AOS-I-ATS-RFP-2 SOW.pdf

AOS-I-ATS-RFP-2

Request for Proposal (RFP)

Title: AOS Inclined ATS RFP Statement of Work Date: 8/27/21

Reference Number: RFP- # TBD RFP Responses TBD

Table of Contents

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 OVERVIEW

1.1.1 AOS Scientific Goals and Objectives

1.2 AOS MISSION SCHEDULE MILESTONES

1.3 MISSION ASSUMPTIONS AND CONSTRAINTS

1.4 APPLICABLE AND REFERENCE DOCUMENTS

2 RFP DELIVERABLES AND TRADE STUDIES

2.1 OPTION 1: MISSION CONCEPT PRESENTATIONS AND ENGINEERING CDRLS

2.2 OPTION 2: MISSION CONCEPT PRESENTATIONS AND ENGINEERING CDRLS

2.3 TRADE STUDIES

3 MEETINGS, REVIEWS, AND REPORTING DELIVERABLES

3.1 STATUS MEETINGS AND REVIEWS

3.1.1 Kickoff Meeting

3.1.2 Weekly Status Meeting

3.1.3 Monthly Progress Reviews

3.1.4 Preliminary Concept Presentations

3.1.5 Final Study Review (FSR)

3.1.6 Action Item Closure Post MCR

3.1.7 Support of KDP-A Preparation

3.1.8 Recommendations / Lessons Learned & KDP-A AI Closures

4 CONTRACT DATA REQUIREMENTS LIST (CDRL)

1 Introduction

1.1 Overview

The Atmosphere Observing System (AOS) was established by the NASA Science Mission

Directorate Earth Science Division to fulfill the science needs proffered in the 2017 Earth Science Decadal Survey for the combined Designated Observables: Aerosols and Clouds, Convection and Precipitation (ACCP). The AOS Constellation Architecture is the result of a 2.5-year ACCP Architecture Study. The ACCP Architecture Study concluded in February 2021 and the mission was authorized to move into Pre-Phase A on May 23, 2021.

The AOS Constellation will make measurements of the aerosol and cloud microphysical properties as well as the measurements of the vertical velocity of convection, aerosol redistribution and precipitation to understand the processes which drive the Earth’s atmosphere.

By employing a multi-satellite architecture, AOS will be able to cover the relevant temporal and spatial scales, thereby transforming our understanding of this critical part of the Earth System.

As part of pre-formulation and formulation activities, the AOS team is performing trade studies to determine options to make measurements and achieve sampling to meet as many of the AOS science objectives as possible within cost and schedule constraints.

To maximize science objectives achievable, efficient, and effective system concepts for accommodating the instruments are needed. Through this RFP, the study team is seeking proposals on spacecraft system concepts and innovative approaches, including a range of solutions for dedicated spacecraft and hosted instruments, to develop necessary quantities of systems to meet science objectives.

This Statement of Work (SOW) provides a brief mission summary and provides Access to Space (ATS) study and Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL) deliverables with descriptions.

AOS plans to take advantage of the growing commercial rideshare/hosted payload capabilities and launch the AOS mid-inclination spacecraft on a single launch vehicle.

Consideration will be given to planned development approaches that deviate from the referenced processes. Responses should recognize that cost is an essential programmatic factor to be considered. Specifically, two types of responses are sought:

1. Response Option 1: Concepts that include spacecraft design and development including integration and test with the payload, as well as support through launch and commissioning for the spacecraft or full mission operations for the spacecraft and payloads;

2. Response Option 2: Concepts for hosting a full complement of instrument payloads within the architecture of a current or future system with or without full mission operations for the spacecraft and payloads;

The Contractor may respond to Option 1 and/or Option 2. However, please submit separate proposals for Option 1 and Option 2. If there are multiple concepts or variants within Option 1 or Option 2, those may be considered within the same proposal. Note that if more than one concept or variant of a particular option is selected that shall be treated as a stand-alone configuration that may require certain CDRLs to be performed multiple times. In such a case, RFP responses should contain a tailored CDRL list and the tailored CDRL list will be finalized during the kickoff meeting [CDRL-3].

This RFP is open to all types of organizations, including U.S. industry, universities, and nonprofit organizations.

