Effective Date:

Expiration Date:

Check the SW GEO CM tool server at https://ipdtdms.gsfc.nasa.gov/ to verify that this is the correct version prior to use

SWGEO-EUVI-SOW-0003, Revision - SW GEO Project, Code 495.0

Space Weather Geostationary (SW GEO) Project Extreme Ultraviolet

Imager (EUVI) Phase A Study Statement of Work (SOW)

U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC) National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service (NESDIS) National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)

GSFC SW GEO CMO

Released

SW GEO EUVI A SOW SWGEO-EUVI-SOW-0003, Revision -ii

Check the SW GEO CM tool server at https://ipdtdms.gsfc.nasa.gov/ to verify that this is the correct version prior to use.

Space Weather Geostationary (SW GEO) Project Extreme Ultraviolet Imager (EUVI) Phase A Study Statement of

Work (SOW)

Signature/Approval Page

Prepared by:

James Buchheit

Reviewed by:

John Deily

Dean Chai

Gustave Comeyne

Stephen Husty

Gregory Yoblin

Erin Lynch iii

Check the SW GEO CM tool server at https://ipdtdms.gsfc.nasa.gov/ to verify that this is the correct version prior to

Evan Goldstein

Jeffery Kronenwetter

Approved by:

Eugene Guerrero-martin iv

Check the SW GEO CM tool server at https://ipdtdms.gsfc.nasa.gov/ to verify that this is the correct version prior to

Preface

This document is under SW GEO configuration control. Once this document is approved, SW GEO approved changes are handled in accordance with Class I and Class II change control requirements as described in the SW GEO Configuration Management Procedures, and changes to this document shall be made by complete revision.

Any questions should be addressed to:

SW GEO Configuration Management Office

NASA/GSFC

Code 495.0 Greenbelt, MD 20771 v

Check the SW GEO CM tool server at https://ipdtdms.gsfc.nasa.gov/ to verify that this is the correct version prior to

Change History Log

Revision Effective Date

Description of Changes (Reference the CCR & CCB/ERB Approval Date)

Rev - Initial Release vi

Check the SW GEO CM tool server at https://ipdtdms.gsfc.nasa.gov/ to verify that this is the correct version prior to

Table of Contents

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Top-Level Summary of Work Required

1.2 Guiding Assumptions About the Eventual Flight Project

1.3 Study Milestones Schedule

1.4 Applicable and Reference Documents

2 TASKS

2.1 Trade Studies

2.1.1 EDU Trade Study

2.1.2 CDRL Evaluation

2.1.3 Contractor Proposed Trade Study & Pre-Priced Option

2.1.4 Adaptability to Different Orbital Regimes

2.1.5 Size, Weight, and Power (SWAP) Reduction

2.1.6 Refresh Rate

2.1.7 Spatial Resolution

2.1.8 Field of View (FOV)

2.1.9 Number of Channels

2.1.10 Reserved Trade Study (CDRL 10)

2.2 Sensor Design Concept Development and Related Analyses

2.2.1 Sensor Design

2.2.2 Predicted Performance vs. SPEC

2.2.3 SPEC Compliance

2.2.4 IMAR Compliance & Alternatives

2.2.5 TBR Review

2.2.6 Calibration Methodology

2.2.7 Reliability Approach

2.2.8 Single Point Failures & Fault Critical Elements

2.2.9 Master Equipment List (MEL)

2.2.10 Modeling and Simulation Tool Description

2.2.11 Pointing Budget

2.3 Technology Assessment and Demonstration

2.3.1 TRL Assessment

2.3.1.1 Technology Development Effort

2.3.2 Heritage Assessment

2.4 Management Planning

2.4.1 Risk Assessment

2.4.1.1 Risk Mitigation Effort

2.4.2 Flight Implementation Schedule

2.4.3 Flight Cost Estimate

3 REVIEWS, REPORTING, AND DELIVERABLE PRODUCTS

3.1 Status Meetings and Reviews

3.1.1 Kickoff Meeting

3.1.2 Monthly Progress Review (MPR)

3.1.3 Midterm Review (MTR)

vii

Check the SW GEO CM tool server at https://ipdtdms.gsfc.nasa.gov/ to verify that this is the correct version prior to

