AOS SW Spectrometer SOW.pdf

Table of Contents

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 OVERVIEW

1.1.1 AOS Scientific Goals and Objectives

1.1.2 AOS Mission Schedule Milestones & Study Task Milestones

1.2 TOP-LEVEL SUMMARY OF WORK REQUIRED

1.3 APPLICABLE AND REFERENCE DOCUMENTS

1.4 MISSION ASSUMPTIONS & CONSTRAINTS

1.5 INSTRUMENT TARGETS AND CONSTRAINTS

2 TASKS

2.1 DESIGN CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT AND RELATED ANALYSES

2.2 TRADE STUDIES

2.2.1 Data Compression/Reduction Trade Study

2.2.2 Sensitivity to Orbit Altitude Study

2.2.3 Performance, Risk, and Cost Trade Study

2.2.4 Target Optimization Study

2.2.5 Onboard Calibration Approach Study

2.2.6 Size, Mass, and Power vs Capability and Spacecraft Constraints Study

2.2.7 I&T Verification Approaches and Needs Study

2.3 TECHNOLOGY & HERITAGE ASSESSMENT

2.4 MANAGEMENT PLANNING

3 REVIEWS, REPORTING, AND DELIVERABLE PRODUCTS

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 Presentation

3.1.5 Final Study Review (FSR)

3.1.6 Final Report Package (FRP)

3.2 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 instruments are needed. Through this RFP, the study team is seeking proposals on instrument concepts and innovative approaches, including a range of solutions to optimize the degree to which the instruments meet science objectives trading Cost, and Size, Weight, and Power (SWaP) impacting spacecraft accommodation requirements which also impacts Cost. The study team is also seeking proposals regarding opportunities for public-private and other partnerships.

The selected AOS architecture is illustrated in Figure 1. This architecture encompasses flight assets in two orbit planes: (1) Polar: Sun-Synchronous Orbit, 450 km, and 1330 Ascending Node and (2) Inclined: Nominally 40 to 55 Degree Inclination, 407 km. Within the AOS Constellation, Inclined Plane assets will be launched first to achieve earliest possible science with instruments that will make advancements in the understanding aerosol and cloud properties and target the dynamics of the cloud processes and precipitation on sub-daily to sub-minute time scales. The polar plane will follow a year or two later with more advanced measurements targeting the seasonal, global scale microphysical properties of clouds and aerosol and their linkage to atmospheric radiation and longer-term climate change. The constellation targets understanding the dynamics of the Earth’s Atmosphere and the processes that drive change over time.

Figure 1. Anticipated AOS Constellation Architecture

While the concept illustrated in Figure 1 accurately reflects the AOS intent, the number of spacecraft in the two orbit planes and the specific instrumentation assignment on the spacecraft remains under study during the pre-Phase A period.

The anticipated instrumentation suite for the AOS Constellation as assigned to the Inclined Orbit and the Polar Orbit is shown in Table 1. Note that some passive instrumentation/sensors (i.e.

Polarimeter, Microwave Radiometer) are found in both orbit planes but their performance and spacecraft allocation needs may differ depending upon the assigned orbit plane.

Table 1. Anticipated Instrumentation Suite for AOS

Polar Orbit Observatory Inclined Orbit Observatory 1

Inclined Orbit Observatory 2

W/Ka Band Doppler Radar W/Ku Band Doppler Radar Backscatter Lidar High Spectral Resolution Lidar Tandem Stereographic

Cameras Microwave Radiometer

LWIR-TIR Spectrometer Polarimeter UV-VIS-SWIR Spectrometer Tandem Stereographic

Cameras Microwave Radiometer

Polarimeter

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_Candidate_G.pdf

1.1.2 AOS Mission Schedule Milestones & Study Task Milestones https://vac.gsfc.nasa.gov/accp/docs/ACCP_SATM_Rel_Candidate_G.pdf

The current notional AOS mission schedule is as follows. This 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 for Inclined: 7/2026

• Instruments Delivery Date for Polar: 7/2027

• Inclined Launch Readiness Date: 4/2028

• Polar Launch Readiness Date: 4/2029

This RFP is a follow-on to the Request for Information (RFI) posted in July 2021 and will initiate multiple study purchase orders to support Mission Concept Review (MCR) in April 2022.

If this Instrument Request for Proposal (RFP) is awarded, it is anticipated to follow the schedule below:

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

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

• Kickoff: Purchase Order Award + 2 weeks

• Final Study Review: 3/2022.