1.1.1 AOS Scientific Goals and Objectives

Per the ACCP ‘Science and Applications Traceability Matrix’, the overarching AOS goal is:

“Understand the processing of water and aerosol through the atmosphere and develop the societal applications enabled from this understanding.” AOS provides transformative space-based and suborbital observations of essential cloud, precipitation, and aerosol processes, leading to improved predictions of weather, air quality, and climate for the benefit of society.

The following are the detailed goal of the AOS Mission:

• G1: Cloud Feedbacks – Reduce the uncertainty in low- and high-cloud climate feedbacks by advancing our ability to predict the properties of low and high clouds.

• G2: Storm Dynamics – Improve our physical understanding and model representations of cloud, precipitation, and dynamical processes within convective storms.

• G3: Cold Cloud and Precipitation – Improve understanding of cold (supercooled liquid, ice, and mixed phase) cloud processes and associated precipitation and their coupling to the surface at mid to high latitudes and to the cryosphere.

• G4: Aerosol Processes – Reduce uncertainty in key processes that link aerosols to weather, climate and air quality related impacts.

• G5: Aerosol Impacts on Radiation – Reduce the uncertainty in Direct (D) and Indirect (I) aerosol-related radiative forcing of the climate system.

Further details of the AOS science goals and objectives can be found in the ACCP Science and Applications Traceability Matrix, which can be found at:

https://vac.gsfc.nasa.gov/accp/docs/accp-satm-rel-f-master.pdf

1.2 AOS Mission Schedule Milestones

The current notional AOS mission schedule is as follows. This hypothetical schedule may or may not be or become the planned mission schedule and is intended only to enable consistent responses to this RFP.

• Mission Concept Review (MCR): 4/2022

• Mission System Requirements Review (SRR): 1/2023

• Mission Preliminary Design Review (PDR): 7/2024

• Mission Critical Design Review (CDR): 7/2025

• Instruments Delivery Date: 7/2026

• Launch Readiness Date: 4/2028

This RFP is a continuation of the Request for Information (RFI) posted in July 2021 and will initiate multiple study contracts to support Mission Concept Review (MCR) in April 2022 and

KDP-A in May 2022. If this Access to Space (ATS) Request for Proposal (RFP) is awarded, it is anticipated to follow the schedule below and as detailed in the CDRL deliverables listed in Section 4:

• ATS Study (Pre-Phase A) RFP Release: 9/2021

• ATS Study (Pre-Phase A) Purchase Order Award: 11/2021

• ATS Study (Pre-Phase A) Preliminary SC/Mission Concept Presentation #1: NLT 1/2022 (MCR – 3 months)

• ATS Study (Pre-Phase A) Preliminary SC/Mission Concept Presentation #2: NLT 2/2022 (MCR – 2 months)

• ATS Study (Pre-Phase A) Final SC/Mission Concept Presentation: NLT 3/22

(MCR – 1 month)

• ATS Study (Pre-Phase A): KDP-A support as needed (Post MCR through June 30, 2022).

https://vac.gsfc.nasa.gov/accp/docs/accp-satm-rel-f-master.pdf

• ATS Study (Pre-Phase A) Closure SC/Mission Concept Post MCR Recommendations and Lessons Learned: NLT 6/30/2022

For planning purposes, the AOS project intends to procure spacecraft on the following, notional, no earlier than schedule (dependent upon successful completion of KDP-A and KDP-B):

• Spacecraft/ATS RFP Release: NET Summer 2022

• Spacecraft/ATS Contract Award: NET Spring 2023

1.3 Mission Assumptions and Constraints

For a full description of AOS Inclined ATS mission assumptions and constraints refer to AOS-I- ATS-RFP-3, AOS Inclined ATS RFP Mission Target Values and Instrument Accommodations / Allocations.

