CSLI_AoPO FINAL-2024.pdf

ANNOUNCEMENT OF PARTNERSHIP OPPORTUNITY

(AoPO) CUBESAT LAUNCH INITIATIVE (CSLI)

General Information

Solicitation Number: NNH24ZCF001

Reference Number: N/A

SAM.gov August 5, 2024

Response Date: November 15, 2024

Recovery and Reinvestment Act Action?: NO

Product Service Code:

AR13 – Space R&D Services; Space Flight, Research and Supporting Activities;

Experimental Development

NAICS Code:

541715 - Research and Development in the

Physical, Engineering and Life Sciences

(except Nanotechnology and Biotechnology)

Set-Aside Code: N/A

Internet Address:

Office Address

NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center, Headquarters Procurement Office, Code 173, Greenbelt, MD 20771

Table of Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Integration and Launch Services

1.1.1 Funding

2.0 GENERAL INFORMATION

3.0 DEFINITIONS

4.0 RESPONDENT ELIGIBILITY

4.1 Educational and Nonprofit Organizations

4.1.1 Educational Organization

4.1.2 Nonprofit Organization

4.2 NASA Center, and Jet Propulsion Laboratory

5.0 CUBESAT PROJECT ELIGIBILITY

5.1 CubeSats Supported

5.2 CubeSat Development/Integration Funding Commitment

5.3 Launch Services Program Requirements

6.0 PROPOSAL SUBMISSION INFORMATION

6.1 Proposal Submittal

6.1.1 CubeSat Mission Name

6.2 Alignment with NASA Strategic Goals and Objectives

6.3 Proposal Requirements

6.3.1 Cover Page (1 page)

6.3.2 Title Page (2 pages)

6.3.3 Points of Contact (1 page)

6.3.4 Table of Contents

6.3.5 Abstract (750 words)

6.3.6 Proposal Detail (15 pages)

6.3.6.1 Schedule and Budget

6.3.6.2 Merit Review

6.3.6.3 Feasibility Review

6.3.7 Proposal Appendices

6.3.7.1 Resumes/Qualifications

6.3.7.2 Compliance Documents

6.3.7.3 Additional Documentation

7.0 PROPOSAL EVALUATION, SELECTION AND NOTIFICATION

7.1 Initial Compliance Review

7.2 CubeSat Launch Initiative Evaluation Panel

7.3 Evaluation and Selection Process

7.4 Selection Notification

7.5 Post Selection

APPENDIX A

A-1.0 INTRODUCTION AND GENERAL INFORMATION

A-1.1 Cooperative Research and Development Agreement A-1.2 Final Report

A-2.0 FOCUS AREAS AND PROJECT ELIGIBILITY

A-2.1 Relevance to NASA

A-2.2 Education Benefit

A-3.0 PROPOSAL EVALUATION

A-3.1 Evaluation Criteria and Weighting

A-4.0 COMPLIANCE CHECKLIST

APPENDIX B

B-1.0 INTRODUCTION AND GENERAL INFORMATION

B-2.0 FOCUS AREAS AND PROJECT ELIGIBILITY

B-2.1 Potential Impact

B-3.0 PROPOSAL EVALUATION

B-3.1 Evaluation Criteria and Weighting

B-4.0 COMPLIANCE CHECKLIST

Table 1 Overview of Key Dates

Table 2 Respondent Eligibility

Table 3 Proposal Requirements

Table 4 CubeSat Mission Parameters

Table 5 CubeSat Project Details

Table 6 Waiver Request Table

Table 7 Appendix A Evaluation Criteria and Weighting

Table 8 Appendix A Compliance Checklist

Table 9 Appendix B Evaluation Criteria and Weighting

Table 10 Appendix B Compliance Checklist

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) CubeSat Launch Initiative (CSLI) is intended to expand United States (U.S.) interest in Science, Technology, Engineering, and

Mathematics (STEM). CSLI emphasizes education and is providing access to space for U.S.

educational institutions, nonprofits with an education/outreach component, and NASA, including

Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) for workforce development. CSLI encourages participation by

Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) and other Minority Serving Institutions

(MSIs) and also values multi-university collaborations and mentoring that will contribute toward building a diverse STEM workforce. Visit NASA’s Minority Serving Institutions Exchange site which identifies resources and collaboration opportunities. CSLI also partnered with the

University Nanosatellite Program (UNP) to develop the Mission Concept Program that provides system engineering training to students and to develop small satellite expertise at U.S.

universities.

Within the scope of the CSLI program, the NASA Space Operations Mission Directorate

(SOMD) will use reasonable efforts to make available situational mentoring (including, but not limited to educational programs and workshops) and point to science and technology resources that may be helpful to a project. In addition, SOMD anticipates making launch opportunities available to a variety of U.S. CubeSat developers for a limited number of CubeSats. CSLI will provide or facilitate launch opportunities to low-Earth orbit (LEO) currently planned for 2026-

2029.

NASA anticipates selecting one or more Respondents (“Collaborators”) to support the CSLI.

Participation in this initiative will be contingent upon selection by NASA and, for those entities external to NASA, an appropriate Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) containing standard terms and conditions is required. The CRADA is posted on https://www.nasa.gov/content/cubesat-launch-initiative-resources and to maintain uniformity among all CSLI Collaborators, NASA will not negotiate changes to the agreement

More information about the CSLI, including previously selected Respondents and valuable reference materials, requirements documentation, lessons learned, and frequently asked questions is available at: http://go.nasa.gov/CubeSat_initiative.