• Final Report and Action Item Closeout: 5/2022

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

• Instrument RFP Release: Summer 2022 (NET)

• Instrument Contract Award: Spring 2023 (NET)

1.2 Top-Level Summary of Work Required

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

a) A UV-VIS-SWIR Spectrometer Design and associated Concept of Operations that satisfies the baseline targets

b) An Assessment of Spectrometer performance against targets

c) Trade Studies as specified in Section 2.2

d) Analyses as described in Section 2.1

e) Technology Assessment, Heritage Assessment, and Technology Maturation Plan as described in Section 2.3

f) Preliminary development schedule and costing analysis as described in Section 2.4

A full list of Contract Data Delivery Requirements (CDRLs) is provided in Section 3.2.

1.3 Applicable and Reference Documents

Document Title GSFC-STD-1001A Criteria for Flight and Flight Support Systems Lifecycle Reviews GSFC-STD-1000G GSFC Rules for the Design, Development, Verification, and

Operation of Flight Systems GSFC-STD-7000A General Environmental Verification Standard (GEVS) for GSFC

Flight Programs and Projects NPR 8705.4A Risk Classification for NASA Payloads NASA SP-20205003605 Technology Readiness Assessment Best Practices Guide NPR 7123.1C NASA Systems Engineering Processes and Requirements

(w/Change 1)

1.4 Mission Assumptions & Constraints

This section provides Mission and Spacecraft assumptions as they pertain to the instrument design or the instrument Concept of Operations.

Identifier Category Polar, Inclined, or Common

Mission Parameters and Spacecraft Interface Assumptions

AOS-1 Orbit Polar 450 km +/-10 km altitude, Sun Synchronous Polar Orbit, Ascending Node: 1330

AOS-2 Orbit Inclined 407 km +/- 10 km altitude, 40 to 55 degree inclination

AOS-3 Orbit and Thermal Interface

Inclined For thermal purposes, the Inclined Spacecraft will perform approximately 9 to 12 180-degree yaw maneuvers per year to maintain a consistent 'cold side' to the spacecraft. The responder should note any instrument performance or functional concerns with this inclined ConOps assumption.

AOS-4 Launch Date Inclined See Section 1.1.2 AOS-5 Launch Date Polar See Section 1.1.2 AOS-6 Instrument Design Life Polar Minimum 3 Years, accommodate 5 years for any consumable.

AOS-7 Instrument Design Life Inclined Minimum 3 Years, accommodate 5 years for any consumable.

AOS-8 Instrument Risk Classification

Common Each AOS spacecraft and instrument payload complement is currently envisioned to be Risk Class C per NPR 8705.4, Appendix D. Concepts that follow alternative approaches will also be considered.

AOS-9 Launch Vehicle Common Assume environment envelope of the following launch vehicles: Falcon 9, Blue Origin New Glenn, and ULA Vulcan Centaur.

AOS-10 Deployments Common Deployments for initial instrument configuration are acceptable. and should be noted by the vendor.

For example, this might include protective aperture covers or release mechanisms for a system locked during launch.

AOS-11 Orbital Debris Reduction

Common The instrument should retain with the instrument any deployed hardware. No hardware is to be released into orbit.

AOS-12 Thermal Interface Common Instrument is responsible for its own thermal management, including any cryocoolers, operational heaters, thermal radiators, thermal straps, and heat pipes. Assume that spacecraft will accommodate field of view for instrument radiators with view to a 'cold side' of the spacecraft. Conductive heat transfer between instrument and mounting interface will be restricted.

AOS-13 Survival Power Common Spacecraft will provide dedicated power feed for survival heaters from nominal 28 V DC power service. Instrument is responsible for its own survival heaters and control (e.g. thermostats).

AOS-14 Operational Power Service

Common Assume nominal 28 V DC power service from spacecraft battery system, notionally 23 V to 32 V DC range of variation.

AOS-15 Spacecraft Attitude Control System

Common The spacecraft will maintain a fixed nadir-pointing attitude during operations. Attitude slews for checkout or calibration activities performed as needed.

AOS-16 Science Data Management

Common Instrument need not provide its own data storage system. Assume spacecraft will provide adequately sized data recorder to store instrument science, telemetry, housekeeping for periodic spacecraft downlinking.

