Loren Data's SAM Daily™

SAMDAILY.US - ISSUE OF DECEMBER 03, 2022 SAM #7673
SPECIAL NOTICE

99 -- 2023 REQUEST FOR WHITE PAPERS: NASA SBIR PHASE II SEQUENTIAL AWARDS

Notice Date

12/1/2022 6:50:32 AM
 

Notice Type

Special Notice
 

NAICS

541715 — Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences (except Nanotechnology and Biotechnology)
 

Contracting Office

NASA SHARED SERVICES CENTER STENNIS SPACE CENTER MS 39529 USA
 

ZIP Code

39529
 

Solicitation Number

80NSSC23SEQUENTIALWP
 

Response Due

1/10/2023 2:00:00 PM
 

Point of Contact

Kenneth Albright, Phone: 8776772123
 

E-Mail Address

Agency-SBIR-STTRSolicitation@mail.nasa.gov
(Agency-SBIR-STTRSolicitation@mail.nasa.gov)
 

Small Business Set-Aside

SBA Total Small Business Set-Aside (FAR 19.5)
 

Description

Background NASA is considering inviting companies to propose for Sequential Phase II awards with an higher award values ranging between $2.5 Million to $4 Million through the Agency�s Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program in 2023. These awards would facilitate rapid post Phase II development of technologies with the goal to infuse key technologies that reach specific milestones into specific NASA programs. 2. Purpose Why is NASA requesting this information? The SBIR program is performing a portfolio evaluation exercise with the aim of determining what NASA SBIR Phase II technologies show the promise of risk reduction for key programs, and what firms are capable candidates for further investment through a potential Sequential Phase II award. NASA has a large SBIR Phase II portfolio to evaluate, and this exercise will help accomplish two objectives: 1. Highlight and map SBIR Phase II technologies to key programs with white papers providing additional context and details about opportunities for small business technology development. 2. Provide a participatory method for interested parties to communicate that they are engaged and ready to support a subset of NASA�s priorities that may be appropriate for small business participation, as described in this call for white papers. 3. Disclaimer NASA reserves the right to use the information received from these white papers in any way it chooses, including determinations to invite companies to propose for a Phase II Sequential award. A Phase II Awardee may receive one additional, Sequential Phase II award to continue the work of an initial Phase II award without additional competition. Responding to this call for white papers is not a prerequisite to participating in any post Phase II program. This white paper can be used for programmatic planning to assess the state of small business capability and does not constitute a funding opportunity or a formal competition. Respondents should be advised that NASA takes no financial responsibility for any expenses incurred for responding to the white paper call. Respondents should not expect to receive feedback or response to their submission. Future awards (if any) will be subject to and contingent upon the availability of funds. If proposal invitations do occur, NASA notionally anticipates reaching out to firms around March 2023. 4. Timeline and Method for Responses NASA uses electronically supported business processes for the SBIR/Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) programs. An offeror must have internet access and an email address. Paper submissions are not accepted. The Electronic Handbook (EHB) for submitting white papers is located at http://sbir.nasa.gov under the Handbooks section; please refer to the SBIR/STTR Proposal Submission EHB link therein for the portal to submit a white paper. The EHB guides firms through the steps for submitting a white paper. All EHB submissions are through a secure connection. Communication between NASA�s SBIR/STTR programs and the firm is primarily through a combination of EHB and email. The submissions site will be available from November 29, 2022 to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time to January 10, 2023. A complete white paper package shall be received no later than 5:00 p.m. ET on January 10, 2023, via the NASA SBIR/STTR website (http://sbir.nasa.gov), under the Handbooks section. The Electronic Handbook (EHB) will no longer accept submissions after the published deadline of 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on January 10, 2023 as reflected by the internal EHB clock. Submission after the deadline will result in the offeror receiving an access denied message from the EHB; this reflects that the deadline has been exceeded. Any remaining parts of the white paper package will not be uploaded or able to be completed. If a complete white paper package, containing all requested content per section 8 of this Request for White Papers, is not received by the 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time deadline, the white paper package will be determined to be incomplete and will not be assessed. Neither the NASA SBIR/STTR Technical Support Help Desk nor the NASA SBIR/STTR Program Management Office will be able to accept white paper packages after the 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on January 10, 2023 deadline has been exceeded. 