HR001118S0032-Amendment-01.pdf

HR001118S0032

Broad Agency Announcement

Blackjack

Tactical Technology Office

HR001118S0032

Amendment 01

May 25, 2018

The purpose of this amendment is to make revisions to language in the following sections, which are highlighted in yellow throughout the document:

PART II.I.B. Program Overview – Figure 1, page 8

PART II.I.D. Bus and Payload Development Plan, pages 9 and 11

PART II.IV.B.2 Proposal Format, pages 28, 30, 31, 32 and 36

PART II.IV.B.4 Submission Information, page 44

PART II.VI.A.1 A Selection Notices and Notifications of abstracts, page 50

PART II.VI.B.1 Meeting and Travel Requirements, page 50

Contents

PART I: OVERVIEW INFORMATION

PART II: FULL TEXT OF ANNOUNCEMENT

I. Funding Opportunity Description

A. Program Vision B. Program Overview C. Design Reference Mission:

D. Bus and Payload Development Plan E. Commoditized Bus F. Payloads G. Pit Boss (Autonomous Control Element)

II. Award Information A. General Award Information B. Proposals and Awards C. Fundamental Research

III. Eligibility Information A. Eligible Applicants B. Organizational Conflicts of Interest C. Cost Sharing/Matching

IV. Application and Submission Information A. Address to Request Application Package B. Content and Form of Application Submission

V. Application Review Information A. Evaluation Criteria B. Review of Proposals

VI. Award Administration Information A. Selection Notices and Notifications B. Administrative and National Policy Requirements C. Reporting D. Electronic Systems

VII. Agency Contacts VIII. Other Information

PART I: OVERVIEW INFORMATION

Federal Agency Name – Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), Tactical Technology Office (TTO)

Funding Opportunity Title – Blackjack Announcement Type – Initial Announcement Funding Opportunity Number – HR001118S0032 Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) – Not applicable Dates o Proposers’ Day: March 15, 2018 o Posting Date: April 19, 2018 o Deadline to Request Copies of the Classified and Export Controlled Appendices:

April 27, 2018 o Abstract Due Date and Time (indicate Eastern Time): May 7, 2018 by 4 p.m.

Eastern Time o Questions Due Date: May 11, 2018 by 2 p.m. Eastern Time o Proposal Due Date and Time: June 6, 2018 by 2 p.m. Eastern Time

Concise description of the funding opportunity: Blackjack will develop and demonstrate a low earth orbit constellation that provides global persistent coverage.

Total amount anticipated to be awarded – The total planned budget for award is $117.5M over three phases of the Blackjack program, which is expected to be awarded to two to eight bus and/or payload performers. The program anticipates future announcements and awards that are not encompassed by this BAA that will be utilized to procure autonomy hardware and software, launch services, ground systems, and constellation flight operations.

Anticipated individual awards – Multiple awards are anticipated.

Types of instruments that may be awarded – Procurement contract or other transaction.

Agency contact o Points of Contact The BAA Coordinator for this effort can be reached at:

HR001118S0032@darpa.mil

DARPA/TTO

ATTN: HR001118S0032

675 North Randolph Street Arlington, VA 22203-2114

Other – Appendices containing additional export controlled and classified information are available upon request as described in Section IV.A of Part II of this announcement.

PART II: FULL TEXT OF ANNOUNCEMENT

I. Funding Opportunity Description

This publication constitutes a Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) as contemplated in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 6.102(d)(2) and 35.016 and 2 CFR § 200.203. Any resultant award negotiations will follow all pertinent law and regulation, and any negotiations and/or awards for procurement contracts will use procedures under FAR 15.4, Contract Pricing, as specified in the BAA.

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) is soliciting innovative proposals in the following technical area(s): low cost space payloads and/or commoditized satellite buses. Proposed research should investigate innovative approaches that enable revolutionary advances in low size, weight, power, and cost (SWaP-C) payloads that provide military utility from a distributed low earth orbit (LEO) constellation and in commoditized satellite buses capable of hosting military payloads assuming their primary commercial payloads for user terminal connectivity are not installed. Specifically excluded is research that results in evolutionary improvements to the existing state of practice of small quantities of exquisite high-value spacecraft.

DARPA envisions five separate categories of contracts across multiple opportunities;

commoditized bus, payload, autonomy/integration, launch, and operations. This BAA is focused on the first two categories: payloads (Track A) and commoditized buses (Track B). Offerors may propose multiple concepts to Track A – payloads and/or a single concept to Track B – commoditized buses, and teaming is encouraged. Offerors should submit a single proposal per proposer DUNS number containing all concepts. Each concept should be separable and severable from any other proposed concepts including a separate Statement of Work, Volume II - Cost Proposal, and Attachment 2 – Cost Summary for each concept. Offerors may not propose solutions that require integration of a specific bus with a specific payload, and no combined bus/payload concept will be accepted. Each bus and payload concept proposed must include its own cost table as outlined in Attachment 2. DARPA includes a notional constellation in Section I.C, however, offerors should include bus/payload mission vignettes to highlight the military utility of their proposed concept and are free to use a low earth orbit constellation that differs from the DARPA notional constellation. Proposals that result in a public/private partnership will be considered.