NASA reserves the right to amend or withdraw this AoPO at any time and for any reason.

1.1 Integration and Launch Services

NASA provides integration and other services as necessary to complete the launch activity.

NASA will not transfer any funds to selected Collaborators under agreements established in response to this AoPO.

1.1.1 Funding

To equitably provide launch opportunities to as many CubeSat projects as possible with the available funding, NASA, via CSLI, is imposing a CubeSat size limit and an orbit compatibility https://msiexchange.nasa.gov/pdf/2023-2024%20MSI%20List.pdf https://msiexchange.nasa.gov/pdf/2023-2024%20MSI%20List.pdf https://msiexchange.nasa.gov/ https://universitynanosat.org/ https://www.nasa.gov/content/cubesat-launch-initiative-resources http://go.nasa.gov/CubeSat_initiative requirement as specified in section 5.1.

2.0 GENERAL INFORMATION

Below are some key dates regarding this AoPO. Questions can be e-mailed to hq-launchservices@mail.nasa.gov.

Table 1 Overview of Key Dates

Overview of Key Dates

AoPO Released August 5, 2024

Proposal Submissions Due November 15, 2024, by 5:00 pm Eastern

Selection Notification March 14, 2025 (target)

CSLI Open House Meeting (virtual) Mid-May 2025 (target)

Launch Opportunity 2026-2029

Agency Name: NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration)

Opportunity Title: Announcement of Partnership Opportunity CubeSat Launch Initiative

Proposal Submissions Due: November 15, 2024, by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time

Submission Instructions: All electronic proposals submitted in response to this AoPO shall be e-mailed to hq-launchservices@mail.nasa.gov and be received by the date and time referenced above. Proposals may be submitted at any time before the due date, however proposals received after the due date and time will not be reviewed or considered. It is recommended that proposers do not wait until the final hours before the proposal deadline to submit their proposals. NASA will send a receipt confirmation for each proposal received within one business day of receipt. If this receipt confirmation is not received, then the Respondent should send a follow-up e-mail without any attachment to ascertain if the proposal was received. NASA will work with the

Respondent to ensure that its proposal is properly received.

This e-mail address will only accept individual e-mails less than 10 MB, so plan submissions accordingly. Proposal files shall be submitted in a single bookmarked and searchable PDF format. Paper submissions will not be accepted or reviewed. Any material submitted in response to this AoPO will not be returned. If a Respondent is concerned about information security during transmission, NASA can accept secure transmissions. Contact the Point of

Contact listed below for secure transmission requirements.

NASA will not issue paper copies of this AoPO. This AoPO does not constitute an obligation for NASA to enter into agreements with any Respondents to carry out this activity. NASA reserves the right to select all, some, or none of the proposals submitted in response to this

AoPO. NASA will not provide any funding to Respondents for reimbursement of their proposal development costs.

Proprietary Data: Respondents are encouraged to limit the amount of proprietary data (defined mailto:hq-launchservices@mail.nasa.gov below) included in their proposal, and only include such information that is necessary to meet the proposal requirements identified in this AoPO. It is NASA’s policy to safeguard all proposals as confidential information, as provided by law. NASA will not, without permission of the

Respondent, use the proposal contents for other than evaluation purposes, manifest, and launch supporting the CSLI.

NASA does not intend to publicly disclose properly identified proprietary information that it obtains in response to this AoPO. As such, Respondents must clearly mark any Proprietary Data in their proposal.

For purposes of this AoPO, “Proprietary Data” shall mean information set out in the proposal embodying trade secrets developed at private expense, or commercial or financial information that is privileged or confidential, and that includes a clear restrictive notice, unless the information is:

i. Known or available from other sources without restriction,

ii. Known, possessed, or developed independently, and without reference to such marked information in the proposal,

iii. Made available by the owners to others without restriction, or

iv. Required by law or court order to be disclosed.

With respect to such Proprietary Data, NASA shall:

a. Use, disclose, or reproduce such Proprietary Data only as necessary to evaluate the proposal, manifest, and launch the CubeSat;

b. Safeguard such Proprietary Data from unauthorized use and disclosure;

c. Allow access to such Proprietary Data only to those individuals requiring access for purposes of evaluating the proposal;

d. Except as otherwise indicated in c., preclude disclosure outside NASA;

e. Notify those individuals with access about their obligations under this AoPO and ensure their compliance; and

f. Dispose of such Proprietary Data after evaluation of the proposal has concluded.

Selection Notification: March 14, 2025 (target)

Instrument Type(s): Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) for

Educational and Nonprofit CubeSats (Appendix A).

Point of Contact:

If you have any questions concerning this opportunity, please contact:

Jeanie Hall, Space Operations Mission Directorate, Launch Services Office, Ph. 703-338-5788, or e-mail Jeanie.m.hall-1@nasa.gov

3.0 DEFINITIONS

mailto:Jeanie.m.hall-1@nasa.gov

Advisors/Mentors: Faculty member(s), educator(s), or professional project managers who are there to assist, guide, and educate the students throughout the process. For NASA Centers or

JPL one or more team mentor(s) consists of a senior NASA employee(s).

Competitive Review: Review conducted by a third party as part of a formal competition (NASA, National Science Foundation [NSF] or similar). If for example, you have received funding from

NASA as part of another solicitation, Space Grant or the NSF, it is considered a competitive review if a merit review was conducted as part of that competition. The merit review is a proposal review in the context of top-level objectives. In some instances, a university will conduct a competition to select projects to fund and that would be a competitive review as long as the reviewers are not part of the CubeSat mission being proposed to CSLI.