1.4 Applicable and Reference Documents

The following files are references for, and posted with, this RFP:

Doc # Title

GSFC-STD-1001A

NASA/GSFC Criteria for Flight and Flight Support System Lifecycle Reviews

GSFC-STD-1000G

NASA/GSFC Rules for the Design, Development, Verification, and Operation of Flight Systems (GOLD Rules)

GSFC-STD-7000A General Environmental Verification Standards (GEVS)

SP-20205003605 NASA Technology Readiness Assessment Best Practices Guide

NPR 7123.1C NASA Systems Engineering Processes and Requirements

NPR 8705.4 Risk Classification for NASA Payloads

NASA-STD-8719.14 Process for Limiting Orbital Debris

GPR 7120.4 GSFC Risk Management

AOS-I-ATS-RFP-1 AOS Inclined ATS RFP Cover Letter

AOS-I-ATS-RFP-3

AOS Inclined ATS RFP Mission Target Values and Instrument Accommodations / Allocations

N/A Master Equipment List (MEL) Template w/ Instructions

2 RFP Deliverables and Trade Studies

2.1 Option 1: Mission Concept Presentations and Engineering CDRLs

The items listed in this section should be addressed in both the Preliminary #1 [CDRL-4], Preliminary #2 [CDRL-5], and Final [CDRL-6] Spacecraft/Mission Concept Presentations. It is permissible for there to be TBR’s and TBD’s in both preliminary [CDRL-4 & CDRL-5] presentations. In addition to including information below in the Concept Presentations, certain items have a separate CDRL callout as the data format or amount of content may not translate well to a presentation format. For these items, it is permissible to note a high-level summary in the respective presentation noting the CDRL reference and status.

Describe your concepts for multiple spacecraft designs that can accommodate the six instrument payloads with development approaches that follow, or explicitly deviate from, the reference development, design, verification, and mission assurance processes, and result in full system integration and test with payloads, launch processing and commissioning, including:

1. Spacecraft design and development

2. Integration of instrument payloads to the spacecraft

3. Integrated system performance and environmental test

4. Launch site, Launch, and Commissioning activities

5. Challenges and solutions to developing multiple spacecraft

6. Schedule estimate for spacecraft development, integration, test, and activities through commissioning

7. Cost estimates for the spacecraft development and planned work

Provide the following information that addresses the requested concept for this response option relative to the reference parameters in AOS-I-ATS-RFP-3, AOS Inclined ATS RFP Mission Target Values and Instrument Accommodations / Allocations:

1. Organization information: Organization name and address, point-of-contact name, E-mail address, phone number

2. Abstract: Provide a summary of the system concept and approach

3. System Concept: Description of the design and capabilities of proposed spacecraft and how it addresses the mission reference parameters in AOS-I-ATS-RFP-3 Section 2.1, and its heritage and maturity (Technology Readiness Level [CDRL-13]) both at present and projected with maturation plan at the time of implementation (if for a future capability).

Include explanations of how the spacecraft addresses: maneuvers to maintain availability, breakdown of delta-V budget, modes [CDRL-11], and approaches to survive the atomic oxygen, and radiation environments. Design description should include: dry mass; wet mass; total power allocation, including instruments; mission life; propulsion type; max and min thrust; solar and ram drag area; delta-V capability; solar array type (body mounted, fixed deployed, articulating deployed); solar array size; battery capacity;

Launch Vehicle adapter type/size; system envelope dimensions; ACS actuator type;

attitude determination sensors; and approach for limiting orbital debris. Include MELs [CDRL-10] for all proposed designs using provided MEL template.

4. Payload Accommodation: Description of the instrument payload complement accommodation assessment on the spacecraft relative to the payload reference parameters in AOS-I-ATS-RFP-3 Section 2.2, including instrument interface description and sketches of instrument mounting configuration and fields of view. Include discussion of payload mass capability, payload area and volume capability for sensors and electronics, ram area for payload, concepts for deployed instruments, pointing and alignment capability, and plan for electrical interfaces. The preferred method to illustrate payload accommodations is by use of representative CAD model(s) [CDRL-12].

5. Launch Configuration: Description of the launch vehicle mounting and envelope, including concepts for launching the quantities systems needed to fly the instrument payload complement quantities and the system to be used to deploy the spacecraft from the launch vehicle.

6. Development Approach: Discuss the planned development approach, including how it relates to the reference parameters in AOS-I-ATS-RFP-3 Section 2.4. Discuss any planned development units, including tests planned for those units and any plan for a ground test bed. Discuss considerations and plans for developing multiple spacecraft.

