RNET_Q A_Round_1_(8-11-15).pdf

DARPA-BAA-15-49

Radio Frequency Microsatellite Risk Reduction Technology

Questions and Answers – Round 1 11 August 2015

Radio Frequency Microsatellite Risk Reduction Technology BAA-15-49 Questions & Answers – Round 1

IN THE EVENT OF ANY INCONSISTENCY BETWEEN THE ANSWERS PROVIDED

HEREIN AND THE BAA, THE BAA SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE

Q1. Who is the DARPA program manager for this solicitation? What is their contact information?

A1. Dr. Lindsay Millard is the program manager for this solicitation. All inquiries pertaining to this solicitation should be directed to the Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) mailbox (DARPA-BAA-15-49@darpa.mil).

Q2. Below we have shown a very generic and notional diagram for the required hardware functional blocks for both Technical Area (TA)-1 and TA-2 scopes. Could you clarify where each of these functional blocks fall (TA-1 or TA-2 Scope)?

A2. This is design dependent. Some designs may include different sets of the above components when proposing to TA-1 and TA-2, and that is acceptable. It is anticipated that the aperture, low noise amplifier (LNA) front-end, primary power amplifier (PA), and control would be considered part of TA-1; the analog-to-digital converter (ADC), digital-to-analog converter (DAC) and signal processing unit would be considered part of TA-2; and any additional signal amplification, filtering, or linearization would fall within TA-2. The proposal design should fall within the overall metrics defined in the

BAA.

Q3. For the functional blocks depicted above, could you please indicate which weight or power dissipation metric (from the BAA Table 1 or 2) they fall under?

A3. See A2. Several designs are possible within the overall goal metrics stated within the BAA. Proposals should explicitly state what assumptions were used, if any, to meet those metrics.

Q4. Row 2 in Table 1 on page 9 appears to indicate that the radio frequency (RF) PA is considered as part of the TA-1 scope, but there are no direct current (DC) power consumption requirements in Table 1. Is the RF PA power consumption part of the Maximum Power Dissipation listed in the first row of Table 2? (This question is only relevant if the first two questions above are not clearly answered.)

A4. No.

Q5. Assuming the RF PA is included in the TA-1 scope, does a TA-1 solution need to address thermal dissipation issues?

A5. Yes.

Q6. Similarly, is the noise figure (NF) metric in Table 1 only for the LNA or does it include the LNA, NF, and all the antenna/aperture inherent losses prior to the LNA?

A6. The NF metric applies only to the LNA.

Q7. Is there an upper limit to the Carrier Frequency or Bandwidth metrics mentioned in

Tables 1 & 2? For example, is this program targeting mm-wave carrier frequencies?

A7. There is no upper limit.

Q8. In Table 2, can you quantify what “Ops” means in a signal processing context? Also, is this metric meant for the scenario when the RF Processor is simultaneously transmitting and receiving?

A8. Refer to the BAA – anticipated signal processing operations are described in Section 2.I.A.2.

Q9. Is there another program pending that will provide a demonstration opportunity at the completion of this program?

A9. Proposers should describe plans to demonstrate their technology within the cost and schedule constraints of this BAA.

Q10. Page 3 of the BAA states, “Total amount of money to be awarded: Up to $4M in

Phase 1A; and up to $8M in Phase 1B (option).” The BAA further states, “Multiple awards are anticipated.”

(a) In Phase 1A, is this $4M planned for each award, or is a total of $4M spread across all Phase 1A awards?

(b) In Phase 1B, is this $8M planned for each award, or is a total of $8M spread across all Phase 1B awards?

(c) Is there an optimal number of awards or planned number of awards for each phase?

A10. Refer to the BAA – page 3 identifies these numbers as the “total amount of money to be awarded” and states that “multiple awards are anticipated.”

Q11. Can you provide any insight into the down-selection strategy or criteria for initiation of Phase 1B?

A11. Decisions on whether to proceed with Phase 1B with one, some, or all performers will be based on Phase 1A performance and a determination of the Government’s needs.

Q12. Will Phase 1A information from awarded performers be available to Phase 1B bidders?

A12. No. Refer to BAA – page 23-25. Bidders may propose to both Phase 1A and Phase 1B content now.

