Industry Day Slides and QAs_80GRC022R0012 Industry Day_Final.pdf

Agenda 11:00am –12:30pm Industry Day Briefing

• Introductory Comments (Rita Dickens, NASA Contracting Officer)

• Project Briefing

– Background Information and Motivation for Current

Solicitation (Jeff Robinson, Senior Technical Advisor for Hypersonic Technology Project)

– Developing High Speed Strategy (Lori Ozoroski, Project Manager for Commercial Supersonic Technology Project)

– High-Speed Endoatmospheric Conceptual Vehicle Design (Erik Axdahl, High-Speed Vehicle Systems Analyst)

• Review Statement of Work Objectives and Tasks

• Review Deliverables

• Review Evaluation Criteria

– Answer public questions already received (Jonathan Burt, High-Speed Vehicle Systems Analyst)

• Q&A (Please post to the Chat)

12:30pm- 1:30pm LUNCH

1:30pm- 5:00 pm One-on-One Sessions with companies

– 1:30p-2:00p One-On-One with Company 1

– 2:00p-2:30p One-On-One with Company 2

– 2:30p-2:45p BREAK

– 2:45p-3:15p One-On-One with Company 3

– 3:15p-3:45p One-On-One with Company 4

– 3:45p-4:00p BREAK

– 4:00p-4:30p One-On-One with Company 5

– 4:30p-5:00p One-On-One with Company 6

REMINDER- Please post all questions during the presentation in the Chat. NASA will post answers to these questions by July 22, 2022.

Procurement Information

• NASA POC

Contracting Officer (CO) Name: Rita Dickens Phone: (216) 433-3805 Email: Rita.K.Dickens@nasa.gov

• Anticipated Acquisition Schedule

– August 2, 2022 – Release Final Request for Proposal

– September 12, 2022 – Proposal Due Date

– December 8, 2022 – Contract Award

• All of the information on this slide and this entire presentation is subject to change.

– This is the Draft Request for Proposal and information is not final until posted in the Final Request for Proposal.

– Whatever you hear today – no matter who said it – the Final RFP is the controlling document, period.

• Please pay close attention to ALL sections and clauses in the RFP.

• NASA intends to award a Firm-Fixed Price Contract.

• Please post all questions during the presentation in the Chat. NASA will post answers to these questions by July 22, 2022. 3

Commercial High-Speed Flight in the News

First Commercial High-Speed Workshop

• January 5, 2020, in Orlando, FL, in advance of SCITECH

• U.S. only, invitation only, focused on Point-to-Point (P2P) mission

• 56 participants (29 industry, 27 government)

• Format

– NASA presentation

– Industry presentations

– Open discussion

• NASA representation

– HTP, AAVP, PAMO

– Center reps

• Other government attendees

– AFOSR

– FAA

NASA’s Role in Emerging Commercial P2P Hypersonics

Industry input: Opportunities/needs

• Independent market study

• Hypersonic ground and flight test capability

• Technology development through collaborative agreements

• Regulatory concerns

• International partnerships

• Data protection concerns (export control, classified, CUI, etc.)

• Integration into NAS

- Extend CONOPS for hypersonic aircraft integration into the NAS

Opportunities encompass multiple ARMD Programs/Projects

Work In Progress

Work Under Discussion

FY20/21 High-Speed Market Studies

• The overwhelming number one request that industry had for NASA was to conduct an independent market study to determine the viability of high speed / hypersonic commercial travel.