3.1.4 Final Study Review (FSR)

3.1.5 Final Report Package (FRP)

3.2 Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL)

Appendix A Abbreviations and Acronyms

List of Tables

Table 1. CDRLs

Check the SW GEO CM tool server at https://ipdtdms.gsfc.nasa.gov/ to verify that this is the correct version prior to

1 INTRODUCTION

This Statement of Work (SOW) seeks information on instrument concepts for an Extreme Ultraviolet Imager (EUVI) that can resolve solar features, including coronal holes, filaments and prominences, active regions, coronal mass ejections (CMEs), and X10 Class solar flares. Solar EUVI imagery provides comprehensive situational awareness of the inner solar corona. Although there is no requirement for the number of EUVI spectral bands, bands should be selected that are sensitive to different plasma temperatures within the range specified for feature and phenomenological discrimination.

The EUVI design concept will meet, as a minimum, National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) requirements as defined in this SOW, the EUVI Requirements Specification (SPEC) document, and the Instrument Mission Assurance Requirements (IMAR).

It is anticipated that at the conclusion of this Phase A study any industry partner will be prepared to enter directly into a System Requirements Review (SRR), approximately one month after Implementation contract award, followed by a Preliminary Design Review (PDR). The Government will consider a contractor-proposed pre-priced option for six (6) (TBR) additional months of performance that mitigates technical, cost, and schedule risk associated with the EUVI design, development, and delivery, and moves the completion of this formulation study towards a PDR level readiness.

1.1 Top-Level Summary of Work Required

The details of the deliverables are described in later sections. At the top level, the Government requires:

a) A sensor design concept that satisfies the baseline requirements defined in the SPEC and IMAR. Suggested changes and/or additions to the SPEC or enhancements to the design beyond the baseline requirements will be considered if they do not add risk or cost and can be implemented on the specified delivery timeline.

b) Provide feedback and an assessment of sensor’s performance against the requirements specified in the SPEC.

c) Trade Studies as described in section 2.1.

• Industry partner proposed trade study(s).

d) Technical Analyses as described in section 2.2.

e) Notional Development Schedule as described in section 2.4.

f) Cost Analysis as described in section 2.4.

g) Technology Readiness Level (TRL) Assessment and a Technology Development Plan as described in section 2.3.

h) Identification of Development Risks as defined in section 2.4.

i) As applicable, performance of any work related to Technology Development and/or Risk

Mitigation.

j) Identification of hardware and software heritage assumptions as defined in section 2.3.

Check the SW GEO CM tool server at https://ipdtdms.gsfc.nasa.gov/ to verify that this is the correct version prior to

1.2 Guiding Assumptions About the Eventual Flight Project

The flight hardware development cost and schedule estimates shall be based on the following assumptions:

a) 1 Engineering Development Unit (EDU) that includes representative spacecraft mechanical and electrical interfaces.

b) One (1) Flight Unit, plus parts to support a robust sparing philosophy defined and described by the contractor to mitigate risk of issues identified late in the launch integration flow.

c) Deliveries will be as shown in the following schedule (all dates are notional and for the Government Fiscal Year):

MILESTONE NOTIONAL DATE (assume 1st day of quarter)

Flight Contract Award Q4 FY 28 (TBR) Flight Model 1 Pre-Ship Review

(PSR1)

Q4 FY 31 (TBR)

Launch 1 Readiness Date Q3 FY32 (TBR)

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

e) Anticipated sensor class: C (as defined in NASA Procedural Requirements (NPR) 8705.4)

f) Mission durations: see the SPEC.

g) The following sensor-level reviews will be held for the first flight build: System

Requirements Review (SRR), Integrated Baseline Review (IBR), PDR, Critical Design Review (CDR), Pre-Environmental Review (PER), and Pre-Ship Review (PSR). Any subsequent flight builds will hold a PER and PSR. Review pre-requisites, content, and success criteria are documented in NPR 7123.1.

