EIO Anomaly Response RFI Questions and Answers.pdf

EIO Anomaly Response (AR) RFI Q&A Session held on February 6, 2026

1) What is the intent behind the phrase “target configurations in the solicitation”.

There is specific interest in technologies and approaches that are applicable across system and target configurations. The intent is to communicate interest in solutions that apply broadly rather than to a single system or mission configuration. NASA is seeking techniques, technologies, methods, and solutions that can be generalized across the potential problem and solution space.

2) What was intended by the Feature engineering, which was used a few places where we expressed interest in technologies that could help with feature engineering?

When NASA refers to feature engineering, it means the process of selecting, creating, or modifying input variables or data to enable machine learning models to learn patterns more effectively.

3) Will this RFI lead to an RFP?

There is currently no plan for an RFP. This RFI is exploratory and issued for the purpose of market research. NASA seeks to understand the state-of-the-art, including technologies and solutions available and in use across industry and academia. The information gathered will help inform planning and identify potential areas for future collaboration or partnership.

4) What does NASA consider as a strong response to an RFI?

A strong response clearly defines the capabilities offered, their maturity level, the problems addressed, and the proposed approach to Earth Independent Operations (EIO). NASA values realism, clarity regarding limitations and risks, and thoughtful discussion of integration, validation, and transition considerations. These elements are preferred over speculative or overly broad claims.

5) Is there a specific consideration regarding interaction with autonomous subsystems?

Interaction between crew and autonomous systems is within scope for consideration.

In anomaly response scenarios, actions may involve a combination of crew-executed and autonomous operations, whether performed by robotic assistants or other automated systems. A core principle is preservation of crew authority. Autonomous actions should allow for crew awareness and, where feasible, the ability to override, adapt, or adjust those actions. In rapidly evolving situations, full crew intervention may not always be possible; however, crew authority remains an important design consideration.

6) Is there a priority among the primary objective areas?

Teams with expertise in any of the Anomaly Response primary objective areas are encouraged to respond. The RFI is intended to help NASA better understand what technologies, skill sets, and team compositions are necessary to enable effective EIO.

NASA seeks input from industry and academia regarding the current state-of-the-art, emerging capabilities, and the research being conducted to advance these technologies. The information gathered will inform future planning and potential partnerships.

7) Is there a foundational capability necessary to support EIO?

NASA has a broad interest in technologies that could be applied to EIO, whether developed for aerospace or other domains. While NASA has defined internal work plans, this RFI is intended to expand awareness of existing and emerging technologies that could support the articulated objectives. Respondents are encouraged to describe how their work advances the state-of-the-art and addresses the challenges identified in the objectives.

8) Is NASA considering multi-agent systems for monitoring and control?

NASA’s current approach considers the potential applicability of multi-agent systems, particularly in diagnostics and system assessment. However, NASA does not intend to limit input to a specific architectural approach. Different systems may require different solutions. Approaches that involve multiple agents working collaboratively to assess and manage various subsystems may be appropriate, and NASA welcomes input that expands beyond current assumptions.

9) Is network bandwidth planned to support over-the-air (OTA) updates?

NASA is considering software architectures that support incremental updates to software systems and related infrastructure components.

10) Will responsibilities be distributed between orbit and Earth, or will systems be fully autonomous?

Future space missions will continue to involve ground support as an integral component of operations. The ground will remain actively engaged in monitoring and providing input. The focus of this effort is a specific aspect of enabling missions to Mars, particularly situations in which communication delays or rapidly evolving conditions require the crew to operate with greater autonomy. While ground systems will continue to monitor and provide support, the crew must have access to the information and tools necessary to respond effectively when immediate onboard action is required.

11) Will Anomaly Response be continuously active or triggered in specific modes?

The current EIO Concept of Operations (ConOps) envisions Anomaly Response capabilities being available throughout the mission to Mars. NASA’s traditional Fault Detection, Isolation, and Recovery (FIDR) capabilities will also remain active as part of mission management. Anomaly Response is intended to support situations in which an anomaly is detected and enhanced crew decision-making and response capabilities are required.