Q13. In Table 1, “Program Metrics for Technical Area 1” (page 9 of the BAA), the “Areal

Compaction Ratios” shown in Row 3 (50X and 100X, respectively) are the ratio of the cross-sectional areas of the antennas, stowed vs. deployed. These ratios are very aggressive, as much as 10X the current state-of-the-art or more. While we understand the desire to be “DARPA Hard,” are these numbers correct as initially released? No metric is given for stowed height. Since stowed volume may be a more critical criteria, and it may be possible to increase the Areal Compaction Ratio as defined with a much greater stowed height, does DARPA have any stowed height limitations? We suggest a change to the “Areal Compaction Ratio” requirement to make it a “Deployed Diameter Ratio” of 5X to 10X (deployed vs. stowed diameter) and add something like a maximum of 4X the Stowed Diameter for a Stowed Height Goal. Please clarify and provide any other guidance on this.

A13. These numbers are correct as initially released. Note that these are goals, not requirements. Proposers should clearly describe how their design performs relative to each metric, and may provide additional information as appropriate. There is no specific stowed height limitation, however, metrics for the desired pathfinder and prototype system must be met.

Q14. Under “Mass” in Row 3 of Table 1, in the last column it states that “Mass shall include any and all amplifiers needed to energize the antenna.” Is it correct to assume that the amplifiers referenced there are RF amplifiers that will be space qualifiable mission frequency units included in the ultimate tested assembly for the demonstration mission data link, and that you are not only referring to electrodynamic amplifiers or similar that may be required to hold an electrodynamic antenna shape in some designs?

We assume here that you want flight qualifiable RF amplifiers and not bench top amplifier test equipment. Please clarify.

A14. Yes, the mass should include any required amplifiers. Yes, the amplifiers should be flight qualifiable.

Q15. Under “Peak Power” in Row 6 of Table 1, the second column lists “100 watts” as the desired antenna Peak Power. Is this intended to mean that an RF amplifier with a 100-watt output at RF is desired into the tested unit (before considering antenna gain)? Or does it mean that the antenna must be able to withstand 100 watts flux in test without damage? Or does it mean the RF equivalent power of 100 watts in the beam after considering antenna gain? Please clarify.

A15. Yes. Yes. No. Also, please note that the goal is “at least 100 W.”

Q16. Is DARPA’s interest confined to radio sensing, or would DARPA consider additional capabilities in the area of optical imaging?

A16. Refer to the BAA – this effort is focused on RF and communication technologies.

Q17. Reference: Technical Area One: Deployable Antenna

Background: Typically, a small LEO satellite for communications, radar or intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) applications comes associated with requirements for large footprint coverage with high-gain beams, such as one enabled by a large deployable antenna/reflector.

Question: Is an antenna solution (i.e., RF + reflector) that includes support for beam steering and/or switching such as to provide required large footprint coverage with high gain antenna beams a desirable capability? Is such capability within the scope of TA-1?

A17. This capability is not a requirement, but would be within scope.

Q18. Background: For SATCOM-based networking (e.g., to provide continuous connectivity and large throughput to our tactical users), requirements for flexible coverage and multi-bands (e.g., UHF - L/S, C/X/Ku?) are typically desirable.

Question: For small satellites (e.g., CUBE-SAT/PNP-class), a solution coupling and integrating deployment of more than one antenna system (e.g., multi-feed offset-fed reflector per satellite side) may typically provide a more economical (for multi-band RF)/more symmetric (e.g., for lower dragging) solution than a single (e.g., 4x) larger parabolic reflector. Is such a multi-reflector antenna system, including overall multi-reflector system architecture, within the scope of TA-1? Would a solution that defines/simulates the overall architecture but develops, implements and tests "one" of such reflectors plus RF be within the scope of TA-1/Phase IA, with all reflectors and antenna systems being developed and tested in Phase 1B?

A18. Yes, this would be within scope.

Q19. Background: Military SATCOM applications may come with requirements for integrated support for tactical ad hoc communications (at UHF, L/S) and on-demand/trackable reach-back links for OTH, UAS and sensor platforms (e.g., at C/X/higher). These capabilities may require integrated "architecting" of the RF processing (e.g., interfaces) and digital processing (e.g., shared DAC/ADCs).

Question: Would the overall architecture antenna system architecture, including RF interface specifications for different applications (e.g., tactical networking vs. reach-back), be within the scope of TA-1?

A19. Antenna system design is within scope of TA-1. Design and architecture of an integrated space system is not within scope.

