AFRL-RV RFI FA9453-21-R-0001.pdf

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. Public Affairs release approval #AFRL-2021-1166

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. Public Affairs release approval #AFRL-2021-1166

AFRL/RV Future Flight Experiment Concepts

AIR FORCE RESEARCH LABORATORY

Space Vehicles Directorate 3550 Aberdeen Ave SE

AIR FORCE M ATERIEL COMMAND

KIRTLAND AIR FORCE BASE, NM 87117-5776

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. Public Affairs release approval #AFRL-2021-1166

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. Public Affairs release approval #AFRL-2021-1166

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. Public Affairs release approval #AFRL-2021-1166

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. Public Affairs release approval #AFRL-2021-1166

REMARKS

This is a Request for Information (RFI) notice only. This is not a Request for Proposals (RFP). No solicitations are available at this point in time.

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. Public Affairs release approval #AFRL-2021-1166

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. Public Affairs release approval #AFRL-2021-1166

CONTENTS

Remarks

1 Contracting Office and Points of Contact

2 Background

3 Scope of Effort

3.1 Autonomous Inspector Smallsat Technologies

3.2 SmallSat Servicer Technologies

3.3 XGEO Space Domain Awareness Technologies

3.4 Broadband RF Payloads Technologies

3.5 Cyber Secure Software Architecture

4 Submission of Response

4.1 Cover Page

4.2 Word Document Report

4.3 Chart Deck

5 Clarifications

6 Due Date

7 Disclaimer

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. Public Affairs release approval #AFRL-2021-1166

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. Public Affairs release approval #AFRL-2021-1166

1 CONTRACTING OFFICE AND POINTS OF CONTACT

Address:

Department of the Air Force, Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL), Space Vehicles Directorate Contracting Division, AFRL/RVK, 3550 Aberdeen Ave. SE, Bldg 425, Kirtland AFB NM, 87117-5776

Contracting POC:

1. Contract Specialist, Timothy Noakes; Timothy.Noakes@us.af.mil

2. Contracting Officer, George J. Keane, Jr.; george.keane@spaceforce.mil

Technical POC:

1. Program Manager, Dr. Andrew Williams; Andrew.Williams.24@spaceforce.mil

2. Deputy Program Manager, Dr. Christopher Petersen; Christopher.Petersen.16@spaceforce.mil

2 BACKGROUND

The space environment is becoming increasingly congested and contested with numerous new players operating satellites on-orbit. In addition, the United States has established a new service, the United States Space Force (USSF), and published the first space capstone document “Space Power”. In that document five core competences were cited, to which the Air Force Research Laboratory, Space Vehicles Directorate (AFRL/RV) is looking to develop flight experiments to explore new capabilities in these areas.

Of particular interest, we are developing flight experiments concepts that will evaluate (a) fully autonomous inspection operations; (b) broadband RF sensing and communications; (c) rendezvous, proximity operations, and docking (RPOD) for on-orbit refueling and upgrade; (d) space domain awareness (SDA) in the orbital regime beyond Geosynchronous Earth Orbit (GEO), or XGEO; and (e) cyber secure flight software.

The objective of this request is to gather information regarding existing capabilities for buses, sensor packages, payloads, propulsion systems, processing capabilities, and communication hardware in the areas below that will help us define future mission concepts and objectives and to identify areas and capabilities that will require additional research and engineering. We are looking to understand the current state of hardware capabilities in each of these areas to determine if our objectives can be met with commercial-off-the-shelf hardware. We are also seeking information regarding the estimated cost and delivery schedule required – detailed cost and schedule breakouts are requested and strongly desired so that we can develop executable program baselines. To encourage competition and guide potential future acquisitions, the descriptions below are not all-inclusive, and we encourage each respondent to provide any additional information that you think may be vital to support our efforts in accurately scoping the technological thresholds and objectives, realistic schedule estimations, and budgetary requirements for the capabilities areas in the next section.

3 SCOPE OF EFFORT

AFRL is requesting information on the following technologies to enable new capabilities for the Space Force in support of “Space Power” including autonomous inspection, RF communications, space logistics, Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. Public Affairs release approval #AFRL-2021-1166

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. Public Affairs release approval #AFRL-2021-1166 and XGEO SDA. For the areas below, we are interested in information or concepts that address any or all of these areas. We are specifically interested in understanding the cost and schedule to deliver the capability and in existing technologies and capabilities that might be commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) or technologies that need to be developed. For those that need to be developed, we want to know the cost and schedule to do so. Please also discuss specific design detail enabling GEO operations for any system submitted. Finally, for each major sub-section below, we are interested in information or concepts that address any or all of the bulleted items in each area.

3.1 AUTONOMOUS INSPECTOR SMALLSAT TECHNOLOGIES

AFRL/RV is seeking information regarding capabilities available for autonomous inspector small satellites that are ¼ standard ESPA1-class volume and lower down to 3U cubesat to support fully autonomous rendezvous and proximity operations (RPO) in support of inspection mission concepts. We are seeking information in the following areas for systems capable of operating in GEO:

Bus capabilities, including power, attitude control, on-board processing, communication, etc., with associated cost, size, weight, and power (CSWaP). We are especially interested in understanding on-board processing capabilities to support fully autonomous operations.

