BAA_Questions_and_Clarifications.pdf

Final set of questions from Industry Day

Question Previously Unanswered

Unlabeled 4:

--Can NOAA describe its approach to direct radiance assimilation (SDRs) and EDR algorithm implementation and evolution?

Answer: NESDIS expects the development of useable SDRs by vendors requires close communication with, and inputs from, NESDIS during vendor hardware development and testing to optimize the SDR to meet the requirements. NESDIS also acknowledges that having this communication poses a risk to the execution efficiency we are seeking in this BAA. We are seeking recommendations from industry on ways for NOAA to accomplish this in an efficient, low-risk manner. Additionally, NOAA's EDR algorithm implementation and direct data assimilation (both using SDRs) are documented/described in public literature. Examples include for microwave sounding and IR sounding:

IR: A. Gambacorta and C. D. Barnet, “Methodology and information content of the NOAA NESDIS operational channel selection for the Cross-Track Infrared Sounder (CrIS),” IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens., vol. 51, no. 6, pp. 3207–3216, Jun. 2013.

MW: Boukabara, S. A., Garrett, K., Chen, W. C., Iturbide-Sanchez, F., Grassotti, C., Kongoli, C., Chen, R. Y., Liu, Q. H., Yan, B. H., Weng, F. Z., Ferraro, R., Kleespies, T. J., & Meng, H.

(2011). MiRS: An All-Weather 1DVAR Satellite Data Assimilation and Retrieval System. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 49(9), 3249-3272.

[10.1109/tgrs.2011.2158438]

Additional Questions and Answerers

1. The specification regarding a single instrument lifetime appears to neglect technology developments over the last 2 decades in LEO constellations. These mirror the benefits of personal computers over the mainframe computers of old, by leveraging rapid innovation and replacement cycles of 3 years. Shouldn’t the requirement be more cast in the form of total cost of ownership, a common practice now well established when thinking about IT infrastructure?

Answer: Good points, we’d like to hear your concepts when your white paper is submitted. Offerors are encouraged to propose alternative approaches to meet the requirements in a more cost effective manner. However, it is incumbent on the offeror to adequately describe how their re-interpretation of the requirement provides similar or better performance.

https://doi.org/10.1109/tgrs.2011.2158438

2. It would be great to learn more about the use cases that are driving the latency requirements. In particular we wonder if not a cost-benefit trade study here would also be valuable to assess if for example halting the latency time provides 4x the benefit in case that were the cost.

Answer: This is a good point again, this falls in the category of trading performance for cost as asked for in the BAA. Offerors are encouraged to present alternative approaches to meeting these observational needs that provide performance in a more cost effective manner. However, it is incumbent on the offeror to adequately describe how their re-interpretation of the requirement provides similar or better performance.

4. On page 30 of the GEO BAA: Table 13: The Auroral Imaging Lower Bound is the same as the Study Threshold (ST) (=0) in the SPRWG Report, which corresponds to the VIIRS White Light capability from LEO. The ST is stated to be None/unacceptable in the SPRWG report, with values given only for scoring purposes. The ST visible wavelength range (400-650 nm) is not carried over into the EXP (expected) and ME (Maximum effective) columns in the SPRWG report BUT it is in Table 13 to the Target and Maximum columns. Question: Was it intentional that the visible band were carried over into the target and objective columns in Table 13?

Answer: Yes

5. In both the LEO and GEO calls, you mention that applicable past performance should be provided and is outside the page count. However, we were hoping you could provide some clarification regarding what you expected to see for this section. Is this a citation list for materials used in the paper preparation and relevant to the text, do you expect to see prior programmatic write-ups for programs relevant to the white papers, or a combination thereof? If this is not anticipated as the section to include citations, do you expect to see cited publication references as part of the five pages of content?

Answer: Please refer to the Q&A from Industry Day, specifically LEO/GEO Question 8.

We are looking for insight (not explicitly a citation list) into your past experience in doing this type of work not explicitly in narrative format.

6. We have a follow up question regarding the LEO BAA, technical in nature: The LEO BAA states (p13), “NESDIS envisions sizing the payload accommodation for the spacecraft at 100-200kg to allow for flexibility in determining the manifest for a given mission.” Would NOAA please clarify: does the 100-200kg refer to payload mass or total spacecraft mass?

Answer: Payload mass (see Appendix 4).

Additional GEO BAA Questions/Clarifications:

1. A SuperGOES satellite was shown on a slide at Industry Day but was not included in the

BAA. What does SuperGOES represent?

a. Answer: SuperGOES reflects the Maximum Objective Performance of Table 1:

Regional Real-Time Weather Imagery in the GEO BAA however offerers should not consider that part of the reference constellation as defined in section 2.2 of the BAA nor should they infer that NOAA will plan to procure at that performance level in the future.

2. Request check and verify the update rates on the GEO tables. For example, for regional real time imagery, Table 1 indicates update rate of 5 minutes for a full disk and 30 seconds for a mesoscale area. Do we really mean this or is it 5 minutes without mesoscale, etc. Similar question for sounding.

. Table 1 for the POR (Current ABI) should be clarified. It should state that mesoscale imaging update rate is as stated when not doing full disk images. Offerors looking at the Lower Bound, Target, or Maximum Performance values for Sampling frequency (update rate for full disk images) and Mesoscale Update Rate can employ a similar scanning strategy or propose an alternative one. We are seeking concepts that will allow for improved capability at minimal cost increase or reduced capability at significantly reduced cost. Regardless of mesoscale scanning strategy, the minimum sampling frequency for full disk is 30 minutes. Offerors can consider a similar approach when referencing Table 3: Regional Real Time Vertical IR Soundings.

3. In one of the GIIRDS, the interface requirements suggest a 15 W reduction in power and a volume reduction. Is this correct?

. Yes, these are not supposed to be firm requirements for current or future instruments but merely references to support White Paper development in support of the BAA.

LEO BAA Clarifications

1. NOAA is expecting the satellite systems to support operational expectations. “Operational” to NOAA means not just falling within geophysical performance ranges of Appendix 1 and Mission requirements of Appendix 2, but also 100% duty cycle for sensor operations per orbit, as well as consistent functionality between the copies of sensors and spacecraft.

2. There is no altitude range requirement for sounding.

3. Mission concepts do not need to include RO, Microwave, and IR sounding sensors on the same spacecraft.

4. It is understood that the first launch of LEO Sounder-sats will not have sensors that meet spacecraft-to-sensor standard interfaces, and adapting the sensors original interfaces to the spacecraft standard interface needs to be considered.

5. The NSOSA study is complete. However, the results will continue to be used as points of departure for new information received by this and other BAAs.

6. NOAA would be interested in mission concepts that provided operational capabilities before the dates provided in the BAAs.