1.3 Study Milestones Schedule

a) The contractor shall execute the study in accordance with the following milestone schedule. Requirements and deliverables for these milestones are described in Section 3.

Milestone Schedule Kickoff Meeting Within two weeks of award Monthly Progress Reviews Kickoff + 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 months Mid-Term Review Kickoff + 4.5 months Final Study Review Kickoff + 8.5 months Final Report Package Kickoff + 9 months Risk Mitigation Report (as applicable) Kickoff + 9 months

Check the SW GEO CM tool server at https://ipdtdms.gsfc.nasa.gov/ to verify that this is the correct version prior to

Technology Assessment and Development Report (as applicable)

Kickoff + 9 months

Summary of any funded risk mitigation and/or Technology Development efforts

Kickoff + 15 months

1.4 Applicable and Reference Documents

Applicable Documents

Document ID

Title

SWGEO-EUVI-REQ-0005 Space Weather Next Geo EUVI

Specification (SPEC) Document (TBR) SWGEO-EUVI-REQ- XXXX Instrument Mission Assurance

Requirements (TBR) SWGEO-EUVI-CDRL- 0003 Space Weather Next Geo EUVI Contract

Deliverables Requirements List (CDRL) (Draft Implementation CDRL)

GPR 7120.4D GSFC Guideline for Performing Risk Assessments

Reference Documents

NPR 7123.1 NASA Systems Engineering Process and

Requirements

Check the SW GEO CM tool server at https://ipdtdms.gsfc.nasa.gov/ to verify that this is the correct version prior to

2 TASKS

The delivery schedule for Contract Deliverables Requirements List (CDRL) associated with the tasks are defined in table 1 of section 3.

2.1 Trade Studies

The contractor shall perform the following trade studies and report on the results at the Midterm Review and at the Final Review.

2.1.1 EDU Trade Study

The contractor shall conduct a trade study of possible engineering models, from a complete Sensor-level EDU to component-level EDUs. The contractor shall clearly document the cost, schedule, and risk associated with each option and make a recommendation on the best balance of cost and schedule vs. risk as a function of the level of integration. The results of the trade shall be captured in a Model Philosophy & Plan document. (CDRL 1)

2.1.2 CDRL Evaluation

The contractor shall study the provided draft CDRL document for the Sensor implementation and provide feedback on the deliverables scope, including risks, opportunities, including implementing commercial practices, cost, and schedule trades on the overall quantity of CDRLs and the number of CDRLs requiring review and approval by the Government. (CDRL 2)

2.1.3 Contractor Proposed Trade Study & Pre-Priced Option

The Government will consider contractor proposed Trade Studies as part of a pre-priced option for six (6) (TBR) additional months of performance that advances the completion of this formulation study towards a PDR level of readiness and mitigates technical, cost and schedule risk associated the sensor design, development, and delivery. Any approved vendor-proposed trade studies will be documented as part of the Risk Mitigation Effort documentation. (CDRL 3)

2.1.4 Adaptability to Different Orbital Regimes

The contractor shall study the suitability and adaptability of the EUVI instrument design to be hosted on space platforms in different orbital regimes including in Earth geosynchronous orbit, and at Earth-Sun Lagrange Point 1. (CDRL 4)

2.1.5 Size, Weight, and Power (SWAP) Reduction

The contractor shall present a trade study focused on reducing the SWAP of the sensor along with an analysis of the pros and cons and a detailed discussion of any compromises required to achieve the identified reductions. At the Kickoff, the Government will provide refined guidance on the SWAP targets for this study. (CDRL 5)

2.1.6 Refresh Rate

The contractor shall conduct a study of improvements to the refresh rate from the specified rate of two minutes per channel. (CDRL 6)

2.1.7 Spatial Resolution

The contractor shall conduct a trade study to improve the spatial resolution of 5 arcseconds.

