BAA12-02 Phoenix Q A Jan 20 2012.pdf

DARPA-BAA-12-02

Phoenix

Questions and Answers 20 January 2012

I. BAA Clarification………………………… II. Contracts…………………………………….. 2 III. Cost…………………………………………. 4 IV. Programmatic…………………………… V. Technical…………………………………

I. BAA Clarification

Q1. It appears that Figure 2, on page 10 of the BAA, is incomplete. The squares where I'd expect to see red/yellow/green, all are white. Can you republish the table?

A1. The absence of color is intentional, the Technical Interface Matrix is provided for informational purposes only to encourage Proposers to consider the interrelationship between technical areas and independently complete the table with their envisioned technical interface interaction if they so desire. See also question 26.

Q2. Will it be possible to submit the proposals via DARPA TFIMS instead of a physical delivery to the east coast? This is a hardship for West Coasters.

A2. DARPA will accept unclassified proposals submitted under BAA-12-02 by mail or hand delivery. Proposals may not be submitted through TFIMS. Likewise, proposals may not be submitted by fax or email; any so sent will be disregarded.

Q3. Section III has a page limit of 26 pages, but the numbers listed only add up to 23 pages, not including the SOW. Does this mean the SOW can be at most 3 pages, or that we have 3 extra pages to distribute among the remaining sections?

A3. Section III should be a total of 26 pages INCLUDING the SOW. Individual Paragraph allocations are initial guidelines where pages can be traded out between Paragraphs as long as the total of Section III does not exceed 26 pages.

Q4. In Section IV, the page limit is 10 pages. Does that include the three technical papers?

Given that a single paper can be more than 10 pages, it seems they should not be included in the page count.

A4. Per the Phoenix BAA (p. 33): Volume I, Technical and Management Proposal, may include an attached bibliography of relevant technical papers or research notes (published and unpublished) which document the technical ideas and approach upon which the proposal is based. Copies of not more than three (3) relevant papers can be included with the submission. The bibliography and attached papers are not included in the page counts given

Questions and Answers below. The submission of other unpublished supporting materials along with the proposals is strongly discouraged and will not be considered for review.

Q5. Can you extend the due date?

A5. No; full proposals for DARPA-BAA-12-02 must be submitted in time to reach DARPA by 4:00p.m., local time, on 6 February 2012, in order to be considered during the initial evaluation phase. DARPA-BAA-12-02 will remain open on FedBizOpps until 19 June 2012.

Proposals may be submitted at any time from issuance of this announcement through 19 June 2012; however, proposers are warned that the likelihood of funding is greatly reduced for proposals submitted after the initial closing date deadline.

Q6. The BAA states that “Cost sharing is encouraged where there is a reasonable probability of a potential commercial application related to the proposed research and development effort.” The BAA also states that “Proposals not meeting the format described in the BAA may not be reviewed”. While those statements are not in conflict, will DARPA confirm that it will review a White Paper that outlines concepts for a shared mission that will meet goals of cost sharing and commercialization, without a full proposal being prepared? At this time, until further concepts and details are discussed, it makes it unrealistic to provide a full proposal as described in the BAA. Yet without an opportunity for DARPA to review a White Paper concept of a shared mission, an important opportunity may be missed.

A6. Cost sharing proposals will only be considered if a FAR-based proposal is submitted and selected, see BAA Section III.C and Section IV. Additional Information for Volume II Cost proposal is located on page 40. At this time DARPA- BAA-12-02 is soliciting full proposals only.

Q7. Page 13 refers to an Appendix 3. Is this meant to say Appendix 1?

A7. Yes; the reference to Appendix 3 on page 13 is meant to read "Appendix 1".

II. Contracts

Q8. Are University Affiliated Research Centers (UARCs) eligible applicants for DARPA-

BAA-12-02?

A8. UARCs may propose to BAA-12-02 unless the institution's DoD UARC contract precludes it from doing so.

Q9. I run a small company that I believe qualifies as a non-traditional defense contractor, and was interested in proposing to the Phoenix solicitation requesting an OTA-type award. But in the program solicitation, it specifies that companies interested in OTA-type awards also need

Questions and Answers to do a full FAR-based costing proposal as well as the OTA-type proposal. We're not setup to do FAR-based costing, have never been DCAA audited, and are not even really interested in doing a FAR-based contract. If we only provided an OTA-type cost proposal, would our proposal be deemed non-compliant and thus discarded? I talked with a DARPA PM for a different solicitation that had similar written FAR/OTA costing requirements, and he didn't think it would be a problem to submit an OTA-only costing proposal, but he suggested contacting the contracting officer to make sure.