7. System Integration and Test: Describe the planned or recommended process to integrate and functionally test the individual instruments in parallel with the spacecraft development and plans to integrate the payload to the spacecraft. Discuss plans to test the fully integrated spacecraft and payload systems. Include discussion of available facilities and processes to handle the quantities of systems. Describe how cleanliness levels will be maintained for the instruments per AOS-I-ATS-RFP-3 Section 2.2.6. Provide a simple block diagram depicting the performance and environmental test flow for the spacecraft and fully integrated systems relative to the reference parameters in AOS-I-ATS-RFP-3 Section 2.4.7. Include a description of how subsequent units will be tested.

8. Safety and Mission Assurance Processes: Describe plans relative to the safety and mission assurance reference parameters in AOS-I-ATS-RFP-3 Section 2.5. Discuss reliability of the proposed spacecraft concept, mission life expectations, and the features in the concept and development plans intended to improve reliability.

9. Organization Capabilities and Experience: Description of organization capabilities and experience performing spacecraft developments, I&T, launch support, and support of mission operations, including ground systems as listed in AOS-I-ATS-RFP-3 Section 2.1.10, similar to this mission. Include capacity and processes to handle quantities of spacecraft, instrument payloads, and fully integrated systems. Include any proposed partnerships that could benefit the execution of the plan.

10. AOS-I-ATS-RFP-3 Appendix A: Spacecraft Capabilities vs. Instrument Requirements (workshet 1 of n). Complete this worksheet to compare your spacecraft capabilities to your suggested payload configuration (the instrument payloads listed in AOS-I-ATS- RFP-3 Appendix B). Complete a worksheet for each of your suggested spacecraft configurations.

11. Cost and Schedule Estimate: For each observatory, provide a Rough Order of Magnitude

(ROM) cost estimate in fiscal year 2018 dollars (FY18$). Break the cost estimates down into: spacecraft design and development, including all effort to design, develop, build, and test the spacecraft, including development units and ground test sets; full system integration, test, launch, and commissioning activities, including all effort to integrate the instrument payload to the spacecraft, perform full system performance and environmental test, launch site activities, and commissioning; sparing philosophy and costs to implement this philosophy; and, costs for the system to deploy the spacecraft from the launch vehicle. Include Management, Mission Assurance, Systems Engineering, and review support in these estimates. Discuss the estimated schedule to complete planned activities.

12. Commercial Insurance: Describe the pros and cons of the spacecraft manufacturer procuring commercial insurance, as described in AOS-I-ATS-RFP-3 Section 2.6.

13. Drivers: Description of key technical, schedule and cost drivers. Identify options for mitigating cost drivers, including technical trades.

14. Reference Document Review [CDRL-14]: Provide any comments, questions, or concerns with the documents listed in Section 1.4 and AOS-I-ATS-RFP-3 Section 2.7 in your response.

2.2 Option 2: Mission Concept Presentations and Engineering CDRLs

The items listed in this section should be contained in both the Preliminary #1 [CDRL-4], Preliminary #2 [CDRL-5], and Final [CDRL-6] Spacecraft/Mission Concept Presentations. It is permissible for there to be TBR’s and TBD’s in both preliminary [CDRL-4 & CDRL-5] presentations. In addition to including information below in the Concept Presentations, certain items have a separate CDRL callout as the data format may not translate well to a presentation format. For these items, it is permissible to note a high-level summary in the respective presentation noting the CDRL reference and status.

Concepts for hosting all six instrument payloads within the architecture of a current or future system, including:

1. Integration and system level test of instrument payload with system

2. Challenges and solutions to hosting the range of instrument payload quantities

3. Cost and schedule estimate for hosting opportunity and planned work

4. The Phase A-D costs should be a fixed-price that includes:

a. The instrument accommodation costs,

b. the launch costs, and

c. any hosting fees, in a single fixed price cost.

5. The Phase E-F cost estimate should include the price per month/year for the ground data system and the mission ops costs

Please provide the following information that addresses the requested concept and plan for this response option relative to the reference parameters in AOS-I-ATS-RFP-3 Section 4.0:

1. Organization information: Organization name and address, point-of-contact name, E-mail address, phone number

2. Abstract: Provide a summary of the system concept and approach

3. System Concept: Description of the design, heritage and maturity (TRL [CDRL-13]), and capabilities of the proposed spacecraft or system that will host the payload, including the concept of operations for the hosted payload, orbit parameters, modes [CDRL-11], expected environments, and timeframe of operations as related to the mission reference parameters in AOS-I-ATS-RFP-3 Section 2.1. All the mission requirements in AOS-I-

ATS-RFP-3 Section 2.1 do not necessarily apply to systems that are proposed to host instruments, including launch vehicle, availability, environments, etc. Descriptions of capability are requested. Include MEL(s) [CDRL-10] for all proposed designs using provided MEL template.

