Questions and Responses - Set #1 - FINAL.pdf

10 SOW 3.2

It is stated “The MOC shall rely primarily on its own S-band antenna…” which seems to imply that the MOC must have a collocated antenna. Is that the intent? Can a commercial ground network antenna (or antennas), separate from the MOC and/or procured as a service, satisfy this requirement?

There is no requirement for a collocated antenna.

11 SOW 3.2

Are frequencies other than S-band possible? i.e., if we wanted to use other frequencies (e.g., X-band for downlink) would this be allowable?

The requirement is for S-band only.

12 SOW 3.3

Are payload processing facilities GFE? If yes, will spacecraft fueling services (if needed) be provided as GFE as part of that?

The payload processing facilities at the launch site are GFE.

There is no requirement for fueling.

13 SOW 4.1.2 Is government access to our internal Config Management System necessary for a Class D mission?

The Government shall have electronic access to documents, and data used to manage the TSIS-2 contract, including drawings and requirements verification database. This access shall be available from both inside and outside the contractor’s facility.

14 SOW 4.1.4

For the purposes of the proposal, can we assume that the launch vehicle is supplied by a US provider and the launch site is within the United States?

The launch vehicle will be supplied by a US provider. For the proposal, the offeror shall presume that the launch site is in the United States. If TSIS-2 is launched from a site outside the United States, the government will initiate action under the Changes Clause.

15 SOW 4.1.6 Are STEP files acceptable for CAD files? STEP files are acceptable.

16 SOW 4.1.7 Are four dedicated exclusive desks in a securable space necessary for a Class D mission?

The contractor shall provide office space that includes at least two desks for Government use while in-plant at the spacecraft development/build site.

17 SOW Table 4 Can we assume that the flight instrument will arrive at our facility at ATP + 23 months? Yes.

18 SOW 4.4.1.3 The MAR does not require PRA, but this SOW states the results are to be presented at CDR. Which is correct?

Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) is not required.

References to PRA in the SOW and CDRLs will be deleted.

19 SOW 4.4.1.5

Requiring separate test readiness reviews for each individual test is burdensome and not consistent with a Class D program. Recommend changing to a single test readiness review that covers all environmental tests.

The vendor shall propose solutions that meet/exceed TSIS-2 requirements.

20 SOW 4.4.1.10

Recommend limiting peer reviews to the design phases only (namely pre-PDR and pre-CDR) for consistency with Class D.

The vendor shall propose solutions that meet/exceed TSIS-2 requirements.

21 SOW 4.6.5 What is the intent of the IPv4 and IPv6 environment requirements

The iPv4 and iPv6 environments are required to comply with FAR 11.002(g), NFS 1811.101-70, and NASA CIO directives.

22 REQ Table 2.1 The Rocket Lab Electron User’s Guide referenced here has been superseded. The new version is 6.4. Please indicate the correct version that is to be used.

The newest version available on-line shall be used. Table

2.1 will be updated.

23 REQ Table 2.1

The Virgin Galactic Launcher One User’s Guide referenced here has been superseded. The new version is 1.2 and it was released in July 2019. Please indicate the correct version that is to be used.

The newest version available on-line shall be used. Table

2.1 will be updated.

24 REQ Table 2.1

The link provided for the ESPA document is broken. There is a Moog ESPA User’s Guide rev 0 that was released in November 2018. There is also the 2019 Astro ESPA Rideshare User’s Guide that was released for the Astrophysics SMEX AO. Please indicate which document is to be used and provide it if it is not publicly available.

The newest version of the Moog ESPA User's Guide available on-line shall be used. Table 2.1 will be updated.

25 REQ Table 2.1 CCSDS 232.1-B-1 has been superseded by rev B-2. Should we still use the specified rev B-1?

The newest version available on-line shall be used. Table

2.1 will be updated.

26 REQ 3.6.2.1-2 What altitude and inclination should we assume for an ESPA launch injection?

Assume ESPA launch provides injection into the TSIS-2 specified orbit parameters. The orbit parameters are for initial conditions and not maintained throughout the mission.

27 REQ 3.5 Are we required to be powered on during launch or can we power on at LV separation?

The TSIS-2 observatory shall be powered during launch to allow the spacecraft to locate itself after separation.

28 REQ 3.5.4

This requirement presupposes a battery chemistry type that requires reconditioning. Recommend deleting requirement or amending to indicate “if appropriate”.

The vendor shall propose solutions that meet/exceed TSIS-2 requirements.

