80GSFC25R0001 - Attachment A (SOW).pdf

Effective Date: May 15, 2025 Expiration Date: May 15, 2028

Check the SW GEO CM tool Server at https://ipdtdms.gsfc.nasa.gov/ to verify that this is the correct version prior to use

SWGEO-PHOMI-SOW-0001, Revision - Space Weather Geostationary GEO (SW GEO) Series Project, Code 495.0

Attachment A

SW GEO PHOtospheric Magnetograph Imager (PHOMI) Phase A Study

Statement of Work (SOW)

U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC) National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service (NESDIS) National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)

GSFC SW GEO CMO

05/21/2025 Released

SW GEO PHOMI Ph. A SOW SWGEO-PHOMI-SOW-0001, Revision -ii Check the SW GEO CM tool Server at https://ipdtdms.gsfc.nasa.gov/ to verify that this is the correct version prior to use.

Space Weather Geostationary (SW GEO) Series Project PHOtospheric Magnetograph Imager (PHOMI) Phase A Statement of Work (SOW)

Signature/Approval Page

Prepared by:

Originally signed in TDMS by:

John Deily SW GEO Payloads Manager NASA/Code 495

Approved by:

Originally signed in TDMS by:

Eugene Guerrero-Martin SW GEO Project Manager (Acting) NASA/Code 495 iii Check the SW GEO CM tool Server at https://ipdtdms.gsfc.nasa.gov/ to verify that this is the correct version prior to use.

Preface

This document is under SW GEO configuration control. Once this document is approved, SW GEO approved changes are handled in accordance with Class I and Class II change control requirements as described in the SW GEO Configuration Management Procedures, and changes to this document shall be made by complete revision.

Any questions should be addressed to:

SW GEO Configuration Management Office

NASA/GSFC

Code 495.0 Greenbelt, MD 20771 iv Check the SW GEO CM tool Server at https://ipdtdms.gsfc.nasa.gov/ to verify that this is the correct version prior to use.

Change History Log

Revision Effective

Date Description of Changes

(Reference the CCR & CCB/ERB Approval Date) Revision - 05/15/2025 Baseline release following the approval of SWGEO-CCR-0011 v Check the SW GEO CM tool Server at https://ipdtdms.gsfc.nasa.gov/ to verify that this is the correct version prior to use.

Table of Contents

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Top-Level Summary of Work Required

1.2 Guiding Assumptions About the Eventual Flight Program

1.3 Study Milestones Schedule

1.4 Applicable and Reference Documents

2 TASKS

2.1 Trade Studies

2.1.1 EDU Trade Study

2.1.2 Contract Deliverables Requirements List (CDRL) Evaluation

2.1.3 Contractor Proposed Trade Study & Pre-Priced Option

2.1.4 Adaptability to Different Orbital Regimes

2.1.5 SWAP Reduction Study

2.1.6 Vector Field Measurement Enhancement

2.2 Sensor Design Concept Development and Related Analyses

2.2.1 Sensor Design

2.2.2 Predicted Performance vs. SPEC

2.2.3 SPEC Compliance

2.2.4 IMAR Compliance & Alternatives

2.2.5 TBR Review

2.2.6 Calibration Methodology

2.2.7 Reliability Approach

2.2.8 Single Point Failures & Fault Critical Elements

2.2.9 Master Equipment List (MEL)

2.2.10 Modeling and Simulation Tool Description

2.3 Technology Assessment and Demonstration

2.3.1 TRL Assessment

2.3.1.1 Technology Development Effort

2.3.2 Heritage Assessment

2.4 Management Planning

2.4.1 Risk Assessment

2.4.1.1 Risk Mitigation Effort

2.4.2 Flight Implementation Schedule

2.4.2.1 Suggested FM2 Sensor Delivery Milestones

2.4.3 Flight Cost Estimate

3 REVIEWS, REPORTING, AND DELIVERABLE PRODUCTS

3.1 Status Meetings and Reviews

3.1.1 Kickoff Meeting

3.1.2 Monthly Progress Review (MPR)

3.1.3 Midterm Review (MTR)

3.1.4 Final Study Review (FSR)

3.1.5 Final Report Package (FRP)

3.2 Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL)

Appendix A Abbreviations and Acronyms vi Check the SW GEO CM tool Server at https://ipdtdms.gsfc.nasa.gov/ to verify that this is the correct version prior to use.

