SMBA Phase A Industry Day With Question Topics.pdf

1LEO Earth Observation System Program

Sounder for Microwave Brightness and Analysis (SMBA)

Phase A Study Industry Day Jessica Knizhnik

Bruce Tsai Ken Yienger Negar Ehsan

Brooke Greybeck Ed Kim

Tim Walsh

JPSS Reviewed – Not Subject to Export Control

2LEO Earth Observation System Program

Welcome/Introduction/Logistics

3LEO Earth Observation System Program

Ground Rules

• The NOAA/NASA team cannot have any technical discussions with vendors outside of full group discussions and official one on ones

• Information provided to one vendor must be provided to all vendors

– Company questions will be anonymous

• The final chart deck from today will be posted on SAM.gov

4LEO Earth Observation System Program

Welcome to SMBA Phase A Industry Day

• We are using today to

– Elaborate on the government’s thinking behind the documents that were released with the SMBA Phase A Study Request for Information

– Answer questions vendors might have

– Foster discussion on the LEOS program and the SMBA instrument

The Phase A Study Statement of Work (SOW), Performance Specification Document (PSD), and Instrument Mission Assurance Requirements (IMAR) as well as other information included in the Request for Information are available on SAM.gov at the following link:

https://sam.gov/opp/6efaeb75571e46529e3fd9681e9d2aab/view

Anything in the final SMBA Phase A Study Request for Proposal (RFP) will supersede the information provided as part of Industry Day.

https://sam.gov/opp/6efaeb75571e46529e3fd9681e9d2aab/view

5LEO Earth Observation System Program

Who’s Here SMBA Team

• Jessica Knizhnik – SMBA Instrument Manager

• Bruce Tsai – SMBA Contracting Officer

• Eric Newman – LEOS Procurement Manager

• Quinton Nabors – SMBA Financial Manager

• Ed Kim – Acting SMBA Instrument Scientist

• Negar Ehsan – SMBA Senior Microwave

Engineer

• Ken Yienger – LEOS Chief Engineer

• Brooke Greybeck – SMBA Chief Safety and

Mission Assurance Officer

• David Bogart – LEOS Program Chief Safety and

Mission Assurance Officer

• Tim Walsh – LEOS Program Manager

• Support service contractor team

Vendors

• Ball

• L3Harris

• Northrop Grumman

• Orbital Micro Systems

• Raytheon

• Spire Global

6LEO Earth Observation System Program

Agenda

7LEO Earth Observation System Program

Other Logistics

• Food

– Snack café in the lobby

– Goddard main campus cafeterias in buildings 1, 21, 33, and 34

– Nearby restaurants – Chevy’s, Osaka, Subway

• Wifi

– Network: Guest-CNE

– Login Page Sponsoring Organization: 470

8LEO Earth Observation System Program

LEOS Program Overview

9LEO Earth Observation System Program

Serving NOAA NESDIS User Needs From Low-Earth Orbit (LEO)

Nearly every product category across the thematic areas in the NESDIS Level Requirements relies on LEO observational measurements

IR/MW/RO

Soundings

MW Imagery

AltimetryRADAR Imagery

LIDAR

UV Imagery LEO Program Level Objectives NESDIS-REQ-4400.1

VIS/NIR/IR Imagery

Scatterometry

10LEO Earth Observation System Program

Evolving LEO Satellite Technology to Improve Forecast Accuracy

1960 1980 2000 2020 2040 TIROS-1 launch in

April 1960. 48° inclination

Nimbus-1 launch in Aug. 1964. First infrared sensor

TIROS-9 launch in 1965. “Cartwheel configuration.”

First polar orbit

TIROS-N launch in October 1978. First

AVHRR

First microwave sounder—increase in forecast accuracy due to ability to see through clouds

NOAA-15,16, 17.

More microwave channels

NOAA + EUMETSAT

IJPS agreement

NPOESS/JPSS

development

Collaboration with DoD on the Defense Meteorological Satellite Program and WINDSAT Coriolis

First hyperspectral infrared sounders

JPSS series operational

METOP-SG

Jason-2/3

COSMIC-2 GNSS RO

GOSAT3 / AMSR3

Next-gen sounder development

Increased national and international partnerships

Enterprise ground system

Capitalize on cutting-edge technology

Information integration

11LEO Earth Observation System Program

Exploiting the Trends: Leveraging Advancements

• In FY 2022, NOAA began conceptualizing a Low Earth Orbit (LEO) Weather Satellites (LWS) Program, to set the stage for managing future polar and other low earth and medium earth orbit satellite observations as loosely coupled programs.