A. Program Vision

National Security Space (NSS) assets, critical to our warfighting capabilities, are traditionally placed in geosynchronous orbit to deliver persistent overhead access to any point on the globe. In the increasingly contested space environment, these exquisite, costly, and monolithic systems have become vulnerable targets that would take years to replace if degraded or destroyed and their long development schedules preclude orbital systems that are responsive to new threats. The goal of the Blackjack program is to develop and demonstrate the critical technical elements for building a global high-speed network backbone in low earth orbit (LEO) that enables highly networked, resilient, and persistent DoD payloads that provide infinite over the horizon sensing, signals, and communication, and hold the ground, surface, and air domains in global constant custody.

Historically, DoD satellites have been custom-designed to specific mission sets with lengthy design and/or enhancement cycles at a high cost per spacecraft. The evolution of commercial space has led to the design of LEO constellations intended for broadband internet service, of which the design and manufacturing could offer economies of scale previously unavailable in the space arena. DARPA is interested in leveraging these advances in order to demonstrate military utility, emphasizing a commoditized bus and low-cost interchangeable payloads with short design cycles and frequent technology upgrades. The Blackjack architecture is founded on the concept that ‘good enough’ payloads can be optimized around an ability to fly on more than one type of bus. Commoditized buses can be specified via mechanical, electrical, software, and mesh network (both satellite to satellite, and satellite to ground) interface control to provide a platform for dozens or hundreds of different types of proliferated LEO payloads.

The Blackjack program has three primary objectives designed to achieve the overall program goal. Objective 1 is to develop payload and mission-level autonomy software and demonstrate autonomous orbital operations including on-orbit distributed decision processors.

This will be achieved through autonomous maintenance of spacecraft orbit, spacecraft health, constellation configuration, and the network architecture. Payloads will be developed to operate autonomously with on-orbit data processing, and the system will autonomously perform shared tasks on-orbit based on high-level system directives. Objective 2 is to develop and implement advanced commercial manufacturing for military payloads and the spacecraft bus. Blackjack will develop high-rate manufacturing using COTS-like parts, reduced screening and acceptance testing for individual spacecraft, and reduced expectations for spacecraft life. Mission assurance will be achieved at the constellation level enabling individually expendable low-cost spacecraft nodes. Objective 3 is to demonstrate payloads in LEO to augment NSS. The driver will be to show LEO performance that is on par with current GEO systems with the spacecraft combined bus, payload(s), and launch costs under $6M per orbital node while the payloads meet size, weight, and power (SWaP) constraints of the commercial bus.

The Blackjack program is an architecture demonstration intending to show the high military utility of global LEO constellations and mesh networks of lower size, weight, and cost spacecraft nodes, and no single type or size of bus or mission/payload type will be optimal for this demonstration. The program will select payload performers from two to six mission areas to complete PDR/CDR level design and development and ensure the overall Blackjack architecture is viable for multiple payload types. Rolling down-selects of one or two primary payloads that will launch on the demonstration satellites will occur during the course of the program.

The program will consider commoditized buses that have existing or in-development production lines that can accommodate a wide range of military payload types without redesign or retooling of the production line for each payload, recognizing that optimal payload performance probably will not be achieved without a specified bus/payload integration early in the design cycle. Once selected, the buses will be expected to accommodate both the Blackjack payloads and multiple types of payloads for potential follow on DOD programs without redesign of the bus. Blackjack will demonstrate that ‘good enough’ payloads in LEO can perform military missions, augment existing programs, and, over longer time scales than this demonstration, potentially provide mission level results that are on par or better than currently deployed exquisite space systems.

The payloads in the Blackjack spacecraft will be designed in a reciprocal fashion to the commodity buses in that no direct consideration of a specific bus will be used in the initial design. Selection of a payload to fly on a specific bus will not occur until after Payload PDR.

Payload providers will be provided draft interface documents at program kick-off that define the interfaces and environments of each bus under consideration for flight. Payloads will be capable of modular attachment to more than one size or type of Blackjack commoditized bus, and designed with simplicity of mechanical, electrical, and network interfaces as a key requirement.

Optical payloads will endure more jitter and less bus-level pointing accuracy than is standard on custom optical spacecraft, and RF payloads will endure higher levels of bus-driven electromagnetic interference at certain frequencies than is standard on custom RF spacecraft.

To reduce integration risk among various payloads and buses, Blackjack will develop an avionics unit consisting of a high speed processor and encryption devices that every Blackjack payload will connect to directly for network and electrical interface. This unit, named the ‘Pit Boss’ will fly on each Blackjack spacecraft in order to provide a common electrical interface to each payload, provide mission level autonomy functions, enable on-orbit edge computing, manage communication between Blackjack on-orbit nodes and ground users, provide CMD/TLM link to the bus, and encrypt payload data before it is transmitted through the commercial network. The payload mechanical interface will not be to the Pit Boss but direct to a custom payload deck that will provide a flat surface for location of inserts or other attach hardware and will provide typical LEO nadir facing view factors for thermal radiation of excess heat along with limited plate thermal conductance.

Every Blackjack orbital node will consist of one commoditized bus capable of broadband rate global communications to other nodes, one Pit Boss control unit, and one or more military payloads capable of operating in autonomous modes for over 24 hours providing space to tactical mission effects for DOD users. A general spacecraft node block diagram is shown in Figure 2.