29 REQ 3.6.1.2

This requirement carries with it an implicit requirement that the Observatory is to be launched in a powered on state which may drive range safety and carry other implications (in the context of a rideshare payload). Is there a requirement that the Observatory be launched powered on regardless of launch vehicle and/or launch scenario?

The TSIS-2 observatory shall be powered during launch to allow the spacecraft to locate itself after separation.

30 REQ 3.7

Requirements are given for the state of the instruments’ “door” during Safe and Science Modes. The IARD references instruments’ vacuum doors for use during I&T.

What “doors” are operated during flight? Is Sec. 3.7 referring to the instrument shutters or will these vacuum doors operate during flight?

Section 3.7 will be updated to reference instrument shutters instead of doors. The instrument shutters are cycled open/closed by the instrument electronics during Science Mode and shall be closed in Safe Hold mode. The vacuum doors are closed through launch and early spacecraft commissioning to allow the observatory to outgas: once opened on-orbit the vacuum doors remain open for the remainder of the mission.

31 REQ 3.7

What is the power state of the instrument components in the various spacecraft modes defined? Are there conditions where the instrument components are powered off or in a reduced power state?

In Safe mode, instrument shutters are closed but otherwise the instruments are powered on. Assume nominal operating instrument power for all modes.

32 REQ 4.1.5

This requirement provides an NTE mass for the Observatory. When coupled with Req 3.11 (which states that ³ 25% mass margin is required for pre-Phase A), this would imply that the MEV Observatory mass must be less than 111 kg. Is this the intent?

Requirement 4.1.6 (not 4.1.5) only applies to the NTE mass of the observatory. The MEV Observatory mass is calculated using the margins specified in 3.11.

33 REQ 4.4.11

The requirement presupposes the battery chemistry type which depends on design implementation. It would be better to reword as “The Spacecraft battery shall be sized such that number of cycles and depth of discharge are consistent with the 3-year mission life requirement.”

This requirement remains as originally stated in the requirements document.

34 REQ 4.4.12

Recommend deletion of this requirement. Requiring individual battery cell monitoring and battery cell bypass could result in non-value added NRE.

This requirement remains as originally stated in the requirements document.

35 REQ 4.4.15

Recommend changing requirement to “Each instrument power feed shall have over-current protection.” Specifying fusing is prescribing a design where other approaches may be more appropriate and/or lower cost.

This requirement remains as originally stated in the requirements document.

36 REQ 4.5

There appear to be no requirements on attitude knowledge accuracy or ephemeris knowledge accuracy that are flowed down from the science or instruments. Presumably the SC contractor can derive those based solely on SC bus and mission operations needs.

Correct.

37 REQ 4.5.1.2, 3,

These three requirements are not applicable to a GPS-based ephemeris approach and should be noted as such. Agreed.

38 REQ 4.5.2.1.1

If orbital injection is sub-optimal (i.e., 3s worst case), can the orbit precess beyond 16:00 LTAN ±15 min so long as the vehicle slews the instruments to deep space once per orbit to accommodate calibration?

LTAN 16:00 is for initial condition and not maintained throughout the mission.

39 REQ 4.6.3.3 What is the definition of command authentication? The requirement is for command authentication only without encryption.

40 REQ 4.7.7

This requirement implies that the SC must be powered on during launch which, as noted previously, could have adverse implications for rideshare compatibility. Is being powered on during launch a hard requirement?

The TSIS-2 observatory shall be powered during launch to allow the spacecraft to locate itself after separation. The Launch Services Program has confirmed this approach for all launch vehicle options.

41 REQ 4.7.9

100% coverage is not practical, recommend updating to language such as “link shall close with > 3 dB margin for 80% of its 4pi steradian in any phase or mode of the mission at a 5 degree elevation angle to line of sight ground station,”

Requirement 4.7.9 does not require 100% coverage. The requirement remains as originally stated in the requirements document.

42 REQ 4.7.9 This requirement specifies 3 dB link margins whereas the SOW says that at least 6 dB is required.

The link margin of 3 dB as described in the requirements document is correct. The SOW is incorrect and will be updated to reflect the 3 dB requirement.

43 REQ 6.1.3

This requirement specifies test levels for electric field, and then cites both RS101 and RS103. Are there Magnetic Susceptibility requirements to be levied (i.e. resulting from RS101), or was the intent to just reference electric field levels from RS103?

There is no separate magnetic susceptability requirement.

44 REQ 6.1.4

This Requirements presents some levels in Table 6.2 that are significantly larger than those given in MIL-STD-461G.

What is the particular motivation to test to such high levels?

This will likely require NRE redesign and requalification efforts to our existing product line to comply with this requirement as stated.