List of Tables

Table 1. CDRLs

Check the SW GEO CM tool Server at https://ipdtdms.gsfc.nasa.gov/ to verify that this is the correct version prior to use.

1. INTRODUCTION

The PHOtospheric Magnetograph Imager (PHOMI) is planned to fly on the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Space Weather Geostationary (SW GEO) Series project satellites. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) seeks information on instrument concepts for photospheric magnetograph imagers capable of producing line of sight (LOS) measurements of the photospheric magnetic field. High resolution mapping of the solar photospheric magnetic field is a critical input to model the solar wind velocity, density, and magnetic polarity. In addition to magnetic field measurement, doppler velocity observations are also of interest. While only LOS observations are required, if capabilities could be extended to vector measurements, describe any impacts on the sensor size, weight, and power (SWaP), cost, and risk.

This Statement of Work (SOW) defines the requirements that shall be met by the contractor during the Phase A instrument study. The Phase A study will be used to develop an instrument design concept and associated cost, schedule, and risk assessments to assist the Government in refining its requirements for the eventual flight mission. The PHOMI design concept will meet, as a minimum, NASA’s requirements as defined in this SOW, PHOMI Requirements Specification (SPEC) document, and the Instrument Mission Assurance Requirements (IMAR).

It is anticipated that at the conclusion of this Phase A study any industry partner will be prepared to enter directly into a System Requirements Review (SRR) approximately one month after Implementation contract award followed by a Preliminary Design Review (PDR). The Government will consider a contractor proposed pre-priced option for six (6) (TBR) additional months of performance that mitigates technical, cost, and schedule risk associated with the PHOMI design, development, and delivery, and moves the completion of this formulation study towards a PDR level readiness.

1.1 Top-Level Summary of Work Required

The details of the deliverables are described in later sections. At the top level, the Government requires:

a) A sensor design concept that satisfies the baseline requirements defined in the SPEC and IMAR. Suggested changes and/or additions to the SPEC or enhancements to the design beyond the baseline requirements will be considered if they do not add risk or cost and can be implemented on the specified delivery timeline.

b) Feedback and an assessment of sensor performance against the requirements specified in the SPEC.

c) Trade Studies as described in section 2.1.

Industry partner proposed trade study(s).

d) Technical Analyses as described in section 2.2.

e) Notional Development Schedule as described in section 2.4.

f) Cost Analysis as described in section 2.4.

g) Technology Readiness Level (TRL) Assessment and a Technology Development Plan as described in section 2.3.

h) Identification of Development Risks as defined in section 2.4.

Check the SW GEO CM tool Server at https://ipdtdms.gsfc.nasa.gov/ to verify that this is the correct version prior to use.

i) As applicable, performance of any work related to Technology Development and/or Risk Mitigation.

j) Identification of hardware and software heritage assumptions as defined in section 2.3.

1.2 Guiding Assumptions About the Eventual Flight Project

The Flight hardware development cost and schedule estimates shall be based on the following assumptions:

a) 1 Engineering Development Unit (EDU) that includes representative spacecraft mechanical and electrical interfaces.

b) Two (2) Flight Units, plus parts to support a robust sparing philosophy defined and described by the contractor to mitigate risk of issues identified late in the launch integration flow.

c) Deliveries will be as shown in the following schedule (all dates are notional and for the Government Fiscal Year):

MILESTONE NOTIONAL DATE (assume 1st day of quarter)

Flight Contract Award Q2 FY26 Flight Model 1 Pre-Ship Review

(PSR1)

Q4 FY29

Launch 1 Readiness Date Q2 FY30

FM 2 PSR (PSR2) FY31

Launch 2 Readiness Date FY33

d) No Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) will be provided. If there is specific

Government owned equipment which the contractor is proposing to utilize, then this equipment shall be specifically identified, along with the benefit and verification of availability.

e) Sensor Class: C (as defined in NPR 8705.4)

f) Mission durations: see the SPEC.

g) The following Sensor-level reviews will be held for the first flight build: SRR, IBR, PDR, CDR, PER, PSR. Any Subsequent flight builds will hold a PER and PSR.