A9. Per the guidance in the BAA, proposers interested in receiving an OTA and where cost share is required are asked to submit proposal responses that accommodate both options. The Government must be able to determine that the amount of the agreement is fair and reasonable and determine the final type of award to negotiate. Without complete cost volumes, it may not be possible to thoroughly understand what is being offered.

Q10. If a proponent has a Post Mission Transition Plan that includes the addition of proponent provided equipment to the vehicle, complies to the cost sharing rules, compliments and augments the Phoenix mission without impacting DARPA’s ability to award the elements defined in the present BAA to whomever it choses, would DARPA consider a Mission Transition OTA proposal without an accompanying FAR based proposal as described on page 40 of the BAA?

A10. See answer to Q9 above. A FAR based proposal is required for any OTA award to be considered. This assures both the Government and the proposers incentives and goals are aligned to provide a program approach offering the most benefit to both.

Q11. Are universities that have policies which restrict participation in research that is not fully open, permitted to participate as subcontractors on proposal teams?

A11. Yes, universities are permitted to participate. All awardees must adhere to the requirements of the contract and ITAR provisions identified in section VI.B.5. Note the last paragraph of Section II (page 28) and excerpts from section VI.B.4 (page 47) below:

As of the date of publication of this BAA, DARPA expects that program goals for this BAA cannot be met by proposers intending to perform 'fundamental research,' i.e., basic and applied research in science and engineering, the results of which ordinarily are published and shared broadly within the scientific community, as distinguished from proprietary research and from industrial development, design, production, and product utilization the results of which ordinarily are restricted for proprietary or national security reasons. Therefore, DARPA anticipates restrictions on the resultant research. Notwithstanding this statement of expectation, DARPA recognizes that proposed research solutions could be of either a fundamental or restricted nature.

Proposers should indicate in their proposal whether they believe the nature of the research included in their proposal is fundamental or restricted, with the understanding

Questions and Answers that in all cases, the DARPA contracting officer shall have sole discretion to select award instrument type and to negotiate all instrument provisions with selectees. See Section VI.B.4 for further information on fundamental, non-fundamental and restricted research.

- DARPA-BAA-12-02, page 28

Proposers are advised if they propose grants or cooperative agreements, DARPA may elect to award other award instruments due to the need to apply publication or other restrictions. DARPA will make this election if it determines that the research resulting from the proposed program will present a high likelihood of disclosing performance characteristics of military systems or manufacturing technologies that are unique and critical to defense. Any award resulting from such a determination will include a requirement for DARPA permission before publishing any information or results on the program and will be considered Restricted Research.

For certain research projects, it may be possible that although the research being performed by the Prime Contractor is Restricted Research, a subcontractor may be conducting Contracted Fundamental Research. In those cases, it is the Prime Contractor’s responsibility to explain in their proposal why its subcontractor’s effort is Contracted Fundamental Research.

- DARPA-BAA-12-02, page 47

Q12. Do you see any issues with Publications for academic members participating in a team?

A12. Per BAA Section VI.B.4 funding for Phoenix is expected to be of type 6.3, thus publication restrictions will be placed on any performer, and require prior DARPA approval for performers publication(s).

Q13. Given the international audience for this BAA, please clarify the level of ITAR protection granted to BAA responses. Is there any restriction on including existing ITAR sensitive concepts, designs, hardware or software in the BAA response or execution of Phases 1, 2, and 3 of this program?

A13. DARPA is not providing ITAR specific protection on this project. All proposers must promote appropriate limitations on documentation and information they deem ITAR sensitive per US law. As stated on Page 11 “The designation of technologies developed under this BAA with respect to export control regulations is to be determined. As a precaution, all proposers should plan, immediately upon award, to commence implementation of a technical assistance agreement to encompass all US and non-US awardees under this BAA”. There is no restriction on ITAR sensitive information in the proposal to DARPA, however it must be clearly stated and marked so. Sharing of information deemed to be ITAR sensitive in Phase 1, 2 and 3 with other team members will be the responsibility of the performers as stated in Section VI.B.5

Questions and Answers

Q14. Would DARPA maintain overall reserves and contingencies or does it prefer proponents maintain some element of coverage?

