RFI Responses - SWO SAN Commercial Services_2-5-2025.pdf

Notice ID: RFI-SWO-SANCommercialSvcs-2025 Responses to Vendor Questions February 5, 2025

Question #1:

With regard to Figure 2 below, Does the scope of this RFI include the approach for the NOAA SWO Antenna Network Management shown in the blue box.

Answer #1:

No, the scope of this RFI is intended to only include the on-site ground station and data transport to NOAA Point of Presence. The Commercial Ground Service will be expected to interface with the NOAA-provided SWO Antenna Network Management.

Question #2:

In the interest of efficiency and costs, will the office of Space Weather Observations be interested in a proposed SAN solution that is optimally integrated into the GOES-R ground architecture to leverage existing security approvals and reduce mission launch schedule risk?

Answer #2:

SWFO-L1 is integrated into the GOES-R ground architecture and SOL will be integrated into the GOES-R system security architecture as well. The scope of this RFI is intended to only include the on-site ground station and data transport to NOAA Point of Presence. The government is interested in how vendor interfaces may increase the efficiency of the NOAA Antenna Network Management function, particularly as they relate to the integration of these GSaaS commercial services with a heterogeneous mix of NOAA antennas and also services provided by partner agencies.

Question #3:

Does NOAA see any advantages to geographical diversity of sites for SOL, or would you prefer to collocate with SWFO-L1 antennas?

Answer #3:

NOAA sees benefit in availability of geographically diverse vendor sites for telemetry receipt services such that a single credible threat to one service site is not likely to affect a designated failover site. We do not see an advantage to geographical diversity between SWFO-L1 and SOL operational sites.

Geographic diversity of S-band ranging services is less critical.

NOAA seeks solutions that maximize availability and minimize cost, leaving the respondents free to propose solutions that collocate SWFO-L1 and SOL X-Band telemetry receipt services and/or add additional site diversity. NOAA has no preferred solution at this time. The current service contract includes X-Band telemetry operational sites in the following locations:

- Nemea, Greece

- Awarua, New Zealand

- Thermopylae, Greece

- Peterborough, Australia

Question #4:

If geographical diversity is preferred, what criteria should be used for site selection?

Answer #4:

There are no defining criteria for geographical diversity besides best practice and requirement satisfaction. Best practice being the selection of sites that would not be susceptible to the same localized / regional disruptions in service (i.e. severe weather). The proposed solutions should meet/exceed the availability requirements and meet the requirement to maintain continuous line of sight visibility at greater than 5° elevation.

Question #5:

Besides the addition of S-Band ranging, are there any specific changes NOAA desires from the system architecture or performance of SWFO?

Answer #5:

The change in desired performance is the addition of capability to support alternate or additional satellites at L1.

Responses may address X-band telemetry downlink services, S-band ranging services, or both.

Question #6:

Can you provide more information on the orbit characteristics and relative placement of SWFO-L1, SOL-A, and SOL-B in order to assess RFI and ground station visibility considerations?

Answer #6:

No additional information regarding satellite orbits is available at this time. The government is interested in information that vendors may be able to share related to GSaaS service or cost impacts due to the relative placement of these satellites in orbit. Comments on the relevant placement of the spacecraft at L1, or our current operational concept stated below are welcome:

“The SWFO-L1 and SOL mission orbits are a Lissajous orbit at the Sun-Earth Lagrange point L1.

From Earth, the satellites will appear to be close to the Sun with a Sun-Earth-Vehicle (SEV) angle of not greater than 13 degrees and no less than 4 degrees and an orbital period of roughly seven months. For the purpose of link analysis, the maximum path distance to these satellites should be considered to be 1,605,000 km.”

Question #7:

Regarding Alternative Arrangements under Area of Interest D. - Technical Consideration, please clarify what you mean by "alternative business arrangements to a service-level agreement".

Answer #7:

NOAA is interested if respondents have a proposal to meet the same requirements for global X-band downlink and/or tracking service to SWFO-L1 and SOL other than a service level agreement for ground stations.

Question #8:

Regarding the Data Protection Measures under Area of Interest F. - Security Standards and Compliance:

a. Is NOAA interested in data protection related exclusively to store and forward capabilities at the ground station antenna site?

Answer #8a:

The scope of this RFI includes data protection both at the ground station site and in data transport to the NOAA Points of Presence.

NOAA is interested in the overall security of the ground station. This includes all aspects such as physical, access, personnel, etc.

b. Is NOAA interested in understanding what data protection measures are required when data leaves the ground station and transfers to NOAA’s environment?

Answer #8b:

Yes.

Question #9:

Regarding Area of Interest H. - Cost Drivers, is NOAA interested in understanding the underlying cloud infrastructure and networking costs, with the assumption that the primary cost drivers will be dependent on the mission lifetime contract for DTE services?

Answer #9:

Yes, NOAA is interested in understanding the cost drivers of all aspects of the ground antenna and data transport network, including the underlying cloud infrastructure and networking costs.