Review pre-requisites, content, and success criteria are documented in NPR 7123.1.

1.3 Study Milestones Schedule

a) The contractor shall execute the study in accordance with the following milestone schedule. Requirements and deliverables for these milestones are described in Section

Milestone Schedule Kickoff Meeting Within two weeks of award Monthly Progress Reviews Kickoff + 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 months Mid-Term Review Kickoff + 4.5 months Final Study Review Kickoff + 8.5 months Final Report Package Kickoff + 9 months

Check the SW GEO CM tool Server at https://ipdtdms.gsfc.nasa.gov/ to verify that this is the correct version prior to use.

Risk Mitigation Report (as applicable) Kickoff + 9 months Technology Assessment and Development Report (as applicable)

Kickoff + 9 months

Summary of any funded risk mitigation and/or Technology Development efforts

Kickoff + 15 months

1.4 Applicable and Reference Documents

Document ID Title Applicable Documents SWGEO-PHOMI-REQ-0001 Space Weather Next Geo PHOMI

Specification (SPEC) Document (TBR) SWGEO-PHOMI-REQ-0002 Instrument Mission Assurance

Requirements (TBR) SWGEO-PHOMI-CDRL-0001 Space Weather Next Geo PHOMI

Contract Deliverables Requirements List (CDRL) (Draft Implementation CDRL)

GPR 7120.4D GSFC Guideline for Performing Risk Assessments

Reference Documents

NPR 7123.1 NASA Systems Engineering Process and

Requirements

Check the SW GEO CM tool Server at https://ipdtdms.gsfc.nasa.gov/ to verify that this is the correct version prior to use.

2 TASKS

The schedule delivery for CDRLs associated with the tasks are defined in table 1 of section 3.

2.1 Trade Studies

The contractor shall perform the following trade studies and report on the results at the Midterm Review and at the Final Review.

2.1.1 EDU Trade Study

The contractor shall conduct a trade study of possible engineering models, from a complete Sensor-level EDU to component-level EDUs. The contractor shall clearly document the cost, schedule, and risk associated with each option and make a recommendation on the best balance of cost and schedule vs. risk as a function of the level of integration. The results of the trade shall be captured in a Model Philosophy & Plan document. (CDRL 1)

2.1.2 Contract Deliverables Requirements List (CDRL) Evaluation

The contractor shall study the provided draft CDRL document for the Sensor implementation and provide feedback on the deliverables scope, including risks, opportunities, including implementing commercial practices, cost, and schedule trades on the overall quantity of CDRLs and the number of CDRLs requiring review and approval by the Government. The Government will provide the draft implementation CDRL Data Item Descriptions at the study kick off.

(CDRL 2)

2.1.3 Contractor Proposed Trade Study & Pre-Priced Option

The Government will consider contractor proposed Trade Studies as part of a pre-priced option for six (6) (TBR) additional months of performance that advances the completion of this formulation study towards a PDR level of readiness and mitigates technical, cost and schedule risk associated the sensor design, development, and delivery. Any approved vendor-proposed trade studies will be documented as part of the Risk Mitigation Effort documentation. (CDRL 18)

2.1.4 Adaptability to Different Orbital Regimes

The contractor shall study the suitability and adaptability of the Magnetograph instrument design to be hosted on space platforms in different orbital regimes including in Earth geosynchronous orbit, and at Earth-Sun Lagrange Point 1.

2.1.5 SWAP Reduction Study

With a goal in mind of contemplating the lowest cost mission possible, the contractor shall present a trade study focused on reducing the SWaP of the sensor along with an analysis of the pros and cons and a detailed discussion of any compromises required to achieve the identified reductions. At the Kickoff, the Government will provide refined guidance on the SWAP targets for this study. (CDRL 3)

2.1.6 Vector Field Measurement Enhancement

The contractor shall conduct an assessment of how their magnetograph concept’s capabilities could be extended/modified to include vector field measurements, including a description of any impacts on the sensor SWsP, data-rate, cost, and risk.