A14. DARPA expects the proposer to submit a realistic basis of estimate for the work being proposed and will evaluate that under the cost criteria.

III. Cost

Q15. Will DARPA publish cost targets for each technical area?

A15. No; cost targets for each technical area will not be established. The total available funding for this solicitation is approximately $36 Million.

Q16. The BAA cites the “Total amount of money to be awarded: Approximately $36M”. Is this the money to be awarded to industry exclusive of any funds required to be spent on any of the GFE items and services? For example, is the money to be spent on anything required for the GFE “Spacecraft Bus modifications and completion” or “Primary Robotics (FREND arms)” activities above and beyond the defined $36M.

A16. $36M is the funding amount for technical areas 1 through 7 for all phases under BAA 12-

02. This value is exclusive of the Government provided (GFE) materials and activities, and is exclusive of the funds allocated for a planned additional BAA.

Q17. Does $36M encompass all 3 phases or only Phase 1?

A17. $36M is the funding amount allocated for this BAA covering technical areas 1 through 7

(Figure 4) for all phases under BAA 12-02.

Q18. Will DARPA provide additional information on the PI meetings, location and frequency, for estimating travel purpose?

A18. PI Meetings will be held quarterly. For costing purposes assume both east coast and west coast locations.

Q19. What level of support (where applicable) should be assumed for Phase 3? Would a provision of rates suffice or can DARPA provide costing guidelines?

A19. Proposers should recommend a level of support for their specific area of expertise or technical area based on the notional demonstration scenario, described on pages 6 and 7 of the BAA, for a base period of 6 months and an option for an additional 6 months. Detailed Phase 3 effort will be negotiated upon award selection.

Questions and Answers

Q20. Please describe the cost fidelity required for responses to this BAA. Is Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) for Phase 1 and a Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) for Phase 2 and 3 acceptable at this time? Will there be a request for updated cost proposals at the end of Phase 1 for all Tech Areas, or only Tech Areas 5 and 6?

A20. Refer to Volume II, Cost Proposal detail on page 39 of the BAA for cost fidelity requirements. Refer to Figure 4: Technical Elements for proposals requirements (page 12).

Full cost proposals are required for all three phases for technical areas 1-3. Technical area 4 requires cost proposals for phase 1 and 2. Technical areas 5-6 require cost proposals for phase 1 only.

Q21. For technical elements 1-4 will DARPA accept rough order of magnitude estimates

(ROMS) for Phase 2 and Phase 3 in lieu of proposed priced options, due to the fact that the requirements for the devices will not be known until well into Phase 1 (after contract award)?

A21. Refer to Figure 4: Technical Elements/Proposals requirements (page 12). Full cost proposals are required for all three phases for technical areas 1-3. Technical area 4 requires cost proposals for phase 1 and 2. Engineering Change Proposals may be requested in phase 2 and phase 3 as necessary for these technical areas.

IV. Programmatic

Q22. Table 10: Deliverables for Technical Area Six (PODs) mentions that the Satlet performers will receive an opportunity to submit a bid at the end of Phase1. Will the PODs be able to also submit an updated proposal for phase2/3?

A22. Yes, the same proposal requirements apply to Satlets and POD’s technical areas. Refer to Figure 4: Technical Elements for proposals requirements. It states that phase 1 performers in technical area 5 and 6(Satlets and PODs) will receive updated proposal guidance ~90 days prior to the end of phase one.

Q23. The proposal for Phases 2 & 3 is a deliverable requirement of Tech Area 5 Phase 1. Other

Tech Areas do not contain this requirement. Including the Phase 2 & 3 proposal in this way increases the cost of Phase 1 and precludes responders from using B & P to develop the proposal for Phases 2 & 3. Is it possible to remove this requirement from the BAA?

A23. At this time, only Tech areas 5 & 6 will require a Phase 2 proposal deliverable prior to end of Phase 1. See Question 20 addressing cost proposal requirements for other technical areas. Engineering Change Proposals may be requested in phase 2 and phase 3 as necessary for those other technical areas, on negotiated options from the original contract.

Q24. Can Tech Areas 5 and 6 be proposed as a single proposal?

Questions and Answers

A24. Refer to Program Scope on page 9 of the BAA. Proposers can combine multiple technical areas into their proposals as long as adequate technical and cost visibility is provided.