Requirement 6.1.4 should refer to "launch mode", not "normal operating mode". The requirement will be udpated.

45 REQ 6 As noted above, the LV documents listed are not the latest versions available. The newest versions available on-line shall be used.

46 REQ 6.3.2.1

Requirement states that +/- 15g, does this take into account the factor of safety, or should the factor of safety be applied in addition to the stated quasi-static load?

Table 6.4 shows factor of safety requirements.

47 REQ 6.3.6.2

Acoustic testing is stated as a hard requirement. Given the small size of this Observatory, it is doubtful whether acoustic testing will provide any value. Recommend a provision for verification of acoustic environmental compatibility via analysis.

The vendor shall propose solutions that meet/exceed TSIS-2 requirements.

48 REQ 6.3

General question for requirements in 6.3: Why do the launch environment level requirement levels exceed launch environment levels listed in the required launch vehicle user guides? In some cases nearly double, can you elaborate on what is required? This will require requalification and redesign of existing components and significantly drive cost.

The requirements in Section 6.3 are designed to envelope all potential launch vehicle options. The vendor shall propose solutions that meet/exceed TSIS-2 requirements.

49 REQ 6.4.2.1

It is stated “The Spacecraft Bus structure and all its components shall complete a minimum of 12 TVAC cycles before flight.” Recommend deletion of “structure” in this requirement as there is no value added for performing TVAC testing on the SC bus structure.

The word "structure" will be removed from the requirement.

50 CDRL SE-3 Surface charging, venting, and multipaction analyses are generally not consistent with Class D. The CDRL SE-3 remains as stated.

51 CDRL SE-4/SE-

When will the GFE instrument thermal and structural math models be provided?

Instrument thermal and structural math models will be provided prior to SC PDR. The offeror may indicate when instrument models are needed to support the spacecraft development.

52 CDRL SE-8

Is there a mechanism for using classified on-orbit performance data in the previously used hardware/software review?

Reviews will generally be held outside the classified environment. A review of specific classified performance data can be arranged, but the vendor should limit the amount of classified data to the maximum extent possible.

53 IARD 3.1 What are the specifications for Analog Telemetry feedback from the GCIs?

Information to address this question will be made available in an update to the IARD.

54 IARD

It is stated that all harnesses between the SC bus and the instrument will be provided by the SC vendor. Will mating connector halves on the instrument side be provided as

GFE?

Mating connector halves on the instrument side of harnesses between the spacecraft and the instruments will be provided as GFE.

55 IARD 3.5 Do the GCI boxes have specific requirements on mounting or placement?

GCI box placement is at the offeror's discretion as long as requirements stated in the RFP are met.

56 IARD

May we get explicit volume dimensions of instruments from NASA or a higher-resolution mechnical drawing or current CAD models? Difficult to read dimensions on IARD.

Information to address this question will be made available in an update to the IARD.

57 IARD Figure 6 Please identify the location of the FSS on the SIM instrument.

Information to address this question will be made available in an update to the IARD.

58 IARD Table 9

The peak power does not include an entry for the Ferry Prism Drive (FPD). We would have expected the 6.65W value to be included in the sum? Is the 71.14W total correct?

71.14 W is correct. The door and the FPD are not operated

simultaneously. The door is opened once and remains open for the remainder of the mission.

59 IARD 6.2.1-

6.2.4

These requirements specify an adiabatic interface which implies that all four TSIS instrument elements must be mounted external to the SC bus (so that they can radiate their heat directly to deep space). Please verify that all instrument elements must be externally mounted.

The vendor shall propose a design solution that meets the thermal requirements of the IARD. The instruments may be externally mounted.

60 MAR 1.6

This requirement leaves open the possibility of an unspecified number of Government Mandatory Inspection Points (GMIPs). These would be difficult or impossible to accommodate for a Class D/FFP. Can we assume that these will align with our own inspection points and standards of practice, or do we need to account for an anticipated number of these in budget? What would be the number to use?

For the purpose of the proposal, assume the GMIPs will align with the vendor's inspection points and standards of practice.

61 MAR 9.3

This requirement is worded in a very vague and broad way.

Are there specific FOD protection levels they are expecting (e.g. is our clean room sufficient, are there specific components aside from payload they're concerned about, etc.)

The FOD program shall, at a minimum, specify procedures to assure that the work areas are free of debris that could compromise the observatory cleanliness as well as procedures to control tools and fasteners and any other materials/equipment used for assembly so that they may not be left in areas where they could damage the observatory or hardware.