• Make use of industry’s significant investment of funding, expertise, and innovation to date.

• Put capabilities where and when we want them, enabled by shorter development timelines and more frequent launches.

• Provide more capability at a better price, leveraging smaller and more capable instruments and satellites.

• Achieve greater agility to incorporate continuous advancement, using new business models.

12LEO Earth Observation System Program

Improved Microwave (MW) and Infrared (IR) Sounding Measurements

• LEO Soundings (MW and IR) have the highest impact on NWP forecast skills.

– 80% of data that feeds Numerical Weather Prediction (NWP) models comes from existing LEO sats

• With Existing Partner, LEOS Program achieves 4-hour global refresh (+3 Improvement)

– METOP (0930), JPSS/LEOS (1330), and LEOS(1730)

– LEOS Missions Provide MW/IR Soundings in BOTH 1330 (existing) and 1730 (proposed) LTAN’s

• Partnering with EUMETSAT EPS-Sterna proposed MW constellation, we can achieve 2-hour global refresh (+5 Improvement)

– Sterna Satellites Planned for 1130, 1530 and 1930 LTANs (with reduced MW channels)

Adding Sounders to current two orbits significantly Improves forecast skill

Metop

(0930 LTAN)

NOAA JPSS/LEOS

(1330 LTAN)

NOAA LEOS

(1730 LTAN)

Proposed Future MW Constellation

Proposed Future IR Constellation

Sterna (1130, 1530, and 1930 LTANs)

Metop

(0930 LTAN)

JPSS/LEOS

(1330 LTAN)

NOAA

LEOS

(1730 LTAN)

Government Reference Mission

13LEO Earth Observation System Program

SMBA Overview

14LEO Earth Observation System Program

Next Generation Backbone Microwave Sounder

• As the requirements reflect, SMBA will serve as the backbone microwave sounder for the LEOS program.

• Planning to include:

– All ATMS channels plus 118GHz and 229GHz channels

– Radio Frequency Interference (RFI) detection and hyperspectral capabilities

– Intercalibration performance

• Capabilities driven by the science community’s needs as described in the following reports

– Systems performance Assessment Team (SAT), Boukabara, S.(chair), Gallagher, F.(co-chair). [Scientific Guidance for potential study and design of Microwave Sounder (for SounderSat and GEO-XO)]. Retrieved from NOAA/NESDIS Center for Satellite Applications and Research.

September 17, 2020.

– NOAA workshop on MW sounders: https://doi.org/10.25923/wkgd-pw75 https://doi.org/10.25923/wkgd-pw75

15LEO Earth Observation System Program

From NOAA Products to Channel Choices & Prioritizations (1/5)

Climate channel needs

NWP channel needs

Other NOAA product channel needs (hurricane 4casts, MIRS, etc)

16LEO Earth Observation System Program

Prioritizations (2/5)

• NWP needs: T & q profiles can be generated from a variety of channel choices once the bands are set

• Climate needs: long-term trend analyses benefit strongly from channel choices consistent w/previous channel choices

• Other product needs: algorithms often have specific channel needs

17LEO Earth Observation System Program

Prioritizations (3/5)

NWP channel choices

• T & q sounding are the SMBA’s top priority products, respectively, hence T & q sounding bands & channels are priorities 1,2, respectively, in PSD Table 4.0-1.

• There is flexibility regarding exact frequencies for both sounding & window channels for T & q profile generation.

• The number, exact center frequency, and width of channels are chosen to achieve performance targets for NEDT, vertical resolution, etc.

• Certain other channels (window & quality control channels) are needed to maintain & improve the quality of T & q soundings.

Hence these channels are priority 3.

• Priorities I,II,III,IV in Table 4.1-1 map to priorities 1,2,3,11 in Table 4.0-1.

• Hyperspectral & RFI considerations may modify the tradespace.

18LEO Earth Observation System Program

Prioritizations (4/5)

Climate needs:

• Long-term trend analyses benefit strongly from channel choices consistent w/previous channel choices (AMSU & MSU)

• Climate applications are lower priority than NWP for SMBA, hence channel continuity is lower priority in PSD Table 4.0-1

• Mixing some ‘continuity’ channels with some new channels may be an option

• Hyperspectral & RFI considerations may modify the tradespace

19LEO Earth Observation System Program

Prioritizations (5/5)

Other performance parameters in Table 4.0-1 have prioritization also based on the importance of T & q profiles as well as other considerations.

