RFI is issued solely for information and planning purposes. It does not constitute a Request for Proposals (RFP), Request for Quotations (RFQ), or a promise to issue a solicitation in the future. As stipulated in FAR 15.201(e), responses to this RFI are not considered offers, shall not be used as a proposal, and cannot be accepted by the Government to form a binding contract. This RFI does not commit the Government to contract for any supply or service whatsoever. Furthermore, the Government is not seeking proposals at this time. Respondents are advised that the Government mailto:isabel.shvartsman@us.af.mil mailto:gregory.pierson@us.af.mil mailto:smallbus@us.af.mil will not pay for any information or administrative costs incurred in response to this RFI. All costs associated with responding to this RFI will be solely at the responding party's expense.

SMC/ECL has entered into contracts with The Aerospace Corporation, Alpha Omega Group (AOG), Booz Allen Hamilton, Centauri, ExoAnalytics Solutions Inc., Figueroa and Associates, General Electric, Integrated Data Services (IDS), Liona Enterprises Inc., ManTech International Corporation, Nynth Company California LLC, OMNI Consulting Solutions, Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), SAVI LLC, SIGMATECH, Stellar Solutions, Tecolote Research Incorporated, and Wallender and Associates. These companies support the program office by performing technical reviews, systems engineering and integration analyses, cost estimation, and other advisory services. Responding to this RFI constitutes consent to disclosure of information to these companies, which are required to provide equal protection to non-public information as the Government.