CubeSat: A type of space research nanosatellite. The base CubeSat dimension is approximately

10x10x11 centimeters (one “Unit” or “1U”).

CubeSat Investigation: Term used interchangeably with CubeSat mission. It refers to the investigation, scientific or otherwise, that the CubeSat will be performing.

Federally Funded Research and Development Center (FFRDC): FFRDCs are under a broad charter by a government agency for performing, analyzing, or performing research for the United

States Government. NASA sponsors the JPL as the Agency’s sole FFRDC.

Non-Competitive Review: Review conducted by a panel of qualified reviewers that is not part of a formal competitive process.

4.0 RESPONDENT ELIGIBILITY

This AoPO is organized to provide general information, eligibility, and proposal requirements applicable to any proposal with additional information and specific requirements in the appendices based on the Respondents organization type. U.S. educational and nonprofit organizations, NASA Centers, and JPL meeting the requirements identified below are eligible to submit proposals in response to this AoPO.

Table 2 Respondent Eligibility AoPO Section(s) Organization Type Focus Area(s) Reference

4.1, 4.1.1, A-2.0

Educational Organization Education (Required Primary Focus

Area; an additional Focus Area is encouraged)

Science (Secondary Focus Areal)

Technology (Secondary Focus Area)

Appendix A https://www.nsf.gov/ https://www.nasa.gov/learning-resources/national-space-grant-college-and-fellowship-project/

4.1, 4.1.2

A-2.0

Nonprofit Organization

(excluding FFRDC)

Education (Required Primary Focus

Area; an additional Focus Area is encouraged)

Science (Secondary Focus Area)

Technology (Secondary Focus Area)

Appendix A

4.2

B-2.0

NASA Center, and JPL Work Force Development (Required

Primary Focus Area + one additional

Focus Area listed below is required)

Science (Secondary Focus Area)

Technology (Secondary Focus Area)

Appendix B

Additional information regarding the respondent eligibility is provided below. NASA reserves the right to determine the eligibility status of all respondents.

4.1 Educational and Nonprofit Organizations

Organizations meeting the criteria identified below MAY receive funding and support from other

U.S. organizations, including NASA, Federally Funded Research & Development Centers

(FFRDCs), and for-profit organizations as long as that support doesn’t involve directing and/or managing the project/mission design, planning, roles, and responsibilities.

4.1.1 Educational Organization

Defined as U.S. public, private, and charter schools that serve students grades K-12, and accredited higher education institutions; informal education institutions such as museums and science centers; and out-of-school-time youth-serving organizations that provide youth development activities on a permanent basis.

The intent is to educate the students by having them lead the project with faculty member(s), educator(s), professional project manager(s) serving as advisors who are there to assist and guide the students throughout the process appropriate to level of student knowledge, skills, and expertise. The project should clearly demonstrate meaningful participation by the students.

Proposals in which students serve in a support role to a faculty member’s project will not be reviewed favorably.

4.1.2 Nonprofit Organization

Defined as designated 501(c)(3) U.S. nonprofit organizations, excluding FFRDCs, with an education and outreach component. Such organizations shall elaborate on this aspect of eligibility and provide proof of its 501(c)(3) status.

The entire project is/will be focused on student or early career education, learning and/or engagement.

4.2 NASA Center, and Jet Propulsion Laboratory

CSLI is providing launch opportunities for internally developed NASA missions staffed, developed, and built by NASA for the purpose of workforce development. The team may integrate a payload from another organization as long as there is no directing and/or managing the project/mission design, planning, roles, and responsibilities from the payload provider other than the coordination required for integration efforts between all parties. The team must be composed of all NASA career employees who received their terminal degree (AA, BS/BA, MS, or PhD) and are within the first 10 years of their career. On-site support contractors at NASA

Centers and/or JPL meeting the same criteria may also participate as core team members. NASA career employees and support contractors in the first 3 years of a discipline change may also participate as core team members. One or more team mentor(s) should be a senior NASA employee(s) to promote knowledge transfer. The proposal shall contain a description of the workforce development plan.

As stated above, a NASA Center and JPL MAY provide funding and support for a CubeSat mission being developed by an educational and/or nonprofit organization meeting the eligibility requirements.

5.0 CUBESAT PROJECT ELIGIBILITY

CubeSats typically have a mass of up to 2 kilograms per 1U Cube. For example, the typical mass for a 3U is under 6 kg. The final allowable mass is dependent upon the selected dispenser and the launch vehicle environment. CSLI will not select any CubeSat missions proposing to deploy or release parts that are smaller than 1U in size due to trackability, space situational awareness and orbital debris concerns.

5.1 CubeSats Supported

The following limitations apply for CubeSat missions that are proposed. However, a Respondent may submit a proposal outside of the size, deployment and orbit parameters and request a waiver for consideration. The proposal shall clearly delineate the necessity for a mission outside of these parameters and how the mission is of significant value and benefit to NASA. NASA does not guarantee that such waivers will be accepted. If waivers are accepted, note that unique parameters may significantly increase the delay before an affordable launch opportunity can be identified within budget constraints.

Respondents may propose CubeSats with volumes of only 1U, 2U, 3U, 4U or 6U. If a

Respondent proposes a mission that includes multiple CubeSats, the cumulative volume may not exceed a 6U and the CubeSats must be capable of being deployed together from the same dispenser.