(CDRL 7)

Check the SW GEO CM tool server at https://ipdtdms.gsfc.nasa.gov/ to verify that this is the correct version prior to

2.1.8 Field of View (FOV)

The contractor shall conduct a trade study to increase the FOV. (CDRL 8)

2.1.9 Number of Channels

The contractor shall conduct a trade study to compare the design of an instrument with between 3 and 6 channels. (CDRL 9)

2.1.10 Reserved Trade Study (CDRL 10)

2.2 Sensor Design Concept Development and Related Analyses

2.2.1 Sensor Design

The contractor shall develop a Sensor design concept and perform associated engineering analyses to justify design parameters, tolerances, and design/performance margins and associated budgets. (CDRL 11)

2.2.2 Predicted Performance vs. SPEC

The contractor shall provide a quantitative comparison of the predicted sensor performance against the performance requirements in section 6 of the SPEC. (CDRL 12)

2.2.3 SPEC Compliance

The contractor shall provide a summary of compliance with all the requirements in the SPEC, including initial engineering analyses showing compliance to environmental requirements.

(CDRL 13)

2.2.4 IMAR Compliance & Alternatives

The contractor shall provide a summary of compliance with the requirements in the proposed Instrument Mission Assurance Requirements (IMAR) for the flight implementation. The contractor may identify any preferred alternative approaches, including commercial practices, that could reduce risk and/or provide opportunities for cost and schedule savings. Any suggested alternatives shall be accompanied by an assessment of any associated risk, cost, or schedule impacts. (CDRL 14).

2.2.5 TBR Review

The contractor shall review all requirements listed as "TBR" and either concur or suggest new requirement values. The contractor shall quantify potential cost, schedule, and risk impacts of any suggested requirements changes. (CDRL 15)

2.2.6 Calibration Methodology

The contractor shall define a calibration methodology for the Sensor (both pre-launch and on-orbit) and provide the associated radiometric budget for each (pre-launch and on-orbit). (CDRL 16)

2.2.7 Reliability Approach

The contractor shall describe a reliability approach (planned redundancy, parts selection, etc.) to meet the SPEC required reliability for the specified lifetime. (CDRL 17)

Check the SW GEO CM tool server at https://ipdtdms.gsfc.nasa.gov/ to verify that this is the correct version prior to

2.2.8 Single Point Failures & Fault Critical Elements

The contractor shall identify all single-point failures and fault critical elements. As part of this analysis the contractor shall describe the fault tolerant/graceful degradation features of the design. (CDRL 18)

2.2.9 Master Equipment List (MEL)

The contractor shall develop a Master Equipment List (MEL). The MEL shall document the mass, power, and TRL of each major sub-component. A template for the MEL will be provided by the Government. (CDRL 19)

2.2.10 Modeling and Simulation Tool Description

The contractor shall provide descriptions of any simulation and analytical tools used in the assessment of the design and/or performance, including the heritage and validation of the tools.

(CDRL 20)

2.2.11 Pointing Budget

The contractor shall provide a notional pointing budget. (CDRL 21)

2.3 Technology Assessment and Demonstration

2.3.1 TRL Assessment

The contractor shall assess the technology readiness level (TRL) of all components in the Sensor design. For components with TRL < 6, the contractor shall provide a detailed Technology Development Plan (TDP), including a schedule, that explains how all technologies will achieve TRL 6 by the Sensor PDR. If the study effort includes Technology Development effort, the TDP and associated schedule shall clearly identify all the work covered by the Technology Development. (CDRL 22)

2.3.1.1 Technology Development Effort

If the study effort includes a funded Technology Development effort, the contractor shall implement the Technology Development effort under contract, brief the status of this effort at the reviews described in section 3, and provide a final report detailing the work done, any associated results, and the level to which the technology has been developed. (CDRL 23)

2.3.2 Heritage Assessment

The contractor shall document the flight hardware and software heritage and document any relevant differences between the claimed heritage and the proposed design (for example, on-orbit environment, mission duration, requirements, etc.). (CDRL 24)

2.4 Management Planning

2.4.1 Risk Assessment

The contractor shall identify and rank risks to the development of the Sensor and describe associated mitigations. The likelihood and criticality of risks shall be ranked on a 5x5 matrix per GPR 7120.4D. The contractor shall identify alternate implementation paths for all high-risk items. Special attention should be paid to manufacturability, supply chain, and facility availability. (CDRL 25)