DARPA reserves the right to select any or all proposed solutions inside a particular proposal for integration into the entire program.

Q25. Will DARPA provide documentation on the F6 Developer’s Kit and wireless resource sharing for application on Phoenix as indicated in the Nov. 9 Phoenix Industry Day Charts (slide 23) from D. Barnhart?

A25. When it becomes publically available it will be provided. It is not required or anticipated for this BAA submission.

Q26. Figure 2 shows the potential for a large number of interfaces between components; with even more interfaces likely with multiple tools, Satlets, and PODS. Who will be defining these interfaces and overall architecture, and how will any conflict in those interfaces be governed?

A26. Figure 2 is meant to showcase an initial matrix of interfaces. Interface (I/F) definition can be provided by the performers in the proposals, either conforming to the provided matrix and interface elements or other matrices and interface elements as identified by the performer. At Phase 1 PI kickoff it is envisioned the Government will take the role of I/F coordinator and use inputs from providers to help define all program level interfaces.

Q27. When will detailed information (such as as-built drawings) about the retired satellite(s) and aperture(s) be made available in order to identify requirements and specifications for potential tools?"

A27. Detailed information, as possible, will be provided at the Phase 1 kickoff based on a Government science team evaluation and study. For the proposal refer to the bullets listed on page 14 of the BAA for a notional set of requirements for toolsets.

Q28. W.r.t tech area 7: Can you specify the extent of the requirement of “assisting the customer with the safety, legal, regulatory and insurance issues associated with the hosted payload deployment from a commercial GEO hosted payload provider”? This can become a very intensive task very unrelated to the design.

A28. DARPA is looking for a performer to identify all potential issues that will need to be addressed, and a listing of potential organizations, entities, approvals and/or agreements required to help accomplishing this activity.

Q29. The scope of FREND is discussed in two areas of the BAA. On BAA page 60, the chart seems to indicate that the FREND arms are dependent on the Server/Tender Spacecraft for

Questions and Answers

6DOF rendezvous and proximity ops up to a 2 meter box. In the NRL FREND Mission Concept Document included as part of the Bidder’s Library, FREND is described in context of the overall full mission including the Lidar and docking end effectors required for rendezvous, proximity operations, and docking. For the purposes of this BAA, and specifically Technical Area #2, what is or is not considered the scope of FREND, i.e., does it include rendezvous, proximity operations, and docking/capture of uncooperative target spacecraft or is that included in other technical topic areas in either this BAA or the next

BAA?

A29. For this BAA, the scope of FREND is restricted to that presented in page 60 and Appendix 1. A rendezvous and proximity operations (RPO) equipment suite will be part of a subsequent BAA. See timeline on page 11 (rendezvous sensor suite line item). The FREND equipment will work in conjunction with the RPO suite to accomplish capture of a cooperating retired satellite (see BAA footnote 5, page 7). The 2 meter box provides a technical constraint for proposers to use as a basis for control.

Q30. Technical Area #2 reads as if it is focused on FREND arm tele-operations only and does not mention the rendezvous, proximity operations, and capture/docking (either automated or tele-operated) of an uncooperative target spacecraft from the Phoenix integrated spacecraft perspective. Is the spacecraft portion of rendezvous, proximity operations, and capture inferred as part of the BAA Technical Area #2 or is that reserved for the follow-on BAA under perhaps the Rendezvous Sensor Suite topic as defined in Figure 3 (page11)?

A30. Refer to the answer to Question 29, above. The FREND equipment will work in conjunction with the RPO suite to accomplish capture of a cooperating retired satellite (see BAA footnote 5, page 7).

Q31. Artist renderings in Industry Day briefing material showed 3 FREND arms, but the number of arms is not explicitly stated in the BAA. In DARPA’s Industry Day Questions and Answers released on Dec 22nd it indicates 2 FREND arms as baseline (page 6). What is the number of FREND arms to be assumed to be available on the demo servicer/tender spacecraft?

A31. There are 2 FREND arms in the current plan, and that number should be used for proposal purposes. However, there could be 1, 2, or 3 FREND arms, depending upon further refinement of the Phoenix concept of operations through the Government science team and performers during Phase 1. Provision of a hyper-dexterous manipulator is also in scope as a potential addition per Task 3.

