RFP 80GSFC24R0001 - Enclosure G Scenarios Amendment 1.pdf

RFP - 80GSFC24R0001

Enclosure G

ENCLOSURE G

RFP 80GSFC24R0001

SCENARIO 1: LUNAR SPACE-BASED POWER PLANT DEMONSTRATION

1 PROJECT SUMMARY

MISSION DESCRIPTION

NASA’s Space-Based Power Plant (SPP) is a Goddard managed Earth-Moon mission aimed at expanding our use of space-based power generation and advancing renewable energy for a clean and environmentally sustainable Earth and other interplanetary targets. SPP will use ESA launch services in French Guiana in 2030. The SPP will be a constellation of Sun-Tower satellites, based on JAXA research, in orbit with a supporting ground rectenna system to provide safe power via Wireless Power Transmission (WPT) to Lunar habitats and experiment. Initially the SPP constellation will consist of two Sun-Tower Satellites in lunar orbits that provide continuous coverage of lunar rectennas. Initial deployments will establish an active Sun-Tower in each slot.

Although additional ground systems may be needed, the initial SPP ground system will consist of a single ground station integrated with planned lunar facilities for each participating international partner, with a wire-mesh dipole rectenna farm to receive and convert the Sun-Tower transmitted energy. The ground stations will facilitate the SPP control and transfer of collected power to the lunar power grid via rectenna wire-mesh structures that will allow shared usage of the lunar surface below since it will not be obscured and is safe for lunar inhabitants.

PAYLOADS

The Sun-Tower of the SPP is a modular, deployable boom of identical advanced photovoltaic (PV) arrays along a power-transmitting “backbone” which conveys the power generated to a nadir-pointing phased array at the base of the “tower” for WPT to surface rectennas.

ESA-contributed “Plasma Physics Payload Conceptual Instrument” (ESA AO/1-9789/19/NL/FC from ROSES-2023) is a co-manifested science instrument with a requirement on the design to ensure that problems and failures do not propagate across to the Sun-Tower or spacecraft. Its mission success is critical, since it provides redundancy to the same instrument on Gateway, and other systems should not impede its operation. ESA-contributed “Plasma Physics Payload Conceptual Instrument” (ESA AO/1-9789/19/NL/FC from ROSES-2023), with a requirement on the design to ensure that problems and failures do not propagate across to the Sun-Tower or spacecraft. Its mission success is critical, since it provides redundancy to the same instrument on Gateway, and other systems should not impede its operation.

Instrument C is a demonstration effort provided by the University of Maryland, with a requirement on the design to ensure that problems and failures do not propagate to other systems.

SPACECRAFT

The SPP spacecraft buses are being built and integrated in-house at GSFC. They utilize a GSFC standard bus and the reusable software framework and software applications of Goddard’s Core Flight System (CFS). It is solar-powered, and has bipropellant propulsion, stellar-ACS, and communication system for Lunar, Artemis’ Gateway, and Earth for communications and control.

LAUNCH SERVICES

Each Sun-Tower satellite will launch from French Guiana using ESA launch services, so it will not follow a modified/adapted NASA ELV payload safety review process but will use US safety requirements. Any lunar surface and Gateway systems, US SPP ground station(s) will be launched via Artemis planned missions and will follow NASA ELV payload safety review process.

OPERATIONS

The SPP mission operations will be performed out of the Goddard Space Flight Center (using existing greenbelt campus existing operations architectures) and in collaboration with NASA’s Artemis’ Gateway and JSC-Artemis control (at JSC). Science operations will be managed by ESA in coordination with University of Maryland.

2 SAFETY AND MISSION ASSURANCE REQUIREMENTS AND MILESTONES

The SMAS III contractor shall provide details on the plans for SMA support post Mission SRR through commissioning (30 days post lunar orbit insertion).

PHASE END-DATE

Phase A 11/30/2024 Phase B 5/30/2025 Phase C 6/3/2026 Phase D 7/8/2030 (launch SPP)

The contractor shall specify key parameters and assumptions made in tailoring the assurance requirements and efforts, identifying key dependencies on the system/payload and subsystem-level activities along with interdependencies between SMA services.

