L10_MOC_RFI_(2026)_FAQs_6.pdf

L10 Landsat 10

Landsat 10 (L10) Mission Operations Center (MOC)

Request for Information (RFI)

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

May 2026

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

What is the Most Important Thing About the MOC Procurement, Is it Cost ?

We need to both consider total lifecycle costs (development, mission readiness and operations) as well as system maturity to meet the accelerated mission test schedule (need initial MOC with T&C capability, in the operational MOC framework ASAP for early product development and no later than roughly two years from contract award)

Timing of MOC RFP The MOC RFP will intentionally be released after S/C bus vendor contract has been awarded and updated to reflect this decision. S/C vendor will be required to use XTCE standard for T&C database

Is there a USGS Preference for MOC Location, i.e. EROS/GSFC/Vendor location ?

We have no specific preference but are looking for the best option considering (total lifecycle) costs, obtaining and retaining skilled FOT staff, and ability to implement functionality in the required timeframe to support early product development and mission testing. FOT staff includes RealTime Ops, ground ops, gse, engineering, infrastructure, sustainment., mgmt, etc.

All options are on the table, but we would be interested in understanding costs and risks for each location (both for MOC systems and FOT staff)

MOC systems and FOT staff don’t necessarily need to be collocated, and FOT could possibly be in more than one location if it makes sense from a cost, skills-retention, and risk perspective

We are looking for vendors to define locations for FOT staff, by function/role as appropriate, and rationale (considering the need for overall security posture)

What About GFE ?

Document assumptions about use of GFE facilities and services in RFI response and cost spreadsheet

Note that there will also be GFE hardware S/C simulators that will need to be accommodated

It is unclear at this time if L10 will be able to use S/W-based encryption (for on prem H/W or in the cloud), so GFE may also include H/W encryptors for the CMD uplink

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs), 2

Would USGS be Interested in transitioning Landsat 8/9 (L8/9) in a New L10 MOC ?

Any L10 procurement is planned for a L10 MOC only, we don’t anticipate including scope to transition L8/9 into the new MOC contract at this time. USGS does not want planning for a possible L8/9 transition at a later date (e.g. – after L10 launch, commissioning and transition to ops) to drive up L10 MOC development or ops costs

This rational is based on budget constraints and the need to provide a clear return on investment (ROI) for that investment, given notional end-of-life (EOL) for L8 in the early 2030s and EOL for L9 in the mid to late 2030s timeframe

Note this does not apply if you are considering an augmentation of the existing L8/9 LMOC as the L10 MOC would inherently include L8/L9…

Would the USGS consider responses that address only a subset of the capabilities outlined in the RFI, or are respondents expected to address all capability areas comprehensively ?

We are looking for a complete L10 MOC solution that implements the functions described in the RF announcement (Attachment C L10 MOC Functions Summary 1.pdf) and provides an FOT

A complete L10 MOC solution is being sought, but the USGS would still be interested in receiving responses from vendors that don’t address the full scope

What Contracting Approach is USGS Intending to Use ?

While our current thinking is a “traditional” competitive procurement, the USGS is interested in hearing about different contracting vehicles and approaches that may provide value to the procurement process

The USGS may also be limited in rapid acquisition vehicles (e.g. – DOD OTA, etc.) that we are not able to use

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs), 3

Augmentation Study take-aways still valid?

While the 2023 Augmentation study was based on outdated assumptions for L10 (most notably, it’s no longer a triplet architecture), much of the analysis of the MOC subsystems is still valid, although to a lesser degree.

It’s worth noting that incremental improvements have been made to the system to address some of the most impactful issues.

Is innovation still an interest given cost constraints

Yes, USGS is looking for cost efficiency across the total lifecycle cost. Any innovation that creates savings is highly encouraged

What is envisioned as the support model for the FOT

Expect to have lights out automation delivered prior to launch with a phased implementation approach during commissioning with the objective of being fully operational (lights-out automation) by MTHR (L+100 days, i.e.

– a handover to ops)

Looking for efficient, yet reliable staffing approach recommendations that meet the operational needs

Would a MOC Service be of Interest ?

The USGS would be interested in hearing about any MOC-as-a-Service offering you may have, as well as how interaction between the MOC service and the customer would work (i.e. – How would the USGS have insight and/or oversight of flight operations)

Are there any MOC functions that may be considered GFE or external to the standard service offering ? If so, how would you propose that these functions would be integrated in ? 4

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs), 4

What is Required for Cloud Hosting ?

USGS requires the use of the Cloud Hosting Services (CHS) III vehicle to procure and implement cloud-based services within the USGS as a baseline approach (see Attachment I USGS CHS Cloud Responsibilities 1.pdf), though a waiver can be used if there is significant benefit for a different cloud implementation vehicle

It is expected that a cloud-based MOC will reside in a GovCloud environment to address IT and network security considerations

CHS III provides an environment for vendor implemented applications and infrastructure-as-code, with system admin for the environment. The vendor will need to provide system admin scope for their applications in cost estimates.