B. Program Overview

The program is divided into three phases (see Figure 1). Phase 1 will focus on the research and the exploration for the development of the system requirements and preliminary designs. This first phase will include two tracks: Track A for Military Payload development and Track B for Commoditized Spacecraft Bus. DARPA anticipates selecting up to six teams for Track A (Payload) and up to two teams for Track B (Bus) during Phase 1. It is anticipated that up to four Track A performers and two Track B performers will be selected to continue from Phase 1. For Phase 3, up to three Track A performers will be selected to continue from Phase 2 along with one Track B performer.

It is anticipated that a separate BAA or other solicitation, (BAA2 in Figure 1), will be released to procure the Autonomous Control Element (Pit Boss) and Algorithm development along with the system engineering and integration role. Launch and Ground Systems, are anticipated to be solicited through BAA2 (Autonomy Systems). Figure 1 illustrates the notional Blackjack schedule. Figure 2 provides a block diagram of the primary elements of the Blackjack satellite and related interfaces.

FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22

Award

K-O SRR PDR

K-O SRR PDR

BAA1

BAA1

Awards

Phase 1

Award

K-O SRR

Lab

Demo

Phase 2

Launch 2 S/C

CDR

Deliver

P/Ls

CDR

Deliver

Bus

CDR

Control Elements & SoftwarePDR

2 S/C

S/C Demo Complete

Launch 18 S/C

Theater-wide Demo

Complete

Architecture, Autonomy & Payload Studies

BAA1 – Bus and Payloads

Payload Development

Spacecraft Bus Development

BAA2 – Autonomy and System Eng’g

Autonomous Control and Algorithm Development

System Engineering and Integration

Spacecraft On-orbit Demo (2 S/C)

Theater-wide Space-to-Tactical Demo (20 S/C)

Phase 3

BAA2

BAA2

Awards Integrated

Spacecraft

Archit.

Def’n

Launch 2 S/C

Launch 18 S/C

Demo Complete

(multiple performers)

(multiple performers)

(multiple performers)

18 P/Ls Tech Refresh

Deliver 18 Buses 18 S/C

18 Ctrl Elements and S/W

Refine algorithms

1st down-select Initial Bus & P/L delivery

Bus IDD TPMs

BAA2

I.D./

BAA-1

I.D./

BAA-2

Figure 1. Notional Program Schedule

Payload 1

• Data

Generation

• Initial Data

Processing

Payload 2

• Data

Generation

• Initial Data

Processing

Payload 3

• Data

Generation

• Initial Data

Processing

Router

En cr yp tio n

• Data Encryption

• Packet Routing

• Power

Switching

• P/L Management

• P/L Tasking

• P/L Scheduling

• Satellite Resource

Management

• Constellation

Management

• Clock

Pit Boss

Bus

• Power

• Attitude

• Propulsion

• TT&C

• Network

• Satellite Links

• Network Teleport

• Constellation Priorities

• DoD C3

• User Terminal

Ground

Blackjack Spacecraft

Nodes

Commercial Spacecraft

Nodes

Mechanical

Mechanical, Electrical, Network

Current BAA

Co m m er cia l L ink

TT&C or Gateway

Blackjack Spacecraft

Figure 2. Blackjack Satellite Block Diagram

C. Design Reference Mission:

DARPA’s objective for the Blackjack program is to demonstrate a distributed low-earth orbit constellation that provides global persistent coverage with a total cost of ownership that is less than a single exquisite military satellite. It is envisioned that the Blackjack satellites would operate near, or be proliferated within, a commercial constellation with communications and operations provided by the commercial constellation. The Blackjack satellites will not be an integral or required element of the commercial constellation and will operate independently.

The operational (long-term) design reference mission is for a tens-of-satellites (60 – 200) constellation operating between 500km and 1,300km altitude with one or more payloads on each satellite. Each satellite is envisioned to cost less than $6M including its launch cost. A single operations center will cover all government satellites/payloads irrespective of the payload(s) on each satellite, and the constellation will be capable of operating without the operations center for 30 days. The operations center will be manned by no more than two people whose primary function is setting constellation level priorities. Blackjack payload data processing will be performed on-orbit without the assistance of ground data processing.

The reference demonstration mission for this BAA is based on 20 spacecraft in two planes with one or more payloads on each satellite. The payload(s) may differ between satellites.

The 20 spacecraft demonstration mission will simulate global constant custody in 3000-4000 km wide theaters for multiple hours per day to enable theater-wide autonomous operations.

D. Bus and Payload Development Plan

Blackjack will use a three phase program approach leading to an on-orbit demonstration of a 20 spacecraft constellation with one or more military payloads on each of the spacecraft. In Phase 1 (Architecture and Design), bus and payload requirements will be defined in a System Requirements Review (SRR) and each bus or payload will then be matured to the Preliminary Design Review (PDR) level with only ICD information provided at program kick-off. Phase 2 (Detailed Design and Integration) will develop specific bus/payload(s) for a two satellite on-orbit demonstration with the bus, payload, and pit boss performers collaborating for an integrated solution. The performers selected for Phase 2 will mature the remaining bus and payload concepts through Critical Design Review (CDR). After CDR, a second selection for Phase 2, Option 1, will occur to select those performers that will build flight hardware. Each bus and payload provider selected to build flight hardware must deliver two flight units and one engineering demonstration unit. Phase 3 (Launch and Demonstration) is a two-plane demonstration of an objective system. Two initial spacecraft will be delivered for integration with the launch vehicle and then launched into Low Earth Orbit. A six month on-orbit demonstration will be performed, and based on its success, will be followed by the fully populated two-plane demonstration. Any bus or payload performer selected for Phase 3 should plan to deliver 18 additional flight units.