4. Payload Accommodation: Description of the instrument payload the host spacecraft can accommodate relative to the payload reference parameters in AOS-I-ATS-RFP-3 Section

2.2 and Appendix B, including how the hosted payload will be accommodated, environmental requirements that must be levied on the instrument(s), instrument interface description, and sketches of instrument mounting configuration and fields of view.

Describe nadir instrument mass, area, volume, and FOV accommodation capabilities. The preferred method to illustrate payload accommodations is by use of representative CAD model(s) [CDRL-12].

5. Launch Configuration: Description of the launch vehicle mounting and envelope for the host spacecraft

6. Development Approach: Discuss the development and verification approach used for the host spacecraft. Discuss considerations and plans for integrating the hosted payload into the proposed spacecraft or system, including the quantities related to AOS-I-ATS-RFP-3

Section 2.2.1. Provide a simple block diagram depicting the performance and environmental test flow for the spacecraft after the hosted payload is integrated relative to the reference parameters in AOS-I-ATS-RFP-3 Section 2.4. Include a description of how subsequent units will be tested.

7. Safety and Mission Assurance Processes: Discuss reliability of the proposed spacecraft concept, mission life expectations, and the features in the concept and development plans intended to improve reliability.

8. Organization Capabilities and Experience: Description of organization capabilities and experience performing spacecraft developments and hosting payloads, integration and test, launch support, and support of mission operations, including ground systems as listed in AOS-I-ATS-RFP-3 Section 2.1.10, similar to this mission. Include capacity and processes to handle quantities of spacecraft.

9. Schedule Estimate: Discuss the estimated schedule to complete planned activities. At a minimum, include the following major activities: PDR, CDR, Instrument Delivery, I&T Duration, and Launch Readiness Date.

10. Cost Estimate: Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) cost estimate in fiscal year 2021 dollars (FY18$) for the cost of the hosted payload opportunity for the instrument payload.

11. Commercial Insurance: Describe the pros and cons of the hosted payload provider procuring commercial insurance, as described in AOS-I-ATS-RFP-3 Section 2.6.

12. Drivers: Description of key technical, schedule and cost drivers. Identify options for mitigating cost drivers, including technical trades.

13. Reference Document Review [CDRL-14]: Provide any comments, questions, or concerns with the documents listed in Section 1.4 and AOS-I-ATS-RFP-3 Section 2.7 in your response.

2.3 Trade Studies

The Contractor shall perform the Trade Studies outlined in CDRL-15 through CDRL-20. All studies are due 1 month prior to MCR. Study summary and status shall be included in the presentations outlined in CDRL-4, CDRL-5, and CDRL-6. As with the other CDRL’s, the MCR may assign actions that affect the studies. Post MCR study updates will be due with CDRL-7.

3 Meetings, Reviews, and Reporting Deliverables 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, proposed study schedule, preliminary CDRL compliance matrix, and a high-level introduction to the initial design concept. The Contractor will plan for a 2-hour virtual meeting. The Contractor will deliver a soft copy of the Kickoff chart package 24 hours prior to the meeting. [CRDL-3]

3.1.2 Weekly Status Meeting

The Contractor shall support a weekly virtual status meeting as required. This is intended to be a collaborative, working meeting for the Government to provide information, answer questions, and gain knowledge into the Contractor’s progress. Weekly meeting duration can change as topics dictate but are expected to be around 1-hour. [CDRL-1]

3.1.3 Monthly Progress Reviews

The Contractor shall present the results of the work performed since the previous Monthly

Progress Reviews (MPR) and discuss relevant technical and programmatic issues and findings.

