RFI-KSC-LNGplant_Amend 01_Questions-Answers.docx

Liquefied Natural Gas Production Plant QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES RFI-KSC-LNGplant-2026-02 / Amendment 02

INTRODUCTION

NASA received the following questions regarding a potential Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) plant and storage facility between July 23, 2026, and August 12, 2026. NASA KSC and USSF SLD 45 responses are as follows—

On “Production Capacity and Utilization”, the responses will be highly driven by the expected LNG consumption (e.g. volumes required per lunch and number of desired lunches per year). Are their baseline requirements that NASA would want considered for this process?

Response:

NASA has no baseline requirements for LNG consumption since this would be purely driven by commercial partner demands. NASA will provide estimated LNG needs over the next 10 years (see Question 3 below). However, each potential LNG supplier would need to work directly with all commercial launch providers to fully develop anticipated LNG consumption.

With respect to LNG Storage volumes, and subsequently type(s) of recommended storage and resulting siting requirements, the volumes depend on how many days worth of storage would NASA want to keep on-site. Are their baseline requirements that NASA would want considered for this process?

Response:

The government has no baseline requirement for on‑site LNG storage since storage needs would be driven entirely by commercial partner operations rather than KSC or SLD 45 demands. Any storage design associated with a future LNG plant should be as limited and footprint‑efficient as possible to preserve land availability for other aerospace development. Specific requirements for stored volumes as contingency or backup will come from the commerical launch providers..

The anticipated LNG production capacity (daily and annual) required to support projected launch operations?

Response:

Projections over next 10 years are depicted below. These projections are estimates and should only be used for initial planning. None of the requirements are NASA's or USSF’s. The government expects that all LNG suppliers work directly with the commercial launch providers to determine LNG demands.

Expected LNG storage capacity requirements and desired reserve levels?

Response:

Any specific requirements for stored volumes as contingency or backup will come from the commerical launch providers.

Peak production and delivery throughput needed to support concurrent launch activities?

Response:

The government expects the LNG suppliers to develop specific launch campaign Concepts of Operations and acceptable risks with the commercial launch providers.

Preferred proximity of the LNG production and storage facility to launch complexes and critical mission infrastructure?

Response:

There are no preferred proximities to any of the launch complexes.

Whether multiple receipt and distribution points will be required to support both NASA and U.S. Space Force missions?

Response:

The projected reciept points are launch complexes that commercial launch providers operate. At this time, there are no NASA or U.S. Space Force reciept points.

The expected launch cadence over the next 10 to 20 years and how future growth factors into facility sizing

Response:

Projections for the next 10 years are shown in Question 3 above. These projections are estimates and should only be used for initial planning. None of the requirements are KSC’s or SLD 45’s. The government expects all suppliers to work directly with the commercial launch providers to determine LNG demands.

Whether the facility should be designed with modular expansion capability to accommodate increasing commercial and Government demand; more specifically should the initial design preserve land and utilities to support a doubling of production capacity over the next decade?

Response:

The approach to phase a modular LNG production capability will be left with the LNG supplier. It is important to state the LNG supplier approach with suffcient justification in any RFI response to the Government to ensure that adjacent land is planned for future expansion.

The desired timeline for Initial Operational Capability (IOC) and Full Operational Capability (FOC)?

Response:

The timeline necessary for LNG capability will be based on agreement between the LNG supplier and the commmercial launch providers.

Whether the Government envisions a Contractor-Owned, Contractor-Operated (COCO), Government-Owned, Contractor-Operated (GOCO), Public-Private Partnership (P3), or another commercial model?

Response:

The Government envisions a commercially owned and operated facility under an Enhanced Use Lease (EUL) agreement.

Expected availability and size of Government-owned land, utilities, and supporting infrastructure

Response:

The Government needs the LNG supplier's requirements for land, utilities, and supporting infrastructure, as part of this RFI, to make a final determination.

Requirements for facility resiliency, redundancy, backup power, cybersecurity, and continuity of operations during contingency events?

Response:

These requirements would be driven by the commercial launch providers. Each may have their own desire or need for resiliency regarding various parts of the infrastructure. KSC and SLD 45 expect the potential suppliers to work directly with commerical launch providers to develop these requirements.

Environmental, permitting, and sustainability objectives that should be incorporated into the facility design?

Response:

All tenants are required to follow state and federal environmental requirements and wetland mitigation processes which would be included in any future real estate agreement terms and conditions. There are no exemptions.

The anticipated evaluation priorities, including schedule, technical capability, lifecycle cost, innovation, and commercial investment?

Response:

KSC and SLD 45 are in the planning stage. Information receieved during this RFI process will help to inform future decisions regarding a potential on site LNG plant.

Is excess LNG production intended to be sold commercially when launch demand is low, or will production be dedicated exclusively to Government missions?

Response:

The government would likely accept excess LNG to be sold offsite, so far as to not impact mission readiness. The primary purpose of the LNG production facility should be on site commercial launch providers.

Will natural gas feedstock be provided through existing utility infrastructure, or should offerors consider redundancy and alternate supply sources?

Response:

Existing feedstock may be available up to a cerrtain limit. Suppliers should also consider redundant and alternate sources.

Will commercial launch providers (e.g., Blue Origin, SpaceX, ULA, Stoke Space, etc.) be eligible to purchase LNG directly from the facility, or will NASA/USSF manage all distribution?

Response:

Both NASA and USSF expect that all commercial launch providers will purchase the LNG directly from the supplier.

For the proposed facility location can you please provide the actual site location of the intended site on the vacant KSC or CCSFS land?

Response:

No site is identified yet. Siting requirements for this type of facility will be informed by data gathered through this RFI.

Are you able to confirm the required annual supply volumes anticipated to meet the projected propellant demand for space launch customers?

Response:

The government cannot confirm required supply volumes. LNG quantity projections over the next 10-year period are shown in Question 3 above. KSC and SLD 45 expect the suppliers to develop firm quantity requirements directly with the commercial launch providers.

Is there a specific requirement for onsite storage volume to meet capacity requirements?

Response:

Any specific requirements for stored volumes as contingency or backup will come from the commerical launch providers.

A list of Commercial Partner POC’s is available upon request.

image1.png