SOLICITATION NOTICE
A -- REQUEST FOR INFORMATION - ADVANCED AVIONICS TECHNOLOGY FOR SPACE TRANSPORTATION
- Notice Date
- 4/12/2002
- Notice Type
- Solicitation Notice
- Contracting Office
- NASA/Glenn Research Center, 21000 Brookpark Road, Cleveland, OH 44135
- ZIP Code
- 44135
- Solicitation Number
- RFI3-2147
- Response Due
- 5/17/2002
- Archive Date
- 4/12/2003
- Point of Contact
- Timothy C. Pierce, Contract Specialist, Phone (216) 433-2147, Fax (216) 433-5185, Email Timothy.C.Pierce@grc.nasa.gov
- E-Mail Address
-
Email your questions to Timothy C. Pierce
(Timothy.C.Pierce@grc.nasa.gov)
- Description
- THIS IS NOT A NOTICE OF SOLICITATION. IT IS A REQUEST FOR INFORMATION (RFI). NASA does not intend to award a contract on the basis of this information, but hopes to formulate a requirement for advanced avionics technology development based on the need for this type of technology and it's feasibility based upon the responses to this request for information (RFI). This RFI is for internal NASA planning purposes only, and seeks to provide industry and academia the opportunity to verify the reasonableness and feasibility of the prospective requirements. NASA is seeking ideas and information from potential offerors on the development of advanced avionics technologies to support the Space Launch Initiative (SLI) 2nd Generation Reusable Launch Vehicle (RLV) Program. Technology areas of interest include (1) an advanced modular avionics Line Replaceable Unit (LRU) that can serve as a building block for the 2nd Gen RLV control and data handling system and is adaptable to any vehicle avionics architecture, (2) a high-speed data bus with deterministic protocol, and (3) advanced real-time software techniques and associated verification processes. All three of these areas are tightly coupled and need to be developed simultaneously in an integrated fashion. I. Advanced Modular Avionics LRU Of particular interest is information or concepts that address the challenges and issues that must be overcome in developing an avionics LRU with the following characteristics: - Ability to support scalable system level fault tolerance (from single string to at least a fail-op, fail-op, fail-safe capability) in a way that is transparent to the performance of the vehicle flight control loops - Supports detection and isolation of vehicle subsystem faults at the LRU level or lower - Provides high speed State-of-Art processors capable of supporting Integrated Vehicle Health Management (IVHM) processing requirements as well as flight control requirements - Advanced packaging that will enable passive thermal control throughout all phases of the mission - Requires no external shock/vibration isolation system except for possibly extreme vehicle mounting locations (engine, for example) - Design techniques to minimize total power usage and that provide high power efficiency - Design features that will minimize the cost and time required for replacement due to obsolescence - Design features that provide an easy growth path for hardware & software expansion - Radiation tolerant for ETO (earth to orbit) RLV (reusable launch vehicle) and CTV (Crew Transport Vehicle) environments - Configurable as both a flight control computer or as a data acquisition and control unit with interface to the high speed bus, as a minimum - Supports IVHM functions such as diagnostics, trend analysis, and prognostics - Provides support for critical and non-critical data in the same physical LRU with appropriate partitioning to prevent corruption of the critical functions (subject to vehicle level system trade studies) When focusing on the LRU characteristics above, consideration must also be given to the following requirements: - High reliability - Low maintenance with ease of maintainability - Internal health management, including fault detection and isolation - Minimum weight and volume - Flight life of 100 missions minimum - Certifiable for flight-critical use on a crewed space vehicle - Moderate to low cost with multiple source availability (Cost considerations should be based on life cycle cost and not solely on recurring box cost.) - Designed to operate in the launch vehicle and space environments including missions to the International Space Station - Capability to support legacy hardware and its associated I/O, such as the MIL-STD-1553 data bus II. High-speed Data Bus We are interested in suggestions for a high-speed data bus that can support critical flight control functions and the expected high throughput requirements of Integrated Vehicle Health Management (IVHM). Desired characteristics include: - Significant improvement in throughput as compared with the MIL-STD-1553 bus - Deterministic bus access protocol to support critical real-time flight control functions - Implementation of a widely available bus standard - High-speed physical layer medium, with an easy growth path to fiber optics or wireless. - Supports transport of critical and non-critical data on the same physical bus - Low power consumption - Rapid fault recovery capabilities - Built-In-Test and end-to-end connection diagnostics III. Advanced Software In the software area, we are interested in software architectures and techniques that will reduce life cycle costs. The goal is to develop an advanced software architecture that incorporates as many of the following candidate characteristics as feasible: - Provides robust flight software including data error tolerance, sensor tolerance with respect to replacement of sensors, command validity checking (values, integrity of path, etc) and maintenance of memory integrity (A capability to modify all flight code and