Q32. Figure 4 (page 12) states for Satlets and PODS that “Prior to the end of Phase 1 (~90 days), the government will provide updated proposal guidance for Phase 2 proposals to all

Questions and Answers

Phase 1 performers. Phase 2 proposals will be evaluated based on the same criteria as phase 1 proposals. Proposals will be due 45 days prior to the end of Phase 1”. Does this assume proposers should include a task to generate an update of their Phase 2 proposals as part of their Phase 1 priced SOW?

A32. Proposers are free to explicitly add a SOW task for this, or just a milestone. It is part of the deliverables for Phase 1.

Q33. On page 9 the BAA states that “Proposers can combine multiple technical areas into their proposals as long as adequate technical and cost visibility is provided” and again on page 11 “Proposers choosing to respond to multiple technical areas as a system should delineate technical and cost between technical areas for DARPA to evaluate.” If a proposer decides to submit an integrated proposal that combines more than one technical area, do the same proposal format instructions defined starting on page 33 apply in the same manner as a single topic proposal? For example, if a proposer submitted a proposal that combined an approach for satlets, PODS, and toolbelt within a system context would their proposal still be limited to the page restrictions (page 33-38) as defined for a proposal offering an approach to just one of these program elements?

A33. Yes. Volume I page limitations must be adhered to in order for the proposal to be considered. The assertion is that by bidding multiple technical areas as a “system” there is an efficiency which will be identified by combining elements that can utilize the proposal page restriction from a single proposal better than by separating into multiple write-ups. However, to the extent possible proposers should provide priced partitions in Volume II for discrete elements.

Q34. In Appendix 1, there is a page titled "Robot arm to tool envelope volume." Is this the volume in which all robotic tools attached to the FREND arms need to fit? Or is this a current FREND end effector?

A34. No. Not all tools need to fit in this volume. The diagram denotes a volume constrained for arm-attached launch locked tools for existing FREND end effectors.

Q35. Given that the results from Phase 1 would impact the Phase 2 scope, are the requested price option/s for Phase 2 to be quoted as offers to sell or budgetary estimates?

A35. Refer to Figure 4: Technical Elements/Proposals requirements (page 12). Full cost proposals are required for all three phases for technical areas 1-3. Technical area 4 requires cost proposals for phase 1 and 2. Engineering Change Proposals may be requested in phase 2 and phase 3 as necessary for these technical areas.

Questions and Answers

Q36. The BAA indicates 14 months to PDR but the schedule in Figure 3 seems to indicate less than 12 months. Could DARPA clarify if it is 12 or 14 months to PDR?

A36. Refer to Figure 4: Technical Elements/Proposals Requirements (page 12). Phase 1 should be proposed at 14 months for all technical areas except technical area 7 which is a 9 month study.

Q37. Instead of a “requirements flow-down” performed from system level requirements down to the components that make up that system, this BAA seems to be for components that “roll up” into a system, yet the “requirements flow-down” has not been defined. Given this, when and how will the PDR/CDR exit criteria and success criteria for these components be defined and evaluated? Will all the mission level requirements be available at the KOM including mission level specs and ICD’s? Will there be an element level requirements phase in phase 1?

A37. Identification of retired spacecraft that will be prime candidates for aperture repurposing is an ongoing activity. As agreements to allow Phoenix operations on a particular spacecraft are established, additional material will be released to the performers. A notional set of mission level requirements will be presented at the Phase 1 PI kickoff. Element level requirements are expected to be devised from the mission and system level breakdown by performers and during Phase 1. Additional requirements refinement will be a significant part of Phase 1, and performers should expect to be partners in those activities. Proposers are free to identify notional element level requirements in their proposal as appropriate.

Q38. Will DARPA evaluate Phase 1 only or all phases 1-3?

A38. The proposals will be evaluated on all three phases for technical areas 1 – 3. Refer to

Tables 5, 6, and 7 and will be based on evaluation criteria in Section V.

Q39. Figure 4 on page 12 of the BAA clarifies the down select process for Tech Areas 5 and 6

(Satlets and PODS). Please describe the down-select process anticipated for Tech Areas 1 and 2 (Tools and Tele-Operation).

A39. It is anticipated that more than one performer will be required to support Tech Areas 1 and 2, as identified in Figure 4, all the way through Phase III. Any selection from Phase I to Phase II will be on basis of need for the identified tool or tele-presence capability based on Phase I activities, and/or funding limitations.