Deliverables: All offerors should structure their deliverables as described below.

o Phase 1 – Design work up to and including PDR (Track A&B); one Bus emulator/simulator for government hardware-in-the-loop (HWIL) lab (Track B);

20 commercial user terminals – AESA or functional equivalent (Track B); two Payload scene emulator/simulator for HWIL lab (Track A) o Phase 2 – Design work up to and including CDR (Track A&B) o Phase 2, Option 1 – Build one engineering demonstration unit and two flight units

(Track A&B) o Phase 3 – Build 18 additional flight units (Track A&B) o Potential Follow-on – Build 70 additional flight units at a rate of one to two per week, or build flight units to complete the proposed full constellation if the proposed total differs from the reference constellation 90 spacecraft (Track A&B)

NOTE: A Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) cost only is requested for Phases 2 and 3 plus a potential follow-on effort.

Table 1 provides the expectations for the primary program deliverables at key milestones in the program. Performers should identify any additional deliverables required to support the program objectives. To support integration and future transition opportunities, DARPA expects at a minimum to receive government purpose rights for the following deliverables provided under this effort: Item 4, 5, 6, and 8.

Table 1 – Primary Data Deliverables

Item Track Deliverable Kickoff SRR PDR CDR End of Phase 2

End of Phase 3

1 A&B Milestone data packages and presentations working days in advance working days in advance working days in advance working days in advance working days in advance working days in advance

2 A&B Integrated Master Schedule

Due Updated Updated Updated Updated Final

3 A&B Risk Management Plan

Due Updated Updated Final

4 A Payload Specifications

Due Updated Updated Updated Final

5 A Payload Interface Control Documents (ICDs)*

Due Updated Updated Updated Final

6 A Payload Design Data Package

Due Updated Updated Final

7 B Bus Specifications

Due Updated Updated Updated Final

8 B Bus ICDs* Due Updated Updated Updated Final 9 A&B Test plans Due Updated Updated Final 10 A&B Test results and analyses for all major

As required

As required

As required

Final

Item Track Deliverable Kickoff SRR PDR CDR End of Phase 2

End of Phase 3 risk reduction activities

*NOTE: Payload ICDs includes Payload to Bus and Payload to Pit Boss interfaces; Bus ICDs include Bus to Payload, Bus to Pit Boss, Blackjack Bus to Blackjack Bus, Blackjack Bus to Commercial Bus, and Blackjack Bus to Ground (TT&C, Network Teleport, and/or User Terminal)

Both bus and payload proposers are expected to meet the milestones and deliverable dates defined in Table 2 assuming a Q4 FY18 award.

Table 2- Milestones and Deliverable Dates

Phase Payload Bus Integration Launch Q4 FY18 Kickoff Kickoff

Q1 FY19 SRR SRR

Q3 FY19 PDR PDR

Q4 FY19 Selections announced

Q1 FY20 CDR CDR

Q1 FY20 Selections announced Q3 FY20 Prototype delivery

(two flight units;

one engineering demonstration unit)

Prototype delivery (two flight units;

one engineering demonstration unit)

Q1 FY21 Integrated S/C delivery

Q2 FY21 Launch 2 prototype S/C

Q3 FY21 Flight article delivery (qty 18)

Flight article delivery (qty 18)

Q4 FY21 Integrated S/C delivery

Q4 FY21 Launch 2 planes; 10 S/C per plane

In addition to the deliverables outlined above, the performer shall also provide the following:

Monthly technical and financial status reports Monthly Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) updates, MS Project format

Final Report

Design Reviews: The Performer will execute an SRR, PDR and a CDR with content and entrance and exit criteria tailored from a recognized industry or military standard (e.g., Defense Acquisition Guidance (DAG) guidelines available at https://dag.dau.mil and MIL-STD-1521B are suggested sources) for appropriate application to a technology demonstration program.

Proposals should clearly address how these standards will be tailored in the proposed effort. Any tailoring of design review content and criteria must include an assessment of the design maturation of the bus or payload, technical risk, and incorporate demonstrable bus/payload technology maturation progress and achievements. Blackjack bus or payload system design review expectations for those aspects of the program are outlined below followed by specific SRR, PDR and CDR guidance and incorporated into the performer’s comprehensive list of tailored design review criteria. The tailored SRR, PDR and CDR entrance and exit criteria, as well as the tailored SRR, PDR and CDR content checklists will be evaluated to assess the adequacy of the proposed systems engineering processes. In addition, these checklists will need to be approved by the government prior to the start of the reviews to allow the government to understand and assess the adequacy of the proposed tailoring of these reviews.