AOS-17 Science Data Management

Common Data Rate values provided in the targeted resource allocation are for uncompressed data. Assume that the spacecraft will not implement any data compression on the instrument science data. The instruments may wish to implement data compression (lossy or lossless) algorithms prior to transfer to the spacecraft.

AOS-18 Contamination Common Adequate precautions will be taken during Integration & Testing (I&T) to assure the on-orbit performance of the instruments. Materials used will be selected to be consistent with meeting low outgassing rates. Cleaning operations will be performed as necessary. It should be assumed that the observatory will be bagged when not in a Class 10,000 environment.

AOS-19 Electrical Interfaces Common The instrument should assume that the spacecraft will provide the following electrical interfaces to each instrument:

1. +28 V primary power services sized for instrument power

2. RS-422 communication services or similar for instrument command and telemetry

3. High-speed data interface sized for instrument data rate

4. Pulse Per Second (1 PPS) services for time synchronization

1.5 Instrument Targets and Constraints

Performance and accommodation targets have been derived by the study team which are necessary to meet the desired capabilities detailed in the Science and Applications Traceability Matrix (SATM). A complete list of performance and accommodation targets for the UV-VIS- SWIR Spectrometer Instrument are provided in attached document ‘AOS_Spectrometer_Target_Parameter_List.docx’. This provides the Contractor with an expectation for the class of instrument expected.

2 Tasks

2.1 Design Concept Development and Related Analyses

The Contractor shall develop an instrument design concept and perform associated engineering analyses to justify design parameters, tolerances, and design/performance margins. (CDRL-4 &

CDRL-5)

The Contractor shall provide a quantitative comparison of the instrument performance against the performance and allocation targets outlined in Section1.5. (CDRL-8)

The Contractor shall define a calibration methodology (both pre-launch and on-orbit) as applicable for the instrument. (CDRL-4 & CDRL-5)

The Contractor shall identify data processing required to create Level 1 data products, including any assumptions, required inputs, etc. (CDRL-9)

The Contractor shall provide an initial analysis, and a state diagram, of the instruments ability to support engagement and disengagement of all cases/modes including, but not limited to, the following:

• Safe Mode – a thermally and optically safe configuration supported for an indefinite duration

• Nominal Operations – Fully functional configuration employed for normal operations and data collection

• Standby Mode – Configuration providing health and safety telemetry, but not collecting science data

• Maneuver Mode – safe state for any spacecraft maneuvers (may be the same as a mode above)

(CDRL-13)

The Contractor shall describe a reliability approach (selective redundancy, parts selection, etc.)

to meet the required lifetime and Risk Class C. (CDRL-15)

The Contractor shall identify 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, as well as potential mitigations. (CDRL-15)

The Contractor shall develop a Master Equipment List (MEL), using the attached template and filling in the applicable section(s). The MEL shall document the mass, power, and TRL of each major sub-component. (CDRL-10)

The Contractor shall provide descriptions of any simulation and analytical tools (e.g. Instrument Performance Model) used in the assessment of the design and/or performance, including the heritage and validation of the tools. (CDRL-8)

The Contractor shall provide a CAD Model of the proposed instrument in all expected configurations (launch/stowed, deployed, etc.). (CDRL-14)

The Contractor shall provide a high-level recommendation for tailoring NASA standards (which are provided as reference). The Project would like preliminary information regarding where the Contractor would propose following other standards or commercial practices in lieu of NASA standards. This is a high-level assessment, not a formal compliance matrix. (CDRL-16)

The Contractor shall provide any driving requirements impacting mission design (e.g. pointing control, knowledge, jitter, peak power, keep out zones, etc.). (CDRL-17)

The Contractor shall provide all parameters in the Instrument Performance and Accommodation Spreadsheet (‘AOS_Spectrometer_RFP_Vendor_parameter_input.xlsx’) provided with this RFP

(CDRL-8)

2.2 Trade Studies

Multiple trade studies are expected to be performed during this study task. The exact number, scope, and level of effort of study tasks will be mutually agreed upon at the Kickoff Meeting, including any potential studies that the Contractor may propose. This is due to the studies being somewhat dependent on the instrument design within the proposed instrument accommodation.

Below are the expected trade studies to be evaluated, however, the complete and formal list will be documented at the Kickoff Meeting.

