NextSTEP-3 Appendix C Questions and Responses.pdf

Next Space Technologies for Exploration Partnerships -3 (NextSTEP-3)

Broad Agency Announcement Omnibus-CIS-Appendix C:

# Comment Response 1 Could you please give us a brief description of the application and any other details you feel would be relevant?

See Enclosure A Section 1 (Introduction and Background) for a brief description of the opportunity.

2 Since the question deadline has passed, will NASA accept additional questions regarding the Appendix C?

NASA appreciates the thorough review and questions submitted for Appendix C by potential offerors. At this time, NASA will not accept any additional questions on Appendix C.

3 In section 4.1.5, it states "Status/project telecoms/web meetings: anticipate on a bi-weekly basis. Will be held as needed, and mutually agreed upon." Does the government mean twice a week or every other week?

Will these meetings include subject matter experts to collaborate with on the topic, or will it be mostly the awardee presenting to NASA on progress made on their own internal work?

For the purposes of this Request for Proposal (RFP), "bi-weekly" refers to once every other week. Bi-weekly tag-ups would likely include both status updates from awardees and collaboration with NASA Subject Matter Experts (SMEs). Proposal responses can propose any level of status meeting frequency and/or level of participation as part of their study technical management solution for NASA to evaluate.

4 Can NASA provide any context around the demand from NASA in this timeframe that would procure this commercial communications services?

Demand could include, but is not limited to, existing NASA missions, future NASA science missions, Artemis program missions (spacecraft and crew surface operation), and/or potential future Commercial Lunar/Mars Payload Services (CLPS/CMPS) missions.

5 Can NASA provide any context or background on the NASA user base envisioned for this commercial communication service? For example, metrics such as number and types of users, locations, bandwidth, etc.

NASA is aiming to understand what capabilities industry can bring to bear to support operations at the Moon and Mars. Use cases, user requirements, and user communication transceiver capabilities assumptions can be outlined in proposal responses and refined throughout the study period. Below is reference information to provide a broad perspective on the potential user base:

For study area 1 (Lunar Trunkline Communication Architectures):

• Bandwidth: NASA recommends referencing the LunaNet Interoperability Specifications (LNIS) Section 4

"LUNANET SERVICE PROVIDER TO

USER INTERFACES" for outlines of general user bandwidth and data rates.

• Location: NASA's primary exploration focus is centered around the Lunar South Pole. Respondents should be clear regarding the architecture's supported service volume/regions and corresponding capabilities.

• Number and type of users: Users could include robotic exploration missions, unmanned science instruments, and human lunar surface operations.

For study area 2 (Mars End-to-End Communication Service Architectures):

• Bandwidth: See communication requirements in Section 4.2.1 of Enclosure A.

• Location: NASA's Mars surface exploration regions of interest are still to be determined. Respondents should be clear regarding the architecture's supported service volume/regions and corresponding capabilities.

• Number and type of users: Users could include science missions and instruments, robotic exploration missions, and human exploration missions in Mars orbit or on the Martian surface.

6 When you use "deep space" throughout section 4, we interpret that to mean areas like the space traversed between Earth and Moon/Mars that may not be in the vicinity of those bodies? Is our interpretation correct?

Otherwise, can you define what you mean by deep space in this context so we can ensure we're aligning with NASA's goals for this architecture?

The interpretation is correct.

7 In sections 4.1.3.A and 4.2.3.A, when you use the term heritage, do you mean heritage from Government systems or heritage from company's own products/systems?

Primarily heritage from the respondent organization's own products/systems.

8 How does this study relate to recent awards made for lunar comm relay and direct to earth on the Near Space Network Services contract ?

NASA is exploring solutions for a high-bandwidth, high-reliability communications link between lunar surface and an Earth-based operations control center without use of any NASA or government managed assets or services. The objective is to understand how industry would approach greatly increasing the potential data throughput from the Lunar environment.

9 Based on FAR 27.405-1 Special Works, 52.227-17 is inapplicable as it pertains to other than limited rights data or restricted computer software, and the solicitation allows for use of Limited Rights or Government Purpose Rights pursuant to the Identififcation and Represtnation of Data with Restrictive or Limiting Markings. Additionally, an Offeror's proposed solution may leverage pre-existing data to which they must retain ownership which is counter to 52.227-17. Due to inapplicabiiltiy, request the Government delete this clause from the solicitation.

With the inclusion of the model contract, offerors have an opportunity to provide written explanations for additions, deletions or modifications. Please note, offerors may take exceptions to or have unique interpretations of any model contract clauses. These should be listed clearly in a Summary of Exceptions.

Note, exceptions or unique interpretations of required clauses may negatively impact selection.

10 What is the minimum dollar amount or percentage of company contribution expected for the successful study participants?

Per Enclosure A Section 9: "A corporate contribution is required, but there is no mandatory minimum for eligibility under Appendix C."

11 Do you request Excel sheets for any of the requested proposal materials or is all PDF acceptable?

All PDF is preferred. Spreadsheets are acceptable for submitted enclosures that are entirely table based, such as the Pricing Template and Corporate Contributions Worksheet.

12 Can you please provide the defined radius around intended landing locations on the Martian surface?

NASA is aiming to understand what capabilities industry can bring to bear to support operations at Mars. NASA will not provide a general landing radius requirement at this time. Providing an assumption of the landing radius accuracy and/or communications service volume requirements for Martian surface users could be an input to the Architecture study effort.

In the long-term, the combined accuracy of the Mars End-to-End Service Architecture and onboard EDL sensors would likely need to be within tens of meters to support repeated landings at a Martian habitat location, as discussed in the NASA Civil Space Technology Shortfalls. In the near term, navigation support would need to be comparable or better than existing Deep Space Network (DSN) Direct to Earth (DTE) navigation methods to increase autonomy at Mars. For historical comparison, see records of Mars Rover landing ellipses.

13 What accuracy and precision do you expect of the Martian PNT solution?

NASA is aiming to understand what capabilities industry can bring to bear to support operations at Mars. In general, surface PNT requirements are mission dependent and heavily impacted by user instruments. For human exploration missions, NASA has consistently referred to a required positioning accuracy of approximately 10 m.

Respondents are encouraged to consider the trade space between PNT performance and budgetary/schedule cost.

14 Are there any restrictions in utilizing non-NASA international assets or partners within the Mars End-to-End Architecture?

This RFP and potential subsequent studies do not have any distinct restrictions in utilizing non-NASA international assets or partners beyond existing US government prohibitions against partnership with specific nations/organizations. Respondents should consider whether any architecture assets have security concerns that may prohibit their approval for use by potential future United States missions.

Respondents should also substantiate the feasibility of forming any new relationships or partnerships with international organizations to close on a proposed solution.

https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/civil-space-shortfall-descriptions-july-2024.pdf?emrc=687669decdcbe https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/civil-space-shortfall-descriptions-july-2024.pdf?emrc=687669decdcbe

15 What minimum capabilities are anticipated for

Demonstration of Capability (DOC) by EOCY 2029?

The DOC for either study area must satisfy, at minimum, the core communication requirements (shall statements) that correspond to the Communication use cases (Study Area 1: UC-C-101 L; Study Area 2: UC-C-101 M through UC-C-108 M) identified by the NASA Moon to Mars Architecture Definition Document and listed Appendix A. Specific performance levels would be dependent on offeror's current capabilities, anticipated mission risks, and any planned technology development timelines. For study area #2 (Mars End-to-End Communication Service Architectures), the DOC would also need to include a demonstration of Positioning, Navigation, and Timing (PNT) capabilities as well as Command and Control (C2) capabilities.

16 What minimum capabilities are anticipated for

Initial Operational Capability (IOC) by EOCY 2030?