The proposed CubeSat mission must be compatible with any deployment orbit within at least one of the following options:

1. Deployment from the International Space Station (ISS)

a. Inclination 51.6 degrees

b. Altitude ~400 km

2. Deployment into a Sun Synchronous Orbit (SSO)

a. Inclination within 1 degree of an ideal SSO

b. With sufficient justification, the Respondent may require a maximum and minimum altitude spanning at least 50 km (ex., ± 25 km) as long as relevant orbital debris mitigation requirements are met with the maximum altitude not to exceed 650 km

c. With sufficient justification, the Respondent may define acceptable ranges of

Mean Local Time of the Ascending Node (MLTAN) cumulatively spanning at least 8 hours (ex., 16:00-20:00 and 04:00-08:00)

3. Deployment into a non-SSO Orbit

a. Inclination between 44 and 136 degrees, but not within 5 degrees of the ideal

SSO inclination

b. With sufficient justification, the Respondent may require a maximum and minimum altitude spanning at least 50 km (ex., ± 25 km) as long as relevant orbital debris mitigation requirements are met with a maximum altitude not to exceed 650 km

Note that all relevant orbital debris mitigation requirements must be met. For example, missions requiring an Federal Communications Commission (FCC) license must comply with the FCC’s

“5-year rule” for Deorbiting Satellites, which may reduce the acceptable altitude depending on spacecraft design.

Deployed CubeSats cannot separate into parts smaller than 1U. The Respondent shall plan/build-in/design for the ability to routinely share orbital ephemerides and associated covariance data, including modeled maneuvers that occur within the ephemeris timespan to perform any maneuver planning and execution activities required for collision avoidance once on orbit, and to be passively trackable (e.g., by the Space Surveillance Network) from deployment until demise. All missions with propulsion or any system that could potentially result in non-

Keplerian motion while in orbit must demonstrate that they plan to adhere to the NASA

Spacecraft Conjunction Assessment and Collision Avoidance Best Practices Handbook or NPR

8079.1 for missions that are considered to be NASA owned.

5.2 CubeSat Development/Integration Funding Commitment

Prior to submitting a proposal, the Respondent is responsible for securing funding to support the development of the CubeSat payload and for all other pre-integration costs they incur to participate in CSLI. Projects that are NASA funded and/or sponsored may be asked to provide matching funding if requirements exceed the baselined budget for integration and launch.

Documentation and/or letter(s) demonstrating sufficient financial support for CubeSat development and operations activities are required and must be included in the proposal https://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/OCE_docs/OCE_51.pdf https://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/OCE_docs/OCE_51.pdf appendix material. It is recommended to budget adequate reserves in the event of technical difficulties or cost overruns. If the financial commitment letters do not meet or exceed the anticipated CubeSat budget, the proposal is declared non-compliant without further review and not eligible for selection.

5.3 Launch Services Program Requirements

To enhance compatibility with a primary payload and to provide optimal manifesting opportunities, each CubeSat payload shall fully comply with the Launch Services Program (LSP) requirements as described in Launch Services Program, Program Level Dispenser and CubeSat

Requirements Document (LSP-REQ-317.01B). If a Respondent is unsure of compliance or would like to pursue a waiver to a requirement, the proposal shall identify the requirement needing clarification or identify the specific requirement(s) the Respondent seeks to have waived, and clearly state the rationale for waiver in the proposal. Please note that requesting a waiver does not guarantee that the waiver will be approved.

6.0 PROPOSAL SUBMISSION INFORMATION

To assist with the submission of a valid, complete proposal, proposers should carefully read the entire AoPO before preparing the proposal. Characteristics of successful proposals are logical structure, completeness, readability, accuracy (no typos, reference to correct documents, etc.), and responsiveness to the evaluation criteria.

A common theme from evaluators reviewing previous proposals is that there is not enough information regarding the merit and feasibility reviews. It is important to provide enough detail regarding the process for these reviews, such as what factors/criteria were used, whether the review was competitive or non-competitive, titles and qualifications of the review panel, documenting the outcome (findings), and the responses to those findings including any actions taken or changes implemented to mitigate any concerns or risks. Proofread the proposal carefully to ensure accuracy and verify that all requirements have been addressed and are included in the proposal. A compliance checklist is included in each appendix.

6.1 Proposal Submittal

Respondents may submit more than one proposal for this AoPO. Each proposal submission must be complete and specific to a single CubeSat mission. A CubeSat mission may involve multiple

CubeSats if they are dependent on each other to accomplish the mission.

6.1.1 CubeSat Mission Name

The CubeSat mission name must be identified consistently throughout the proposal. It is imperative that the exact spelling, capitalization, punctuation, numbering, Roman/Arabic numeral convention be identical in all data submissions, all license applications, and throughout https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/627972main_LSP-REQ-317_01A.pdf https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/627972main_LSP-REQ-317_01A.pdf the lifecycle of the mission. It is common to identify the name as an acronym, which is acceptable, however do not include exponents, subscripts, or unusual characters. A hyphen and/or spaces are acceptable but must be used consistently. A single common word should be avoided, for example CHART or Chart would be difficult to keep track of, however ChartCube or Chart-1 would be acceptable. It is strongly recommended that the CubeSat mission name be unique, and if there is a similar CubeSat mission name, there may be a request to change the

CubeSat mission name if selected.

6.2 Alignment with NASA Strategic Goals and Objectives

The proposal must clearly describe for each focus area(s) identified how it aligns with NASA’s strategic goals and objectives found in one or more of the following strategy documents.