Q40. The BAA refers to program and performance “metrics” (p. 38, 40, 42, 50) with a requirement to demonstrate proposers meet or exceed them. Please identify these “metrics” and/or when they will be provided. Are “metrics” intended to refer to the “Capabilities at a High Level” for each technical element?

Questions and Answers

A40. Yes. “Metrics” were not pre-defined in this BAA due to the large variability in expected approaches. Each Technical Area has a section titled “Capability at a High Level” which is meant to help proposers formulate a set of metrics for their technical system offering.

V. Technical

Q41. The expected demonstration assumes that the asset is not relocated to a Geo orbit, so there will be a drift (probably very small) of the antenna with respect to the ground. The proposal does not mention any orbital corrections; stationary assets require orbital correction to maintain their orbital position. For a short demo mission it might not be an issue, but should the proposal consider a need for position control for longer term missions?

A41. The proposed Phoenix architecture refers to a “Servicer” or “Tender”. DARPA recognizes Phoenix represents a very large jump compared to existing communications satellites in GEO. While the demo will not require an orbital correction to the repurposed aperture, for a longer-term architecture, Phoenix will rely on the Servicer/Tender. It is anticipated that until low cost miniaturized high efficiency propulsion technology is available the repurposed aperture will be periodically “repositioned” with a “tender”. This would also allow multiple apertures to exist in a slot, supported by a system Tender. Station-keeping of repurposed apertures is not a goal of the demonstration mission. Considerations to show that the demonstration system architecture does not preclude future station-keeping capabilities are of interest.

Q42. Is the capability to repoint the antenna required? The BAA requirements call for a +/-

10deg which covers pretty much the whole earth from Geo, so repointing of the antenna seems irrelevant.

A42. The capability to maintain the antenna pointing to +/-10deg over a period of time sufficient to establish uplink and downlink for a ground antenna required as a minimum capability. The government would be interested in seeing the cost trade on tighter pointing capabilities, but this is not a requirement for the proposal.

Q43. Are the control algorithms for Servicer/Tender proximity operations to the antenna included anywhere in the BAA?

A43. No; DARPA intends to release a future BAA to address the RPO software and hardware.

Q44. Can you provide any information about carrier frequencies and coding, or some information about requirements of the alignment at the antenna feedhorn?

A44. Selection of repurposing candidate spacecraft is an ongoing activity. Proposed solutions to these issues should explain over what range of the above parameters the solutions will work. Details on candidate antennas will be provided at Phase 1 kickoff. Performers are

Questions and Answers encouraged to use publically available aperture information to guide pointing requirements of feedhorn to collector. Carrier frequencies are assumed to be in the UHF/VHF band for the Phoenix demonstration.

Q45. Step 6 of the notional demo scenario (page 7) explicitly states that the satlets will be installed and tested on the aperture structure first, and then the aperture will be removed from the retired satellite. Some possible configurations for the repurposed aperture would use the point where the boom has been cut as the desired attach point of the satlets and satlet structure, and in some cases the desired location for satlets or associated structure would be blocked by the retired satellite. Should we not consider those configurations, or could some of the satlet installation and test occur after removing the aperture from the retired satellite?

A45. The “Notional Demonstration Scenario” is intended to be notional only. It is expected that performers will come up with additional sequences, and that the notional scenario will be modified to account for new situations or requirements. Proposers are encouraged to present new scenarios and their logical basis of formulation.

Q46. The BAA (page 17) mentions “the arm would be required, at a minimum, to come equipped with a camera and/or light or other type of situational awareness sensor.” Does DARPA have any specific design baselines and/or interface definitions assumed for these devices or are they up to the contractor to propose them?

A46. DARPA has no specific design baselines for this equipment. Designs should be proposed based on “Notional Demonstration Scenario”. Comparisons of new hardware to previously flown equipment are encouraged.

Q47. Can we assume that the tumbling rate of the retired GFE communications satellite in the graveyard orbit is below the level at which the GFE servicer/tender with the FREND arm can already autonomously capture and grasp to it. That is, can the robotic tool providers essentially assume no relative motion between the servicer/tender and the communications satellite? What assumptions can be made about the tumbling rates for the PODs?