20LEO Earth Observation System Program

SMBA Performance Capabilities Prioritization Priority# Performance Factor Baseline Aspirational Target

1 Channels for direct Temperature Sounding

*13 Channels around 50-60 GHz and 7 channels around 118GHz line

*More than 20 channels around 50-60 GHz and 118GHz line

2 Channels for direct Moisture sounding

*5 Channels or more around 183 GHz

*10 Channels or more around 183 GHz

Window channels; channels for cloud, precip, ice detection for direct all-sky assimilation and NWP QC

Channels at 23.8, 31.4, 88.2. One channel at 165.5 (TBR) and/or 229 (TBR) GHz channels Other channel combinations will be considered. Such as: at least 4 channels at low frequencies (priority order) (i.e. 22-23 GHz(a), 31-37 GHz(b), 89 GHz(c) and 18 GHz (d)) if possible, channels for TPW integration, cloud/precip detection and surface signal distinction

4 Spatial coverage (daily)

100% Global Coverage 100% Global Coverage

5 Noise Level (NEDT) for Temperature sounding channels

See Table 4.1-2 See Table 4.1-2

6 Noise level (NEDT) for Moisture sounding channels

See Table 4.1-2 See Table 4.1-2

7 Spatial horizontal resolution As-good as ATMS Smaller (better) than ATMS 8 Spatial sampling Contiguous footprints (or better) Oversampling (Spatial Nyquist sampling at a minimum) to enable higher spatial resolution 9 Scan geometry Cross track or conical Cross track or conical 10 Polarization Single linear polarization Baseline, and dual-polarization (vertical and horizontal) for window channels below 50 GHz 11 ATMS Channels Continuity Yes, for similar channels Yes, for similar channels 12 Calibration accuracy See Table 4.1-2 Less than values in Table 4.1-2

23LEO Earth Observation System Program

Radio Frequency Interference Some relevant presentations, reports:

• IGARSS 2022, FARS session

• “Recent RFI-related Developments from a

NOAA LEO Perspective” E.Kim. (contains an overview of many topics)

• RFI 2019 & 2022 workshops

• http://www.rfi2019.org/

• https://events.ecmwf.int/event/258/

• ECMWF RFI workshop https://www.ecmwf.int/en/elibrary/19026-radio-frequency-interference-rfi-workshop-final-report

• NOAA workshop on MW sounders

• https://doi.org/10.25923/wkgd-pw75 http://www.rfi2019.org/ https://events.ecmwf.int/event/258/ https://doi.org/10.25923/wkgd-pw75

24LEO Earth Observation System Program

Phase A Study Goals

• Refine requirements and mature technology

• Balance the need for a backbone instrument with the desire to be flexible on tailoring requirements and to realize significant cost and schedule savings

– We are very open to and interested in feedback.

– SOW, PSD, and IMAR reflect NOAA/NASA team’s initial expectations. We are open to suggestions on these expectations.

• Move instrument to at least SRR/SDR

– Desire to move instrument to PDR or CDR

25LEO Earth Observation System Program

Phase A Study SOW Guiding Assumptions (1/2) The Flight hardware development cost and schedule estimates shall be based on the following assumptions:

• 1 Engineering Test Unit (ETU), to be completed and tested NLT CDR, that can make calibrated radiometric measurements. This ETU will be fabricated using the same manufacturing processes as the flight instruments.

• 4 Flight Units plus parts for 5 more flight models to be procured concurrently, with contractual options to build units 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9. Deliveries will be as shown in the following schedule (all dates are for the Government Fiscal Year):

MILESTONE DATE (assume 1st day of quarter) Flight Contract Award Q1 FY25 Flight Model 1 Pre-Ship Review (PSR1) Q1 FY30 Launch 1 Readiness Date Q1 FY31 Flight Models 2, 3, and 4 PSR (PSR234) Q1 FY32 Launch 2 Readiness Date Q1 FY34 Launch 3 Readiness Date Q1 FY37 Launch 4 Readiness Date Q1 FY40

These assumptions are for study planning purposes.

We expect to revise them during the Phase A studies.

26LEO Earth Observation System Program

• 1 year is needed between Pre-Ship Review (PSR) for each flight model and the Launch Readiness Date for that flight model.

• No Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) will be provided. If there is specific Government owned equipment which the contractor is proposing to utilize, then this equipment shall be specifically identified, along with the benefit and verification of availability.

• Instrument Class: C (as defined in NPR 8705.4)

• Mission durations: 5 year on-orbit mission life after 10 year on-ground storage after instrument delivery

• The following instrument-level reviews will be held for the first flight build: SRR, IBR, PDR, CDR, PER, PSR. Subsequent flight builds will hold a PER and PSR. Review pre-requisites, content, and success criteria are documented in NPR 7123.1.