5. Eligibility Firms are eligible to submit a white paper if they have a prior NASA SBIR Phase II award from Program Years 2012 to present as long as the prior Phase II contract has not already received a Sequential Phase II award, from any government agency including NASA. Technical Need Areas indicate subtopics which the SBIR program has assessed as having content that may be applicable to these Technical Need Areas. However, firms with prior SBIR Phase IIs from NASA Program Years 2012 to present who have not yet received a Sequential Phase II award on that prior Phase II from any agency may submit a white paper in response to a Technical Need Area so long as they justify in the white paper how the continued development of their prior Phase II innovation meets stated goals within the Technical Need Area. Prior Phase II awards must also be completed, including any option periods, by August 1, 2023. Completed awards are awards where contract period of performance has expired, and all deliverables have been accepted by the Government. The prior Phase II contract also must not have already received a Sequential Phase II award, from any government agency including NASA. For Technical Need Area 2, NASA is also requesting responses from SBIR Phase II awardees from Department of Defense (DOD) for SBIR Phase II awards for specified topics and program years only, as listed in the Technical Need Areas (Section 6). White papers from companies that have not had Phase II contracts within the DOD SBIR Phase II specified topics/subtopics or from non-DOD other government agency Phase IIs and/or that do not meet other applicability criteria will not be assessed. Firms must justify in the white paper how the continued development of their prior Phase II innovation meets stated goals within the Technical Need Area. Firms submitting white papers pertaining to DOD Phase II awards must identify the pertinent Phase II award identifying information (such as contract number), what form the prior Phase II award took (contract, grant, other), and whom the approving officials from the appropriate other government agency are for the relevant awards in the text of the white paper submission. Should NASA choose to invite a full proposal based on a DOD Phase II, the proposal will be contingent on DOD granting NASA the permission to issue a Sequential Phase II award on the prior Phase II and the DOD confirming that the prior Phase II contract performance has ended and the firm has received all funding for the deliverables it provided to the Government. Development efforts should largely continue from the end status and Technology Readiness Level (TRL) development status of the prior Phase II development and/or any continued efforts that happened since the end of the Phase II effort. The detailed effort should involve and justify the continued development of at least one of the primary technologies already developed during the prior applicable Phase II. While some re-development may be required for the specific application purposes called out in these Technical Need Areas, any significant new developments that differ from the prior Phase II technology or re-developments that impact the technology should be justified as pertinent to the original Phase II award and the Technical Need Area the white paper is being submitted under. Likewise, impacts to the starting Technology Readiness Level (TRL) should be justified. White papers on technologies that are not adequately justified as relevant continuations of the prior cited Phase II or are not compliant may not be assessed or considered. Additionally, only firms who continue to qualify as Small Business Concerns (SBCs), as defined here: http://sbir.nasa.gov/content/nasa-sbirsttr-program-definitions, are eligible to submit white papers. White paper submissions are limited to a maximum of 3 responses per Technology Need Area (TNA). These Technical Need Areas may have multiple vested programs and/or use cases. Within that Technical Need Area, white papers may justify the technology as applicable to as few or as many of those applicable programs or cases as is appropriate; however, each white paper may only pertain to one Technical Need Area. These Technical Need Areas have been identified for this announcement due to their near-term NASA relevance. Topics/subtopics within the Technical Need Area were identified based on the technical applicability of the original solicitation subtopic to current needs, pertinence and timeliness to priority objectives and needs, evaluations against the current state of the art and available technologies, and cross program relevance. Note that the lack of inclusion of a given subtopic/program year and the technologies developed from that cycle does not reflect a NASA position on those technologies. Note that while some topics/subtopics in given program years are identified for a Technical Need Area, the original scope of those topics/subtopics, and original awards therein, may have been more expansive than the current stated need. While a given prior award may be included within that topic/subtopic and program year, please review the need statement for that Technical Need Area to decide if you think that your technology is pertinent to this current development opportunity. White papers on technologies that are not applicable, or whose development path diverges from the stated need, will not be considered. Developments must be directly related to and continue the prior Phase II work and must demonstrate relevance to both the applicable original solicitation subtopic and current cited NASA goals in this area. For Phase II awards from other government agencies, proposed technology development must demonstrate relevance to current cited NASA goals in this area but may also discuss cross-cutting applications. Note that any further development beyond the prior Phase II conducted (through various NASA SBIR program funding vehicles, other NASA mechanisms, or other development avenues), that may be completed or ongoing, should be discussed in establishing the current state of the technology leading into a potential future development effort. If there is ongoing work on the technology, detail the work, the anticipated completion timeframe, and any known risks/implications to a follow-on development resulting from the ongoing work. 6. Technical Need Areas 6.1 Technical Need Area 2023-1: �Lunar Dust Mitigation Solutions NASA is seeking to advance and implement dust mitigation solutions to support future lunar surface missions.