Check the SW GEO CM tool Server at https://ipdtdms.gsfc.nasa.gov/ to verify that this is the correct version prior to use.

2.2 Sensor Design Concept Development and Related Analyses

2.2.1 Sensor Design

The contractor shall develop a Sensor design concept and perform associated engineering analyses to justify design parameters, tolerances, and design/performance margins and associated budgets. (CDRL 4)

2.2.2 Predicted Performance vs. SPEC

The contractor shall provide a quantitative comparison of the predicted sensor performance against the performance requirements in section 6 of the SPEC. (CDRL 5)

2.2.3 SPEC Compliance

The contractor shall provide a summary of compliance to all of the requirements in the SPEC, including initial engineering analyses showing compliance to environmental requirements.

(CDRL 6)

2.2.4 IMAR Compliance & Alternatives

The contractor shall provide a summary of compliance to the requirements in the proposed Instrument Mission Assurance Requirements (IMAR) for the flight implementation. The contractor may identify any preferred alternative approaches, including commercial practices, that could reduce risk and/or provide opportunities for cost and schedule savings. Any suggested alternatives shall be accompanied by an assessment of any associated risk, cost, or schedule impacts. (CDRL 7).

2.2.5 TBR Review

The contractor shall review all requirements listed as "TBR" and either concur or suggest new requirement values. The contractor shall quantify potential cost, schedule, and risk impacts of any suggested requirements changes. (CDRL 8)

2.2.6 Calibration Methodology

The contractor shall define a calibration methodology for the Sensor (both pre-launch and on-orbit) and provide the associated radiometric budget for each (pre-launch and on-orbit). (CDRL 9)

2.2.7 Reliability Approach

The contractor shall describe a reliability approach (planned redundancy, parts selection, etc.) to meet the SPEC required reliability for the specified lifetime. (CDRL 10)

2.2.8 Single Point Failures & Fault Critical Elements

The contractor shall identify all single-point failures and fault critical elements. As part of this analysis the contractor shall describe the fault tolerant/graceful degradation features of the design. (CDRL 11)

2.2.9 Master Equipment List (MEL)

The contractor shall develop a Master Equipment List (MEL). The MEL shall document the mass, power, and TRL of each major sub-component. A template for the MEL will be provided by the Government. (CDRL 12)

Check the SW GEO CM tool Server at https://ipdtdms.gsfc.nasa.gov/ to verify that this is the correct version prior to use.

2.2.10 Modeling and Simulation Tool Description

The contractor shall provide descriptions of any simulation and analytical tools used in the assessment of the design and/or performance, including the heritage and validation of the tools.

(CDRL 13)

2.3 Technology Assessment and Demonstration

2.3.1 TRL Assessment

The contractor shall assess the technology readiness level (TRL) of all components in the Sensor design. For components with TRL < 6, the contractor shall provide a detailed Technology Development Plan (TDP), including a schedule, that explains how all technologies will achieve TRL 6 by the Sensor PDR. If the study effort includes Technology Development effort, the TDP and associated schedule shall clearly identify all of the work covered by the Technology Development. (CDRL 14)

2.3.1.1 Technology Development Effort

If the study effort includes a funded Technology Development effort, the contractor shall implement the Technology Development effort under contract, brief the status of this effort at the reviews described in section 3, and provide a final report detailing the work done, any associated results, and the level to which the technology has been developed. (CDRL 15)

2.3.2 Heritage Assessment

The contractor shall document the flight hardware and software heritage and document any relevant differences between the claimed heritage and the proposed design (for example, on-orbit environment, mission duration, requirements, etc.). (CDRL 16)

2.4 Management Planning

2.4.1 Risk Assessment

The contractor shall identify and rank risks to the development of the Sensor and describe associated mitigations. The likelihood and criticality of risks shall be ranked on a 5x5 matrix per GPR 7120.4D. The contractor shall identify alternate implementation paths for all high-risk items. Special attention should be paid to manufacturability, supply chain, and facility availability. (CDRL 17)