General:

Requirements Development - A complete set of Bus-interface and/or Payload demonstration system performance and design requirements is established down to the lowest expected level of the system hierarchy (i.e., system, subsystem, and component) for the subject review. Each requirement must include verification provisions. System interfaces are identified and documented.

Design Definition - The conceptual design of the operational Bus-interface and/or Payload system architecture is established down to the lowest expected level of the system hierarchy for the subject review, satisfies established requirements, and is sufficiently detailed to enable the next level of design definition. Appropriate design margins are identified and maintained.

Risk Management - Technical risks are identified and assessed (e.g., consequence and likelihood). Mitigation plans are in place along with associated completion criteria.

Technical risks have been updated with results of any mitigation activities.

Technology Maturation – Bus-interface and/or Payload system attributes requiring maturation have been identified and associated analysis, test, and demonstration objectives have been documented. The representative test article design is documented.

SRR

Requirements Development – Bus-interface and/or Payload (Level 1) requirements and preliminary allocation of subsystem (Level 2) requirements are complete. Preliminary interfaces defined – Bus to Payload; Bus to Pit Boss; Bus to Commercial Constellation;

Payload to Pit Boss.

Conceptual Design – Bus-interface and/or Payload conceptual design is completed and approach is shown to be feasible through initial analysis. A pathway to the preliminary design is identified.

Software Development – Payload software development plan including verification and validation approach https://dag.dau.mil/

Trade Studies – Results of any trade studies completed to validate design approach.

Cost – initial cost estimates are documented and show a feasible path to Payload and Bus

Bill of Materials (BOM) cost that meets cost metrics

PDR

Requirements Development – Bus-interface and/or Payload (Level 1) and subsystem

(Level 2) requirements are complete. Initial verification methods (e.g., Analysis, Integration, Test, and Demonstration) are identified. External interfaces are documented (Bus to Payload; Bus to Pit Boss; Bus to Commercial Constellation; Bus to Bus; Payload to Pit Boss; and Payload to Bus).

Design Definition – Assess the allocated design documented in subsystem requirements.

Bus-interface and/or Payload preliminary design is complete to the subsystem level (Level 2), closes around documented requirements, adequately demonstrates that performance achieves minimum and maximum threshold ranges, and payloads meet SWaP-C constraints.

Software Development – Development plan with processes and metrics to measure progress.

Risk Management – Risks must include bus and payload design risks.

Technology Maturation - Desired technology maturation can be achieved via planned development within program budget and schedule. Test plans define objectives and expected results that will validate design proof-of-concept.

Cost – Revised Payload and Bus BOM cost based on preliminary design is documented and within established cost metrics.

CDR

Requirements Development – Bus-interface and Payload component (Level 3) requirements are complete. Verification approach for each requirement has been established. Internal interfaces between subsystems are documented.

Design Definition – Bus-interface and Payload critical designs are complete to the component level (Level 3) and achieves compliance with all associated requirements.

Cost – Final design Payload and Bus BOM costs are documented and within cost metrics.

Government Management Approach and Operations: The Government recognizes that a streamlined, collaborative management approach is essential to achieving the program technical, cost, and schedule objectives. The Government Program Office is comprised of a core technical and programmatic team, which may be augmented with Government-led Integrated Product Teams (IPT) for targeted technical disciplines, for example, systems engineering, integration, modeling & simulation, etc. The performers will interface with the Government team via coordination meetings at the technical level, status meetings at the management level and quarterly program management reviews. The proposers are asked to provide a management approach to allow for collaboration with the Government team to ensure a successful program.

E. Commoditized Bus

DARPA is seeking offerors to provide a commoditized satellite bus offering various payload options, along with constellation communication services and architecture services. The bus should be as identical as possible to a commercial bus save for the removal of commercial payload elements and the substitution of military payloads.

All bus offerors should meet the following Bus Nominal Parameters in order to be considered for an award. Buses that provide similar or greater mission utility with greater accommodation capability in available payload volume, mass accommodated, and power provided are anticipated to be of greater overall value to the Blackjack mission.

Table 3 -Key Bus Parameters Parameter Nominal Payload Volume and Max Dimensions

> 50 x 50 x 50 cm (stowed)

Payload Mass > 45 kg Payload Power > 150W (orbit avg)

> 500W (peak) Payload Thermal Dissipation > 100W (orbit avg)

> 300W (peak for 5 min) Per Unit Bus Cost (Recurring with AI&T)

< $3M recurring

Per Unit Launch Cost < $4M Payload Data Throughput > 1 Mbps Design Life 2 years at 95% confidence Autonomy (ops without human interaction)

> 1day, with 30 day goal

Bus proposers should address the following aspects in their proposals, as applicable:

Commercial constellation OV-1, to include: space and ground elements, purposes, and rollout schedules Constellation status, to include: development status and schedule, current and future production rates, launch campaign and approach Space and ground network topology, to include: space to space, space to ground, ground to ground, data routing approach/control, encryption architecture and cyber security, data throughputs and latencies, data prioritization/quality of service capabilities, teleport locations, protocols, management, command and control

Space and ground communications network description, including at least topology, services offered, ROM costs for satellite to satellite and satellite to ground data, external interfaces, protocols and standards employed or adhered to, management and control methods, security/IA provisioning, and cyber protection mechanisms