Q20. Typically, for a specific class of satellites, the architecture of the deployable antenna system is closely coupled with the satellite itself (e.g., CUBESATS). Should (or can) a TA-1 solution be for a specific class of satellites? If so, what would be such a satellite?

A20. TA-1 solutions should address the requirements and metrics in the BAA. Beyond that, tailoring of the design to a specific satellite is at the discretion of the proposer.

Q21. Background: New (being developed) waveform technologies such as Directional

Spread Spectrum (that enables order-of-magnitude greater multiplexing, spectrum re-use and possibly unparalleled tactical networking) may require closer integration of RF and digital processing.

Question: Would antenna systems that include support for such a capability (over and above support for arbitrary waveforms) be within the scope of TA-1? Or should it be addressed in TA-2?

A21. This could logically be addressed in either area.

Q22. The apertures and the power into the antennas suggest that DARPA is looking at link budgets suitable for communications between LEO and GEO. Is this correct?

A22. DARPA is interested in a variety of applications for this technology.

Q23. It’s not clear whether the TA-1 antenna can be passive or must be able to actively transmit and receive. Section 2.I.A.1 states the system should be “fully functional to transmit and receive RF signals when provided an appropriate power supply and RF input/output interface,” which implies separate, non-flight test equipment. However, Table 1 specifies peak power and noise figure that implies an active antenna. Can you clarify?

A23. The antenna is required to be active. External power (e.g., spacecraft bus power) and RF signals may be provided via test equipment.

Q24. Table 1: Carrier frequency is specified as > 2 GHz and > 4 GHz for the pathfinder and prototype, respectively. Is the objective to have as high a center frequency as possible or a broadband frequency that starts at 2 or 4 GHz and goes as high as possible?

A24. Either approach would be acceptable.

Q25. Table 1: Is peak power continuous wave (CW)?

A25. Please provide estimates of maximum continuous power, as well as pulse peak maximum.

Q26. Table 1: With regard to noise figure, no effective noise temperature is specified. Should a standard effective noise temperature of 290K be used?

A26. Yes.

Q27. Table 2: What functionality is needed during standby mode?

A27. Health and status monitoring of the spacecraft.

Q28. Table 2: We’re assuming TA-2 “power dissipation” means power consumption of the unit. Please confirm.

A28. Yes.

Q29. For respondents seeking to submit proposals in both BAA-15-49 Technology Areas

(TA-1: Deployable Antenna and TA-2: Signal Processing), should separate Volume I (Technical and Management) and Volume II (Cost) proposals be prepared for each area, or shall the two technology areas be combined into a single Volume I and a single Volume II with the stated page count limitations?

A29. Refer to BAA – Section 2.I.B states “Proposers may submit proposals to address TA-1 and/or TA-2; however, separate proposals that can be independently evaluated on the individual proposal content must be submitted for each Technical Area.”

Q30. For TA-1, is there a limit to the total RF power draw by the antenna in order to meet the peak power requirements?

A30. There is no specified limit, but proposers will be expected to quantify the expected power draw and associated efficiency.

Q31. Referencing page 5, Section 2.I.A (Program Goals), "The goal of this program...enable performance equivalent to existing systems, but an order of magnitude smaller platform." The previous paragraph lists Planet Labs and Skybox

Imaging along with Iridium and Inmarsat. We assume the “order magnitude smaller platform” is applicable to Iridium and Inmarsat. Please verify.

A31. Yes.

Q32. Referencing page 7, Section 2.I.A.2 (Technical Area Two: Signal Processing, "A target capability is capacity to perform roughly 100 operations per digital sample in real time." The surrounding sentences (both above and below the above sentence) mention a variety of example functions that have a wide range of compute times and data output sizes. This leads to a set of results that may not be comparable. Can we request or suggest a set of stress-marks or benchmarks representative of the desired operation and run the signal processor against them?

A32. No specific set of operations will be provided. Proposals should explicitly state what assumptions were used.

Q33. Referencing page 7, Section 2.I.A.2 (Technical Area Two: Signal Processing, "A target capability is capacity to perform roughly 100 operations per digital sample in real time." The indefinite “in real time” leads us to consider if they all should be run simultaneously or in sequence before the next sample, which sets up the situation of sample length determining processing time. All of which must balance against storage capacity of samples and results with respect to downlink opportunities and data rate.

Can any expectation of “in real time” be given?

A33. DARPA is interested in the highest performance achievable, subject to other specified requirements and constraints.