� These solutions will allow components, subsystems, and/or systems to function on the lunar surface when exposed to lunar dust (i.e., regolith). Specific needs include one or more of the following: Dust tolerant mechanisms Dust tolerant mechanisms are inclusive of, but not limited to, the following: rotary joint (steering, suspension, hinges, bearings, etc.), linear joints (latches, shafts, restraint systems, landing gear, etc.), static joints (quick disconnects, covers, airlocks, sample tools, etc.), actuators and power transfer components, fastening/joining hardware, sealing materials and techniques, dust-tolerant fluids and electrical connectors, moving components for dust protection (iris, hatch, covers, airlocks, closures, fabric/flexible protection), and material handling and transportation components. Passive or active dust mitigation solutions Passive and active dust mitigation solutions are inclusive of, but not limited to, the following: electrostatic removal, liquid removal, brushes, vacuum, jets, spinning surfaces, vibrational surfaces, electrodynamic removal, electrostatic discharge, and coatings. Sensors or monitors to inform dust accumulation measurements Sensors and monitors are inclusive of, but not limited to, internal monitors and sensors to measure lunar dust particulate matter in landers, airlocks, and habitable spaces in lunar gravity, as well as external sensors and monitors to monitor and measure dust accumulation. This includes technologies described under �Exploration Destination Systems� (TX07) and �Ground, Test, and Surface Systems� (TX13) of the 2020 NASA Technology Taxonomy. The following topics are not under consideration for this specific TNA: Solutions specific to spacesuit applications Models Solutions specific to ISRU applications. White papers should discuss the development of the technology.� White papers should include feasibility of using this technology and how the technology would be infused into or onto an asset.� White papers should discuss component, subsystem, and/or system integration and interface features, requirements, and challenges. White papers should define targeted key performance parameters of the proposed system(s) with respect to lunar dust removal or tolerance and compare these versus the current state of the art (SOA). Define what tests would be needed to adequately demonstrate the technology. Discuss the process for choosing and using appropriate simulants. For information on dust mitigation testing, refer to the referenced NASA-STD-1008. For definition of the lunar surface environment, refer to the referenced Cross-Program Design Specification for Natural Environments (DSNE).� Efforts should advance the maturity of the technology to readily progress toward a follow-on demonstration or implementation(s) as part of a flight payload(s) and/or vehicle(s). Please discuss and justify any development effort, features, and/or experience pertinent to maturing concepts to certifiable flight-ready hardware and routine production beyond demonstration. Discuss appropriate integrated system operational considerations and features. Efforts should discuss the expected state at the end of this effort and discuss gaps or additional development that would be required prior to vehicle or payload integration, operation, and/or use, if any. Efforts would ideally result in a prototype or engineering unit with demonstration of its capability in a relevant environment (see referenced NASA-STB-1008 and Design Specification for Natural Environments (DSNE)).� References/Target Metrics: SLS-SPEC-159 - Cross-Program Design Specification for Natural Environments (DSNE) Revision H,� https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20205007447� NASA STD 1008 ""Classifications and requirements for testing systems and hardware to be exposed to dust in planetary environments"", https://standards.nasa.gov/standard/nasa/nasa-std-1008 2020 NASA Technology Taxonomy, https://www.nasa.gov/offices/oct/taxonomy/index.html TNA 2023-1 Applicable NASA Subtopics by Solicitation Year: 2012 - S1.06 2015 - H3.01 2017 - H3.01, S4.04 2018 - S1.06, S4.04, Z5.02 2019 - S1.06, S4.04, Z5.05 2020 - H3.03, S1.06, S3.06, Z5.05, Z7.04, Z13.01, Z13.02 6.2 Technical Need Area 2023-2: �Reliable Small Spacecraft Identification and De-Orbit Technologies for Space Debris Mitigation In the last decade the number of spacecraft launches has increased exponentially, with more than 1400 new spacecraft launched in 2021 alone, the majority of which were small satellites, bringing the total estimate of spacecraft in orbit to more than 4500. With commercial companies planning and starting to implement constellations and swarms of several thousands of small spacecrafts, even tens of thousands, this number is expected to grow even more, leading to congestion concerns in Low