62 MAR What class cleanroom is used for construction and test of the payload? Surface contamination rates?

The required pre-launch surface cleanliness for the instrument is VC-0.5-1000-1500UV and R5E-1 per IEST-STD-1246 for external surfaces (door closed).

63 MAR 10.2

This section has a lot of detailed wording. Do we need to address everything in detail, or do you regard AS9100 compliance as equivalent? If not, isn’t this in conflict with

2.1 on Pg 3 that requires AS9100 compliance?

Vendor compliance to AS9100 for calibration is equivalent and no further actions are required.

64 MAR 2.2.2

This section suggests the MRB (including government representative) dispositions every single hardware DR on vehicle and products. That seems way beyond the scope of a class D. There is wording about major/minor nonconformances. Was the intent to use full MRB for major nonconformances only, akin to 2.2.3?

The MAR will be updated to reflect the difference in processing minor material nonconformances similar to Section 2.2.3.

65 MAR 2.2.3 This section identifies a project risk board, not mentioned anywhere else in the document. Who is on this board?

The project risk board refers to GSFC project management.

The MAR will be updated to indicate that the vendor shall notify the COR when there are red flag PFRs.

66 MAR 3.3.3

This section refers to parts SDP I, SDP II, and SDP III, and requires deliverables to be included with these sections.

Section 3.3.4 has wording that could be interpreted as these sections corresponding to Prelaunch, Launch, and Ascent, but that contradicts 3.3.3.3, which evaluates hazards up to and including Prelaunch only, though is to be included as part of both SDP II and SDP III. What is the intended structure of the SDP and what is it to include?

Time-Phase Clarifications:

3.3.3.2 “OHA & HVTL” is for observatory development through shipment to the Launchsite.

3.3.3.3 “O&SHA” is meant for joint operations such as fueling (NA if no such operations).

3.3.4 “SDP” is for launchsite operations, arrival on property through Sustainer-activated Separation On-orbit. The SDP package gets Range Safety review at PDR (I) , CDR (II) , and Pre-Ship Review (III), hence three times, for SDP I, II, and III. VTL is for verification burn-down plan for post-SDP- III verifications.

67 MAR 3.3.6

This section specifies that the developer shall provide safety support for hazardous operations at the launch site. What is the extent of the support required? What expectations are there on numbers of personnel, time at the site, etc? If we are not required to be powered on at launch, does that change the expectations on this requirement?

The vendor shall identify support needed for any launch site processes that the vendor identifies as hazardous observatory operations. Outside of these operations, the vendor shall propose support to assist the launch vehicle provider in launch preparations based on your experience. The spacecraft will be powered at launch.

68 MAR 4.5

This section has a note that says "Examples … shall include …" Is this paragraph to be interpreted as a requirement, or is the use of the word "shall" inadvertent?

The MAR will be updated to correct the wording to "Examples include but are not limited to…."

69 MAR 5.2

NASA-STD-8739.8 states "Often Class D assurance activities consist mostly of assuring any contractual agreements meet the needs of the project/program and then performing periodic audits and surveys of the project's work to follow up." and Table 1 shows that for a Class D program "Major tailoring of software assurance requirements" is used and that "Activities to meet the requirements will be minimal". Should we interpret the requirement for developing a Software Assurance Program with that in mind? If so, does the SAP require anything beyond the list provided in Section 5.3?

The vendor shall use the requirements of Section 5.3 in developing the Software Assurance Plan.

70 MAR 6.1

Are PCBs with flight heritage but minor deviations from IPC-6012 Class 3 requirements acceptable? Or will all components be required to fully meet IPC requirements regardless of heritage?

NCRs to the PCB requirements are dispositioned by the Government to evaluate the risk to the project.

71 MAR 7.2

Section 7.2 establishes a Parts Control Board (PCB). Is the PCB required to review the selection and application for designs with heritage, or only new designs developed as part of the program?

The vendor may propose using an inherited items risk assessment process to obtain approval for heritage designs.

New designs or heritage designs not approved in the inherited items risk assessment shall be reviewed and approved by the Parts Control Board for part selection and application.

72 Attach. F pg. 3

We’re concerned about the apparent backloading of the milestone payments which is inconsistent with the contractor’s expenditure profile. Per this table, the contractor can only receive payment of 45% of the contract value up until SIR, yet approximately 75% of program expenditures will have been made by that point. This mismatch will result in non-value-added finance charges to the contract. Strongly recommend giving the contractor flexibility in setting the milestone payment percentages subject to any prescribed government funding constraints (e.g., no more than 25% expenditure before KDP B).