Q34. Referencing page 8, Section 2.I.B (Program Plan), "Included as a separate task within

Phase 1B is the development and operation of an associated antenna or RF processing subsystem simulation module." The fidelity and scope of this simulation module along with creating an ecosystem in which it runs and collaborating with Government SMEs could run the effort for this very high. Is there a known ecosystem/platform execution expectation?

A34. No specific ecosystem will be specified. Proposals should explicitly state what assumptions were used.

Q35. Is there a required mission lifetime?

A35. No. Proposals should explicitly state what assumptions were used.

Q36. Are Gops/W measure with processor power consumption or total SDR power consumption?

A36. Processor power. Also note that the goal is “greater than or equal to.”

Q37. Are simultaneous Rx and Tx required?

A37. No.

Q38. Can standby mode be off (do you have to be able to process) and wake on discrete signal or time interval?

A38. Yes. Processing during standby mode is not required.

Q39. Are there any forbidden parts (e.g., BME vs. PME ceramic caps)?

A39. No parts are explicitly forbidden. Bidders are encouraged to use their best judgment.

Proposals should explicitly state what assumptions were used.

Q40. Does input power return have to be isolated from the load power returns?

A40. This is not an explicit requirement. Bidders are encouraged to use their best judgment.

Proposals should explicitly state what assumptions were used.

Q41. What total dose Rad level do we need to withstand?

A41. The design should be radiation tolerant, but specific levels will be dependent on the eventual application. Bidders are encouraged to use their best judgment. Proposals should explicitly state what assumptions were used.

Q42. Is there an EMI spec for the SDR?

A42. No.

Q43. Can we assume there is a command receiver on the bus, or does this need to be part of the SDR?

A43. The command receiver can be assumed to be a bus function.

Q44. Do we have to process telemetry, or is there a separate processor for this task?

A44. Telemetry processing can be assumed to be a bus function.

Q45. Is the 200MHz of bandwidth instantaneous bandwidth or tunable bandwidth?

A45. Instantaneous.

Q46. Is the desired polarization circularly polarized, dual-linear, or linear?

A46. This is not prescribed. DARPA is interested in a variety of applications for this technology. Bidders are encouraged to use their best judgment. Proposals should explicitly state what assumptions were used.

Q47. What are the prime power constraints?

A47. There is no specified limit, but proposers will be expected to quantify the expected power draw and associated efficiency.

Q48. Is active beam steering desired, and, if so, is there a desired steering speed? If the system is mechanically steered, is there a system settling time spec?

A48. This is not prescribed. DARPA is interested in a variety of applications for this

Q49. What is the desired FOV?

A49. This is not specified. DARPA is interested in a variety of applications for this

Q50. Is there a desired stowage volume/profile?

A50. No. Bidders are encouraged to use their best judgment.

Q51. Is deployment/steering complexity an evaluation metric in the award selection?

A51. Refer to BAA – evaluation criteria are described in Section 2.V.A.

Q52. Is there a spacecraft bus selected for this application?

A52. No.

Q53. Is the scope of TA-1 intended to require more than a deployable reflector/collector and feed array system with an appropriate connector (i.e., coax, etc.)? For example, is the scope intended to include any array feed drive electronics, transmit/receive module electronics or any other capabilities?

A53. Yes. The scope should include whatever’s required for the antenna to perform its required functions.

Q54. Is there any scope definition for the fidelity of the proof-of-concept TA-1 Phase 1A, such as size, frequency, performance characteristics, testing/results? Is this required as a deliverable hardware?

A54. Proof-of-concept hardware should demonstrate a path consistent with achieving the performance goals in Table 1. Required deliverables are listed in Tables 3 & 4.

Q55. Is there any definition for the Pathfinder Flight Qualification Testing mentioned in

TA-1 Phase 1B?

A55. No. Bidders are encouraged to use their best judgment.

Q56. Can you confirm that the units of "computing efficiency" in Table 2 (Program

Metrics for Technical Area 2) are billions of operations per second per watt, which is usually abbreviated GOPS/W, not GOps/W as in the BAA?

A56. Yes.

Q57. What is the required operating frequency range for the "RF signal processing subsystem"? The BAA's metrics for TA-1 (antenna subsystem) specify that the carrier frequency must be above 2 GHz for "pathfinder" and above 4 GHz for "prototype."

A57. You may assume that the RF input for the signal processing subsystem will be at or above 2 GHz or 4 GHz. Bidders are encouraged to use their best judgment and state their assumptions along with their capabilities for the signal processing subsystem.