The response should address the following sections of the SOW at a minimum:

• Section 2 - System Safety Engineering Services o 2.1.2 Hazard Analysis o 2.1.3 Integration & Test Support o 2.2 Launch Range Support

• Section 3 - Assurance Engineering Services o 3.1.1 Flight System Assurance o 3.1.2 Ground System Assurance o 3.2 MPAE/PRAE Support

• Section 4 – Reliability, Maintainability, and Availability Engineering Services o 4.2 Reliability Analysis o 4.3 Review Reliability Analyses

• Section 5 - Mission Software Assurance Engineering Services o 5.1.2 Evaluating Software Processes and Work Products (Quality) o 5.1.3 Performing Software Safety and Software Reliability

• Section 6 - Quality Engineering o 6.3 Process Engineering o 6.4 Quality Inspections o 6.5 Managing/Communicating Non-conformances

• Section 8 - CROSS-DISCIPLINE SERVICES o 8.1.1 Lifecycle Reviews o 8.1.2. Heritage and Re-use Reviews

3 TECHNICAL CHALLENGES

In addition, the contractor shall propose a response to the three provided technical challenges:

Section 2 of this Scenario described the initial assurance requirements for the SPP demo. In this section, the scenario is expanded to cover technical challenges that may occur during the project lifecycle. SMA methodology and procedural changes may be required to meet the new challenges.

3.1 Rescopes

During the concept phase, NASA HQ decided to not include SPP control from Gateway and only fly/deploy one instrument, the ESA Plasma instrument, on the SPP. These decisions were based on concerns with the technology readiness and the Gateway deployment/maintenance schedules. The technical impact of these changes, the ESA instrument has now been upgraded to a Class B instrument; and communication system. Describe how these mission rescopes would impact your SMA support, elaborating only on the deltas from your initial approach.

3.2 Spacecraft Bus Reuse

During the concept phase, the project decided to forego plans to develop a custom spacecraft bus in-house. The project is now considering a custom bus procurement during phase C since several expensive flight boards have been damaged during the standard bus support fabrication processes (and the CSO is concerned with the quality of processes at standard bus support locations). Describe your approach to supporting how this decision/trade would impact your SMA support, evaluating both the vendors quality and engineering practices, and elaborating only on the deltas from your initial approach and additional/repeated efforts.

3.3 Launch Site Change (Cape Canaveral Space Force Station in Florida)

During phase D, ESA informed NASA they could no longer provide launch services for both SPP vehicles. The project is now planning on launching one vehicle from French Guiana and the other from Cape Canaveral Space Force Station in Florida, during 2030. Describe how your SMA support approach would proceed elaborating only on the deltas from your initial approach, risks, and additional/repeated efforts.

SCENARIO 2: GSFC/WFF INFRASTRUCTURE EXTENSION SUPPORT

1 INFRASTRUCTURE DESCRIPTION

GSFC currently consists of six campuses: Greenbelt, Wallops Flight Facility (WFF), White Sands Complex (WSC), Columbia Scientific Balloon Facility (CSBF), Katherine Johnson Independent Verification and Validation Facility (IV&V), Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS).

Infrastructure systems and programs at these locations ensure that each campus can meet its mission to support its NASA projects and scientific advancement while ensuring excellence, quality, efficiency, safety, and the future are considered.

Considering Goddard 2040, GSFC is looking to establish an automated, state of the art, high volume (10 – 15 satellite buses per year) manufacturing facility. This will be an effort that will develop, deploy, and expand the current infrastructure of GSFC and the applicability of its assurance programs. At this new facility, the assembly line, is where engineers and technicians monitor, while robotics creates the buses. At each step, there are automated tests to check quality, lifts, storing pressurized supplies, and maneuvering partially and fully assembled systems. Satellite components/buses that fail are sidelined for issue identification by engineer/technicians and repair, while acceptable buses are stored to await payload integration.

PROGRAMS

NASA Electronic Parts Program (NEPP) - The NEPP Program generates technical knowledge and recommendations about electrical, electronic, electromechanical (EEE) part performance, application, failure modes, test methods, reliability, and supply chain quality within the context of NASA space flight missions and hardware.

Government Industry Data Exchange Program (GIDEP) - GIDEP is a cooperative activity between government and industry with participants seeking to reduce or eliminate expenditures of resources by sharing technical information essential during research, design, development, production and operational phases of systems, facilities and equipment.

GSFC Electrostatic Discharge (ESD) Control Program - ESD Program provides awareness, oversight, training, and guidance for establishing, implementing, monitoring, and maintaining a work area that will reduce the probability of ESD damage to flight hardware.

The Metrology and Calibration (Met Cal) Program – Met Cal provides end-to-end metrology support services for all Measuring and Test Equipment (devices, systems, and standards that are used or available to be used to measure, gauge, test, inspect, or otherwise determine compliance with prescribed technical requirements of a product, or an element of a product) within the Goddard Management System (MS). Measuring and Test Equipment (MTE) includes diagnostic and prognostic equipment; semiautomatic and automatic test equipment (with issued software);

calibration, test, or measurement equipment; and bench set-ups used as standards.