• NASA subsequently let two contracts, one to Deloitte/SpaceWorks and one to SAIC/Bryce, to study the market given three specific tasks:

– Define the market – how many people would be willing to travel and how much revenue could be generated

– Define the business case – can an aircraft be fielded to serve this market and be able to generate enough profit to make it economically viable

– What are the barriers preventing this market from becoming reality

• Deloitte and SAIC spent six months studying the problem; final reports are public

– SAIC Report: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20210015471

– SAIC Presentation: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20210015472

– Deloitte Report: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20210014711

– Deloitte Presentation: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20210014932

7SAIC/Bryce Deloitte/SpaceWorks

Favorable High-Speed Market Characteristics

SAIC

(with Bryce Space and Technology)

Deloitte (with SpaceWorks and NIA)

Mach 3 2 to 4(1)

Range 4,500 nmi 4,000 nmi to 4,500 nmi

Number of routes(2) 300 90

Aircraft Size (# PAX) 10 GA or 50 Commercial 20 to 50

Aircraft Cost $200M to $300M $131M to $228M(3)

(1) Analysis showed profitable routes up to M5.25

(2) Deloitte only considers over-water routes

(3) Mach 3 at 4,500 nmi

References:

• SAIC Final Report: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20210015471

• Deloitte Final Report: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20210014711

Deloitte/SpaceWorks – Top-Level Economic Findings

1. There are multiple aircraft configurations and market approaches that result in positive business cases for their manufacturers and operators (assumed as IRR > 25%)

• Smaller aircraft (20 – 50 pax) tend to be favored over larger aircraft for several factors, including sales synergies with the private/charter market and higher average passenger load factors on thin routes

• Slower cruise speed aircraft (Mach 2 – 3) in the 4,000 nmi – 4,500 nmi class are also slightly favored and result in lower ticket prices and therefore larger market sizes. This seems to be a more robust part of the market

• North-Atlantic markets remain the largest economic prize, but longer trans-Pacific ranges remain interesting for smaller Mach 2 – 3 vehicles that can reach to 6,000 nmi+

2. Results are most sensitive to potential reductions in estimated passenger market size

• Fuel cost increases, engine development cost increases, and loss of private/charter sales are also important

3. Government contributions via non-recurring offsets or “anchor buys” are helpful

• More beneficial for 1) smaller overall aircraft development program (gov’t contributes a larger percentage of the total cost) or 2) higher speed aircraft where predicted annual airframe sales are not as large. However, government contributions are not required for success

Deloitte/SpaceWorks – Barriers / Challenges Heat Map

Deloitte/SpaceWorks – High-Speed Market Overview

SAIC/Bryce – Define the Market

SAIC/Bryce – Define the Business Case

SAIC/Bryce – Define the Barriers

How is This Different Than Concorde?

• Introductory Comments (Rita Dickens, NASA Contracting Officer)

• Project Briefing

– Background Information and Motivation for Current

Solicitation (Jeff Robinson, Senior Technical Advisor for Hypersonic Technology Project)

– Developing High Speed Strategy (Lori Ozoroski, Project Manager for Commercial Supersonic Technology Project)

– High-Speed Endoatmospheric Conceptual Vehicle Design (Erik Axdahl, High-Speed Vehicle Systems Analyst)

• Review Statement of Work Objectives and Tasks

• Review Deliverables

• Review Evaluation Criteria

– Answer public questions already received (Jonathan Burt, High-Speed Vehicle Systems Analyst)

• Q&A (Please post to the Chat)

12:30pm- 1:30pm LUNCH

1:30pm- 5:00 pm One-on-One Sessions with companies

– 1:30p-2:00p One-On-One with Company 1

– 2:00p-2:30p One-On-One with Company 2

– 2:30p-2:45p BREAK

– 2:45p-3:15p One-On-One with Company 3

– 3:15p-3:45p One-On-One with Company 4

– 3:45p-4:00p BREAK

– 4:00p-4:30p One-On-One with Company 5

– 4:30p-5:00p One-On-One with Company 6

REMINDER- Please post all questions during the presentation in the

Guidance to AAVP/Hypersonic Technology Project

“Industry is beginning to advocate for a vision for commercial “hypersonic” flight. While we recognize the potential for a new market and that NASA has nearly five decades of hypersonic research experience, ARMD will proceed cautiously to develop a new strategy. In coordination with PAMO, AAVP shall conduct studies to evaluate this new market and then present a long-term view of benefits, opportunities, and risks as well as a strategic plan for continued study and vision development. [Due SPMR Jan 2021]”