The NASA 2022 Strategic Plan is available at:

https://www.nasa.gov/ocfo/strategic-plan/

The NASA Strategy for STEM Engagement is available at:

https://www.nasa.gov/learning-resources/stem-engagement/ https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/nasa-stem-strategic-implementation-plan-24-

26-final-508.pdf?emrc=34ef4c

Science 2020-2024: A Vision for Scientific Excellence (NASA Science Plan) is available at:

https://science.nasa.gov/about-us/science-strategy/ https://smd-cms.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/2020_2024_Science.pdf

A sampling of NASA’s Science Mission Directorate’s areas of interest can be found at these links:

https://www1.grc.nasa.gov/space/pesto/ https://apd440.gsfc.nasa.gov/tech_gap_priorities.html

Earth Science https://esto.nasa.gov

Astrophysics https://apd440.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/tech/2022_ABTR.pdf

Space Technology framework is available at: https://techport.nasa.gov/framework

NASA’s Moon-to-Mars Architecture with links to resources can be found at:

https://www.nasa.gov/MoonToMarsArchitecture

The above technology areas of interest are not entirely comprehensive or reflect all of the

Agency’s technology gaps but are provided for reference purposes.

6.3 Proposal Requirements

https://www.nasa.gov/ocfo/strategic-plan/ https://www.nasa.gov/learning-resources/stem-engagement/ https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/nasa-stem-strategic-implementation-plan-24-26-final-508.pdf?emrc=34ef4c https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/nasa-stem-strategic-implementation-plan-24-26-final-508.pdf?emrc=34ef4c https://science.nasa.gov/about-us/science-strategy/ https://smd-cms.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/2020_2024_Science.pdf https://www1.grc.nasa.gov/space/pesto/ https://apd440.gsfc.nasa.gov/tech_gap_priorities.html https://esto.nasa.gov/ https://apd440.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/tech/2022_ABTR.pdf https://techport.nasa.gov/framework https://www.nasa.gov/MoonToMarsArchitecture

Pages in excess of the page limitations for each section will not be considered or evaluated. A page is defined as one (1) sheet of 8½ x 11 inches using a minimum of 12-point font size for text and 8-point font size for graphs.

Files shall be submitted in a single bookmarked and searchable PDF of less than 10 MB.

Proposals shall comply with the following requirements.

Table 3 Proposal Requirements

Section Proposal Section Maximum Page Length

Required

Appendix A

Required

Appendix B

6.3.1 Cover Page 1 page ✓ ✓

6.3.2 Title Page 2 pages ✓ ✓

6.3.3 Points of Contact 1 page ✓ ✓

6.3.4 Table of Contents As Needed ✓ ✓

6.3.5 Abstract 750 Words ✓ ✓

6.3.6 Proposal Detail 15 pages (not including

pages identified above)

6.3.6.1 Schedule and Budget ✓ ✓

6.3.6.2 Merit Review ✓ N/A

6.3.6.3 Feasibility Review ✓ ✓

6.3.7 Proposal Appendices No page limit

6.3.7.1 Resumes/Qualifications ✓ ✓

6.3.7.2 Compliance Documents ✓ ✓

6.3.7.3 Additional Documentation As Needed As Needed

Additional information regarding the requirements for each proposal is provided below.

The Proposal shall include the following sections, in this order:

6.3.1 Cover Page (1 page)

Opportunity title (Section 2.0), CubeSat mission name, and proposal contact information including the faculty advisor(s), educator(s), or senior NASA employee(s) as applicable. Include the organization name, address, phone number, and e-mail address. An optional graphic image may be included.

6.3.2 Title Page (2 pages)

Title and notice of restriction on use and disclosure of discrete proposal information, if any, CubeSat Mission Parameters Table, and the CubeSat Project Details Table. If requesting a waiver(s) to the requirements identified in Launch Services Program, Program Level Dispenser and CubeSat Requirements Document (LSP-REQ-317.01B) include the Waiver Request Table.

The specific table formats are provided below.

Table 4 CubeSat Mission Parameters

CubeSat Mission Parameters Value

CubeSat Mission Name

Mass (kg)

Cube Size (ex., 1U, 2U, 3U, 4U, 6U)

Rail/Tab Length (mm) (ex., 340.5 mm, 366 mm)

Readiness Date for Integration to Dispenser

Desired Orbital Lifetime after Deployment (years)

Designated Operational Lifetime (years)

Is an ISS deployment acceptable (~400 km @ 51.6 degree inclination)? Yes or No

Is a Sun Synchronous Orbit (SSO) acceptable? Yes or No

Sun Synchronous Orbit (SSO) required? Yes or No

Is the proposed mission compliant with the limitations in Section 5.1, or is an exception requested for consideration?

Orbital Parameters Desired/Preferred

Range

Acceptable Range

Altitude (km)

Inclination (degrees)

Mean Local Time of the Ascending Node (MLTAN)

N/A is SSO is not acceptable.

Table 5 CubeSat Project Details

CubeSat Project Details Focus Area(s)

Note: Select as applicable per requirements for

Appendix A or B.

NASA Funding Sponsoring

Organization(s) Collaborating Organization(s)

Yes or

No

Organization List International*

Yes or No

Education ☐

Workforce Dev. ☐

Science ☐

Technology ☐

*Must comply with all applicable U.S. export control laws and regulations regarding International Traffic in Arms Regulations and Export Administration Regulations. In the absence of available license exemptions/exceptions, the Collaborator shall be responsible for obtaining the appropriate licenses or other approvals, if required, for exports of hardware, technical data, and software, or for the provision of technical assistance.