LDE/PVS

There are approximately 250 overhead crane and hoist systems, 60 mobile elevated work platforms, 75 powered industrial trucks (PIT), and 9,000 pieces of other types of lifting equipment (i.e., rigging gear, jacks, etc.,) located on the GSFC Greenbelt Campus.

There are approximately 266 overhead crane and hoist systems, 56 mobile elevated work platforms (MEWP) 124 powered industrial trucks and attachments, and 5,600 pieces of lifting equipment (i.e., rigging gear, jacks, etc.,) located on the GSFC Wallops and Remote Campuses in active status (e.g., Columbia Scientific Balloon Facilities (CSBF) in Palestine, Texas, Fort Sumner, and New Mexico, the Poker Flat Research Range (PFRR) near Fairbanks, Alaska, White Sands Missile Range (WSMR) in New Mexico, and project unique sites).

There are approximately 775 pressure systems on the GSFC Greenbelt Campus, of which approximately 345 have been certified as of October 2022.

There are approximately 500 pressure systems on the WFF, of which approximately 450 have been certified.

QUALITY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (QMS)/RISK MANAGEMENT

GSFC QMS and risk management activities foster an engaged and empowered culture that leads in scientific research, engineering, project management, and technology development; enable us to meet our commitments to customers; and allows us to continually improve our processes.

2 INFRASTRUCTURE ASSURANCE PROJECT

The SMAS III contractor shall provide details on the plans for SMA support of the operation of Goddard 2040 manufacturing facility once instituted (not proven/validated), while supporting the continual advancement and maintenance of current infrastructure certifications (e.g., PVS, LDE, AS9100/ ISO 9001). The contractor must specify key parameters and assumptions made in tailoring the assurance requirements and efforts, identifying key automation opportunities and issues, along with interdependencies between SMA human and robotic services.

The response should address the following sections of the SOW at a minimum:

a. Section 1.6 - Program Development and Support

i. 1.6.1 NASA Electronic Parts Program (NEPP)

ii. 1.6.2 Government Industry Data Exchange Program (GIDEP)

iii. 1.6.3 GSFC Electrostatic Discharge (ESD) Control Program

b. Section 6 - Quality Engineering

i. 6.2 Review Board Participation

ii. 6.5 Managing/Communicating Non-conformances

c. SECTION 7- INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEERING SERVICES

i. 7.1 Lifting Devices and Equipment – (GSFC)

ii. 7.2 Ground-Based Pressure Vessel and Pressurized Systems (GSFC)

iii. 7.3 Lifting Devices and Equipment – (WFF)

iv. 7.4 Pressure Vessels and Pressurized Systems (WFF)

v. 7.5 Nondestructive Examination (NDE)

vi. 7.6 Metrology & Calibration/Repair Service of Measurement /Test

Equipment

vii. 7.7 Quality Management Systems Services

d. Section 8 - CROSS-DISCIPLINE SERVICES

i. 8.3 Risk Management

3 TECHNICAL CHALLENGES

Section 2 of this scenario described the initial assurance support needed for the GSFC 2040 manufacturing. In this section, the scenario is expanded to cover technical challenges that may occur during the facility instantiation and operations. SMA methodology and procedural changes may be required to meet the new challenges. The contractor shall also propose a response to the three provided technical challenges.

3.1 Excessive Fallout

During the initial operations phase of the GSFC 2040 manufacturing facility, it was observed that most systems were failing some quality or other metric. Therefore, infrastructure support is being stretched thin and now a member of your quality/infrastructure team has had to go on long-term medical leave.

a. Describe what your plans would be to minimize the impacts of personnel unavailability to your SMA support, elaborating your coverage and ongoing staffing/mitigation plans, in particular while ensuring there is no gap in support.

b. Describe what your plans would be to address the excessive fallout, including tools and robotic system assessments, repair/calibration, and training actions; and supply input control assessment.

3.2 AS9100/ ISO 9001 Audit

During a recent AS9100/ ISO 9001 self-assessment, it was identified that the current GSFC practices do not cover the new facility or the robotic systems. Describe your approach to remedy this situation and how that would impact your SMA support, elaborating only on the deltas from your initial approach to support audits in general (SOW 7.7.1 and 7.7.2).

3.3 Technician Mishap

During operations of the GSFC 2040 manufacturing facility, one of your technicians attempted to adjust the alignment of partially fabricated system and lost a finger. The employee has received the appropriate medical attention and is recovering. Describe how your SMA support approach would proceed after this instance, elaborating only on the deltas from your initial approach, risks, and additional/repeated efforts.