2.2.1 Data Compression/Reduction Trade Study

Study methods to reduce data rates while still meeting science requirements, such as data compression. Document any assumptions made. (CDRL-18)

2.2.2 Sensitivity to Orbit Altitude Study

Study impacts to instrument design/performance at different orbital altitudes of 407km (baseline) and 450km. (CDRL-19)

2.2.3 Performance, Risk, and Cost Trade Study

The Contractor shall propose studies for trading performance, risk, schedule, and cost. This could include descoping capability, reducing classification to Risk Class D, reduction in mission lifetime, etc. The Contractor should recommend options. Agreement on options to be evaluated will occur at Kickoff meeting. (CDRL-20)

2.2.4 Target Optimization Study

Study instrument design trade-offs that optimize target capabilities (see performance target ranges in ‘AOS_SWSpectrometer_Target_Parameter_List.docx’). Instrument design parameters of particular interest are spectral coverage, spectral sampling, spectral break points, ground spatial resolution, swath width. (CDRL-21)

2.2.5 Onboard Calibration Approach Study

Optimize onboard calibration system approaches, including identifying any required spacecraft maneuvers. (CDRL-22)

2.2.6 Size, Mass, and Power vs Capability and Spacecraft Constraints Study

Trade instrument capability to achieve science/measurement goals vs. constraints on instrument size, mass, and power imposed by the spacecraft and mission ConOps. (CDRL-23)

2.2.7 I&T Verification Approaches and Needs Study

Determine ground system equipment (GSE) needs for verifying potential performance requirements, especially for radiance/SNR trades in the UV and SWIR. (CDRL-24)

2.3 Technology & Heritage Assessment

The Contractor shall assess the technology readiness of all components of the design. (CDRL- 11)

If applicable, the Contractor shall provide a detailed Technology Development Plan (TDP), including a schedule, explaining how all technologies, and the instrument as a system will achieve TRL 6 by the instrument PDR. If the study effort includes Technology Development effort, the TDP and associated schedule will clearly identify all of the work covered by the Technology Development. (CDRL-12)

The Contractor shall document the flight hardware and software heritage as well as any relevant differences between the claimed heritage and the proposed design (for example, on-orbit environment, mission duration, requirements, etc.). (CDRL-11)

Note: A Technology Readiness Assessment Best Practices Guide (NASA SP-20205003605) will be provided to assist with these deliverables.

2.4 Management Planning

The Contractor shall develop an implementation phase schedule.

The schedule shall show the following major instrument reviews: achievement of TRL6 at system level, SRR, IBR, PDR, CDR, MRRs, TRRs, PER, and PSR, including development of the instrument software simulators and physical model(s) and engineering development unit(s) as deemed necessary, long-lead (> 1 year) procurements, I&T and V&V activities, and the top three critical paths.

The project will work with the study contract awardee on the development of the schedule, at an appropriate level, to support MCR and Key Decision Point A (KDP-A) and to determine the assumptions used for costing of givers such as software simulators, physical models and engineering development/test units as well as any receivers such as spacecraft simulators, etc that may be needed.

NASA will use the MEL provided to produce one or more independent, parametric cost estimates for the instrument including engineering development units based on the stated TRLs.

The parametric models required and used by NASA may be, but are not limited to, NICM, SEER, PCEC. We will review the results of the parametric cost estimates with the Contractor.

The Contractor shall provide their own bottoms-up cost estimate for the full life cycle of the instrument from Contract Award (nominally start of Phase B) through Phase D for the development and production of the flight instrument including technology and engineering development required, qualification and engineering development models, any ground support equipment to be developed, flight software/FPGA development, flight spare hardware, etc.. The costs shall be broken down by WBS element, by Government Fiscal year and the costs for qualification units/testing, engineering development units/testing, ground support equipment, flight software and/or FPGA development as well as flight spares should be separable.

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, proposed study schedule, 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 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. (CRDL-1)

3.1.3 Monthly Progress Reviews

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 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 Presentation

The Contractor will provide a preliminary version of the chart set for the Final Concept Review The topics expected to be covered are listed in the CDRLs table in Section 3.2. 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 approximately MCR-2 months. (CDRL-4).

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 will plan on a virtual review. The topics expected to be covered are listed in the CDRLs table in Section 3.2. The Contractor will deliver a soft copy of the FSR chart set 72 hours prior to the meeting. This will occur at approximately MCR-1 month. (CDRL-5)

3.1.6 Final Report Package (FRP)

The Contractor shall deliver any CDRLs that were not delivered and approved by the Government Contracting Officer (CO) prior to the FSR or any CDRLs requiring updates in the Final Report Package. The Contractor will address any open action items remaining after the FSR in the Final Report Package. The FRP will be delivered within 2 weeks after the MCR.