Constellation design, to include: altitude, inclination, eccentricity, right ascension of the ascending node (RAAN), number of planes, number of satellites per plane, and constellation expansion plan

Constellation operations, to include: operation center locations, expected manning profiles, any automation, fault resolution approach, willingness to co-locate/host DoD operations center, willingness to perform assembly, integration, and test of DoD payload onto commercial buses, willingness to operate DoD satellites, willingness to integrate DoD satellites into commercial constellation

Inter-satellite links, to include: frequency, data rate, range, slew rate, acquisition time, field of view and regard, number of simultaneous connections, ability to support out of constellation satellites, plans to add/remove in future iterations. If no inter-satellite links are provided as part of the bus, provide as an alternative the network and date rate capabilities for two or more DoD satellites to share information and collaborate via commercial up/down links in the performer ground systems

Bus capabilities, to include: description of the bus, overall size, payload volume and dimensions including mounting diagram(s) and keep out areas, payload power available, payload data/power interface, payload mechanical/electrical/thermal interface, pointing knowledge, pointing control accuracy, pointing jitter, pointing slew rate, position knowledge, position control accuracy, translation rate, timing knowledge, Delta IV available, design life, dependency on GPS, default and possible pointing attitudes, payload field of view. Discuss limitations, if any, of an architecture for onboard DoD payload(s) to provide commands to (and receive telemetry from) the bus flight computer instead of typical ground command and telemetry system

Production approach for DoD satellites, to include: projected unit bus price, price breaks for quantities of 10 – 250, delivery schedule for quantities of 10 – 250, industrial base risks, automated assembly/calibration/test, assembly flow for both commercial and DoD buses, any changes to commercial production lines to accommodate DoD buses, ability for DoD buses to rejoin commercial assembly/test production line, potential for classified facilities, and lead times for commodity (no design/build adjustments from commercial standard) bus delivery

Non-recurring development costs and estimated recurring production costs, broken down by subsystem. The Government will review the Statement of Work (SOW) and IMS to assess whether they adequately detail activities to work breakdown structure (WBS) Level 4 or below and are traceable to the Cost Proposal.

Launch strategy, to include: opportunity for DoD rideshare, number of satellites per launch vehicle, launch loads/environments, DoD full or partial use of commercial dispenser/adapter, ROM launch costs (assuming Blackjack integrated satellite meets the volumetric and environmental constraints of the commercial satellite launch environment)

F. Payloads

DARPA is interested in low SWaP-C payloads that provide military utility when flown in a distributed LEO constellation. Proposers should describe their proposed technologies and how they could contribute to achieving the overall Blackjack system-level vision. This description and initial concept does not require rigorous engineering detail, but it should at least include performance estimates and other information that indicates the feasibility of the concept to meet proposed mission effectiveness capabilities when integrated into the Blackjack system architecture. The description should emphasize the ability of the payload to autonomously produce tactically relevant information to military users and platforms in theater (i.e. not raw sensor data and not processed through a ground system).

A non-exhaustive list of mission areas of interest are missile detection; position, navigation, and timing (PNT) services; military protected communications; radar; electro-optic and infrared imaging for tactical ISR; and radio frequency collection. Additionally, adding a physical payload is not the only approach to adding new functionality; a mission capability could be achieved by adding software (i.e. “mass-less payload”) to allow a secondary use of the primary payload. Offerors should also consider opportunities for coherent and non-coherent signal processing from multiple satellites/payloads. Of interest are data products that are uniquely enabled by the Blackjack architecture, which is supported by proliferated payloads, common timing signals, bi-directional data links, on board computational capabilities, and the proliferated LEO constellation architecture. Some examples of signal processing enabled by Blackjack are coherent change detection, radar processing techniques, and distributed array processing. This is not an exhaustive list and offerors are encouraged to submit LEO payloads for other mission areas that are of interest to the DoD. All payloads must be capable of surviving launch and on-orbit operations. Payload offerors should expect to adapt their payloads to an existing commoditized bus design and may not be assigned to a specific bus type until CDR, or later. Payloads must be platform agnostic and compatible with the selected bus type.

The interface between the spacecraft and the payloads will be developed jointly with bus and payload providers through Phase 1 of the effort. Payload offerors should anticipate that the electrical interface will be a single connector containing unregulated power, bi-directional data, and analog telemetry. Data protocol is TBD but will be routable and packetized. Payload offerors should propose any payload level autonomy required to enable their proposed payload to operate without ground command and control. The payload may assume that data may be transferred from a payload on one satellite to the same payload on a different satellite, and to other payloads (physical or mass-less) on the same satellite. If data transfer is used, offerors should describe bandwidth and latency requirements. The payload is not responsible for data encryption.

1. Key Payload Parameters All payload offerors should meet the following Payload Nominal Parameters listed in

Table 4 in order to be considered for an award. Payloads that provide similar or greater mission utility with smaller size, mass, power, or cost targets than listed in the table are anticipated to provide greater overall value to the Blackjack mission. Of specific interest are payload options that are near integer fractions (1/2, 1/3, etc) of the Table 4 parameters (exceptions are design life and autonomy) as that type of fractionation will enable options of multiple mission types and payload phenomenology on the same spacecraft. Blackjack demo missions will not fly a large number of payloads on one spacecraft, but more than one payload is highly likely on at least a subset of the total number of demo spacecraft.

