SATPC0038935 Tab 06 RDSS..pdf

Page 1 V2.0 3-15-2017

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

NASA SHARED SERVICES CENTER

RECOMMENDATION AND DETERMINATION TO SOLICIT FROM ONE SOURCE

OR BRAND NAME

PICK ONE

Sole Source:

☒I recommend that NASA, NASA Shared Services Center negotiate with The Ohio State University only for High fidelity quantification of AC loss in a novel superconducting motor. The total estimated cost of this effort is and the estimated period of performance or lead-time for delivery is 1 year.

OR

Brand Name Justification:

☐I recommend that NASA, NASA Shared Services Center negotiate with only with vendors who can provide the subject band name from Manufacture Name for Enter Supply or Service to be procured. The total estimated cost of this effort is Enter Dollar amount and the estimated period of performance or lead-time for delivery is Date.

This recommendation is for the acquisition of supplies or services determined to be reasonably available from only one source/only one manufacture. Competition is impractical for the following reasons (please answer the questions below):

1. What are the reasons for soliciting only the suggested source/suggested brand name? Please provide the unique characteristics of the items or services along with the supporting rationale and the market research performed to substantiate your reason for the suggested source/brand name.

NASA is developing an electric motor that is predicted to achieve very high performance due to its novel use of a specific superconductor. The accuracy of these predictions strongly depends on the accuracy of predicting AC power losses in this specific superconductor under the unique and specific excitation it experiences in this novel motor. NASA’s analysis employs the latest models and data available in the literature. However, those models are not capable of fully capturing the important intricacies of the specific excitation. Thus, NASA’s analysis has an unacceptably high uncertainty. New, higher fidelity models and loss data under new operating conditions are required to reduce this uncertainty and greatly improve the return on NASA’s investment in this project and technology, which is patent pending.

Successful derivation of these models and design of the associated experiments requires specific expertise in the construction and behavior of this superconductor and a deep expertise in the unique AC power losses that occur in superconductors. Based on my 9 years of experience working in the field of superconducting electric machines, including literature reviews and attending several cryogenics and superconducting conferences, I am only aware of 1 group within the US that works in this specialized field of AC losses in superconductors. The only other groups I am aware of are located in New Zealand, China, and South Korea. There are other groups in the US that work in the more broad field of superconductivity or superconducting machines, but none of those groups have near enough knowledge of AC losses in superconductors to derive new models and design the experiments.

2. What is the impact to the government if another vendor/brand is used? Include any dollar, schedule, or compatibility impacts if possible.

There is no other US-based vendor capable of doing this work. As such, the alternative would be to (a) attempt this work in house rather than getting support from an outside vendor or (b) not complete this work. Regarding option a, there are 2 NASA employees who have an understanding of AC losses in superconductors. However, their level of knowledge is currently inadequate to develop new models.

Consequently, about 6 months worth of study would be required to develop the background knowledge

Page 2 V2.0 3-15-2017 to undertake this take. Then another 6-12 months would be needed to develop the models and verify/validate them.

. Regarding option b, not completing this work would lead to 1 of 2 outcomes. Outcome 1 would be that NASA changes the motor design to something completely different

(to avoid the aforementioned uncertainty). In that case, NASA would be eliminating the potential of developing a higher performance motor that is more practical than competing technologies. It would also limit the return on NASA’s investment in a utility patent and its investment in the project (by reducing the technology options and increasing the likelihood that the project’s objectives, level 1 milestone, and

Annual Performance Indicator [reported directly to Congress] won’t be met). Outcome 2 would be that the higher uncertainty is accepted. In this case, NASA would incur higher risk that the technology won’t meet the current performance predictions. The objective of this project is to design, build, and test the superconducting motor. If the higher risk were to be realized, the outcome would be that the >$2M investment in building and testing the motor either yields a motor that does not work or one that works but performs far below expectations, thereby greatly limiting the project’s impact on the US aeronautics industry and terrestrial applications that demand high power, high performance motors.

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:

6/12/2025

Technical User Name Date

Title

Office