Table 6 Waiver Request Table

Launch Services Program, Program Level Dispenser and CubeSat Requirements

Document (LSP-REQ-317.01 Rev. B) Waiver Request Table

Requirement Rationale for Waiver

6.3.3 Points of Contact (1 page)

List contact information for all points of contact (POCs), including a technical POC. For each

POC, provide:

a. Name

b. Title

c. Address

d. Phone

e. E-mail

6.3.4 Table of Contents

A table of contents is helpful for the proposal evaluators to find specific content. One page is preferred but additional pages are permitted as needed.

6.3.5 Abstract (750 words)

The abstract (executive summary) should provide a detailed description of the proposed CubeSat mission and the prominent and distinguishing features of the mission and how it aligns with

NASA’s goals and objectives based on the strategic documents in Section 6.2.

6.3.6 Proposal Detail (15 pages)

This is the main body of the proposal and must cover the following subsections, however no specific order is required. There must be appropriate detail as specified in the AoPO and within each applicable appendix to enable the proposal evaluators to determine whether it complies with the eligibility requirements as identified and to assess the proposal based on the evaluation criteria (Section A-3.0 or B-3.0). Appendices may be used to support the material in this section, but this section must stand alone and not refer to an appendix to cover the required information for the proposal.

6.3.6.1 Schedule and Budget

The proposal shall include a project schedule that identifies anticipated key milestones for accomplishments and dependencies between tasks. The schedule for the CubeSat development should support a launch opportunity in 2026-2029. A detailed budget with an itemized list for the CubeSat development, testing, and licensing should be included. As referenced above, it is recommended to have adequate budget reserves to cover any potential technical difficulties or cost overruns.

6.3.6.2 Merit Review

NASA is requiring that each CubeSat investigation shall have passed an intrinsic merit review conducted by the Respondent and commented upon by qualified merit review panel members external to the CubeSat project team prior to proposal submission. The merit review is a proposal review in the context of top-level objectives.

The merit review panel shall have experience in the focus area(s) being assessed and reviewed the goals and objectives of the proposed investigation(s) to determine the educational (required) quality of the investigation. If an additional optional focus area(s) in science and/or technology is identified, the goals and objectives of the additional focus area(s) must also be assessed in the merit review. The merit review panel shall have assessed the overall alignment of the proposed investigation(s) in addressing the goals and objectives identified in the 2022 NASA Strategic

Plan or other NASA strategic documents referenced in Section 6.2.

Sufficient information must be provided in accordance with the evaluation criteria (Section A-

3.0) to enable the CSLI Evaluation Panel to properly assess the Respondent’s merit review process. All findings and actions from the merit review panel shall be documented including the responses to all identified findings and actions. Any supporting documentation from the merit review that is useful in supporting this assessment may be included in the proposal as an appendix. The merit review must have been conducted on the specific CubeSat being proposed and not a previous or similar CubeSat mission; simply referring to a previously accomplished review is not acceptable.

6.3.6.3 Feasibility Review

NASA is requiring that each CubeSat investigation shall have been subject to and passed a feasibility review conducted by the Respondent and commented upon by qualified feasibility review panel members external to the CubeSat project team prior to proposal submission. The feasibility review panel shall have experience in the focus area(s) being assessed and reviewed the technical implementation, including feasibility, resiliency, risk, and the probability of success. The feasibility review acts as a first-cut Preliminary Design Review (PDR).

Sufficient information must be provided in accordance with the evaluation criteria (Section A-https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/fy_22_strategic_plan.pdf https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/fy_22_strategic_plan.pdf

3.0 and B-3.0) to enable the CSLI Evaluation Panel to properly assess the Respondent’s feasibility review process. All findings and actions from the feasibility review panel shall be documented including the responses to all findings and actions. Any supporting documentation from the feasibility review that is useful in supporting this assessment may be included in the proposal as an appendix. The feasibility review must have been conducted on the specific

CubeSat being proposed and not a previous or similar CubeSat mission; simply referring to a previously accomplished review is not acceptable.

6.3.7 Proposal Appendices

There is no limit on documentation for the appendices, which enables proposals to include documentation in its current format without altering or creating any new documents. However, additional documentation is restricted to information that supports only the requirements identified in this AoPO, all other documentation will not be considered. One exception is the option to include charts from the latest design review. The proposal should clearly describe any changes to the design following the reviews. Additional information, such as previous missions, letters of endorsement or affirmation (i.e., letters that endorse the intrinsic merit, including significance or impact of a proposal) will be disregarded.

6.3.7.1 Resumes/Qualifications

Resumes shall be included for key personnel and at a minimum include the student lead, if applicable. In general, resumes shall be limited to no more than 2 pages each. Titles and qualifications and/or resume for the merit and feasibility review panel members shall be included.

6.3.7.2 Compliance Documents

Include any documents necessary to supplement the proposal text and satisfy the requirements of the compliance checklist, for example, funding commitment letters, nonprofit documentation, and workforce development plans, as applicable.

6.3.7.3 Additional Documentation

Include any documentation that validates or supports the proposal, such as plans for the remaining CubeSat development, technical risks, and mitigation plans for those risks.

7.0 PROPOSAL EVALUATION, SELECTION AND NOTIFICATION

7.1 Initial Compliance Review

The proposals will be pre-screened for compliance per the Respondent eligibility, focus area(s), CubeSat project eligibility, and the proposal requirements (Section 4.0, 5.0, and 6.3). Proposals that do not meet these requirements will be declared non-compliant without further review and not eligible for selection. A compliance checklist is provided in each appendix and provides the

Respondent a list of compliance items that NASA will confirm before evaluating the proposal.