Earth Orbits (LEO) and significant straining of current space traffic management architectures. Meanwhile, the number of space debris has grown substantially in recent years, with several national and international studies showing dire outcomes and possible �runaway debris situation� for �business-as-usual� scenarios in debris population growth predictions for the future (reaching the so-called �Kessler Syndrome�), particularly when considering the expected future launch cadence. In recognition of this threat posed by space debris to Earth�s orbital environment and the greater space industry, orbital debris prevention has been incorporated in every U.S. National Space Policy since 1988, with the latest Space Policy (2020) providing the strongest language yet, outlining that �the United States shall � Limit the creation of new debris, consistent with mission requirements and cost-effectiveness, during the procurement and operation of spacecraft, launch services, and conduct of tests and experiments in space� [Ref. 1]. Given the persistence of these risks, this priority was reiterated in the White House�s 2021 �United States Space Priorities Framework�, which explicitly calls for sustainability of the space environment through space debris mitigation, and the bolstering of space situational awareness and space traffic coordination [Ref. 2]. More recently, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has drastically tightened its de-orbiting requirements for the licensing of spacecraft that fall under its jurisdiction, from 25 years to 5 years to re-entry from 2000 km altitude orbits and below [Ref. 3], with the new regulation to come into effect in 2024. In support of these policies, NASA is aiming to advance low-size, weight, power, and cost (SWaP-C) small spacecraft space debris mitigation technologies for this Technical Need Area 2. In particular, NASA is seeking to advance technologies to be integrated aboard small spacecraft for their reliable on-orbit identification as a means to alleviate current space traffic management systems, as well as reliable de-orbit devices to help sustainably manage orbits upon spacecraft end-of-life and support industry conforming to the FCC�s new de-orbit requirements. In responding to this Technical Need Area, proposers are required to address either one of the two technology domains, �Reliable Small Spacecraft Identification Technologies� (Section 6.2.1) or �Reliable Small Spacecraft De-Orbit Technologies� (Section 6.2.2), as well as the �General Guidelines for TNA 2 Proposers� outlined in section 6.2.3. 6.2.1 Technology Domain A: Reliable Small Spacecraft Identification Technologies The U.S. Space Surveillance Network is currently tracking more than 27,000 objects larger than 10 cm, the grand majority of which are space debris, along with some derelict intact objects (defunct satellites and rocket bodies), and the remaining active satellites. Tracking of on-orbit objects is currently accomplished by exploiting a disparate network of sensors having a variety of missions other than space surveillance, with no single object observed consistently given the scarcity of sensors and priority-based tasking. The U.S. Space Force 19th Space Defense Squadron then provides Conjunction Data Messages (CDMs) to virtually all space operators worldwide following calculations based on this tracking data. Owner/Operators must then perform risk assessment on the identified close approaches in the CDMs to determine whether the risk is high enough to warrant mitigation, if possible for the protected asset. As current plans for large constellations materialize �the population of operational satellites in LEO would jump by over a factor of ten, from ~1,000 today to over 16,000 within the next 10 to 20 years� and �has the potential to affect the space environment for generations and push any space traffic management system beyond its limits.� [Ref. 4] As a result, all LEO spacecraft operators could be faced with disruptive numbers of conjunction alerts and collisions between spacecraft and/or orbital debris, making mitigation impossible for all discrete close approaches or causing excessive mission interruptions. In the context of smallsat deployments, the majority of which are deployed as secondary payloads from launch vehicles, there can be significant uncertainty as to their initial position, velocity, and precise time of deployment. For small spacecraft without the capability to communicate their orbital position during their initial orbits, this uncertainty can lead to extensive use of ground-based sensors to search for the object and establish orbital parameters. Current methods are resource-intensive and prone to errors and misidentifications. For example, multi-satellite launches lead to persistent misidentification of objects launched, and maneuvering satellites are difficult to identify when reacquired by a tracking station. Due to the rapid expansion in the number of space objects, space situational awareness provided by such traditional, externally derived radar and optical measurements will become inadequate for purposes of identification and tracking. As such, the small spacecraft community needs low SWaP-C cooperative identification and tracking aids technologies to allow the community to operate with lower risk to all spacecraft in orbit without negatively impacting the efficiency of small missions, minimize the risk of space debris generation, and preserve the space environment for future generations. As part of this