“AAVP shall present results of the commercial hypersonics strategic analysis and define the trade space for supersonics and hypersonics as an integrated high-speed strategy [Due: July 2021]

Issued May 12, 2021

Issued February 14, 2020

• Introductory Comments (Rita Dickens, NASA Contracting Officer)

• Project Briefing

– Background Information and Motivation for Current

Solicitation (Jeff Robinson, Senior Technical Advisor for Hypersonic Technology Project)

– Developing High Speed Strategy (Lori Ozoroski, Project Manager for Commercial Supersonic Technology Project)

– High-Speed Endoatmospheric Conceptual Vehicle Design (Erik Axdahl, High-Speed Vehicle Systems Analyst)

• Review Statement of Work Objectives and Tasks

• Review Deliverables

• Review Evaluation Criteria

– Answer public questions already received (Jonathan Burt, High-Speed Vehicle Systems Analyst)

• Q&A (Please post to the Chat)

12:30pm- 1:30pm LUNCH

1:30pm- 5:00 pm One-on-One Sessions with companies

– 1:30p-2:00p One-On-One with Company 1

– 2:00p-2:30p One-On-One with Company 2

– 2:30p-2:45p BREAK

– 2:45p-3:15p One-On-One with Company 3

– 3:15p-3:45p One-On-One with Company 4

– 3:45p-4:00p BREAK

– 4:00p-4:30p One-On-One with Company 5

– 4:30p-5:00p One-On-One with Company 6

REMINDER- Please post all questions during the presentation in the

Vehicle Conceptual Design Study

Input:

• Design requirements (passengers, speed, range, fuel, etc.) and initial goals for -ilities

– We intend to prescribe design requirements specific to any contract that is awarded. We may not be able to decide where in the design space we want those requirements to be until the current SpaceWorks Enterprises, Inc. (SEI) contract is near completion, which may well be after the RFP for this effort is published.

– If, for instance, we make multiple awards, we may require one design centered near the most probable near-term system to enter the market, but may require another to specifically address a different speed or range or fuel type based on SEI results yet to be completed.

– We want to know not only what the barriers are and technologies that may help address them today but also how the market may evolve into the future and what that means in terms of barriers and technologies that need to be worked.

Output:

• Unlimited rights conceptual designs with enough fidelity to support future technology research

• Baseline high speed –ilities values against which progress can be measured and by which regulatory discussion can be informed

• Technology roadmaps

Task 1: Vehicle Conceptual Design Studies

• Produce advanced vehicle conceptual designs, as well as corresponding airframe and propulsion technology roadmaps

• Steps:

1. Develop baseline vehicle conceptual design using near-term technologies (e.g., technology readiness level [TRL] 6+), assessing

• performance (e.g., range, flight time, fuel usage per passenger mile),

• weight, and

• environmental compliance (e.g., sonic boom, landing and takeoff noise, emissions).

2. Develop roadmaps for maturing vehicle technologies required to close threshold performance gaps.

3. Develop advanced technology vehicle conceptual design, derived from baseline design, that incorporates low-TRL technologies identified in roadmaps

• Include technologies that could feasibly be developed (considering certifiability) by 2040

• Design objectives for Task 1 are based on a combination of performance and regulatory compliance metrics

Task 1: Vehicle Conceptual Design Studies – continued

• Include sufficient fidelity in the design and analysis to meet accepted standards for detailed conceptual design, including

– aerodynamic and propulsion force/moment data that cover key operational points;

– aerothermal analysis and thermal management, including cabin environmental control;

– airframe structural analysis, potentially including thermal deformation effects;

– packaging, subsystems, and power generation, with consideration for passenger egress and safety

• Mitigation for cosmic radiation exposure to passenger or flight crew may also be considered; and

– mass property estimations.