data by command, at all memory locations is desired.) - Provides integrated software health and status. The middleware layer should trap process behavior and physical errors (parity, etc.). - Provides flexibility, utilizing a timeline/command processor, bias/calibration adjustment, multiple limits and limit adjustment by command - Is deterministic, utilizing rate monotonic scheduling or equivalent - Supports robust partitioning to provide isolation between critical and non-critical functions and to provide isolation between functions that are likely to require frequent code change from the more static applications - Provides a modular approach that is easily verified and validated - Supports automated Verification and validation (V&V) testing techniques. - All languages and libraries are certifiable and verifiable - Low software complexity factor Background and Submission Requirements I. Technical Background NASA's Space Launch Initiative (SLI) is focused on reducing technical, business and design risks associated with developing a 2nd Generation Reusable Launch Vehicle (RLV) system. A 2nd Generation RLV program is aimed at improving safety to a probability of one failure in 10,000 flights while reducing operations costs to $1,000 per pound of payload or less. This represents a hundred-fold improvement in safety and a tenfold improvement in cost. It is anticipated that a technologically advanced avionics system will be a major contributor to meeting these goals. The characteristics of an advanced avionics system described above are central to this objective. The most significant factor to consider in meeting the above goals is the intrinsic safety and reliability of an advanced avionics system. That system provides the robustness and adaptability to flight anomalies required to meet the 1 in 10,000 failure rate. Furthermore, an advanced avionics system that incorporates all intelligence needed for diagnosis and prognosis will drastically reduce the operations cost by negating the need for a large ground crew to turn the vehicle around. Embedded sensing will provide automated flight worthiness verification during the turn-around process. Adaptive controls and embedded genetic algorithms will provide in-flight anomaly resolution and correction while multiple internal redundancy will provide continuous, uninterrupted operation in the event of hardware failure. The lack of active cooling and resultant decrease in electrical energy and cooling support systems will greatly improve overall reliability and safety while reducing operations cost through the elimination of systems that require significant maintenance. II. Response Requirements This request is not intended for information concerning technologies that are at a very embryonic state of development. Advanced technology concepts should be explored to the extent that technical feasibility has been demonstrated. These should be at a Technology Readiness Level (TRL) of 3 or higher. Any technology that is advocated should be capable of being developed to a TRL 6 over a 40-month period with a moderate risk scenario. The goal is to develop an avionics system that offers the characteristics mentioned above. Technology Readiness Levels widely used by NASA are defined in a 1995 white paper by John C. Mankins of the NASA Office of Space Access and Technology as follows: TRL 3 - Analytical and experimental critical function and/or characteristic proof-of-concept At this step in the maturation process, active research and development (R&D) is initiated. This must include both analytical studies to set the technology into an appropriate context and laboratory-based studies to physically validate that the analytical predictions are correct. These studies and experiments should constitute "proof-of-concept" validation of the technology applications/concepts being addressed. For example, a concept for High Energy Density Matter (HEDM) propulsion might depend on slush or super-cooled hydrogen as a propellant: TRL 3 might be attained when the concept-enabling phase/temperature/pressure for the fluid was achieved in a laboratory. TRL 4 - Component and/or breadboard validation in laboratory environment Following successful "proof-of-concept" work, basic technological elements must be integrated to establish that the "pieces" will work together to achieve concept-enabling levels of performance for a component and/or breadboard. This validation must be devised to support the concept that was formulated earlier, and should also be consistent with the requirements of potential system applications. The validation is relatively "low-fidelity" compared to the eventual system: it could be composed of ad hoc discrete components in a laboratory. For example, a TRL 4 demonstration of a new 'fuzzy logic' approach to avionics might consist of testing the algorithms in a partially computer-based, partially bench-top component (e.g., fiber optic gyros) demonstration in a controls lab using simulated vehicle inputs. TRL 5 - Component and/or breadboard validation in relevant environment At this level, the fidelity of the component and/or breadboard being tested has to increase significantly. The basic technological elements must be integrated with reasonably realistic supporting elements so that the total applications (component-level, sub-system level, or system-level) can be tested in a 'simulated' or somewhat realistic environment. From one-to-several new technologies might be involved in the demonstration. For example, a new type of solar photovoltaic material promising higher efficiencies would at this level be used in an actual fabricated solar array 