scope, the following technologies are being solicited: Minimum Objectives: Development and demonstration of low SWaP-C and low-complexity identification and tracking aids for small spacecraft that can be scaled, produced, and readily standardized under the paradigm of small spacecraft ecosystems. The device shall function for the duration of the typical weeks- to months-long smallsat mission spacecraft �check-out� phases, and provide means for systematic unique identification of a deployed small spacecraft, whether it be passive or active means after collaborative interrogation (via radiofrequency, optical, or other means), from the ground or other assets, to a level more accurate than typically established from traditional sources that provide initial deployment estimates. The device shall also have low SWaP-C and minimal interfaces to the host spacecraft, as a means to minimize the impact to the host�s operations and systems, as well as facilitate its wider adoption across industry. Proposers shall describe the architecture that allows for transmission of data from the device to the ground, including notional link budgets, communication protocols, and power utilization that demonstrate feasibility. This should include the description of any external assets to be used and their availability and cost for intended usage. If this involves new assets not yet available, these devices� development effort and description shall also be included within the scope of the White Paper. Stretch Goals: The device should function for the months- to years-long expected total duration of typical smallsat missions, enabling the tracking of the mission throughout its lifetime. Ideally it would also function independently from the host spacecraft without any direct power or data connection to the host, and provide a unique identification code along with information about the position and state of health of the host platform. With this device, space situational awareness systems would thus be able to detect changes to these parameters, identifying trends and patterns in the data to allow for long-term scheduling of future observations, and enabling the continuous monitoring of the spacecraft through orbital maneuvers and gaps in tracking coverage. Future satellite constellation operators would then be able to utilize this information to plan maneuvers that minimize near-term risks of collision with other objects, in much the same way the Automatic Identification System (AIS) is used in the maritime domain and the Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) system in the airborne one. Proposers should discuss the applicability of their technology to other space and non-space domains, including its extensibility to the growing number of cislunar missions. If proposer�s technology does not meet the stretch goals, proposers should describe further the advantages, uniqueness in utility, improvement over the state-of-the-art of their technology, and appeal to NASA and industry. For example, if the technology provides particular advantages with respect to certain aspects, such as cost, ease-of-use and adoption, etc., then that should be discussed in further detail within the White Paper. 6.2.2 Technology Domain B: Reliable Small Spacecraft De-Orbit Technologies As of 2022, there are more than 3000 active satellites in LEO, with particularly high concentrations in near-polar and sun-synchronous orbits, given their economic and geopolitical potential. Current U.S and international regulations require spacecraft to be disposed of within 25 years, which for LEO orbits below 2000 km requires them to re-enter and disintegrate within the atmosphere 25 years following End of Mission (EOM). Spacecraft flying below 600-700 km altitude will generally meet the 25-year-or-less requirement without the need for augmentation thanks to natural orbital decay. This has led to many LEO small spacecraft platforms across industry being designed without de-orbit devices nor propulsion, as many spacecraft are able to fulfill their mission objectives without performing propulsive maneuvers. While not the major cause for concerns regarding orbital debris, this has led to three compounding and aggravating risks: i) given the uncertainties in atmospheric drag predictions, many spacecraft are expected to stay in orbit longer than 25 years, increasing the probability of orbital debris generation; ii) non-maneuverable spacecraft are not able to perform evasive maneuvers in the event of a predicted collision, increasing the probability for a cascading series of debris generation events; and iii) decaying orbits can become erratic and unpredictable, jeopardizing all assets in lower orbits as the decaying spacecraft crosses by other objects, with the longer the duration of these descents increasing the risks of collisions. Concerns with the �business-as-usual� debris scenarios, along with the expected significant increases in the number of launches, has led to the FCC releasing new rules to be abided by 2024 requiring spacecraft below 2000 km altitude to de-orbit within 5 years after EOM. Given that the FCC has jurisdiction over the frequency licenses of U.S. commercial satellites, this new ruling is expected to impact the entire smallsat industry and could lead other national and international agencies to follow suit with similar regulations. From NASA�s perspective, it is critical that the small spacecraft community responsibly manage de-orbiting and disposal in a way that preserves both the orbital