The topics expected to be covered are listed in the CDRLs table in Section 4. The MPRs will be planned as 2-hour virtual meetings. The Contractor will deliver a soft copy of the MPR chart set 24 hours prior to the meeting. [CDRL-2]

3.1.4 Preliminary Concept Presentations

The Contractor shall provide two (2) preliminary versions of the chart set for the Final Concept Review [CDRL-4 & CDRL-5] with the intent being that the charts are more refined for each version leading up to the final review. The topics expected to be covered are listed in the CDRLs table in Section 4. However, it is acceptable to have CDRLs in a draft/unaccepted state at this time. The Contractor will deliver a soft copy of the presentation #1 approximately MCR-3 months and presentation #1 approximately MCR-2 months. Actions may be assigned at either preliminary review for incorporation into the final review. No formal presentation meetings are anticipated for these reviews as any feedback can be communicated during the weekly [CDRL-1]

/ monthly [CDRL-2] meetings.

3.1.5 Final Study Review (FSR)

The Contractor shall present a summary of the results of the work performed for the Final Study Review. The Contractor should plan on a 1-day virtual review. The topics expected to be covered are listed in the CDRLs table in Section 4. The Contractor will deliver a soft copy of the FSR chart set 72 hours prior to the meeting [CDRL-6]. This will occur at approximately MCR-1 month.

3.1.6 Action Item Closure Post MCR

The Contractor shall close out any RFA’s assigned during MCR that affect the Final Spacecraft / Mission Concept [CDRL-6] or any of the Study CDRL's [CDRL-7]. An Action Item Status summary showing closure shall be provided along with any supporting documentation needed to close out the remaining RFA’s. This will be delivered within 2 weeks after the MCR.

3.1.7 Support of KDP-A Preparation

The Contractor shall provide support, such as schedule / cost updates, for KDP-A preparation.

This will occur at approximately MCR + 1 month. [CDRL-8]

3.1.8 Recommendations / Lessons Learned & KDP-A AI Closures

The Contractor shall present a summary of the recommendations and lessons learned of the work performed for the final study review along with closure responses to any assigned KDP-A action items. This will be due on June 30, 2022.

4 Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL)

Category

CDRL

ID

Deliverable

Expected Format

Description Schedule

/ Due

PM

Support

1 Weekly Status Meeting Briefing Charts

Status, issues, Q&A, etc. Weekly

PM

Support

2 Monthly Status Review Briefing Charts

Status, issues, Q&A, etc. Monthly

PM

Support

Review and Initial Assessment / Kickoff Meeting

Briefing Charts

Documentation of mutual agreement on needed CDRLs, Trade Studies, and Special Studies.

CA + 2

Weeks

MCR

Support

Preliminary Spacecraft/Mission Concept Presentation #1

Briefing Charts

Presentation includes technical description, trade study status, special study status, preliminary CDRL compliance matrix, etc. Will include items outlined in Section 2.1 (Option 1) or 2.2 (Option 2).

MCR - 3

months

MCR

Support

Preliminary Spacecraft/Mission Concept Presentation #2

Briefing Charts

Presentation includes technical description, trade study status, special study status, refined CDRL compliance matrix, etc. Will include items outlined in Section 2.1 (Option 1) or 2.2 (Option 2).

MCR - 2

months

MCR

Support

Final Spacecraft/Mission Concept/Presentation in Support

MCR

Briefing Charts

Presentation includes technical description, trade study results, special study results, ROM Cost in FY18 dollars, initial schedule assuming CA at start of Phase B. Will include items outlined in Section 2.1 (Option 1) or 2.2 (Option 2).

MCR - 1

month

KDP-A

Support

Action Item Closure Post MCR in Support of KDP-A

Briefing Charts

Close out any actions assigned during MCR that affect the Final Spacecraft / Mission Concept [CDRL-6] or any of the Study CDRL's.

MCR + 2

weeks

KDP-A

Support

8 Support of KDP-A Preparation Briefing Charts

Provide any support for KDP-A preparation (e.g. schedule / cost updates).

MCR + 1

month

KDP-A

Support

Recommendations/Lessons Learned and KDP-A Action Item Closures

Briefing Charts

Present a summary of the recommendations and lessons learned of the work performed for the Final Study Review along with closure responses to any assigned KDP-A action items.

6/30/22

ID

Deliverable

Expected Format

Description Schedule

/ Due

Eng.

Requests

10 Master Equipment List (MEL) Spread-sheet

Document mass, power, and TRL of each major sub-component.