7.2 CubeSat Launch Initiative Evaluation Panel

Government and contractor personnel from NASA will participate in the evaluation of proposals.

All contractor personnel participating in the evaluation will be bound by conflict-of-interest provisions and appropriate nondisclosure requirements to protect any proprietary information.

Final CubeSat selection and ranking recommendations will be made by the CubeSat Selection

Recommendation Committee (CSRC) consisting solely of NASA Government personnel.

7.3 Evaluation and Selection Process

Proposals deemed to be compliant with this AoPO will be assessed by the CSLI Evaluation

Panel against the evaluation criteria (Section A-3.0 and B-3.0). The evaluators will score each proposal based on the criteria and an average panel score for each proposal will be determined.

Respondents should be aware that NASA may request clarification of a specific point(s) in a proposal during the evaluation and selection process. Such requests and each Respondent’s response shall be in writing.

When making selections, the CSRC may consider a variety of programmatic factors in deciding whether to select a proposal, including, but not limited to, available launches, launch service requirements, and maintaining a programmatic and scientific balance.

The CSRC will produce a single prioritized (ranked) list of proposed CubeSat investigations.

Proposals are not given extra consideration in prioritization based on whether their eligibility is through Appendix A or B. This final prioritized list will be provided to the Selection Authority for selection purposes.

Manifest order will generally be in priority order unless critical needs dictate an earlier launch, or available flight opportunities enable an earlier launch. Moreover, selected proposals from any prior AoPO that resulted in a prioritization for a launch opportunity will generally take precedence over the outcome from this AoPO.

A recommendation for a selection does not guarantee the availability of a launch opportunity.

7.4 Selection Notification

NASA will notify all Respondents of the results of the evaluation and if selected, the prioritization. After the completion of the evaluation and prioritization process, NASA will begin collaborating with the selected Respondent and based on the priority order from the CSRC will align the recommended proposals with the anticipated launch manifest.

The NASA Selection Authority shall be the Director, Launch Services, Space Operations

Mission Directorate.

7.5 Post Selection

Shortly after the selection process is concluded, it is expected that the project leads from all of the selected teams will participate in a CSLI Open House. This virtual meeting will discuss

NASA’s expectations for all the selectees, including project reporting requirements, communications, cost management, schedule, and performance. Participants in this meeting should include the faculty advisor(s), educator(s), or senior NASA employee(s) and student lead, if applicable.

It is recommended that the selected teams establish processes to ensure data capture, knowledge transfer and mentorship throughout the project lifecycle to assist in the development of the project. It is also recommended that each team plan to complete appropriate documentation to facilitate any transfers of responsibilities in the event team members are no longer involved with the project. Such documentation, including drawings, graphs, and similar files will also assist in writing the final report as required under the CRADA for those entities external to NASA or the publication(s) and presentation(s) for sharing the results from NASA/JPL missions.

APPENDIX A

EDUCATIONAL AND NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION CUBESAT MISSIONS

A-1.0 INTRODUCTION AND GENERAL INFORMATION

The CubeSat Launch Initiative (CSLI) provides flight opportunities for a limited number of

CubeSats available to U.S. educational organizations and nonprofit organizations.

CSLI has provided integration and launch services for a number of CubeSats developed by K-12 schools and their success was dependent on strong mentorship and qualified merit/feasibility review panel members to assess the CubeSat mission. Contacting various organizations such as universities, national laboratories, or previous CSLI selectees for guidance and/or lessons learned may prove beneficial. Adopting a Systems Engineering approach to help organize mission planning, design, technical review, and implementation efforts will aid the team in being successful.

A-1.1 Cooperative Research and Development Agreement

The Collaborator should understand that this CRADA is key to its successful participation in the

CSLI. Shortly after selection, the process for establishing a fully executed CRADA will begin and if the specified timeline for processing the CRADA is not adhered to, the Collaborator is subject to forfeiting its inclusion in CSLI. The terms and conditions outlined in the CRADA are standard for all CSLI Collaborators and therefore are not open for negotiation.

A-1.2 Final Report

CSLI Collaborators shall provide to NASA the post-flight required deliverables (Final Mission

Report and Mission Summary Sheet) no later than nine months following launch/deployment.

This report is based on the selected focus area(s) and includes the educational accomplishments resulting from their CubeSat mission and if applicable the scientific research and/or technology developed or demonstrated. A copy of the CSLI Final Mission Report Guidance and CSLI Final

Mission Summary are posted on https://www.nasa.gov/content/cubesat-launch-initiative-resources. Failure to provide the deliverables as required by the CRADA will lead to negative past performance for the institution which may impact future participation in NASA’s CubeSat

Launch Initiative.

A-2.0 FOCUS AREAS AND PROJECT ELIGIBILITY

Proposals shall identify education as a primary focus area. Respondents must describe in detail the educational aspect of their project. A secondary focus area addressing a scientific research question, or a technology development/demonstration objective is encouraged. When selecting https://www.nasa.gov/content/past-elana-cubesat-launches https://www.nasa.gov/connect/ebooks/nasa-systems-engineering-handbook more than one focus area, note that each focus area selected shall be appropriately documented in the proposal and evaluated as part of the merit and feasibility reviews conducted by qualified reviewers with experience in the focus area being assessed.

