GLEAM Questions and Answers_1 Nov 2023.pdf

Question Response Is it expected that we include an arc jet testing matrix as part of the proposal? As a follow-on, being that some of the relevant facilities (NASA Ames, Arnold AFB) fall within government agencies, are we expected to steer clear of these test facilities for GLEAM?

Since arc jet testing is planned as a validation for this effort, having a test plan or matrix is encouraged. It is not expected that the performer steer clear of Government test facilities.

The solicitation indicates a 5-year period of performance. This would increase administrative and overhead costs by spreading the work over many years. Is it possible to shrink the PoP to say 3 years? How would that work then… the start date would be delayed or the end date would be moved up? Or do respondents need to stick to the current 5 year plan with the year-wise $ breakdown as listed in the SOO (e.g. FY26 is $1.0M, FY27 is $1.0M, etc)

As of right now, the funding profile in the SOO breaks down what is available for each FY for GLEAM, so planning should be based around that breakdown. There are efforts to move funding around to accommodate a 3-year effort, and if that happens the end date would be move up.

The SOO states “The current schedule is constrained by funding; however, if new funding becomes available, it may be possible to accelerate the schedule. Therefore, opportunities to accelerate the schedule should be identified in the proposal.” Does that mean we should provide an accelerated schedule alternative as well (plus alternative costing)?

Currently the available funding for GLEAM is over a 5-year period. There are on-going efforts to potentially procure some of the funding earlier, so this can be condensed down into a 3-year period. It is encouraged that an alternate accelerated schedule, plus alternative costing, be provided in case this situation becomes an option.

While the GLEAM BAA does not specifically state ceramic materials it is however being released by the Ceramics branch. Does this imply you are only looking for ceramic solutions or would novel cermet solutions that are shape stable be considered. Thank you.

While GLEAM will be managed by the Ceramics branch, we will consider non ceramic solutions if they address the requirements of a leading edge and GLEAM.

Is the cost of the arc jet testing to be included in the contractor costs or will it be considered GFE? Included in contractor costs

Are you able to provide CUI-level information on the OML of a vehicle and a trajectory(s) that are representative of the intended application?

The focus of GLEAM is further maturing addressing currently favored coated carbon/carbon and coated or uncoated UHTC containing substrate approaches suffer from immature and inconsistent processing, gaps in knowledge of processing-to-structure, structure-to-performance, materials performance, degradation mechanisms, and optimum configuration, as well as inadequate analytical tools. The gaps in understanding and process control result in inconsistent performance and/or sub-optimum performance. That being said the intent for technologies developed on GLEAM would be towards higher Mach numbers associated with boost glide. Conditions for sharp leading edges of a vehicle including its control surfaces, inlets or similar that experience high heat flux exposures where traditional carbon or silicon carbide based materials or composites would unfavorably recess or change shape

Is GLEAM targeted for a specific potential end use? Any related or supported programs? As of right now it is not targeted for a specific program, but it is envisioned that the technology developed under GLEAM would be applicable towards higher Mach numbers, such as those associated with boost glide.

Along the same lines of related or supported programs, there is some tasking focused on manufacturing readiness and performing a MRA. Is this strictly to ensure manufacturability of the final solution? Is this a larger secondary goal? The MRA effort is included but not funded by the GLEAM program so I was curious what your thoughts/ideas are on that portion of the program.

Regarding a MRA, as of right now the funding is not initially available with GLEAM, but efforts are ongoing to secure that funding and add it onto the GLEAM effort. The purpose is to help ensure manufacturability and that there is consistency and understanding of the processing to produce leading edges. The idea is to have this complement what will occur under the GLEAM effort.

Is there a vision for this program to run in parallel with other ManTech programs? It was noted that any ManTech related efforts are not being funded, though they may be discovered under the GLEAM program.

Regarding ManTech, as of right now there is not a parallel ManTech effort but one of the goals of GLEAM is to help guide and shape future follow-on efforts with ManTech.

Q&A FA8650-23-S-5003

GLEAM BAA

Are there any application temperature ranges that have been noted for this effort that you can discuss? The intent for technologies developed on GLEAM would be towards higher Mach numbers associated with boost glide.

Temperatures and conditions for sharp leading edges of a vehicle including its control surfaces, inlets or similar that experience high heat flux exposures where traditional carbon or silicon carbide based materials or composites would unfavorably recess or change shape would be of interest.

Material systems are not discussed directly but could you suggest if both awards are aimed at advancing a single technology or trying to broaden technologies that could be used. Are non-conventional leading edge materials (such as metallic) system expected or encouraged?

For the two awards with GLEAM, one will be towards a ultra-high temperature ceramic (UHTC) containing or other type of coatings on C/C substrates and the other would be a substrate material, such as UHTC-containing, with or without coatings.

Other material systems can be proposed if the material can withstand (i.e. not unfavorably recess or change shape) higher Mach numbers associated with boost glide or other high mach systems, as well as meeting the other requirements of

GLEAM.

What TRL / MRL levels is this program targeting? Would a newer (and less mature) technology be responsive to this call?

The target TRL/MRL for the end of GLEAM are notionally 6/4 respectively. One of the main goals of GLEAM is to mature and validate material options to reduce variability, scrap rate, cost, lead times and potentially improved capability. While less mature technologies can be proposed, our interest and assessment for the program will be towards maturing technologies and not materials discovery.

Do you have an envisioned start and end TRL/MRL? TRL 6 and MRL 4

The Statement of Objectives requires Research and Development, Hardware, Software, and Samples, Prototypes, Test Articles, and Residual. Can you please elaborate on the requirements of these deliverables, or will that be provided later if awarded? (i.e. What specific hardware and software is expected to be delivered? What exactly do you mean by test articles and residual?

For the deliverables, the main test articles would be the leading edges produced under this program and tested, along with the data from that testing. Other requirements such as the hardware and software will likely depend on what is proposed and can be specififed if awarded.

For the panel of experts, will we need to have those people confirmed when the GLEAM proposal is submitted? It is not required to have the panel confirmed when the proposal is submitted. A notional list identifying experts would be sufficient.

Can we propose more than the $2.7/5.4M the effort currently has? There is no guarantee that the budget will be increased past what is currently planned. If you would like to propose past the current amount, it is recommended that it be included through options. A budget higher than what is plan won't outright disqualify a proposal, but the budget will be one of the factors during assessment.

Is there a leading edge reference geometry to use in this effort? As of right now there is not a non-proprietary reference geometry that can be shared.

Is GLEAM connected to a specific hypersonics program? As of right now, no GLEAM is not connected to a specific hypersonics program. GLEAM is focused on advancing the technology to produce more consistent and reliable leading edges, particularly for higher mach numbers such as with boost glide.

What is the classification of this effort? Unclassfied/CUI

For the panel of gov’t and external experts that GLEAM calls out… do we account for the time (and cost) of external experts within our proposal (e.g. attend periodic review meetings). I’m assuming we wouldn’t need to account for any gov’t experts time/cost.

Cost for external experts should be accounted for. With the proposal, a firm list of confirmed experts is not required. A notional list and budget for certain individuals is acceptable. It is not expected to account for a Government experts time/cost

Q&A FA8650-23-S-5003

GLEAM BAA

Sheet1