Template will be provided by the AOS Program. For instruments, populate MEL with values specified in AOS-I-ATS-RFP-3 Appendix B.

MCR - 2

months

Eng.

Requests

11 Modes and Data Spread-sheet

Document spacecraft data rates and associated system modes.

This should include Spacecraft data rates modes such as science, maneuver, Safe Hold, etc.

MCR - 2

months

Eng.

Requests

12 CAD Model Creo &

Step Assembly

Assembly CAD models (step file(s) at a minimum; Creo assembly files preferred) in the following configurations at a minimum: 1) Launch Configuration; 2) Flight Configuration with Instruments [See Note]; 3) Flight Configuration without Instruments.

Note: The AOS Program intends to supply notional instrument CAD models but in the event models can’t be provided the volumes contained in AOS-I-ATS-RFP-3 Appendix B can be used as stand-ins.

MCR - 1

month

Eng.

Requests

TRL Assessment / Heritage Assessment / Risk Assessment

Briefing Charts or Spread-sheet

Flight hardware and software heritage as well as any relevant differences between the claimed heritage and the proposed design shall be documented (for example, on-orbit environment, mission duration, requirements, etc.).Assessment per SP- 20205003605 Technology Readiness Assessment Best Practices Guide, showing path to TRL 6 by PDR. If TRL path identified, a Technology Development Plan (TDP) will be developed to provide an outline for how TRL 6 will be achieved by PDR. Also identify any single point failures (SFP) atypical in a Class C mission in the design as a risk and list any potential mitigation options. For risks identified, rank likelihood and criticality on a 5x5 matrix per GPR 7120.4D, Appendix C.

MCR - 2

months

ID

Deliverable

Expected Format

Description Schedule

/ Due

Eng.

Requests

14 NASA Standards Tailoring

Briefing Charts or Spread-sheet

Recommendations on tailoring of NASA standards that are provided as reference (e.g. GSFC-STD-1000G, GSFC-STD-7000A, etc.). Project would like to know where the Contractor would propose following other standards or commercial practices in lieu of NASA standards. High level assessment, not a formal compliance matrix.

MCR - 1

month

Trade Studies &

Special Studies

15 Rideshare Feasibility Study Briefing Charts

Study task for determining feasibility for rideshare as a secondary payload with primary payload atop the launch stack. Design must allow for a standard adapter (ESPA 1575) with emphasis on minimizing the height of the AOS inclined spacecraft to maximize fairing volume for the prime payload.

MCR - 1

month

Trade Studies &

Special Studies

16 Data Latency Trade Study Briefing Charts

Explore architecture options for obtaining instrument data with varying priority, volume, and latency requirements.

Part of this study may include exploration of different RF/optical Communication architectures and communications with different assets to meet overall mission requirements.

Note: Trade may not be required if proposed architecture meets desired latency.

MCR - 1

month

Trade Studies &

Special Studies

17 Orbit Altitude Trade Study Briefing Charts

Define impacts to the system design/performance at orbit altitudes of 407km (baseline) and 450 km.

MCR - 1

month

Trade Studies &

Special Studies

18 Science Availability Special Study Briefing Charts

Based on instrument operating requirements (jitter, power, etc.)

perform an availability study based on expected spacecraft day-in-the-life activities in ConOps. Focus should be on maintenance events (e.g. formation maintenance maneuver duration) and their potential impact on science instruments.

MCR - 1

month

ID

Deliverable

Expected Format

Description Schedule

/ Due

Trade Studies &

Special Studies

19 Formation Flying Study Briefing Charts

Conduct a flight dynamics assessment of proposed spacecraft flying in formation to meet orbital height, inclination, timing (along-track separation), and cross-track targets. Assume launch date of July 2028 for solar activity. Include a complete delta-V and maneuver timing summary for 3 years and 5 years at a minimum along with yaw flip scheme to account for sun beta angle. Ballistic coefficients using MEL [CDRL-10] mass and ram/solar areas for drag shall be used to provide additional fidelity.

MCR - 1

month

Trade Studies &

Special Studies

20 Other Contractor Studies Briefing Charts

Other studies as identified by the Contractor or during kickoff meeting [CDRL-3]. If there are no additional studies, state during the kickoff meeting.

MCR - 1

month