2.4.1.1 Risk Mitigation Effort

If the study effort includes Risk Mitigation effort, the contractor shall implement the Risk Mitigation effort under contract, brief the status of this effort at the reviews described in section 3 and provide a final report detailing the work completed, associated results, and the level to which the risk has been mitigated. Any vendor-proposed trade studies shall also be documented as part of the same CDRL. (CDRL 18)

2.4.2 Flight Implementation Schedule

The contractor shall develop an implementation-phase schedule. The contractor will assume that the parts for all flight Sensors will be procured at the same time. The schedule shall show the following major Sensor reviews: SRR, IBR, PDR, CDR, MRRs, TRRs, PER, and PSR, achievement of TRL6, development of the Sensor physical model(s) (EDU for example), long-lead (> 1 year) procurements, and primary and secondary critical paths. The schedule shall

Check the SW GEO CM tool Server at https://ipdtdms.gsfc.nasa.gov/ to verify that this is the correct version prior to use.

identify any flight hardware procurements that are started ahead of the completion of the EDU (or equivalent). The schedule is required to meet the program level milestones shown section 1.

(CDRL 19)

2.4.2.1 Suggested FM2 Sensor Delivery Milestones

The contractor shall suggest dates for the FM2 Sensor delivery milestones that will minimize the overall cost, while also minimizing the development risk to both FM1 and FM2. (CDRL 20) The recommended contract start and delivery dates shall be used in the cost modeling.

2.4.3 Flight Cost Estimate

The contractor shall provide a parametric cost estimate for the development and production of two flight model Sensors and any engineering model(s) recommended in the Model Philosophy & Plan (see section 2.1.b). The costs shall be separately identified for each model, flight unit, required GSE (ground support equipment) and technology development(s). The costs shall be shown phased by Government fiscal year. The contractor shall state what parametric model was used in the analysis and provide any inputs to the model beyond the MEL (reference 2.2.9). The contractor shall describe the heritage of the model. (CDRL 21)

Check the SW GEO CM tool Server at https://ipdtdms.gsfc.nasa.gov/ to verify that this is the correct version prior to use.

3 REVIEWS, REPORTING, AND DELIVERABLE PRODUCTS

The contractor shall perform the reviews and reporting tasks and provide deliverable products as specified below. The Contracting Officer's written determination that Government requests for action (RFA's) or requests for information (RFI's) regarding the deliverable reviews and products have been closed out will constitute acceptance of the deliverable.

3.1 Status Meetings and Reviews

3.1.1 Kickoff Meeting

The contractor shall support a kickoff meeting within 2 weeks of the Authorization to Proceed to provide a team introduction, summary of the proposed work for the study, and a high-level introduction to the initial Sensor design concept. The contractor shall plan for a 2-hour virtual meeting. The contractor shall deliver a soft copy of the Kickoff chart set 24 hours prior to the meeting. (CDRL 22)

3.1.2 Monthly Progress Review (MPR)

The contractor shall present the results of the work performed since the previous MPR and discuss relevant technical and programmatic issues and findings. The topics expected to be covered are listed in the CDRLs table in section 3.2. The MPRs shall be planned as 4-hour virtual meetings. The contractor shall deliver a soft copy of the MPR chart set 24 hours prior to the meeting. (CDRL 23)

3.1.3 Midterm Review (MTR)

This review will be held at the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, pending travel restrictions.

The contractor shall plan on a 12-hour review, spread over two days. The topics expected to be covered are listed in the CDRLs table in section 3.2. The contractor shall deliver a soft copy of the MTR chart set 72 hours prior to the meeting. (CDRL 24)

3.1.4 Final Study Review (FSR)

The contractor shall plan on a 12-hour review, spread over two days at the contractor’s facility.

If possible, the Government will travel to attend the review in-person, pending travel restrictions.