Check the SW GEO CM tool server at https://ipdtdms.gsfc.nasa.gov/ to verify that this is the correct version prior to

2.4.1.1 Risk Mitigation Effort

If the study effort includes Risk Mitigation effort, the contractor shall implement the Risk Mitigation effort under contract, brief the status of this effort at the reviews described in section 3 and provide a final report detailing the work completed, associated results, and the level to which the risk has been mitigated. Any vendor-proposed trade studies shall also be documented as part of the same CDRL. (CDRL 26)

2.4.2 Flight Implementation Schedule

The contractor shall develop an implementation-phase schedule. The contractor will assume that the parts for all flight Sensors will be procured at the same time. The schedule shall show the following major Sensor reviews: SRR, IBR, PDR, CDR, MRRs, TRRs, PER, and PSR, achievement of TRL6, development of the Sensor physical model(s) (EDU for example), long-lead (> 1 year) procurements, and primary and secondary critical paths. The schedule shall identify any flight hardware procurements that are started ahead of the completion of the EDU (or equivalent). The schedule is required to meet the program level milestones shown in section

1. (CDRL 27)

2.4.3 Flight Cost Estimate

The contractor shall provide a parametric cost estimate for the development and production of one flight model Sensor and any engineering model(s) recommended in the Model Philosophy & Plan (see section 2.1.1). The costs shall be separately identified for each model, flight unit, required GSE (ground support equipment) and technology development(s). The costs shall be shown phased by Government fiscal year. The contractor shall state what parametric model was used in the analysis and provide any inputs to the model beyond the MEL (reference 2.2.9). The contractor shall describe the heritage of the model. (CDRL 28)

Check the SW GEO CM tool server at https://ipdtdms.gsfc.nasa.gov/ to verify that this is the correct version prior to

3 REVIEWS, REPORTING, AND DELIVERABLE PRODUCTS

The contractor shall perform the reviews and reporting tasks and provide deliverable products as specified below. The Contracting Officer's written determination that Government requests for action (RFAs) or requests for information (RFIs) regarding the deliverable reviews and products have been closed out will constitute acceptance of the deliverable.

3.1 Status Meetings and Reviews

3.1.1 Kickoff Meeting

The contractor shall support a kickoff meeting within 2 weeks of the Authorization to Proceed to provide a team introduction, summary of the proposed work for the study, and a high-level introduction to the initial Sensor design concept. The contractor shall plan for a 2-hour virtual meeting. The contractor shall deliver a soft copy of the Kickoff chart set 24 hours prior to the meeting. (CDRL 29)

3.1.2 Monthly Progress Review (MPR)

The contractor shall present the results of the work performed since the previous MPR and discuss relevant technical and programmatic issues and findings. The topics expected to be covered are listed in the CDRLs table in section 3.2. The MPRs shall be planned as 4-hour virtual meetings. The contractor shall deliver a soft copy of the MPR chart set 24 hours prior to the meeting. (CDRL 30)

3.1.3 Midterm Review (MTR)

This review will be held at the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, pending travel restrictions.

The contractor shall plan on a 12-hour review, spread over two days. The topics expected to be covered are listed in the CDRLs table in section 3.2. The contractor shall deliver a soft copy of the MTR chart set 72 hours prior to the meeting. (CDRL 31)

3.1.4 Final Study Review (FSR)

The contractor shall plan on a 12-hour review, spread over two days at the contractor’s facility.

If possible, the Government will travel to attend the review in-person, pending travel restrictions.

The topics expected to be covered are listed in the CDRLs table in section 3.2. The contractor shall deliver a soft copy of the FSR chart set 72 hours prior to the meeting. (CDRL 32)

3.1.5 Final Report Package (FRP)

The FRP shall consist of any CDRLs that were not delivered and approved by the Government CO prior to the FSR or any CDRLs requiring updates, answers to any open actions from the FSR or earlier, and any necessary FSR slide updates. The FRP is due 2 weeks after the FSR. (CDRL 33)

Check the SW GEO CM tool Server at https://ipdtdms.gsfc.nasa.gov/ to verify that this is the correct version prior to use.