Table 4 - Payload Key Parameters Parameter Nominal Size (stowed) < 50 x 50 x 50 cm

Mass < 50 kg Power < 100W (orbit average)

< 500W (peak) Cost (Recurring with AI&T ) < $1.5M recurring Data Through Bus < 1 Mbps Design Life 2 years at 95% confidence Autonomy (ops without human interaction)

> 1day

In some cases and in certain types of payloads the current state of the art may be such that the offerer believes no payload with realistic cost and schedule can meet every nominal parameter listed in Table 4. If the offerer presents a clear rationale, describing why a specific type of payload that will successfully meet Blackjack cost and schedule criteria needs to fall outside of a nominal payload bound, that payload will be considered for an award.

2. Payload Envelope The estimated payload environmental envelope is listed in the table below. Offerors should be aware, and plan to address, that the host space vehicle is most likely designed for a general purpose communications mission and not any specific military mission/payload. These values are the Government’s current best estimate and are subject to change. A detailed bus ICD and environment specification will be provided at the first kick-off meeting after award.

Table 5 – Payload Envelope Payload Envelope Nominal Best Case (provided by bus) Altitude 500 – 1,300 km N/A Radiation Natural space environment N/A Thermal 0 W to bus

< 400 cm2 view to space < 25 W to bus < 2500 cm2 view to space

Bus position knowledge < 500 m, per axis < 100 m, per axis Bus attitude knowledge < 200 urad, per axis < 60 urad, per axis Bus jitter at payload interface

< 200 urad < 60 urad

Payload proposers should address the following aspects in their proposals, as applicable:

Payload’s mission, to include: military relevance, capabilities, and limitations Payload design, to include: desired field of view, size, weight, power, thermal, pointing requirements, data generation, command and control, ability to operate without ground tasking, on-orbit data processing algorithms and approach

Payload production, to include: price breaks for quantities of 10 – 250, delivery schedule for quantities of 10 – 250, industrial base risks, automated assembly/calibration/test

Payload data processing, to include: computational needs, data storage, on-payload vs.

off-payload, on board vs. ground, data dissemination approaches

Multi-payload collaboration, to include: opportunities/approach for same or different payloads on the satellite, opportunities/approach for payloads on different satellites, benefits of multiple payloads with overlapping fields of view/regard

Payload secondary missions, to include: other uses of payload beyond primary mission, hardware/software changes required to enable secondary uses

Autonomous operations approach, to include: approach to meeting 30 day autonomous operations

Payload production, to include: projected payload unit price, price breaks for quantities of 10 – 250, delivery schedule for quantities of 10 – 250, industrial base risks, automated assembly/calibration/test

Non-recurring development costs and estimated recurring production costs, broken down by subsystem. The Government will review the SOW and IMS to assess whether they adequately detail activities to WBS Level 4 or below and are traceable to the Cost Proposal.

Price for non-space qualified ground test units, sensor and processors, for incorporation in constellation-level Government simulation lab

Testing approach, to include: ground testing, on-orbit testing

The sections below provide additional instructions for specific payload missions that may be feasible Blackjack mission payloads and additional information as described for each will support proposal evaluations. DARPA recognizes that the following sections may be interpreted by some as emphasis areas but asks that the proposers instead recognize that DARPA could not analyze all possible mission areas prior to release of this BAA. Mission payloads outside of the following areas, such as RF collection, radar, and tactical ISR including Electro-optical and Infrared (EO/IR) and geolocation systems, may have military utility that is as high or higher than those payload types explicitly listed below.

3. Overhead Persistent Infrared (OPIR)/Missile Detection/Warning Mission Area

DARPA is interested in payloads that provide military utility against current and emerging threats. The classified information in the bidder’s library contains a non-exhaustive list of such threats. Please contact DARPA security through the instructions in this BAA to receive the bidder’s library via secure channels.

In addition to the general payload proposal topics each OPIR/Missile Detection/Warning payload offeror should also describe their approach to the following design considerations.

Payload concept, to include: block diagram showing major subsystems and interconnects Payload operating concept, to include: adjustments to the payload operations required to maintain detection sensitivity, probability of detection, required pointing/timing knowledge, approach to heterogeneous autonomous control for predictive and responsive ops modes for selected threat scenarios

Key technologies used, risk assessment, and any proposed mitigation strategies

Assessment of compliance with environmental envelope, identification of deviations, and options to mitigate

Assessment of system performance including on-board processing Detection thresholds Reporting approach, to include: approach to generating exceedance data (e.g., Object

Sighting Messages), message format, reporting delay, integration approach with existing DoD systems (Missile Defense Agency (MDA)'s Missile Defense Space Center)

Extended payload use cases, to include: secondary missions, other uses cases of the payload, approaches to maximize payload flexibility

Government purpose rights and the design parameters listed below to facilitate independent Government assessment against representative classes of threats

Table 5 – Design Considerations Field of View Focal Length Aperture-Obscuration Size Optics Temperature Optics

Transmittance/Emittance Well Depth (Gain Capacitor Size)

Dark Current Frame Rate Jitter (line-of-sight stability)

FPA Dimensions Pixel Pitch Wavelength Band Ensquared Energy (EOD) Read Out Noise ADC Bit Resolution Integration time(s) Quantum efficiency Solar Exclusion Angle

4. Position, Navigation, and Timing DARPA is interested in payloads to provide Positioning, Navigation, and Timing (PNT), and Communications in contested environments.