RPO sensor suite payload capabilities and CSWaP. We are interested in both active and passive sensing modalities, but higher preference for passive-only approaches. We are specifically interested in visible or Infrared (IR) sensors or payloads that provide both capabilities.

Propulsion system capabilities and concepts including chemical, electric, multi-mode, and other potential concepts. We are also interested in propulsion systems concepts that enable refueling either through fluid transfer, tank swap-out, or full propulsion module replacement.

3.2 BROADBAND RF PAYLOADS TECHNOLOGIES

AFRL/RV is seeking information regarding capabilities for broadband RF sensing and communication hardware suitable for 12U cubesat to ¼ standard-ESPA volume. We are interested in ideas and concepts for broadband deployable and non-deployable antennas, software defined radios (SDRs), and cognitive radios (CRs), with associated operating frequencies, efficiency, and CSWaP details. For these areas, we are specifically interested in understanding the cost and schedule to deliver these capabilities for both COTS products as well as capabilities that could be developed within 12 to 24 months.

3.3 SMALLSAT SERVICER TECHNOLOGIES

AFRL/RV is seeking information regarding capabilities that enable an ESPA-class servicer capable of autonomous rendezvous, proximity operations and docking (RPOD), fluid transfer refueling, and propulsion tank or electronics module swap-out. Our primary interest is in technologies for a smart front-end which includes the RPOD sensor suites, docking and berthing components, robotic arms, and on-board processing for autonomous operations. Ideally, we are looking for smart front-end payloads that fit

1 ESPA – Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) Secondary Payload Adapter: Additional details can be found at https://www.moog.com/content/dam/moog/literature/Space_Defense/spaceliterature/structures/moog-espa-users-guide-datasheet.pdf

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. Public Affairs release approval #AFRL-2021-1166

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. Public Affairs release approval #AFRL-2021-1166 within a ½ ESPA-class volume or less; however, we will also accept concepts that require an entire standard-ESPA volume.

We are not interested in bus or propulsion concepts for the SmallSat Servicers Technologies section. We are seeking information in the following areas and only for systems capable of operating in Geosynchronous Earth Orbit (GEO):

RPOD sensor suite payload capabilities and CSWaP. We are interested in both active and passive sensing modalities, but have higher preference for passive-only approaches. We are also interested in multiple payload sensing phenomenology and sensors.

Small robotic arms and end effectors in support of berthing, docking, refueling, and propulsion or electronics module swap-out. We are most interested in low CSWaP, two-arm concepts, but we will also accept single arm concepts.

Docking and servicing interfaces and concepts suitable for servicing other small satellites including ESPA-class and cubesats. Special consideration is given to solutions that incorporate open standards, common interfaces and highly modular and interchangeable units or Line Replaceable Units (LRUs). Solutions may be an end-to-end solution, but a relevant technology that can advance on-orbit servicing will be considered if the technology provides ease of integration into a larger system.

3.4 CISLUNAR HIGH PATROL SYSTEM (CHPS) – XGEO SPACE DOMAIN AWARENESS

AFRL/RV is seeking information regarding capabilities to provide SDA in XGEO necessary to fly an in situ sensor in cislunar space, for example at Earth-Moon Lagrange Point1 (EML-1). We are interested in standard ESPA-class commercial bus and payload options suitable for performing unresolved detection and tracking of resident space objects. We are seeking information in the following areas for systems capable of operating in cislunar space:

Wide field-of-view (WFOV) and narrow field-of-view (NFOV) sensor payloads for detecting and tracking unresolved objects with associated CSWaP.

o Visible sensors and optics that can detect unresolved objects down at least as dim as 17th visual magnitude but preferably as dim as 20th visual magnitude o Individual or a combination of sensors that have an effective FOV >=10 square degrees

We are also interested in WFOV and NFOV sensor payload with the above requirements that also have synthetic tracking capabilities.

COTS bus capabilities including power, attitude control, on-board processing, communication, etc. with associated CSWaP to support optical payloads with high precision pointing requirements. We are especially interested in understanding on-board processing capabilities to support fully autonomous operations and orbit determination. We are only interested in buses with propulsion capability of 100 m/s or more.

High-gain antennas and/or optical communication payloads for ground links, with associated uplink/downlink rates. Both body-mounted and deployed antenna concepts are of interest.

On-board positioning and navigation concepts and solutions necessary for cislunar operations.

For this section, please also discuss specific design detail enabling XGEO operations and any potential risk areas for any system submitted.