environment and efficiency of small missions while also minimizing the probability of creating new orbital debris during the de-orbit or disposal phase of the mission. That implies the development and demonstration of low SWaP-C de-orbit capabilities that are compatible with regulations and common small spacecraft form factors, while maintaining the agility of Earth-orbiting small spacecraft missions. As part of this scope, the following technologies are being solicited: Minimum Objectives: Development and demonstration of low SWaP-C active or passive onboard devices for de-orbit or disposal of single small spacecraft in LEO that can be scaled, produced, and readily standardized under the paradigm of small spacecraft ecosystems. The device shall ensure de-orbit/disposal of typical small spacecraft at altitudes below 2000 km within 25 years of EOM, in particular for orbits between 600 and 2000 km, and shall minimize the probability of new orbital debris creation during the de-orbit/disposal phase of the mission. In addition, in light of the new FCC requirements, proposers shall identify the altitude and ballistic coefficient combination for which their technology ensures disposal within 5 years. The device shall also have low SWaP-C and minimal interfaces to the host spacecraft, as a means to ensure its functionality in the event of failure of the host platform, minimize the impact to the host�s operations and systems, as well as facilitate its wider adoption across industry. Proposers shall describe the architecture that allows for the activation of the device and demonstrate its feasibility, including where applicable, notional link budgets, communication protocols, power utilization, and operational considerations for the host platform. Stretch Goals: To be in compliance with the new FCC rules the device should ensure de-orbit/disposal of typical small spacecraft at altitudes below 2000 km within 5 years of EOM, in particular for orbits between 600 and 2000 km, and shall minimize the probability of new orbital debris creation during the de-orbit/disposal phase of the mission. In addition, the device should provide control and directionality of the host platform during the descent/disposal phase, as a means to prevent collisions with other assets or debris it may cross paths with. Ideally, it should also result in near-circular de-orbit patterns, rather than highly elliptical ones. In addition, it should minimize the integration, test, and safety complexities associated with the technology, such as, for example, the use of non-toxic, low-pressure, and/or �green propellants�, where applicable. Proposers should discuss the applicability of their technology to other space and non-space domains, such as planetary exploration. If proposer�s technology does not meet the stretch goals, proposers should describe in further detail the advantages, uniqueness in utility, improvement over the state-of-the-art of their technology, and appeal to NASA and industry. For example, if the technology is unable to meet the FCC requirement, then the proposers should highlight the maximum altitude for the use of their technology, and describe the particular advantages their technology may confer, such as cost, ease-of-use and adoption, etc. 6.2.3 General Guidelines for Proposers The expected maturity of the technology by the end of the Sequentials phase, is outlined as follows: Minimum Objectives: Development and delivery of a fully qualified spaceflight prototype (or protoflight) unit, at a �Pre-Ship Review� (PSR) level of readiness for integration into a small satellite. This would enable the technology to be demonstrated in space after the completion of the Sequentials effort, positioning the small business for successful commercialization of the technology. The unit shall include an Interface Control Document (ICD), complete instructions for spacecraft integration, all hardware, software (as applicable), and post-assembly test requirements. Proposer shall provide documentation that shows that the unit completed qualification testing to NASA General Environmental Verification Standards (GEVS), as applicable and tailored as necessary for smallsat missions, with appropriate margins. Stretch Goals: Technology and its host demonstration platform have achieved PSR status (i.e., the technology and its host platform have been fully qualified for flight and integrated with one another, ready to be shipped to a launch provider after a PSR held with NASA). Proposers may propose to use Sequentials funds to procure a host platform, launch opportunity, Ground Station support, and/or execute mission operations, as a means to fully demonstrate the technology in-orbit. In that scenario the proposer will remain the owner of the mission, and will only be required to provide to NASA an end-of-mission report on the lessons learned of the technology demonstration, as well as discussions on its infusion and commercialization potential. Satisfying regulatory requirements for a spaceflight demonstration, such as obtaining frequency licenses from the FCC shall be the responsibility of the proposer. Additionally, the host platform and launch oppor...
 

Web Link

SAM.gov Permalink
(https://sam.gov/opp/f4f676007378465bb127fdda1881c9bd/view)
 

Place of Performance

Address: USA

Country: USA
 

Record

SN06532331-F 20221203/221201230101 (samdaily.us)
 

Source

SAM.gov Link to This Notice
(may not be valid after Archive Date)

---

| FSG Index  |  This Issue's Index  |  Today's SAM Daily Index Page |