Task 2: Environmental, Economic, and Societal Barriers Roadmapping

• Identify requirements through 2040 to enable high-speed market sustainability; address environmental, economic, and public acceptance barriers

• Steps:

1. For proposed vehicle systems, identify regulatory (e.g., noise), market (e.g., fuels price), infrastructure (e.g., unique airport requirements), or public acceptance (e.g., nonregulated emissions) gaps that create obstacles to entry or sustainment in the high-speed market

2. Identify enabling technologies

• Quantify impact on metrics of interest

• Identify any dependencies and current TRL

• Estimate development cost and timeline to TRL 6

• Identify residual gaps that cannot be closed by proposed technologies

3. Create graphical roadmaps for enabling technologies development

• Prioritize technologies with greatest impact on enabling the entry and sustainment of aircraft in service

Deliverables: Unlimited Rights Statement

• Government will have UNLIMITED RIGHTS to the requirements, conceptual designs, models and analysis results developed under this project with the only exception being Contractor or subcontractor/vendor-developed capabilities brought to the project or previously developed with private funds

• Unlimited rights deliverables include both vehicle design and technology roadmaps

• NASA intends to make any conceptual design and high level roadmaps available within the Agency and to industry, academia, or other governmental agencies for research and planning purposes it sees fit; however, it is willing to accept a separate technical data or roadmapping volume that judiciously identifies properly marked competition sensitive or proprietary information.

Deliverables

Task 1 – Aircraft Conceptual Design

• Vehicle outer mold line geometry (STEP or IGES) including any variable geometry

• Propulsion inner mold line geometry (excluding engine installation) at key operational points

• Propulsion performance data at key operational points

– Include net thrust, air and fuel mass flow rates, throttle setting at key operational points

• Aerodynamic performance data at key operational points

• Range, optimum altitude, and block time

• Mass properties for maximum takeoff, empty, payload, and propellant weights

• Vehicle center of gravity and moments of inertia at key operating points

• Quantified environmental impact, including

– Landing and takeoff noise: sideline, lateral, and approach noise estimates (EPNL)

– Sonic boom: cruise overpressure noise (PLdB)

– Emissions: sea level static and cruise emissions reported as indices of CO2, H2O, SOx and NOx (g/kg), and total mission emissions (kg)

Deliverables– continued

Task 1 – Aircraft Conceptual Design (continued)

• Diagrams and/or models of aircraft packaging

– Include cabin, cockpit, fuel tanks, stowage, major subsystems, landing gear (stowed and deployed)

• Structural layout and design information

– Include information on primary and secondary structural materials or layups

• Aircraft power requirements at key operational points

• Aircraft concept of operations

– Include information on assumptions and constraints, modes of nominal and off-nominal operation, definition of flight phases, nominal climb, cruise, and descent information, flight envelope (e.g., V-n diagram), ground system requirements, airport requirements (e.g., runway length)

• Perspective and 3-view rendered vehicle images of the concept aircraft for advocacy purposes and open dissemination

• Listing of potential technologies impacting vehicle performance (Excel format)

– Include dependencies, current TRL, and quantified impact to metrics of interest

• Graphical presentation of technology roadmaps (PowerPoint format)

Deliverables – continued

Task 2 – Sustainability Roadmapping:

• Listing of potential technologies impacting sustainability (Excel format)

– Include dependencies, current TRL, and quantified impact to metrics of interest

• Graphical presentation of sustainability roadmaps (PowerPoint format)

Tasks 1 and 2:

• Monthly status presentations (PowerPoint format) presented in a virtual meeting

• Mid-term presentation (PowerPoint format) presented in either a live or virtual meeting

• Final written report (Word format)

• Final presentation (PowerPoint format) presented in either a live or virtual meeting

Milestones and GFI

• Government-furnished information (GFI) for this project includes University of Texas at Arlington Aerospace Vehicle Design Laboratory final report, “Hypersonic, Commercial Transportation Feasibility Study,” NASA Contract No. NNL13AA08B, Task Order No.