(CDRL-7)

3.2 Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL)

ID Deliverable Comments Schedule CDRL-1 Weekly Status Meeting Status, issues, Q&A, etc. Weekly

CDRL-2 Monthly Progress Review discuss relevant technical and programmatic issues and findings Monthly

CDRL-3 Kickoff Meeting (Review and Initial Assessment)

Documentation of mutual agreement on needed Trade Studies or Special Studies

Purchase Order Award + 2 Weeks

CDRL-4 Preliminary Instrument Concept Presentation

Note: will require closure of many other CDRLs.

Presentation includes technical description, trade study results, special study results, etc.

MCR - 2 months

CDRL-5 Final Instrument Concept Review (FCR) to support MCR

Note: will require closure of most other CDRLs.

Presentation includes technical description, trade study results, special study results, ROM Cost in FY21 dollars, initial schedule assuming CA at start of Phase B

MCR - 1 month

CDRL-6a Action Item Closure Post MCR in Support of KDP-A

Support closure of actions from Final Study Review (FSR) and Mission MCR MCR + 2 weeks

CDRL-6b Support KDP-A Preparation Provide any support for KDP-A preparation (e.g.

schedule/cost updates) MCR + 1 month

CDRL-7 Recommendations/Lessons Learned

Present a summary of the Lessons Learned and Recommendations along with closure responses to any assigned KDP-A action items

6/30/2022

CDRL-8

Instrument Performance Parameter and Accommodation Spreadsheet

Complete all fields in Instrument Performance Parameter and Accommodation Spreadsheet provided with this RFP

MCR - 1 month

CDRL-9 Level 1 Data Processing Identify data processing required for Level 1 data, including assumptions, required inputs, etc. MCR - 1 month

CDRL-10 Master Equipment List (MEL) Document mass, power, and TRL of each major sub-component. Template will be provided by the Government

MCR - 2 months

CDRL-11 TRL Assessment / Heritage Assessment

TRL Assessment per 7123.1 Appendix E or Best Practices Guide. Assessment of heritage and documenting deviations from heritage

MCR - 2 months

CDRL-12 Technology Maturation Plan Outline a plan to reach TRL6 by Mission PDR MCR - 2 months

CDRL-13 Modes and Data Rates

Document instrument data rates and associated system modes. This should include data rates in all instrument modes such as science, maneuver, Safe Hold, etc.

MCR - 1 month

CDRL-14 CAD Model CAD Model for instrument. Provide any applicable configurations (e.g. launch/stowed, deployed, etc.)

MCR - 1 month

CDRL-15 Risk Classification Assessment Assessment per NPR 8705.4, Appendix D for Mission Class C, including identification of Single Point Failures

MCR - 1 month

CDRL-16 NASA Standards Tailoring

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

MCR - 1 month in lieu of NASA standards. High level assessment, not a formal compliance matrix

CDRL-17 Identification of Driving Requirements

Identify driving requirements that impact the system (pointing, keep out zones, jitter, etc.) MCR - 1 month

CDRL-18 Data Compression Study Study methods to reduce data rates while still meeting requirements, such as data compression. MCR - 1 month

CDRL-19 Sensitivity to Orbit Altitude Study

Study impacts to instrument design/performance at different orbital altitudes. MCR - 1 month

CDRL-20 Performance, Risk, and Cost Trade Study

Trade performance parameters, Rick classification, cost, etc. to meet mission needs MCR - 1 month

CDRL-21 Target Optimization Study

Study instrument design trade-offs to optimize target capabilities (spectral coverage/break points, spectral sampling, ground spatial resolution, swath width)

MCR - 1 month

CDRL-22 Onboard Calibration Approach Study

Optimize onboard calibration system approaches and identify required spacecraft maneuvers MCR - 1 month

CDRL-23

Size, Mass, and Power vs Capability and Spacecraft Constraints Study

Trade instrument capability vs. constraints on instrument size, mass, and power imposed by the spacecraft and mission ConOps.

MCR - 1 month

CDRL-24 I&T Verification Approaches and Needs Study

Determine ground system equipment (GSE) needs for verifying potential performance requirements MCR - 1 month

3.2 Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL)