Question_and_Answers_6.pdf

SBIR 2018-1

Questions and Answers #6 December 7, 2017

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS PERTAINING TO THE SOLICITATION AND ITS

SUBTOPICS ARE PERMITTED.

Q: Is there a requirement for the proposal regarding line space formatting? For example, can it be single spaced, double space, or 1.5 line spacing?

A: We have no preference in regards to line spacing. All three of those would be acceptable.

Q: Subtopic 8.1.2: Would you mind answering the following questions -

1. How should we expect the data to be retrieved?

2. Is long-range wireless data communication required? Will beacon technology be sufficient, such that the device can call for a remote pickup from nearby patrols?

3. Are there any size, weight, cost, or power specifications for the desired device?

A:

1. We think that the best way to retrieve the data would be remotely via satellite transmissions such as used by popup satellite tags.

2. The subtopic author is not familiar with beacon technology, so they could not comment. If there were something released from the fish at the time of spawning that contains the data referred to in the solicitation, it theoretically could be picked up and the data downloaded from it, but that may be highly impractical if we are talking about oceans where this could occur anywhere and getting to that site could be very difficult. Access to the data would most likely have to be by satellite to overcome this situation, but the offeror is free propose ideas as part of their solution.

3. This will be used in or on a fish, so there would certainly be size and weight restrictions that depend on the size of the fish. If a device has to go into the fish and be expelled say through the ovary say at the time of spawning, then there would certainly be restrictions on size or it would not be able to go through the oviduct. If one looks at the smallest acoustic tags made, they are ~1 cm x 0.5 cm and anything bigger would probably not work. If the device uses something that attaches to the fish, a good comparison in terms of size would be the current sizes and weights of pop-up satellite tags that are being deployed. In terms of power, the device would have to be capable of being deployed on a fish for at least 6 months and function properly throughout that time. In terms of cost, it should have an upper limit of $3,000/device and this is in line with pop-up tag technology.

Q: Subtopic 8.2.1: Would you mind answering the following questions:

1. What is the minimum throughput that would be considered adequate? For example, would 100mL/hour be considered adequate?

2. Would the processing of the results need to be accomplished in real time or a certain delay is allowed (i.e. a few minutes or a few hours)?

3. Would local processing of the collected data be required (i.e. on a laptop) or remote/cloud processing be adequate (this will require internet access at the collection site for real time processing)?

4. Are there specific types of phytoplankton species that should be the initial focus of characterization?

5. Would it be adequate to propose a general system and show on specific examples of phytoplankton how this system can be applied to characterization?

The idea then is as the system’s library of known phytoplankton species grows, an ability to characterize those species would increase as well. However, since it is not practical to show characterization capabilities of all species under this SBIR, the focus could be on demonstrating the general framework on the examples of a few representative species.

6. Is there a specific minimum microorganism size that is desired to be detected?

A:

1. The instrument should be able to acquire, within minutes, sufficient amount of data required for a statistically representative characterization of dominant algal species in a given sample.

2. Delayed analyses are OK.

3. This is not critical.

4. This is part of the phase I investigation which should address common algal species in coastal and inland waters.

5. This is acceptable given the vast number of algal species. However, the phase I work should demonstrate transferable methods that can be used to expand the library of known algal species.

6. No, but the lower the better.

Q: Subtopic 8.2.5: Would you mind answering the following questions-

1. Is a low-cost beacon enabled with satellite and/or cellular communication still an acceptable solution? Or are satellite and cellular subscription fees a large concern of the total operating cost (percentage wise)? Do the cost concerns stem primarily from the initial investment/purchase in/of the equipment?

2. What is a perceived reasonable retail cost for a single beacon when the "total cost of mooring packages is lower"?

3. The topic suggests “often shallow coastal” as an operating environment and further suggests “surfacing” detection as a desired feature. Is the sought after low-cost beacon to operate subsurface or will it float/install atop of a mooring buoy like setup? If subsurface at what max depth?

4. What is an acceptable and/or desired “satellite data acquisition and transmission” time and at what extreme conditions? Under heavy fog and marine layer for example vs a clear day?

5. Can an expected operating temperature range be provided? Coastal Greenland or Coastal Florida? Both? Etc…?

6. Can existing logistical concerns of retrieving/operating existing coastal mooring packages be provided/described? For example, is special communication equipment/software needed to track and locate? Method of recovery? By boat?

SCUBA? Swim? What are some of the biggest operational and user experience/interface pains?

7. Are there any physical (connectors), software (API), or communication (protocols) interfaces required for the desired low-cost beacon?

8. What is the minimum desired battery life? What is an average number of hours or days etc... that scientific mooring packages are deployed for?

1. Yes, cellular and/or satellite communication are desired. AIS could also be a solution. Subscription fees are assumed, however data transmission should be as reduced as possible (e.g., location transmission 3 times per day will suffice).

Yes, initial purchase of beacon is the concern.

2. Current cheaper beacon device is in the order of $3000, reducing capabilities (e.g., depth, autonomy, data volume, etc.) should reduce this cost.

3. The beacon should stay in stand-by mode underwater, and initiate transmission of location when surfaced. Moorings are subsurface, no surface expression. If these surface accidentally prior to scheduled recovery date, the beacon should slept and help locate the mooring, likely adrift or stranded.

4. Transmission of location will suffice if it is received once or twice a day.

Satellite/cell/AIS communication should be limited to the minimal amount to allow a general understanding of the location of the mooring while extending autonomy to at least 10 months. Extreme conditions of typical marine weather should be considered, but missing locations for one day or two (e.g., extreme weather such as heavy fog, storm, etc.) should not be a problem.

5. Beacons should be able to operate in all conditions (arctic to tropical) to avoid limiting its application geographically.

6. Mooring beacons should allow directing a search to locate and recover s mooring adrift or stranded. Once a beacon location is received, its location is tracked for one or two days while recovery logistics are put together (flying personnel, arranging a land or boat transport for moorings adrift or stranded). Once in field, recovery crew will be directed to the last location received to search for the mooring. Receiving locations directly by field crew is not helpful unless a directional receiver can be used (e.g., goniometer for satellite transmission), however, because we expect a low transmission rate, this feature might not be practical. Locations will be communicated to the recovery crew.

7. No.

8. Minimum of 10 months. Deployments typically last 7-8 months, and recovery logistics and weather can delay the actual recovery up to 1 month.

Q: Subtopic 8.2.5: I have some questions for this one -

1. During normal operation, will the beacon remain completely submerged?

2. What depths should the beacon be designed to withstand?

3. What water temperatures will the beacon be operating in?

4. Is the beacon required to provide any additional buoyancy?

5. How long should the beacon operate while actively beaconing to facilitate recovery?

6. What is the typical deployment duration for the mooring (weeks, months)?

1. Yes.

2. Coastal water application should aim for no more than 500 m deep.

3. To avoid geographical limitations of its application all water temperatures, from tropical to Arctic, should be considered.

4. No, buoyancy will be controlled by the floatation material of the mooring package.

The beacon design should not be constrained by any buoyancy criterion.

5. Normally recovery logistics and weather can delay the actual recovery up to 1 month. Ideally 1 to 2 months of active beaconing would be desired.

6. Moorings are normally deployed for 6-8 months to allow servicing twice per year.

Q: Subtopic 8.2.8: Would you mind answering some questions on -

1. Is this intended to be a purely software solution? That is, will it use only existing data and data sources, rather than utilize or require new hardware to acquire the relevant under keel management data? Or is the goal a new, complete under keel data reporting and collection system?

2. Is there a desired computer hardware device to implement the solution on? Any desired operating system or other software or hardware compatibility requirements?

1. This is intended to be a software solution that can be incorporated by various manufacturers of hardware to incorporate under keel clearance algorithms. The goal is to take existing data streams such as bathymetry, surface currents (whatever is defined under the S-129 standard that is under development) incorporate parameters from the ship to provide a visualization of go areas based on under keel clearance calculations.

2. Ultimately this solution could be used on ECDIS and ECS and Portable Pilot Units. Each manufacturer utilizes different operating systems, but potentially this could be a cloud solution that provides the dataset that is used by the navigation system.

Q: Subtopic 8.2.9: Would you mind answering the following questions:

1. What is the maximum depth you need to map?

2. How far offshore do you need to operate?

3. Can you define "cost effective"?

4. Do you have have a specific instrument package that you would like to integrate onto the ROV?

5. Are you interested in proposals that can advance just the instrument package, or just the ROV?

1. This work for us is in response to vessel grounding, so the max is on the order of ten feet. Other potential users of a system may have uses that would go deeper ( eg, Harbour clearing following hurricanes).

2. Far enough that RTK is not viable. The max is on the order of 8 to 10 NMSF.

3. It would be in comparison to the cost of current approaches, which is around

$15K.

4. No. We are aware of some options for GPS, for instance, that are considerably smaller than our current equipment, survey grade, and a tiny fraction of the cost.

That’s not to say we are aware of all the possibilities, but rather enough to have initiated this SBIR project to allow the industry, who are more thoroughly informed, to submit proposals.

5. Preference would be given to proposals that present an complete, integrated package. It may be possible that we would consider proposals for the instrument package. However, that would then entail a new set of requirement specifications with regard to size and weight limits, power supply, plus other potential factors that would define the installation feasibility of the instrument package to a specific ROV platform ( which obviously has not been selected at this point). So, in that respect, I think such a proposal may need to include at least the recommendation or identification of a target, feasible commercially available ROV platform.

Q: Subtopic 8.2.10: The subtopic summary indicates that research will create a station that is self-positioned to the National Spatial Reference System and local datum within 0.1-cm sphere (all directions). Can you please answer the following questions:

1. What is meant by self-positioned?

2. Is this a requirement for Phase I or would this be addressed in Phase II?

3. If it is a requirement for Phase I, must the system include continuous GNSS observations?

A:

1. The new system will not only measure its position relative to the national and state spatial reference systems, but also check to be sure that it is maintaining position within the sphere indicated. We measure vertical displacement and motion. It is time intensive for our current process of evaluating land surveys and future continuous GNSS observations with variable accuracies and precision.

We are looking for a way to automate data collection, processing, and QA/QC in the next generation water level system.

2. In envision that the concept, development, & first article with address in all phases.

3. Yes.

Q: Subtopic 8.2.11: Please provide guidance on recommended/target power requirements for observation and monitoring networks?

A: The specific power requirements depend on the specific sensors to be used. ideally 1.5KW for 2 hours a day, then 40 watts for other low-power instruments/sensors and standby power.

Q: Subtopic 8.2.11: Are power requirements similar between stations located in either arctic/desert regions?

A: Yes.

Q: Subtopic 8.2.11: Would you consider nuclear power supplies as a potential solution to this subtopic?

A: No.

Q: Subtopic 8.2.11: Is the use of radioisotopes acceptable as a fuel source?

A: No.

Q: Subtopic 8.2.11: Would you mind answering some questions on -

1. TERMINOLOGY: the solicitation refers to "traditional battery technology" and "clean battery" without defining the energy-storage chemistries that these terms encompass. Could you please clarify this?

2. The solicitation states a need "to develop clean, low-cost, small-footprint energy-generation technology". What criteria does NOAA use to determine whether a technology is "clean"? Are there specific cost targets? Are there specific footprint limits?

3. The solicitation mentions power-generation strategies based on water temperature gradients, and suggests that similar techniques could be developed to take advantage of other temperature differences (e.g. air-water, air-ice, water-ice, etc). The solicitation then invites firms specializing in "power generation, clean battery, instrumentation design, and system integration" to develop technology to address the limitations of "traditional battery technology" and solar/wind power. Are solutions that do not specifically use temperature gradients acceptable?

1. "Traditional battery technology" refers to those primary or single-use batteries that are "disposable" and potentially harmful to the environment. "Clean battery" refers to those recharging battery that draws energy from renewable sources (e.g., solar, wind or thermal).

2. Cost is not specified at this stage of the technology development. Ideally under 200K for laboratory and demonstration and under 50K for commercialization production, and those should be addressed in the Phase II. For the footprint, it is desirable to fit the proposed system onto a typical NOAA buoy (1.5 meter diameter).

3. Yes, we encourage innovative technology that offers potential solutions to this subtopic, including but not limited to temperature gradients method.

Q: Subtopic 8.2.11: Would you provide information on the following questions?

1. What are the power generation/storage requirements for the desired device?

2. What are the intended footprint size limitations and cost limitations for the device?

3. It appears that both battery and generator technologies will be considered. Are there any requirements, specifications, or needs that are specific to each of these distinct solution types?

1. The specific power requirements depend on the specific sensors to be used.

ideally 1.5KW for 2 hours a day, then 40 watts for other low-power instruments/sensors and standby power.

2. Cost is not specified at this stage of the technology development. Ideally under 200K for laboratory and demonstration and under 50K for commercialization production, and those should be addressed in the Phase II. For the footprint, it is desirable to fit the proposed system onto a typical NOAA buoy (1.5 meter diameter).

3. No. we encourage innovative technology that offers potential solutions to this subtopic.

Q: Subtopic 8.2.11: Do you have a target power requirement for the monitoring network (for example, 1 kW)? Is there a power profile associated with this power requirement (for example, 1 KW for 2 hours a day, then 15 Watts for standby power)?

A: Ideally 1.5KW for 2 hours a day, then 40 Watts for other low-power instruments/sensors and standby power.

Q: Subtopic 8.2.11: Can you please quantify the low cost requirement -- i.e., do you have a $/kW target?

A: Under $200K for laboratory prototype and demonstration and under $50K for commercialization and production scale.

Q: Subtopic 8.2.11: Can you please quantify the “small footprint”? For example, is there a target size of 20 cm x 20 cm x 50 cm?

A: Ideally has smaller footprint than typical NOAA buoys (1.5 meter diameter).

Q: Subtopic 8.2.11: Can you please quantify “low maintenance”? For example, does that mean 6 months continuous operation with no maintenance? 1 year?

A: Minimum 6 months continuous operation with no maintenance, target is 1 year.

Q: Subtopic 8.2.11: Can you please define what you mean by “serious environmental concerns” associated with “traditional battery technology”? For example, is this an operational concern that an accident may occur and cause leakage of battery material?

A: Correct, battery leakage toxic materials into marine environment.

Q: Subtopic 8.2.13: Would you provide information on the following questions?

1. Is there data on vertical wind speeds ranges in the critical region of the storm ?

2. Should the vehicle fly upwind ? If so, should it fly upwind against the 100m/s winds?

3. Is there a particular flight path intended for the vehicle? Are there any bounds on how tight the flight path has to be ?

4. Is the aircraft controlled from the aircraft or the ground ? What are the telemetry/RF link specs and range requirements ?

1. Vertical winds speeds on average are not very strong (+- 1 m/s most of the time).

In very extreme/rare conditions, short burst updrafts and downdrafts on the order of 20m/s have been recorded by the P3. But again that is very uncommon.

These features are typically on the order of 1-3 km in horizontal scale. That said, given our goal to maintain low altitude very (below 1 km) the biggest risk would be downdrafts when flying below 500m. Updrafts at these altitudes exist but are weaker than downdrafts given how close to the surface we would be operating.

2. Not at all. All flight plans are designed to harness/use/go with the prevailing winds in the storm. Slight deviations (20-30 degrees counter to the wind may be attempted at times but usually this is simply to get in better position for a desired physical storm feature).

3. The existing flight plans include circumnavigating the hurricane eyewall (by launching in the calm eye with the help of the P3 then flying counterclockwise with the high wind region of the storm. We also have a module for flying the currents of the storm well away from the center that spiral into the core of the storm and eventually arrive at the eye/eyewall. There are other mission profiles but these 2 are the ones we have flown so far with the Coyote UAS and earlier with the Aerosonde UAS. Applicants are encouraged to visit the news archives to see what we have done in the past. Search suggestions include: 2005 Ophelia Aerosonde NOAA Cione; 2007 Noel Aerosonde NOAA Cione; Edouard Coyote NOAA Cione and most recently Maria Coyote NOAA Cione. Looking at we have done in the past (especially with the air-deployed Coyote) should help each applicant get a better idea of what we are interested in.

4. Today, the Coyote we use is launched from the NOAA P3 and onboard UAS pilots control it throughout the flight. However, as noted in the SBIR write up, a key requirements for this project is that the air deployed UAS be launched from NOAA's P3 using the GPS or Sonobuoy launch sleeve AND that once it is deployed it uses the (one way, data retrieval only) AVAPS system currently used by NOAA and others for collection of GPS dropsonde data. Given the desired end game 1 way comms set up, the successful SBIR candidate will have to develop an onboard basic AI system that allows the UAS to use its onboard sensors to autonomously operate. The scientists can help with meteorology required to accomplish this task, but it is important for all to note that once deployed the final operational system will NOT have an active 'UAS operator' on the plane or on the ground since no realtime telemetry control will be possible.

The UAS data however will be collected (using AVAPS) on the mothership P3.

As for range requirements. The AVAPS system gives us ~200nmi range for GPS sonde operation and is a primary reason we want to use this system. We strongly suggest that interested applicants learn more about this system and if need be contact AVAPS design enginneers to learn more about how the system works (https://www.eol.ucar.edu/observing_facilities/avaps-dropsonde-system). To help further minimize any P3-UAS range concerns it is also strongly suggested that the UAS in question also include an onboard data capture/logger/hard drive so that no data is lost should a temporary loss in range with the P3 occur during flight.

Q: Subtopic 8.3.1: Are we accepting applications from the Indo-Pacific for this subtopic? I ask because it does not state that it is limited to applicants from the Caribbean, but I noticed that the nursery must be designed for Acropora Palmata?

A: A proposal that is designed with an alternate species as the "demonstration species" is acceptable if the proposed solution can scale or be adapted to work with other species such as Acropora palmata. Designs that provide flexibility in species use are encouraged.

Q: Subtopic 8.3.1: The language in the solicitation appears to limit the SBIR to only projects in the Caribbean. Would a proposal to increase the efficiency of coral restoration techniques be considered on the West Coast, Hawaii, or Indo-Pacific?

A: A proposal that utilizes a different geographic region is acceptable for demonstration purposes if the proposed solution can scale or be adapted to work in the Caribbean or other regions. Designs that provide flexibility in both the region and environment that they can used are encouraged.

Q: Subtopic 8.3.6: Would you mind answering the following questions:

1. What is the minimum throughput that would be considered adequate?

2. Would the processing of the results need to be accomplished in real time or a certain delay is allowed (i.e. a few minutes or a few hours)?

3. Would local processing of the collected data be required (i.e. on a laptop) or remote/cloud processing be adequate (this will require internet access at the collection site for real time processing)?

4. For identification of Vibrio, what is the target level of concentration and accuracy that is desired to identify or important?

5. Aside from Vibrio, what other types of pathogens are valuable to characterize?

6. Would it be adequate to propose a general system for pathogen identification and show on an example of a specific pathogen how this system can be applied to accurate characterization?

1. The minimum throughput would vary depending on the biology of the organism and state regulations that limit sale or consumption of commercial species when disease or toxin levels reach a certain threshold.

2. Ideally, as close to real time as possible but keeping in mind accuracy so as to reduce the incidence of false positives.

3. Data processing could be local or remote. We have no preference.

4. There are several species of Vibrio; those thresholds may vary across species and states. The target level of concentrations should meet the needs of the Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Commission and state health departments.

5. There are numerous animal health and human health pathogens of concern.

Pathogens valuable to characterize are those that would result in closure of an aquaculture area, affect trade, result in negative impacts to the health of the animals being cultured or human consumption.

6. The goal of this SBIR priority is to develop more accurate, real time and cost-effective monitoring instruments to assist in detecting common pathogens for use in aquaculture operations. In theory, a system could be proposed that detects multiple common pathogens; however, a system may not be transferable across species or geographic areas.