80LARC20F0015.

Milestone ID Milestone Description Time since Award

1 Project Kickoff 1 week 2 Midterm Review 6 months 3 Final Review 12 months

Proposal Evaluation Factors

The 3 Evaluation Factors are:

1. Technical Capability

2. Price

3. Past Performance

1. TECHNICAL CAPABILITY 'Gate':

• Evaluation of the Technical Capability volume will occur before any other evaluation of information. A Technical Capability proposal evaluation must receive an overall adjectival rating of “Excellent” or “Very Good” to be considered for further evaluation. If an adjectival rating of “Excellent” or “Very Good” is not attained on the Technical Capability volume, evaluations will not be conducted on the Past Performance and Business (price) volumes.

• All proposals that receive an overall adjectival rating of less than “Excellent” or “Very Good” within the Technical Capability volume will receive notice from the Contracting Officer that the proposal has been excluded from further valuation.

• The Technical Capability evaluation and rating will be considered in the final selection of proposals.

Proposal Evaluation Factors (cont'd)

1. TECHNICAL CAPABILITY:

The Government will consider the following six (6) elements in the evaluation and rating of the Offeror’s Technical Capability:

• (25%) Relevance to RFP Objectives

• (25%) Overall Technical Approach

• (25%) Overall Work Plan

• (10%) Team Qualifications

• Serious consideration will be given concerning teaming. Meaningful teaming is encouraged where appropriate to improve technical products and/or reduce costs.

• (10%) Intellectual Property

• NASA will evaluate the proposals to determine that there is a clear statement of intellectual property that will be LIMITED

RIGHTS and that which will be UNLIMITED RIGHTS at the work’s conclusion (including intellectual property that may be subject to applicable export control regulations).

• Serious consideration will be given concerning data rights. Proposals with UNLIMITED RIGHTS to all contract deliverables will be given considerably higher consideration than those with Limited Rights. All Contractor or subcontract/vendor proprietary data rights assertions and intellectual property (IP) issues shall be clearly presented in the TECHNICAL VOLUME of the proposal.

• (5%) Documentation

2. PRICE:

• Although the price is not numerically scored nor receives an adjectival rating, it is important in determining that the Offeror understands the solicitation and the resources required.

• The evaluation will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b) Price Analysis, NFS 1815.404-2 and NFS 1815.404-4.

• The total price will be presented to the Source Selection Authority, as well as any assessment associated with the proposal.

3. PAST PERFORMANCE:

• The Government will evaluate two (2) elements of relevant experience and past performance of the Offeror and any Major Subcontractors/Teaming Partners:

• 1. Past Performance Narrative (PPN)

• 2. Past Performance Databases (PPD)

• The results of the PPN and PPD evaluations will be considered in determining the Level of Confidence rating. Each area is considered approximately equal in value.

• Offerors without a record of relevant experience and past performance, or for who information on past performance is not available, shall receive a neutral rating in accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv).

RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF EVALUTION FACTORS:

Overall, in the selection of a Contractor(s) for contract award, Technical Capability is the most heavily weighted criteria in the evaluation process.

Technical Capability and Past Performance when combined are significantly more important than Price.

NASA reserves the right to make award to other than the lowest priced offeror(s) or the highest rated offeror(s), if deemed to be in the best interest of NASA.