The topics expected to be covered are listed in the CDRLs table in section 3.2. The contractor shall deliver a soft copy of the FSR chart set 72 hours prior to the meeting. (CDRL 25)

3.1.5 Final Report Package (FRP)

The FRP shall consist of any CDRLs that were not delivered and approved by the Government CO prior to the FSR or any CDRLs requiring updates, answers to any open actions from the FSR or earlier, and any necessary FSR slide updates. The FRP is due 2 weeks after the FSR. (CDRL 26)

SWGEO PHOMI Ph. A SOW SWGEO-PHOMI-SOW-0001, Revision -

Check the SW GEO CM tool Server at https://ipdtdms.gsfc.nasa.gov/ to verify that this is the correct version prior to use.

3.2 Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL)

The contractor shall deliver the data products specified in the following table.

Table 1. CDRLs SU = Status Update; UAN = Updates as Necessary

ID Deliverable/Task Kickoff MPR MTR FSR FRP SOW

Ref 1 EDU Trade / Model

Philosophy & Plan

SU X UAN UAN 2.1.1

2 Implementation CDRL Review

SU X UAN 2.1.2

3 SWAP Reduction Study SU X UAN 2.1.4 4 Sensor Design SU X UAN 2.2.1 5 Predicted performance vs.

SPEC

SU Prelim Final UAN 2.2.2

6 SPEC Compliance SU Prelim Final UAN 2.2.3 7 IMAR Compliance &

Alternatives SU Prelim Final UAN 2.2.4

8 TBR Review SU, final answer by 3rd MPR

UAN UAN UAN 2.2.5

9 Calibration Methodology SU X UAN UAN 2.2.6 10 Reliability Approach SU Prelim Final UAN 2.2.7 11 Single-Point Failures &

Fault Critical Elements SU Prelim Final UAN 2.2.8

12 MEL Prelim Final UAN 2.2.9 13 Modeling and Simulation

Tool Description

SU X UAN 2.2.10

14 TRL Assessment and Technology Development Plan

SU X UAN UAN 2.3.1

15 Technology Development Effort (if applicable)

SU SU SU UAN 2.3.1.1

16 Heritage Assessment SU X UAN 2.3.2 17 Risk Assessment SU Prelim Final UAN 2.4.1 18 Risk Mitigation Effort (if applicable)

SU SU SU UAN 2.4.1.1&

2.1.3 19 Flight Implementation

Schedule SU Prelim Final UAN 2.4.2

20 Suggested FM2 Sensor Delivery Milestones

SU, final answer by 2nd MPR

UAN UAN UAN 2.4.2.1

21 Flight Cost Estimate SU Prelim Final UAN 2.4.3 22 Kickoff Meeting Charts due 24 hours before 3.1.1

23 MPR Charts 24 hrs before

MPR

3.1.2

24 MTR Charts 72 hrs before

MTR

3.1.3

Check the SW GEO CM tool Server at https://ipdtdms.gsfc.nasa.gov/ to verify that this is the correct version prior to use.

25 FSR Charts 72 hrs before

FSR

3.1.4

26 FRP Charts 2 wks post FSR

3.1.5

Check the SW GEO CM tool Server at https://ipdtdms.gsfc.nasa.gov/ to verify that this is the correct version prior to use.

Appendix A Abbreviations and Acronyms

CDR Critical Design Review CDRL Contract Deliverables Requirements List CMO Configuration Management Office DOC Department of Commerce EDU Engineering Development Unit FRP Final Report Package FSR Final Study Review GEO Geostationary GFE Government Furnished Equipment GPR Goddard Procedural Requirement GSE Ground Support Equipment GSFC Goddard Space Flight Center IBR Integrated Baseline Review IMAR Instrument Mission Assurance Requirements LOS Life of sight MEL Master Equipment List MPR Monthly Progress Review MTR Midterm Review NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration

NESDIS

National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NPR NASA Procedural Requirements PDR Preliminary Design Review PER Pre-Environmental Review PHOMI PHOtospheric Magnetograph Imager PSR Pre-Ship Review SOW Statement of Work SPEC Specification SRR System Requirements Review SU Status Update SW GEO Space Weather Geostationary (Series project) SW Next Space Weather Next (program) SWaP Size, weight, and power TBR To be resolved TDP Technology Development Plan TRL Technology Readiness Level UAN Updates as Necessary