Who is Responsible for IT/Network Security Approvals and Authorization to Operate (ATO) ?

USGS and NASA will cooperatively work with the vendor to generate ATO documentation and the government will submit for approvals

Periodic renewals will be submitted by government, though vendors will support this process via documentation updates and support for any testing or other activities needed

This should be the same whether deploying containers or a complete (new) MOC environment

If Proposing an LMOC Augmentation, What Would Plan be for Integrating L8/9 Ops with L10 Work ?

Vendors should propose an approach and schedule for phasing the integration of L10 with current L8/9 ops, along with rationale, considering that risks to ongoing flight ops needs to be minimized

Costing information should be structured to clearly identify costs for L10 development/I&T separately from any L8/9 (re-) integration work

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs), 5

Can Availability Requirements be Relaxed, Especially if Proposing a Cloud Environment instead of On-Prem Server Hosting ?

Current L8/9 availability was based on the current LMOC on-prem H/W architecture

If using a different architecture for MOC systems, vendors should provide what availability they suggest is reasonable given the architecture (i.e. – different meaning for “uptime”), considering the intent to maintain continuity of operations (COO) for flight ops

Does USGS Have a Cost Target for the L10 MOC ?

We do not have a budget figure defined at this point

USGS is looking for best approach that meets requirements and schedule, within a cost-constrained budget

RFI is intended to help establish scope and competitive cost range for the MOC effort, so accurate cost data in the supplied format/template is essential for this

Can an RFI Response be Provided without Supporting Cost Data ?

The USGS will accept any inputs/response, but it will be difficult to apply technical data without supporting cost information (e.g. – cannot compare between various approaches and architectures, not able to assess ROI, etc.)

Will NASA SN/TDRSS be Used for L10 ?

L10 intends to use SN/TDRSS for launch and early orbit and less frequently during the commissioning period

It is likely that SN/TDRSS assets will not be available for long-term ops support and a DTE approach will be needed to address maneuvers and contingencies

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs), 6

Are There Any Lessons-Learned that are Applicable to L10 MOC Development ?

MOC RFP will be released after S/C bus contract has been awarded so vendors understand what S/C will be used for L10

Expect collision avoidance/debris environment to be more of a challenge for L10 given lower orbit and significant increase in LEO S/C population

Would like to see overall MOC ops costs decrease as steady-state operations is achieved (i.e. – would like to avoid an architecture or approach that locks in high ongoing ops, infrastructure or support costs)

Would like to see what efficiencies can be achieved via multi-mission (shared) resources and ops, or use of S/C vendor development work for development efficiencies

Would USGS be Interested in an Architecture that Includes GN Stations ?

The Ground Network (GN) is a separate L10 development element from the MOC

USGS is already working arrangements to use existing USGS assets, partner agency assets, and NASA-provided assets

The USGS would be interested in information that could be provided on an integrated architecture, but note that

GN requirements are still being developed, so key functionality cannot yet be defined

The USGS is also interested in vendor experience and lessons-learned about interacting with commercial stations

Will Optical Comm be Used for L10 ?

This will be determined by NASA via the S/C bus contract, the current baseline is Ka-Band for mission data D/Ls

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs), 7

What Format Should RFI Responses be in ?

Slides or a document (i.e. – white paper), we are flexible

Spreadsheet and cost data don’t count towards page count

Given L10 is Now Class-C, How Does that Change bMOC Requirements (Relative to L8/9

Requirements that were Provided) ?

The intent is to address continuity of operations (COO) for mission ops

Also need to consider elements that can’t be virtualized or moved to the cloud (e.g. – simulators, possibly encryption H/W, etc.)

We are revisiting requirements based on potential MOC architectures and having demonstrated the ability for effective remote operations in L9

What is Security Level for the L10 MOC ?

The MOC will be a FISMA Moderate system

Are There OCI Considerations for LMO, LSO, or TSSC Contracts ?

TSSC role is similar to L8/9, they provide technical support for USGS ground system development work, and will execute NDAs as required to work with a MOC vendor and subs

The LMO contract is reaching the end of the period of performance and the LSO contract will succeed it for L8/9 flight ops and MOC support

LSO is currently in the market research phase and a target date for RFP release has not yet been determined

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs), 8

Will There be Unfunded Options on the MOC Contract (i.e. – Work that is Currently

Unfunded, but Expect to be Funded in Outyears, etc.) ?

The USGS intends that all required scope will be in the MOC contract and fit within projected budget profiles

Plan is to have task orders (or equivalent vehicle) for H/W refresh, as needed

Options would primarily be annual renewals for flight ops and support, as well as possibly some scope for special studies