The IOC for either study area must provide, at minimum, sufficient services to support one (1) or more users in their respective operating environments. The services required include all of the core communication requirements (shall statements) that correspond to the Communication use cases (Study Area 1: UC-C-101 L; Study Area 2:

UC-C-101 M through UC-C-108 M) identified by the NASA Moon to Mars Architecture Definition Document and listed Appendix A. Communication service performance would be at the levels proposed by Enclosure A (should statements) or established during the course of the study period based on collaboration between NASA and awarded organization subject matter experts. Organizations proposing may consider how the architecture can be scaled to support the anticipated number of users in the 2031+ timeframe, including phasing assets as necessary. For study area #2 (Mars End-to-End Communication Service Architectures), the IOC would need to provide Positioning, Navigation, and Timing (PNT) and Command and Control (C2) services as well. For any architecture capability that would not be available at IOC, respondents will be required to define the approach and timeline to achieve full performance as part of the study period.

17 In evaluation of redundancy/ availability within the architecture, would a single fault tolerance be adequate or is multi-fault tolerance required?

Respondents should design architectures that eliminate single points of failure where feasible, particularly for critical mission functions. Single-fault tolerance may be acceptable for non-critical services, with multi-fault redundancy encouraged where practical. NASA has historically required multi-fault tolerance for critical systems in human space flight operations. Proposals should document trade-offs between redundancy, cost, and schedule, and identify phased options to enhance resilience over time.

18 If there are any Amendments to the RFP as a result of the questions and comments due on 7/14, will you extend the deadline by one week to accommodate necessary team response updates?

The proposal deadline will be extended by one (1) week to August 13th.

19 How does the BAA align with JPL’s 2024 RFP JL-

2672-110923 for Exploring Mars Together:

Commercial Service Studies which included a Mars relay architecture as one of the Design Reference Missions (DRM4)?

NextSTEP-3 Appendix C has no direct relationship with JPL’s 2024 RFP JL-2672-110923.

20 Is responding to the BAA a prerequisite to bid on any future procurement?

NASA does not intend to hold responding to NextSTEP-3 Appendix C BAA as a prerequisite to bid on any future NASA procurement.

21 How does the BAA align with the High Performance Mars Telecom Orbiter funded in the reconciliation act?

NASA is performing research and development to support the design of communication service architectures that can support human exploration, robotic exploration, and science missions at Mars via the NextSTEP-3 Appendix C BAA Study Topic #2. Any funded studies in this study area may inform future NASA decisions for Mars communication and navigation capabilities.

22 How does the BAA align with the 2022 NextSTEP- 2 Appendix O: Capability Studies for NASA Communications and Navigation Network Direct-to-Earth (DTE) and Lunar Space Relay (LSR) Commercialization Services BAA?

NextSTEP-2 Appendix O has no direct relationship to NextSTEP-3 Appendix C.

23 Offerors shall respond to one or both topic areas as indicated in Section 4.1 and 4.2. What is NASA's policy regarding the submission of multiple, distinct proposal topics from a single entity in response to the BAA? Specifically, if two topics are proposed and both are deemed meritorious, is it possible to receive awards for both, or are they considered exclusive, meaning only one can be selected?

Offerors are eligible to receive awards for both study areas. If an offeror is selected for both topics, one contract encompassing both topics will be awarded to the offeror.

24 Regarding section 11.8 (Intellectual Property: "The Offeror shall describe the approach for data rights, and how they meet the objectives outlined in the omnibus BAA, Section 2.7, Intellectual Property Developed Under an Award. If there is a deviation to the approach, the Offeror shall provide an updated justification detailing noted deviation"

Under what Volume/Section should this information be noted? IP is not listed under the proposal sections and page limitation within Appendix C but I did note a one page limitation in the Agency Announcement Omnibus (NextSTEP- 3_Omnibus). Can you please clarify?

Table 1 ("Overview of Proposal Sections and Page Limitations") of NextSTEP-3 Appendix C Enclosure A will be updated to reflect that Intellectual Property details should be included as Section 3.3, with a one-page limitation.