Estimated percentage column is provided for planning/informational purposes. Government expects the offeror to propose percentage payments as well as payment schedule for interim payment events (added where applicable) and associated completion criteria that flow into the Government provided major payment events and completion criteria as provided.

73 Attach. F pg. 4

Milestone payments will not be made until government approval of applicable CDRLs and resolution of action items. There should be set time limits (e.g., 30 days) for government approval of submitted items. Milestone payments should be not be on indefinite hold subject to the government’s review and approval of documentation.

Refer to Section 2.2A of Attachment C.

74 Attach. F pg. 3 & 9

Please clarify how the optional Mission Operations payments will be made. The note on page 3 says that there will be monthly incremental payments, yet page 9 implies that the payment is subject to the requirements listed in Sections 14, 15, and 16 which seem to be applied on a yearly basis.

Optional Mission Operations payment will be made as monthly incremental payments. The completion criteria is intended to detail requirements necessary to satisfy yearly Mission Operations in full; wherein each criteria must be met

75 QASP

The QASP is inconsistent with an FFP contract. The contractor also has a financial incentive to be successful (the 10% final milestone payment after successful checkout).

Overall mission success is incentivized (with financial risks borne by the contractor). This should significantly reduce the government’s need for insight/oversight on day-to-day contractor performance.

The Government will coordinate oversight with the developer based on predefined GMIPs and critical activities that would be monitored based on details provided by the developer.

76 QASP pg. 3

It is stated “The QASP can be changed unilaterally by the Government at any time during the contract.” This is incompatible with an FFP-type contract. If the government unilaterally changes the contract terms, the contract will be forced to submit a change proposal. However, it is also noted that the QASP is for informational purposes only and will not be part of the contract.

The government reserves the right to monitor contractor activities. Performance issues may necessitate increased oversight.

77 QASP Table 1 Under an FFP contract, it is inappropriate for the government to monitor contractor staffing levels, time to fill positions, and progress on staff training.

The requirement does not apply to a FFP contract. Update to QASP will be forthcoming.

78 QASP Table 1 NASA Form 533 financial data is inconsistent with an FFP contract and it is inappropriate for the government to request this data.

Reference to NF 533 does not apply to a FFP contract.

Update to QASP will be forthcoming.

79 Exh. 2

How much notice will be provided prior to exercising any of the one-month launch delay options? Is the intent that the Observatory would be placed into storage during these delay periods?

The contract does not specify how much notice will be given prior to exercising any of the one-month launch delays. As much notice as practicably possible will be given, but due to the nature of launch delays a firm period cannot be established. The intent is the observatory would be placed in storage during these delays.

There are a large number of technical, reporting, oversight, and mission assurance requirements throughout these documents that exceed what is common to Class D missions.

Compliance will result in a much higher cost than is achieved by a Class D mission. Is the intent to elevate the observatory to a higher-class mission, or will you be revising these requirements to align with Class D?

Requirements are aligned with Class D.

81 RFP

We understand per the RFP that proposal delivery may be accomplished via 3 different methods, specifically,

• U.S. Postal Service Express Mail,

• Commercial Delivery Service, or

• Delivery by company employee or other individual agent

Questions:

1. Are there any specific advance arrangements that need to be made with NASA, including gaining access to the NASA facility, in order to hand deliver proposals to the Shipping and Receiving Dock, Building 35?

1.a. If so, what are the procedures?

2. Will a receipt for delivery be provided for hand delivered packages?

There are no specific advance arrangments that need to be made with NASA, including gaining access to the NASA facility, in order to hand deliver proposals to the Shipping and Receiving Dock, Building 35. The facility has a puublic facing entrance for just such deliveries. The personnel at the Shipping and Receiving Dock will provide a receipt for hand delivered packages.

Please clarify that requirement is to assure Observatory design is compatible with all three launch vehicle options, or is with any of the three launch vehicle options.

SOW says ‘Spacecraft…shall be designed for access to space via Electron, LauncherOne, or ESPA. (emphasis mine). ORD says shall be compatible with all three. "The Observatory shall be compatible with the Electron Rocket Lab (https://www.rocketlabusa.com/assets/Uploads/Rocket- Lab-Payload-Users-Guide-6.2.pdf), LauncherOne (Virgin Orbit, https://virginorbit.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Virgin-OrbitService-Guide.pdf), and Evolved expendable launch vehicle Secondary Payload Adapter (ESPA) (https://www.csaengineering.com/content/dam/moog/literatu re/Space_Defense/spaceliterature/stru ctures/SAIS_ESPA_Ring_Rev_0712.pdf) launch vehicles. "

The observatory design shall be compatible with all three launch vehicle options.