A47. DARPA will use tumble rate as a candidate satellite selector, if technically possible, and will furnish that information as part of the kickoff. DARPA assumes that the tumble rate of the retired communications satellite will be low enough for the Servicer/Tender to match its tumble rate. In laboratory testing this has implied that the relative rate between the Servicer/Tender and the decommissioned satellite is approximately 3 mm/sec. There is an open trade regarding ejection and capture techniques for the PODS. PODS may or may not be required to provide enough control to zero and residual rates after ejection, this is up to the performer’s concept and solution space.

Questions and Answers

Q48. In the appendix, FREND arm positional accuracy is listed as 2cm. What is the arm’s repeatability/precision? That is, what is the smallest controllable movement with closed loop feedback?

A48. The figure listed in the appendix is erroneous and should state that the FREND arm positional accuracy is +/- 0.002 m, or approximately 2 mm. Repeatability is approximately 1 mm worst case. The FREND arm uses torque-controlled joint servos where joint angles are currently measured at an accuracy of approximately 0.02 degrees.

Q49. FREND arm payload is listed as <5Kg. Is this only for ground based demonstrations (i.e.

1g), and in that case, can we demonstrate the tools, for example, in microgravity, air bearing surface or neutral buoyancy? Or is 5Kg a hard limit on the robotic tool mass even in space operations?

A49. The 5Kg is number is a requirement to meet all velocity and dexterous requirements in 1- G. It is also a requirement for arm-attached launch-locked tools. Proposers can specify their own in-space operation specifications, bearing in mind launch restrictions etc.

Q50. What data connectivity is provided through the FREND interface? 100baseT? Other?

A50. Currently the FREND arm implements FireWire. Multiple digital harness lines are run through the FREND arm, which can support a variety of protocols. In practice the arm can support data rates of at least 100 Mb/sec.

Q51. BAA p.64 illustrates a Notional Payload Swept Volume. What is the significance of this volume? This does not appear to represent the reachable workspace of the FREND arms.

A51. This is the notional volume into which the entire payload should fit for launch when stowed. The workspace of the arm depends on the size and shape of end effectors and may extend beyond this volume once deployed from the launch vehicle.

Q52. Will the details of the mating interface to that presented on BAA p.58 be provided?

What is the weight of this interface?

A52. Information contained in the drawing on page 58, which provides the mechanical interface and the positions of the electrical interface, is expected to be sufficient for the purposes of proposing to the BAA.

Q53. Will stereoscopic cameras be provided on the Servicer/Tender for supporting tele-operation of the FREND arm systems? If so, how many video feeds will be available from the Servicer/Tender, with what frame rate, resolution, and latency?

A53. This is an open trade in number, type and pointing direction, and depends strongly on the requirements of the eventual telepresence systems used.

Questions and Answers

Q54. Is there a mass target for the next-generation highly dexterous manipulator?

A54. It is up to the proposer to offer or recommend.

Q55. How will the Servicer/Tender stay attached to another satellite while the FREND arm(s) are being used to perform operations on the other satellite?

A55. It is assumed that at least one FREND arm will maintain grapple of the satellite through its Launch Vehicle Adapter Interface or other hardpoint while the remaining arm(s) perform servicing operations.

Q56. What is the overall expected latency for remote operations, including video latencies?

A56. This depends strongly on the eventual communications architecture chosen for the mission. Rather than specify a notional range DARPA is looking for performers to recommend a range of latencies they believe they can operate within. A subsequent BAA will address a high performance communications system that would address these recommendations.

Q57. What level of force is an end-effector on the FREND arm expected to be able to exert, including translational and rotational in the major axes, and pinch force for any grasping/cutting actions?

A57. Proposer should postulate what is required.

Q58. What level of force is the next-generation highly dexterous manipulator expected to exert, both translational and rotational?

A58. This is an open trade and should be addressed by the proposer.

Q59. Can you supply a detailed software/electrical/mechanical interface control document for the FREND arm?

A59. Not at this time. Detailed FREND arm design documents will be provided at the Phase 1 kickoff. Utilize BAA Appendices for nominal top level interface information.

Q60. How will the V-dot seats be provided - for each tech area, each site, by number of contracts, etc.? What training will be provided and if so for how many users?

A60. A single V-dot seat will be provided to each performer at the Phase 1 kickoff. If a performer has multiple sites they will have to work out the assignment of the seat. The Phoenix program will cover the cost for one seat per performer. Initial training is intended to be provided for all potential users at the first kickoff meeting location.

Questions and Answers

Q61. What are the performance characteristics of the existing FREND arm tool drive actuator including torque and speed capability as well as resolution and accuracy performance?