• Introductory Comments (Rita Dickens, NASA Contracting Officer)

• Project Briefing

– Background Information and Motivation for Current

Solicitation (Jeff Robinson, Senior Technical Advisor for Hypersonic Technology Project)

– Developing High Speed Strategy (Lori Ozoroski, Project Manager for Commercial Supersonic Technology Project)

– High-Speed Endoatmospheric Conceptual Vehicle Design (Erik Axdahl, High-Speed Vehicle Systems Analyst)

• Review Statement of Work Objectives and Tasks

• Review Deliverables

• Review Evaluation Criteria

– Answer public questions already received (Jonathan Burt, High-Speed Vehicle Systems Analyst)

• Q&A (Please post to the Chat)

12:30pm- 1:30pm LUNCH

1:30pm- 5:00 pm One-on-One Sessions with companies

– 1:30p-2:00p One-On-One with Company 1

– 2:00p-2:30p One-On-One with Company 2

– 2:30p-2:45p BREAK

– 2:45p-3:15p One-On-One with Company 3

– 3:15p-3:45p One-On-One with Company 4

– 3:45p-4:00p BREAK

– 4:00p-4:30p One-On-One with Company 5

– 4:30p-5:00p One-On-One with Company 6

REMINDER- Please post all questions during the presentation in the

Question #1-

• What is the purpose of the government reference vehicle?

• Response: The government reference vehicle, for which data may be shared between NASA, other U.S. Government agencies, academia, and industry, will potentially function as a baseline design for research on performance and operability of high-speed aircraft and aircraft components. Such research may involve a number of different disciplines (e.g., landing and takeoff noise, sonic boom estimation, aerothermodynamics, aeroelasticity, structures, thermal management, emissions, etc.) with the general goal of fostering increased understanding of flight physics and design challenges as applied to a realistic high-speed commercial aircraft concept. The government reference vehicle design may also be used to provide data to other U.S. Government agencies for standards and rulemaking.

Question #2-

• Are the parameters listed in Table 2 absolute? Is NASA interested in solutions outside the bounds of Table 2? (e.g., faster maximum speed, larger or smaller payloads)

• Response: Values in Table 2 are based on the results of the earlier market studies and life cycle costs study, which identified specific parameter ranges as especially favorable from a perspective of economic viability and risk. In principle, solutions of interest are not constrained by these bounds, but parameter values for vehicle design are to be negotiated after the contract award based largely on findings from the earlier studies.

Question #3-

• The cited study references from SAIC/BryceTech and Deloitte are unclassified/unlimited. The contract clauses (page 26 of 73) mention the need to protect CUI information. Will NASA provide qualified vendors with access to applicable CUI documents?

• Response: No, NASA will not provide qualified vendors with pre-award access to applicable CUI documents because they are Export Controlled. As such, the proposers would have to be properly vetted to confirm that the organization is approved to receive Export Controlled information which will not be possible given the time available. However, the qualified vendor(s) selected for award(s) will be given access to applicable CUI documents as government furnished information under the contract.

Question #4-

• Can you provide a bounding monetary range/award value/target dollar amount for the contract award?

• Do you expect a single or multiple awards?

• Response: A total investment of approximately $2,500,000 is anticipated for this solicitation.

• Actual number and value of the awards will depend on the quality and content of the proposals received.

Question #5-

• Are you looking for contractors to provide a conceptual design for the Mach number (between 2 and 5) that they believe is most viable or will the Mach number(s) be dictated by NASA?

• Response: The specific Mach number will be negotiated after the contract award, based primarily on the results of prior commercial market viability and life cycle cost modeling studies. NASA may not necessarily dictate a specific Mach number, although the choice of Mach number will be strongly influenced by the earlier study results.

Question #6-

• Will there be a posted list of interested parties to facilitate discussion for teaming arrangements?

• Will there be opportunities to partner or work with other organizations on this effort?

• Response: Yes, all the names of all organizations who attend industry day will be posted on July 22, 2022. Organizations are encouraged to reach out to pursue partnering opportunities.

Question #7-

• Are there going to be follow-on efforts from this contract for moving beyond conceptual design to prototyping?

• In that vein, has NASA considered requesting a digital twin as part of the contract deliverables to enable cohesive transition between phases of study and prototyping?

• Response:

• No, there are currently no planned follow-on contracted efforts.

• The Offeror may consider proposing a digital twin as an Option in the proposal.