The system is expected to provide position, velocity, clock, and communications. Both one-to-one and one-to-many approaches are of interest. The system is expected to include any user terminals and their acquisition strategy (including whether you can use the existing, modify existing, or require new terminals). The reference one-to-one architecture provides <0.3m range accuracy, <0.6m cross-range accuracy, <1nsec timing, and >1Mbps communications at 40,000km using a photon-counting laser communication link with bistatic 2-cm apertures.

All offerors should describe how their approach performs relative to the following Design Parameters.

Table 6 – PNT Design Parameters PNT Design Parameter Nominal Goal

Transmit Power Eye-safe Position accuracy <0.6m <0.01m Timing accuracy <1nsec <0.1nsec Data rate through PNT signal >1Mbps @1,000km >1Gbps @40,000km Range >1,000km >80,000km

Field of regard >100deg cone >Hemisphere Slew rate >1deg/sec >100deg/sec Doppler (range-rate) accuracy <1m/sec <1mm/sec

In addition to the general payload proposal topics each PNT payload offeror should also describe their approach to the following design considerations.

Modulation format, to include: modulation, error correction approach, automated data retransmission

Aperture, to include: transmit and receive size, vibration isolation Transmission medium, to include: wave length, pulse width (if any), emitted power Link budgets, to include as applicable: Ground – LEO, LEO – LEO, GEO – LEO User equipment, to include: reuse of existing equipment, new equipment required, equipment required for Blackjack demonstration Ground terminal recurring BOM cost

5. Tactical Communications DARPA is interested in payloads to provide new or augmented communications capability for use in contested environments as it relates to satellite communications.

The system is expected to include any user terminals and their acquisition strategy (including whether you can use the existing, modify existing, or require new terminals).

Reference missions include service to LEO spacecraft, dismounted troops, networked weapons, tactical communication to theater users, combined PNT and communications, interference detection and geolocation, and high frequency applications.

In addition to the general payload proposal topics each communications payload offeror should also describe their approach to the following design considerations.

Modulation format, to include; modulation, error correction approach, automated data retransmission

Aperture, to include; transmit and receive size, vibration isolation Transmission medium, to include; wave length, pulse width (if any), emitted power Link budgets, to include as applicable; Ground – LEO, LEO – LEO, GEO – LEO User equipment, to include; reuse of existing equipment, new equipment required, equipment required for Blackjack demonstration Ground terminal recurring BOM cost

6. Massless Secondary Payloads DARPA is interested in payloads that reuse other payloads with software, processing, or concept of operations changes. It is envisioned that an additional functionality or secondary payload might be enabled via software alone, i.e. a timing waveform added to a communications payload could provide a GPS like functionality, or a GPS Radio Occultation capability could be possible with a suitable GPS space navigation bus subsystem. For both examples, the performance would depend on how good the bus system clock performs to allow higher precision timing measurements via the communications payload or the ability of the GPS system to measure GPS carrier phase and determine ionospheric phase delays (dispersion & refraction) to infer ionosphere electron density. These new missions are enabled by having sufficient performance or headroom in subsystem performance like pointing stability and knowledge, or clock stability and accuracy, or better quality GPS receivers to allow new functionality or performance. These key subsystems and their performance metrics should be identified and the proposer should provide the Government options to upgrade basic payload performance to enable future optimization of mission payload functions.

In addition to the general payload proposal topics, each massless payload offeror should also describe their approach to the following design considerations.

Required performance headroom, to include: processing, storage, change from baseline, required upgrades to bus/payload

Data requirements, to include: information required about bus/payload, timing knowledge, pointing knowledge, position knowledge

G. Pit Boss (Autonomous Control Element)

The Pit Boss is an avionics box and computing node mounted on each Blackjack satellite that provides mission level autonomy. The Pit Boss will be electronically situated between the Payloads and the Spacecraft Bus (see Figure 2), providing electrical and network connectivity for each Payload. The Pit Boss will provide packet routing between the Payloads, the networked Blackjack spacecraft constellation nodes, and the broader commercial spacecraft constellation nodes. It will provide cyber protection and data encryption and decryption for secure communications across the networked elements. The Pit Boss will also provide payload management, payload power switching, tasking, and scheduling, satellite resource management, constellation management, and a clock signal. Mission autonomy software will be hosted on the Pit Boss to enable collaboration among Blackjack constellation nodes and to enable long-term operations without human interaction. A Pit Boss preliminary functional description and interface definition will be provided at Kickoff.

II. Award Information

A. General Award Information

Multiple awards are anticipated in Phase 1 for Track A: Payload and Track B: Spacecraft Bus. The amount of resources made available under this BAA will depend on the quality of the proposals received and the availability of funds.

The Government reserves the right to select for negotiation all, some, one, or none of the proposals received in response to this solicitation and to make awards without discussions with proposers. The Government also reserves the right to conduct discussions if it is later determined to be necessary.