3.2 Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL)

The contractor shall deliver the data products specified in the following table.

Table 1. CDRLs SU = Status Update; UAN = Updates as Necessary, X=Submittal

ID Deliverable/Task Kickoff MPR MTR FSR FRP SOW Ref

1 EDU Trade SU X UAN UAN 2.1.1 2 Contract Deliverables

Requirements List Evaluation

SU X UAN UAN 2.1.2

3 Contractor Proposed Trade Study and Pre-Priced Option

SU X UAN UAN 2.1.3

4 Adaptability to Different Orbital Regimes

SU X UAN 2.1.4

5 SWAP Reduction SU X UAN 2.1.5 6 Refresh Rate Study SU X UAN 2.1.6 7 Spatial Resolution Study SU X UAN 2.1.7 8 Larger FOV Capability SU X UAN 2.1.8 9 Number of Channel SU X UAN 2.1.9 10 Reserved Trade Study 2.1.10 11 Sensor Design SU X UAN 2.2.1 12 Predicted performance vs.

SPEC

SU Prelim Final UAN 2.2.2

13 SPEC Compliance SU Prelim Final UAN 2.2.3 14 IMAR Compliance &

Alternatives SU Prelim Final UAN 2.2.4

15 TBR Review SU, final answer by 3rd MPR

UAN UAN UAN 2.2.5

16 Calibration Methodology SU X UAN UAN 2.2.6 17 Reliability Approach SU Prelim Final UAN 2.2.7 18 Single-Point Failures &

Fault Critical Elements SU Prelim Final UAN 2.2.8

19 MEL Prelim Final UAN 2.2.9 20 Modeling and Simulation

Tool Description

SU X UAN 2.1.10

21 Pointing Budget SU X UAN 2.2.11 22 TRL Assessment and

Technology Development Plan

SU X UAN UAN 2.3.1

23 Technology Development Effort (if applicable)

SU SU SU UAN 2.3.1.1

24 Heritage Assessment SU X UAN 2.3.2 25 Risk Assessment SU Prelim Final UAN 2.4.1 26 Risk Mitigation Effort (if applicable)

SU SU SU UAN 2.4.1.1&

2.1.3 27 Flight Implementation

Schedule SU Prelim Final UAN 2.4.2

28 Flight Cost Estimate SU Prelim Final UAN 2.4.3

Check the SW GEO CM tool Server at https://ipdtdms.gsfc.nasa.gov/ to verify that this is the correct version prior to use.

29 Kickoff Meeting Charts due 24 hours before

3.1.1

30 MPR Charts 24 hrs.

before

MPR

3.1.2

31 MTR Charts 72 hrs.

before

MTR

3.1.3

32 FSR Charts 72 hrs.

before

FSR

3.1.4

33 FRP Charts 2 wks.

post FSR

3.1.5

Check the SW GEO CM tool Server at https://ipdtdms.gsfc.nasa.gov/ to verify that this is the correct version prior to use.

Appendix A Abbreviations and Acronyms

CDR Critical Design Review CDRL Contract Deliverables Requirements List CMO Configuration Management Office DOC Department of Commerce EDU Engineering Development Unit EUVI Extreme Ultraviolet Imager FRP Final Report Package FSR Final Study Review GEO Geostationary GFE Government Furnished Equipment GPR Goddard Procedural Requirement GSE Ground Support Equipment GSFC Goddard Space Flight Center IBR Integrated Baseline Review IMAR Instrument Mission Assurance Requirements LOS Life of sight MEL Master Equipment List MPR Monthly Progress Review MTR Midterm Review NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration

NESDIS National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NPR NASA Procedural Requirements PDR Preliminary Design Review PER Pre-Environmental Review PSR Pre-Ship Review SOW Statement of Work SPEC Specification SRR System Requirements Review SU Status Update SW GEO Space Weather Geostationary (project) SW Next Space Weather Next (program) SWAP Size, weight, and power TBR To be resolved TDP Technology Development Plan TRL Technology Readiness Level UAN Updates as Necessary