Question #8-

• Does NASA expect to issue a DD-254 associated with this effort and/or have any consideration for how to incorporate classified information/technology leveraged from DoD efforts?

• Response: No, this is a strictly unclassified procurement. NASA will not accept any proposals containing classified information.

Question #9-

• (Section L.12 Proposal Page Limitations, page 61) Does the SOW count against the page limit in Volume II: Business?

An association of SOW is needed with the cost data to ascertain price reasonableness. However, SOW also provides insight into the Tech approach. This may violate the statement on page 62, “Information that can be construed as belonging in one of the other sections of the proposal will be so construed and counted against that section's page limitation.”

• Response: For clarification, NASA does not require the offerors to re-submit the SOW back to NASA within their proposals. Offerors can reference the SOW but do not need to include a copy of the original SOW in their proposal.

NASA will consider changing the Volume II: Business's page limit in the Final RFP.

Question #10-

• The table on page 61 says the page limit for Volume III: Past Performance is unlimited, however, the paragraph on page 66 states, “Submissions for Relevant Experience and Past Performance shall not exceed five (5) pages.” These seem contradictory?

• Response: NASA will edit this to ensure both limits align.

Question #11-

• What are NASA’s sustainability goals for high-speed commercial aircraft (since this is referenced in the draft RFP on page 8)?

• Response: Meeting current or anticipated regulations for landing and takeoff noise, emissions, and sonic boom is desirable. Furthermore, concepts should be able to integrate into the current or future anticipated airport infrastructure and national airspace system. Economic factors should also be considered when making choices for technology integration and fuels.

Question #12-

• What do you mean by aeroderivative technologies on page 8?

“These roadmaps would include not only technologies centric to the feasibility and viability of the vehicle itself, but also potential aeroderivative technologies that would have a high impact to the public”

• Response: The referenced aeroderivative technologies include technologies that are associated with or derived from commercial aviation but are not directly tied to aircraft design. For example, such technologies could relate to airport infrastructure, fuel sourcing and delivery, flight scheduling, air traffic management, or manufacturing for composites or high-temperature materials.

Question #13-

• What criteria should we use for cosmic radiation exposure?

• Response: One criterion to consider is a desired flight crew exposure of less than 1 millisievert/year. Instantaneous exposure levels in the range of 10 microsieverts/hour or less are generally desired, especially for the flight crew, in line with expected exposure levels for subsonic commercial flight.

For additional information, please see https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0952-4746/21/1/003 (Townsend: "Radiation exposures of aircrew in high altitude flight," J. Radiological Protection, 2001) and references therein.

Question #14-

• Where can we find the ARMD 2019 NASA Aeronautics Strategic Implementation Plan? Specifically, the sections (Thrust 2, etc.) that apply to this opportunity.

• Response: The NASA Aeronautics Strategic Implementation Plan can be found here: https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/sip-2019-v7-web.pdf This version of the SIP is from 2019 and is currently being revised to include updates to the evolving High-Speed strategy within NASA. Relevant sections include “Strategic Thrust 2: Innovation in Commercial Supersonic Aircraft” and “Crosscutting Research & Testing”.

Question #15-

• Does NASA have any small disadvantaged business, women owned or minority serving institution goals or requirements for this opportunity?

• Response: At this time, NASA does not have any set aside requirements for this acquisition.

• Due to the vast range of organizations interested and the teaming goals in the evaluation criteria, NASA will make a final determination on the subcontracting goals/requirements prior to releasing the Final RFP.

Question #16-

• Are the only roadmap criteria of interest ultimately related to sustainability? For example, is synthetic vision considered a sustainability technology?

• Response: Task 1 includes roadmapping for technology items that may address vehicle design aspects related to performance or regulatory gaps.

Question #17-

• Should the roadmap costs identified in Tasks 1.2 and 2.2.b be ROM costs?

• Response: Rough order of magnitude (ROM) costs are acceptable when considering the costs of technology roadmap items.