Q58. If DARPA has more than one Phase 1A performer for a TA, does it expect to down-select to a single performer for the TA for Phase 1B?

A58. That decision has not yet been made.

Q59. How will DARPA ensure that TA-1 and TA-2 performers develop their subsystem designs in a compatible fashion, particularly in operating frequency ranges, without explicit requirements for compatibility in the BAA?

A59. Compatibility between TA-1 and TA-2 hardware is not a requirement under this BAA.

Q60. Will TA-1 and TA-2 performers be expected to collaborate in "building and demonstrating the pathfinder subsystem" in Phase 1B? If not, does the TA-2 performer have to identify and include costs for a suitable off-the-shelf antenna for performing its pathfinder subsystem demonstration?

A60. TA-1 and TA-2 performers are not required to collaborate. The TA-2 performer should account for all costs associated with demonstrating its system.

Q61. Must the RF signal processing subsystem be capable of full-duplex (FDD) operation?

A61. No.

Q62. What are the required artifacts for the "Prototype Interim Design Review" at 6 months after exercise of Phase 1B option? The required artifacts for PDR and CDR are described in Appendix A and B, respectively, but there is no corresponding guidance for this IDR.

A62. Bidders are encouraged to use their best judgment.

Q63. How many Phase 1A awards are contemplated?

A63. Refer to the BAA – Section 2.II.A states that “Multiple awards are anticipated. The amount of resources made available under this BAA will depend on the quality of the proposals received and the availability of funds.”

Q64. Demonstration in a relevant environment is articulated for Phase 1B. Prior DARPA direction for ground-based relevant environment has allowed tailoring to specific elements of the relevant (in this case, space) environment (e.g., ISAT Phase 3A and 3B).

In order to be compliant with the published schedule and avoid costs associated with such as a fully exercised thermal-vacuum test, will such tailoring be allowed?

A64. The BAA does not provide an explicit definition of demonstration in a relevant environment. Bidders are encouraged to use their best judgment.

Q65. The total amount of money to be awarded is listed as up to $4M in Phase 1A and up to $8M in Phase 1B. Are these funds to be shared between the two technical areas? If so, can you say how the funds are expected to be distributed between the two technical areas?

A65. Refer to the BAA - page 3 identifies these numbers as the “total amount of money to be awarded.” Section 2.II.A states that “The amount of resources made available under this BAA will depend on the quality of the proposals received and the availability of funds.”

Q66. Please define what is meant by Beam Quality metric in Table 1 and how it relates to diffraction.

A66. In Table 1, the Beam Quality metric of “2 times (2X) and 4 times (4X) the diffraction limit” refers to the areal offset from a perfect beam defined by the 3 dB main lobe beam width (at full power, half max). For example, a 2-dimensional beam that is twice as wide as theoretically predicted in each dimension would be “4X diffraction limited,” and 1.4 times wider in each dimension would be “2X diffraction limited.” Because of the challenges involved in designing antennas that meet the metrics described, relatively high error tolerances are acceptable. (Note: this tolerance is for END OF LIFE errors;

we anticipate deformation potential over time.)

Q67. Table 1: Beam quality “diffraction limited” appears to be an optical term and we’re not sure how it applies to an RF antenna. Please clarify.

A67. See A66.

Q68. Please define "Beam Quality < 4X diffraction limited" and how it is measured.

A68. See A66.

Q69. Please expound upon and clarify the meaning of the Beam Quality performance metric in Table 1. Is this intended to address antenna beamwidth, sidelobe level, aperture taper/distribution (i.e., deviation from uniform, diffraction limited aperture)?

A69. See A66.

Q70. Is the required “space environmental testing that should be conducted” (BAA page 6) a part of Phase 1A or Phase 1B?

A70. Space and/or environmental testing would be required as part of Phase 1B.

Q71. Referencing Section 2.I., Funding Opportunity Description: “Space environmental testing is expected to be conducted regardless of the demonstration location.” Is space environmental testing intended to be part of the Phase 1A scope?

A71. No. Space environmental testing and/or qualification is expected to be part of Phase 1B.

This sentence was meant to indicate only where testing is expected to be conducted, not the specific Phase of the BAA where it should be conducted. That said, proposed design and development should be able to meet the defined timeline of the BAA.

Q72. Referencing page 8, Section 2.I.B (Program Plan), "Phase 1A will also include an experiment design." Is execution of experiment expected in Phase 1A on Pathfinder or in Phase 1B?