A61. 24 Nm stall torque, 100 RPM max speed. Torque resolution <1 Nm, absolute position < +/- 0.5 degree.

Q62. For the hosted PODS payloads can DARPA elaborate on what they envision “dormant operations” would entail? Additionally, can DARPA clarify whether the “ability to operate” is expected while attached to host or after separated from host?

A62. It is expected that “dormant operation” includes non-ejection activity while a PODS is installed on a GEO bus as a hosted payload before launch (up to 6 months pre-launch), during launch, and from launch to release on-orbit (up to 6 months after launch). This may or may not include power or health and status updates on the POD contents. Proposers should explain what levels of monitoring and verification are required for their approach while a PODs is installed and in “dormant operation”. Solutions with minimal monitoring requirements are of most interest. “Ability to operate” refers to an ability to be ejected after a prolonged stowage time.

Q63. The BAA states 7 technical elements and 3 enabling concepts to be employed in this first

Phoenix demonstration. Is DARPA open to hear concepts that achieve the same mission objective using a different enabling concept not stated in the BAA?

A63. At this time, DARPA is only interested in technical areas related to this BAA.

Q64. Regarding the PODs, is there any information about expected hosted payload envelope?

A64. Footnote 9 provides two publically available sets of information on expected envelopes.

Establishing a common PODs-compatible hosted payload envelope across multiple GEO spacecraft manufacturers is a Phoenix objective.

Q65. Is there concern regarding the free flight of the POD in GEO after release from the commercial host given the sensitivity of GEO assets? Would a release from the commercial host at a different orbital stage be considered?

A65. Technical Area 7 is intended to address all potential issues associated with PODS deployment in GEO region. Phoenix is very sensitive to operating in the active GEO belt and avoiding any impact on other operational spacecraft. Phoenix is interested in alternate orbital release locations, but given a limited fuel budget, any alternatives must be fuel-neutral from the assumed concept of operations for release in GEO.

Q66. In responding to Technical Area 2, can we include software capability enhancements to the FREND onboard system to support tele-operation control modes?

Questions and Answers

A66. Yes, proposed enhancements would be integrated to existing flight processor and government-provided software during Phase 1 by both the performer and the Govt.

Q67. What force-torque sensing capabilities are designed into the FREND arm?

A67. The FREND arm has a single 6-DOF force/torque sensor located proximal to the tool drive. The sensing ranges for this sensor are 475 N (X, Y), 950 N (Z) and 20 Nm (X, Y, Z) with resolutions of 9/112 N (X, Y), 3/28 N (Z), 5/1496 Nm (X, Y) and 7/2992 NM (Z). This specification may change in the future.

Q68. Of the three D-connectors on the FREND arm-to-tool interface, how many pins are devoted to tool power and how many to tool data?

A68. One 37 pin D-connector is devoted to digital communications, one 37-pin D connector is devoted to analog telemetry, and one 37 pin D-connector is devoted to power. Proposers can present different concepts for using this capability.

Q69. Are there any additional specifications available for the FREND arm? How is the rotary actuator in the FREND tool interface controlled? Assuming electronic torque limiting, what is the resolution? What are the lowest and highest available torques?

A69. Highest available torque is 24 Nm stall torque with a resolution of < 1 Nm. The tool drive is torque controlled, but other control algorithms can be proposed for this actuator.

Q70. Please clarify how a tool is used for "testing the repurposed aperture" (p.13). It seems this would be the task of the Satlets and not a function of a tool.

A70. This statement refers to the potential ability of a tool or tool-FREND system to measure torque provided by Satlets to an aperture prior to free release.

Q71. How much a prior knowledge of the selected “set of candidate” satellites can be expected to support tool design? Should tools be designed to service specific satellites or are they required to accommodate a broad population of bus/antenna interfaces?

A71. A priori knowledge will be provided as much as possible at the Phase 1 kickoff.

However, it is expected that this knowledge will be only as good as the actual antenna condition allows. The “Challenges/Considerations” section in Technical Area 1 specifically refers to “unexpected conditions and events”, and “variability in the expected geometric shape and size hardpoints”. That said, we have offered a notional size/shape definition to provide input for proposers. Tools are expected to be as “multi-purpose” as practical within the scope of the BAA. Tools may be specific to a given satellite however the candidate satellite ultimately selected may require a different tool.

Questions and Answers