Question #18-

• Task 2 (page 9) states, “contractor shall create a roadmap that identifies requirements through 2040 …” This is a little confusing. Shouldn’t the requirements be developed first and then roadmaps created to achieve configurations that meet those requirements?

• Response: The word "requirements" is used in this context to mean needs or goals which may vary over time based on anticipated technology development and/or regulatory changes, and an estimation of these requirements is part of the roadmapping task. These requirements are broadly defined to include economic, environmental and societal challenges, all of which may factor into elements of the roadmap.

Question #19-

• May industry provide concepts that deviate from the design matrix of interest? For example, there are industry players targeting Mach 1.7-1.8 and passenger amounts >50 (60-90 passengers).

• Response: The intent of this study is to develop vehicle designs and roadmaps for Mach 2-5 commercial flight, as informed by the earlier market and life cycle costs studies. While some negotiation is expected on the specific vehicle design point to be considered, strong preference will be given to proposals that avoid deviating significantly outside the intended design space.

Question #20-

• Can there be limited rights/proprietary information included in a proposal and then the awarded contract?

• Response:

– Yes, there is the potential for limited rights information/proprietary information to be included in the performance of this contract.

– Offerors may be asked to include limited rights/proprietary information in a separate addendum/separate report that contains that limited rights information in addition to an unlimited rights version.

– All offerors need to be aware that although some organizations have proprietary information that pertains to this acquisition, NASA is seeking Unlimited Rights to the requirements, designs, models, and analysis results (the deliverables listed in the SOW). The purpose of this acquisition is to produce knowledge that can benefit the public and create reports that can be widely dispersed.

– Please note as stated in Section M of the draft RFP: “Serious consideration will be given concerning data rights. Proposals with UNLIMITED RIGHTS to all contract deliverables will be given considerably higher consideration than those with Limited Rights. All Contractor or subcontract/vendor proprietary data rights assertions and intellectual property (IP) issues shall be clearly presented in the TECHNICAL VOLUME of the proposal.”

Question #21-

• Will there be a small business set aside or subcontracting goals included in this

RFP?

• Response: Yes, all small business subcontracting goals will be posted in the Final

RFP.

Question #22-

• Why is NASA encouraging partnering in this acquisition?

• Response: Partnerships bring more perspectives and, often, working together creates better solutions.

• If a partner can bring value-added expertise, experience, and/or capabilities, then partnering is strongly encouraged.

• Although collaboration with outside partners is not required, teaming is encouraged when appropriate to augment offeror strengths and to utilize partner expertise and experience.

Question #23-

• What are the two propulsion companies currently working contracts resulting in products (e.g., technology roadmaps) that may contribute to NASA's High-Speed Strategy?

• Response: Williams International (funded jointly with DoD) & General Electric (NASA-only funding) are currently under contract.

Question #24-

• When NASA says “widely dispersed", can there be ITAR/EAR information utilized and/or produced in this contract?

• Response: Yes, by widely dispersed, NASA means that it would like to have the option to share data created under this contract to those organizations it chooses. Though, it is likely data created under this contract may have ITAR/EAR restrictions and that data will be handled appropriately.

Question #25-

• Does ground system requirements include Maintenance and Repair (MRO)? MRO Programs and life cycle management?

• Response:

• MRO is useful information re: the sustainability of the aircraft and will be considered if proposed.

Question #26-

• Does this SOW intend no packaging diagrams of the propulsion integration?

• Response: Propulsion packaging will be needed at a high level.

Question #27-

• Is there a desire for experimental work?

• Response: There is no desire for experimental work to be conducted as part of the vehicle conceptual design or roadmapping efforts sought in this RFP.

• However, as NASA further develops its high-speed strategy there may be opportunities for experimental work to be performed as required to mature technologies identified in the roadmapping efforts.

QUESTIONS?

Please post all questions during the presentation in the Chat.

NASA will post answers to these questions by July 22, 2022.