'blanket' that would be integrated with power supplies, supporting structure, etc., and tested in a thermal vacuum chamber with solar simulation capability. TRL 6 -System/subsystem model or prototype demonstration in a relevant environment (ground or space) A major step in the level of fidelity of the technology demonstration follows the completion of TRL 5. At TRL 6, a representative model or prototype system or subsystem - which would go well beyond ad hoc, 'patch-cord' or discrete component level breadboard - would be tested in a relevant environment. At this level, if the only 'relevant environment' is the environment of space, then the model/prototype must be demonstrated in space. Of course, the demonstration should be successful to represent a true TRL 6. At this point, the maturation step is driven more by assuring management confidence than by R&D requirements. The demonstration might represent an actual system application, or it might only be similar to the planned application, but using the same technologies At this level, several-to-many new technologies might be integrated into the demonstration. For example, a innovative approach to high temperature/low mass radiators, involving liquid droplets and composite materials, would be demonstrated to TRL 6 by actually flying a working, sub-scale (but scaleable) model of the system on a Space Shuttle or International Space Station 'pallet'. In this example, the reason space is the 'relevant' environment is that micro-gravity plus vacuum plus thermal environment effects will dictate the success/failure of the system - and the only way to validate the technology is in space. The following information is requested in accordance with instructions in section III below: 1. A list of related technologies and experience within your organization or company that would support the NASA technology needs as described above. For each technology identified, provide a brief description of the technology, how it would support the NASA need, an assessment of your current Technology Readiness Level and a Rough-Order-of-Magnitude estimate of cost and the time required to raise the technology to a TRL of 6. 2. If appropriate for your organization, provide your assessment of the difficulty/ feasibility of accomplishing all or the majority of the NASA desired technologies. For example, do you feel that the design of an advanced avionics LRU with all of the desired characteristics is achievable and feasible within the given timeframe? 3. Provide the name of a business and technical point of contact for your organization or company along with their phone number, e-mail address and mailing address. III. Submittal Instructions Response to this RFI is open to all U.S. organizations or teams of organizations from industry (traditional and non-traditional), educational institutions, nonprofit organizations (includes not-for-profit organizations), and U.S. Government agencies. Respondents should address all the items in the order that they are listed in Section II. In the spirit of an RFI, no overall page limit is required and no response will be excluded from review. All proprietary information should be marked. Responses will be handled accordingly. One (1) original hardcopy and two (2) electronic copies of your response to this RFI are requested. The electronic copies shall be in Microsoft Office Suite (Word, Excel, or PowerPoint) or Adobe Acrobat (pdf) format on a zip disk or CD ROM. One (1) original hardcopy and one (1) electronic copy shall be submitted no later than 4:00 PM CST on May 17, 2002, to the attention of Mark King, ED15, Building 4487, Room C229, NASA / Marshall Space Flight Center, Marshall Space Flight Center, AL 35812 . The second electronic copy shall be submitted no later than 4:00 PM CST on May 17, 2002, to the attention of Tim Pierce, Glenn Research Center, MS 500-319, 21000 Brookpark Road, Cleveland, Ohio 44135. Prospective respondents with questions regarding this RFI may submit them via e-mail to Tim Pierce, no later than April 19, 2002, at Timothy.C.Pierce@grc.nasa.gov, (216)433-2147. THIS SYNOPSIS IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS A COMMITMENT BY THE GOVERNMENT, NOR WILL THE GOVERNMENT PAY FOR THE INFORMATION SOLICITED. All information received in response to this RFI will be combined and used for government procurement planning purposes. This information will be reviewed and summarized by a panel of experts. Some or no part of the summarized recommendations may or may not form the basis of a future NASA solicitation, such as a Request for Proposals (RFP). Respondents will not be notified of the results of the review. In the event a solicitation is issued, any information related to the solicitation will be available over the Internet. These documents will be in Microsoft Office Suite (Word, Excel, or PowerPoint) format and will reside on a World Wide Web (WWW) server, which may be accessed using a WWW browser application. The Internet site, or URL, for the NASA/GRC Business Opportunities home page is: http://nais.msfc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/EPS/bizops.cgi?gr=C&pin=22 . It is the offeror's responsibility to monitor the Internet cite for the release of the solicitation and amendments (if any).
- Web Link
-
Click here for the latest information about this notice
(http://prod.nais.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/eps/bizops.cgi?gr=D&pin=22#100961)
- Record
- SN00059055-W 20020414/020412213414 (fbodaily.com)
- Source
-
FedBizOpps.gov Link to This Notice
(may not be valid after Archive Date)
| FSG Index | This Issue's Index | Today's FBO Daily Index Page |