A72. Phase 1A will include design of the experiment. Phase 1B will include the execution of the experiment.

Q73. Page 4 of the BAA indicates that Phase 1A will include a test of the RF processing unit in a relevant environment; however, no hardware is developed and appears to conflict with Tables 3&4. Please clarify.

A73. Per the BAA, “Phase 1A will include a detailed design verification and test of an antenna and/or RF processing unit to support demonstration of that unit in a relevant environment.” This initial testing in Phase 1A does not have to occur in a relevant environment, but should provide evidence that the proposed design will achieve the desired metrics in the space environment. For example, this testing may include laboratory bench testing and/or simulation of antenna performance.

Q74. Page 5 of the BAA says, “In this program, proposers will design and test a proof-of-concept antenna, and, if selected for Phase 1B, demonstrate and analyze and space-qualified antenna system…” and page 8 says, “The Phase 1A objective of this effort will be to complete the design of a technology pathfinder that meets the performance metrics of Section 2.I.C. Phase 1A will also include an experiment design that will verify the antenna and/or RF processing unit performance in a representative environment, as described above.”

The page 5 wording in the BAA suggests that a proof-of-concept hardware demo is expected as part of Phase 1A as a pre-cursor to the Phase 1B pathfinder demo, while the page 8 wording implies the testing is part of Phase 1B, and does not suggest any testing to be done during Phase 1A. Is proof of concept hardware testing required as part of Phase 1A? If yes, can you provide any further guidance on expectations regarding the proof-of-concept hardware (i.e., performance metrics, aperture size, etc.)?

A74. See A70, A71, A72, and A73.

Q75. In the BAA, it sounds like Phase 1A is just a design study (no build/experiment component). Is this correct?

A75. See A70, A71, A72, and A73.

Q76. Page 4 of the BAA states, "Phase 1A (9 months) will include the detailed design verification and test of an antenna and/or RF processing unit to support a demonstration of that unit in a relevant environment."

Nine months is short to design, build and deploy/RF test a pathfinder unit. I am interpreting this to mean that we do only "coupon testing" to make sure that our materials and RF components will support a demo in a relevant environment, namely vacuum, thermal, radiation of space, not a full-up RF-testing of the antenna in an anechoic chamber. Since on the same page it says that, "In the Phase 1B option (12 months), performers will build and demonstrate the pathfinder sub-system(s) ... in a relevant environment, as described above."

Can we assume then that we do "coupon testing" only in Phase 1A?

A76. See A70, A71, A72 and A73.

Q77. Is the >50 W peak power performance referenced in Table 1 the effective radiated RF power (including aperture gains and losses)? Table 1 appears to indicate that is the case.

A77. No. The peak power output goal is meant to be the total power output from the amplifier portion of TA-1 as an input into the antenna. It does not include aperture gains or losses.

Q78. Table 1: Can you clarify the cross section used for the areal compaction ratio? Is this a cross section that passes through the antenna boresight axis or one that’s perpendicular to the antenna boresight axis?

A78. Yes, the areal compaction ratio is the ratio of the aperture area to the average of the three cross-sectional areas (i.e., XY, XZ, YZ cross-sectional areas) of the stowed volume.

Q79. Referencing page 9, Section 2.I.C (Program Metrics), the Carrier frequencies listed in the table are >2 and >4 GHz. Is there a minimal bottom end of the operational frequencies? Or is this covered by the Bandwidth specified? Is there a desire for very wideband operation of both the antenna and signal processor?

A79. 2 and 4 GHz should be used as the bottom end of the operational frequencies required for operation. The signal bandwidth specified does not need to go lower than those goals. Wideband operation is desirable but not required.

Q80. Page 6 of the BAA says, “The proof-of-concept antenna and the pathfinder demonstration system should be fully functional to transmit and receive RF signals when provided an appropriate power supply and RF input/output interface.”

The above wording in the BAA, along with the inclusion of a peak power performance metric in Table 1, suggest that the TA1 antenna scope includes both the passive deployable antenna/feed and active RF transmit/receive hardware, e.g., a T/R module (HPA/LNA) for amplification and reception of RF power. Is this the correct interpretation?

A80. Both functions (antenna/feed and HPA/LNA) are required by TA-1. The functions may or may not be directly integrated.

Q81. Would inflatable antennas also considered for this submission?

A81. Yes.