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. Public Affairs release approval #AFRL-2021-1166

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. Public Affairs release approval #AFRL-2021-1166

3.5 CYBER SECURE SOFTWARE ARCHITECTURE

To support the pivot to the hybrid architecture, AFRL/RV is looking to fly multiple flight experiments over the FYDP ranging from cubesats to ESPA-class and ESPA-ring vehicles, as such we are interested in moving to a common flight software approach across these multiple missions since it is likely that each experiment will be built by multiple different vendors. To that end, we are concerned about cost, schedule, and program risk dealing with multiple flight software architectures from multiple vendors, and we are interested in concepts, approaches, and perspectives with how to address this. We are interested in industry approaches to flight software development and for implementing a common platform on multiple different vehicles. We are also seeking input from industry on the best methods and practices related to common or open source software frameworks. An example could be to use NASA’s Core Flight System for all vehicles. In addition, our flight software efforts must have cyber security built in from the beginning, and so we are seeking best practices and existing cyber secure elements for common or open source frameworks across multiple vehicle types and vendors. Areas of specific interest include:

Modular, open source flight software architectures that breaks out common satellite functions into separate binary modules as opposed to monolithic architectures and single binary implementation.

Concepts and inputs regarding common core service modules that can be used for all vehicles, the ability to extend core services for vehicle or mission needs, and the ability to develop and add apps for vehicle and mission needs.

Cyber-resilient architectures, including cyber-hardened flight software components and interfaces using formal verification techniques and the ability to apply security policy and controls at the module and interface levels.

Approaches for modular updateability/patching for on-orbit update of only module(s) that have changed and modular bootability/recovery for on-orbit reboot of only the module(s) that have changed as opposed to a complete flight software reboot.

For all of these areas, we are interested in understanding the applicability to executing the technologies highlighted in Sections 3.1 to 3.4. Please provide cost and schedule associated with the development of the flight software.

4 SUBMISSION OF RESPONSE

Responses comprise of 3 different documents; a cover page, a word document report, and a chart deck.

Guidelines are given below.

4.1 COVER PAGE

Responders shall submit the following information on a cover page

Name of Company Mailing Address Company website Company's Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) number

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. Public Affairs release approval #AFRL-2021-1166

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. Public Affairs release approval #AFRL-2021-1166

Contracting POC and Technical POC with appropriate telephone numbers, and email addresses for the POCs

Classified level at which company is cleared (Facility & Key Personnel) Teaming Arrangement or Subcontractors/Consultants

4.2 WORD DOCUMENT REPORT

Responders shall submit a word document with format consisting of 12 point font, 1.5 line-spacing, and one-inch margins using standard letter size (8.5” x 11”). Submission can address any number of subsections in the scope of effort. There is a page limit of 10 pages per sub-section in 3.02. Detailed cost and schedule estimate breakouts are not include in the 10 page limit count and can exceed the page limit.

The following materials should be included for each submission:

1. What is your solution to the particular scope of effort?

2. What schedule is anticipated for delivering or developing your solution?

3. If any technology is being proposed, what is the maturity and technology readiness level (TRL) of the technology? Has the technology flown in space and if so what were the results? If there are plans to fly the technology in space, what is the time schedule? If there are ground results, what differences do you expect to see in space?

4. Are you partnering or planning to partner with any other government agencies, industries, or academic institutions?

5. Provide a Rough Order Magnitude (ROM) cost estimate for planning purposes. The ROM should provide top-level details on major cost items such as labor (# of full time employees), special equipment that will need to be purchased, materials, and any subcontracts or other organizations’ costs (to include government furnished facilities, equipment, or personnel) for the RFI response.

4.3 CHART DECK

Chart decks should fit a widescreen format (16:9). Decks are limited in size to 10 charts per sub-section in Section 3.0. The Chart Deck should summarize all questions in the word document report.

5 CLARIFICATIONS

A Responder may request clarification in writing to the Technical POCs, by sending an e-mail to the address identified in section 1 above.

6 DUE DATE

RFI responses are due 30 calendar days after initial posting.

Responses to this RFI must be submitted to AFRL. Responders shall provide one electronic copy

(Microsoft Word or PDF) of their unclassified response via DODSAFE (https://safe.apps.mil/).

Please notify the Contracting POCs before submission to request a drop off code.

2 For clarification, 10 pages for all items in Section 3.1, 10 pages for all items in 3.2, etc.

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. Public Affairs release approval #AFRL-2021-1166

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. Public Affairs release approval #AFRL-2021-1166

7 DISCLAIMER

This is a Request for Information (RFI) only as defined in FAR 15.201(e) to obtain information about capabilities and market information related to the technology of interest for planning purposes. This RFI is not a request for competitive proposals; therefore, responses to this notice are not considered offers and cannot be accepted by the Government to form a binding contract. Companies that respond will not be paid for the information submitted.

No telephone calls will be accepted requesting a bid package or solicitation.

All information received shall be safeguarded from unauthorized disclosure. Responses must be unclassified and any proprietary information provided must be marked accordingly.

Information received in response to this RFI may be used to structure future programs and FOAs and/or otherwise be made available to the public, respondents are strongly advised to not include any information in their responses that might be considered business sensitive, proprietary, or otherwise confidential. If, however, a respondent chooses to submit business sensitive, proprietary, or otherwise confidential information, it must be clearly and conspicuously marked as such in the response.

Responses containing confidential, proprietary, or privileged information must be conspicuously marked as described below. Failure to comply with these marking requirements may result in the disclosure of the unmarked information under the Freedom of Information Act or otherwise. The U.S. Federal Government is not liable for the disclosure or use of unmarked information, and may use or disclose such information for any purpose.