Phase A Study SOW Guiding Assumptions (2/2) The Flight hardware development cost and schedule estimates shall be based on the following assumptions:

These assumptions are for study planning purposes.

We expect to revise them during the Phase A studies.

27LEO Earth Observation System Program

Follow On Options

• Suggested long term schedule requirement

– Starts, instrument delivery, and material procurement milestones

– The nominal launch readiness dates (LRD) and instrument no-later-than need dates are as follows:

• Note: The options for an additional 5 instruments led to the 10 year on ground storage life.

Mission Instrument Need Date (NLT, Gov. FY) LRD (Gov. FY)

F5 Q1 FY33 Q3 FY38

F6 Q1 FY33 Q1 FY40

F7 Q1 FY33 Q3 FY41

F8 Q1 FY33 Q1 FY43

F9 Q1 FY33 Q3 FY44

28LEO Earth Observation System Program

RFI FAQs and Other Q&A

29LEO Earth Observation System Program

Procurement Questions

30LEO Earth Observation System Program

Procurement Timeline

What is the procurement timeline?

• RFP Release – Late February 2023

• RFP Responses Due – Late March 2023 (one month response time)

• Contract Award – October 2023

• Final Study Review – October 2024

Note: The above are notional schedule dates. Please continue to monitor http://www.sam.gov and official correspondences related to this solicitation for official dates and updates to the schedule.

31LEO Earth Observation System Program

One on Ones

How often can vendors speak with the government team?

• Vendors may request as many one on ones with the government team as they like until the RFP is released. The government will grant these as schedule permits. Vendors may also email any further questions/clarifications during the run up to the RFP release. All questions answered will be posted to SAM.gov in an anonymous fashion.

32LEO Earth Observation System Program

Who Can Compete

Can my team include a Federally Funded Research and Development Center

(FFRDC)?

• The authorized usage of each FFRDC should be defined in their sponsoring agreement and each FFRDC should know their restrictions the best.

Can my team include international vendors or partners?

• The usage of international vendors or partners should be compliant with the contract clauses and governing laws at the time of the Request for Proposal (RFP). It is anticipated that there will be several clauses in the RFP that pertain to foreign vendors including 52.225-1 Buy American- Supplies.

33LEO Earth Observation System Program

SOW Questions

34LEO Earth Observation System Program

Instrument Level Reviews

When are instrument-level reviews (SRR, IBR, PDR, CDR, etc.) planned for?

• Instrument level reviews have not been specified on purpose. The government would like the Phase A study vendors to suggest their own dates for the instrument level reviews. We are interested in understanding how soon each vendor believes these reviews are technically feasible. A Pre-Ship Review date and Launch Readiness Date have been specified in the Phase A SOW.

35LEO Earth Observation System Program

Design Fidelity at the End of the Study

What is the required fidelity of instrument design upon conclusion of the Phase A study?

• Required fidelity at the end of the study is at a minimum SRR/SDR level, however, preference will likely be given to those vendors that can further advance their instrument designs to PDR, CDR, and beyond.

36LEO Earth Observation System Program

Instrument Design Deliverable

What data products are needed to fulfill the Instrument Design CDRL?

• In addition to the items previously listed in SMBA Phase A SOW item 2.2.1, the following will be requested:

– A concept of operations

– A block diagram

– A visual depiction of top-level geometry choices

– Identification of technical risk

• Consider referencing the review content recommended from GSFC-STD- 1001 Reviews for a Systems Requirement Review / System Design Review

(SRR/SDR)

37LEO Earth Observation System Program

ETU Testing and Verification

Is the SMBA ETU expected to be tested and verified before CDR?

• Our baseline preference is to have the ETU tested and verified before CDR in order to buy down technical risk before manufacturing. We realize this may be difficult to do while also meeting an aggressive schedule. We are open to discussing which testing and verification can be pushed to after CDR as part of the Phase A studies.

38LEO Earth Observation System Program

PSD Questions

39LEO Earth Observation System Program

Instrument Capabilities and Channel Set Are the SMBA capabilities and channel set negotiable?

• A more general study has already occurred on which capabilities and channels to include (NWP report on slide 11). These capabilities are for the backbone sensor that our customers, the NOAA science community, have specifically requested.

• Vendors may suggest alternative channels to the ones listed. These channels must still meet our needed Baseline capabilities in PSD table 4.0-1.