A-2.1 Relevance to NASA

Each CubeSat investigation shall demonstrate a benefit to NASA by addressing its goals and objectives. Specifically, each CubeSat investigation shall address an aspect of education

(primary focus area) as outlined in the Strategy for STEM Engagement or Strategic Objective 4.3

Build the Next Generation of Explorers in the 2022 NASA Strategic Plan. It is encouraged that each CubeSat investigation also feature a secondary focus area of science and/or technology development/demonstration objective as identified in the 2022 NASA Strategic Plan, NASA

Science Plan, or other NASA strategic documents referenced in Section 6.2 of this AoPO.

A-2.2 Education Benefit

In addition to the identification of the relevance to NASA, the proposal must demonstrate that the educational benefits were reviewed and commented upon by qualified merit review panel members as part of the merit review (Section 6.3.6.2) conducted by the Respondent or a third party (competitive review).

A-3.0 PROPOSAL EVALUATION

Proposals shall include sufficient information and supporting details to enable the CSLI

Evaluation Panel to assess the proposal against the requirements of the AoPO and the evaluation criteria. If the Respondent elects more than one focus area, the proposal will be evaluated on all focus areas selected.

A-3.1 Evaluation Criteria and Weighting

The evaluation criteria considered under this appendix are listed in Table 7 below. The evaluators will review each proposal based on the criteria and provide a rating score. The criteria are weighted as shown in the table.

Table 7 Appendix A Evaluation Criteria and Weighting Evaluation Criteria Weighting

1. Relevance to NASA Strategic Goals or Objectives: Based upon the

NASA 2022 Strategic Plan, NASA Strategy for STEM Engagement, NASA

Science Plan, and/or Science or Technology Areas of Interest, Section 6.2.

Educational (Required Primary Focus Area)

Scientific Investigation (Optional Secondary Focus Area)

Technology (Optional Secondary Focus Area)

40%

a) Educational – For Educational Organizations – Does the proposal https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/nasa-strategy-for-stem-2020-23-508.pdf https://smd-cms.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/fy_22_strategic_plan-1.pdf https://smd-cms.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/fy_22_strategic_plan-1.pdf https://smd-cms.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/fy_22_strategic_plan-1.pdf describe a project with clear, meaningful student leadership in conducting management, design, analysis, development, construction, and operation? The proposal shall describe the specific ways in which students are key to project success. For Nonprofit Organizations

(excluding FFRDCs) – Does the proposal describe student and/or early career engagement throughout the lifetime of the project? The proposal shall describe the specific ways in which students are direct beneficiaries of the project.

b) Scientific – Does the proposal exhibit potential to advance a scientific measurement, possibly using a new or enabling technology, influenced by the NASA Science Plan?

c) Technology – Does the proposal demonstration enhance future missions, reveal a flaw in a potentially enhancing technology, or otherwise impact the trade space for enhancing technologies?

d) Does the proposal demonstrate that the CubeSat investigation provides benefits to NASA by addressing one or more of the goals and objectives of the 2022 NASA Strategic Plan, NASA Strategy for STEM

Engagement, NASA Science Plan, and/or Science or Technology Areas of Interest based on the selected focus area(s)?

e) Are these the same benefits that were reviewed in the merit review? If not, why not?

f) Why is an orbital flight opportunity necessary or advantageous for providing these benefits to NASA?

2. Merit Review Process (Determines quality of the investigation for each focus area selected)

30%

a) Was the merit review process described?

b) Was the review competitive or non-competitive? If competitive, which one and what were the results.

c) What are the titles and qualifications of the merit reviewer panel members? Was a resume included? If this information is not available, please indicate so and explain why.

d) What factors did the merit review panel use to assess merit and were they relevant to the investigation?

e) What was the outcome of the merit review; were the findings documented and does the proposal include responses to address the findings? Were changes implemented?

3. Feasibility Review Process (Determine feasibility, resiliency, and probability of success)

30%

a) Was the feasibility review process described?

b) What are the titles and qualifications of the feasibility review panel members? Was a resume included?

c) What factors did the feasibility review panel use to assess feasibility?

d) Were the management team roles, experience, expertise, and the organizational structure of the team assessed? Please note any previous experience with CubeSat development.

e) How were the technical development risks associated with the overall

CubeSat mission identified and assessed?

f) If the CubeSat investigation requires critical technology development for flight readiness, how were the areas assessed and how were the plans for completing technology development assessed?

g) Concerning the development of the CubeSat for flight, how was the probability of success assessed?

h) What was the outcome of the feasibility review, were the findings documented and does the proposal include responses to address the findings? Were changes implemented?

i) Is there sufficient financial support for the development of the CubeSat payload and for all other costs incurred by Respondent to support its participation in CSLI?

A-4.0 COMPLIANCE CHECKLIST

The compliance checklist assists the Respondent in ensuring that all required documents and proposal requirements are provided.

Table 8 Appendix A Compliance Checklist

Section(s) Requirement Compliant?

4.0, 4.1.1 Respondent is a U.S. public, private, or charter school that serves students grades K-12, an accredited higher education institution, an informal education institution such as a museum or science center, an out-of-school-time youth-serving organization that provides youth development activities on a permanent basis OR

4.0, 4.1.2 Designated 501(c)(3) U.S. nonprofit organization; documentation is included.

4.1 Proposing organization is not a for-profit organization or a

Federally Funded Research and Development Center (FFRDC).

4.1.1 If Education Institution: Is the project student led, built, and/or managed, with faculty member(s), educator(s) clearly identified to assist, guide, and educate the students throughout the process?

4.1.2 If Nonprofit Organization: Is there clear student and/or early career education, learning and/or engagement throughout the project?

4.0, 6.2 Proposal has education as the primary focus area (required) and secondary focus area(s)…