Priority # Performance Factor Baseline Aspirational Target

1 Channels for direct Temperature Sounding

*13 Channels around 50-60 GHz and 7 channels around 118GHz line

*More than 20 channels around 50-60 GHz and 118GHz line

2 Channels for direct Moisture sounding

*5 Channels or more around 183 GHz

*10 Channels or more around 183 GHz

Window channels;

channels for cloud, precip, ice detection for direct all-sky assimilation and NWP

QC

Channels at 23.8, 31.4, 88.2. One channel at 165.5 (TBR) and/or 229

(TBR) GHz channels

Other channel combinations will be considered. Such as: at least 4 channels at low frequencies (priority order) (i.e. 22-23 GHz(a), 31-37 GHz(b), 89 GHz(c) and 18 GHz (d)) if possible, channels for TPW integration, cloud/precip detection and surface signal distinction

4 Spatial coverage (daily) 100% Global Coverage 100% Global Coverage

Noise Level (NEDT) for Temperature sounding channels See Table 4.1-2 See Table 4.1-2

Noise level (NEDT) for

Moisture sounding channels

See Table 4.1-2 See Table 4.1-2

7 Spatial horizontal resolution As-good as ATMS Smaller (better) than ATMS 8 Spatial sampling

Contiguous footprints (or better) Oversampling (Spatial Nyquist sampling at a minimum) to enable higher spatial resolution

9 Scan geometry Cross track or conical Cross track or conical 10 Polarization

Single linear polarization Baseline, and dual-polarization (vertical and horizontal) for window channels below 50 GHz

11 ATMS Channels Continuity Yes, for similar channels Yes, for similar channels 12 Calibration accuracy See Table 4.1-2 Less than values in Table 4.1-2

40LEO Earth Observation System Program

Spacecraft Interfaces and Environments

What are the expected spacecraft interfaces and environments?

• While we have specified initial instrument accommodation assumptions in PSD Section 5.1, we will be flexible in the allocations to extent needed to accommodate the instrument’s needs.

– Vendors are encouraged to use industry-standard solutions (mechanical, electrical, communication, and data format) for interface needs.

• During Phase A study, we will work with potential vendors to refine the enveloping accommodation requirements as well as to define expected spacecraft mechanical environments.

41LEO Earth Observation System Program

IMAR Questions

42LEO Earth Observation System Program

Risk Class

Can vendors use a Class D approach instead of a Class C approach if they have design heritage and believe that a higher tolerance risk class will save cost and schedule?

• No, this will be NASA Class C per NPR 8705.4, as directed. However, NASA is open to, and encourages, IMAR requirements tailoring.

– Expect to allow vendors to follow their internal processes where they meet the intent of NASA's higher-level requirements.

– During tailoring discussions NASA would like to see cost, schedule, and technical risk analyses.

– For vendors with heritage hardware or software, it may be possible to use GSFC’s inherited items process (see next slide) to develop alternative approaches to meet requirements.

43LEO Earth Observation System Program

Inherited Items Process

• Inherited Items: Items that are currently built, COTS, or to be built-to-print, and otherwise will not be changed

• Purpose: Many items are built to non-NASA standards and/or level of oversight

• The reason for NASA’s traditional requirements:

– Based on one-of-a-kind developments

– Where there was no historical basis for reliability, reliability was assured as a by-product of quality measures, piece-part controls, and reliability tools

Predicted outcome and use:

Inherited items are based on the principle that a manufacturer whose products have proven reliability can be trusted to deliver standard products without outside interference in their processes. A reduction in government process requirements on vendors who show reliability of an item through inheritance may, in some cases, reduce project risk.

• GSFC Safety and Mission Assurance Chief Engineer has offered to give any vendor interested a presentation on this process.

44LEO Earth Observation System Program

One on Ones

45LEO Earth Observation System Program

Agenda

46LEO Earth Observation System Program

Final FAQs and Other Q&A

47LEO Earth Observation System Program

Common Question Topics

• Possible schedule acceleration goal

• Aspirational requirements optional

• Inherited items process is encouraged

• Program architecture forthcoming, hopefully in January 2023

• Spacecraft accommodations: assume volume allowed 1mx1mx1m

• Partnering

• Negotiating Priorities

48LEO Earth Observation System Program

Thank You!

• RFP Release – Late February 2023

• RFP Responses Due – Late March 2023 (one month response time)

• Contract Award – October 2023

• Final Study Review – October 2024

Note: The above are notional schedule dates. Please continue to monitor http://www.sam.gov and official correspondences related to this solicitation for official dates and updates to the schedule.