SOURCES SOUGHT
70 -- Robotic Conjunction Assessment and Risk Analysis (CARA) program
- Notice Date
- 4/10/2017
- Notice Type
- Sources Sought
- NAICS
- 541712
— Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences (except Biotechnology)
- Contracting Office
- NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center, Code 210.M, Greenbelt, Maryland, 20771, United States
- ZIP Code
- 20771
- Solicitation Number
- CARARFI17
- Point of Contact
- Alicia Middleton, Phone: 3012861892
- E-Mail Address
-
alicia.middleton@nasa.gov
(alicia.middleton@nasa.gov)
- Small Business Set-Aside
- N/A
- Description
- The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) is seeking capability statements from all interested parties, for the purposes of determining the appropriate level of competition and/or small business subcontracting goals for the NASA Robotic Conjunction Assessment and Risk Analysis (CARA) program. The Government reserves the right to consider a Small, 8(a), Woman-owned (WOSB), Service Disabled Veteran (SD-VOSB), or HUBZone business set-aside based on responses hereto. The NASA Robotic Conjunction Assessment and Risk Analysis (CARA) program performs monitoring and analysis to protect NASA robotic spacecraft from collisions with other space objects. This is presently accomplished through the use of United States Air Force (USAF)-obtained satellite tracking information processed at the Joint Space Operations Center (JSpOC). CARA has NASA-funded Orbital Safety Analysts (OSAs) embedded at the JSpOC to perform conjunction screenings and examine and refine orbit determinations (ODs) for objects found to be in conjunction. Risk analysis activities include the assessment of the particular collision risk for a given conjunction and assessment of possible remediation actions. These are performed at Goddard Space Flight Center and then forwarded to the appropriate satellite owners/operators, with whom there is usually direct contact and conversation about the results. The JSpOC catalogue has served CARA very well over the last decade of conjunction assessment activities. The conjunction assessment (CA) process depends heavily on sufficient and frequent receipt of satellite tracking data. The probability of collision (Pc), the principal parameter by which collision risk assessments are made, is a function of the two satellites' states and state error covariances. Both the state and covariance can be affected substantially by tracking density and timeliness. For these reasons, propitious receipt of new tracking data is often critical to determining whether a "serious" conjunction event has now changed in relative geometry sufficiently to be no longer a concern or whether the previously assigned high level of risk abides. NASA wishes to investigate the possibility of augmenting the sources of tracking data and resultant ephemeris products to be brought to bear for CA events that are particularly serious. This investigation is driven by 1) the current (and appropriate) prioritization of military tasking over civil tasking for use of the USAF's space surveillance network (SSN), 2) only a subset of SSN sensors track small objects (which are the great majority of the secondary objects in CARA conjunctions), and 3) an SSN sensor will not always be conveniently located to provide tracking when it is most needed to resolve a CA situation. The particular position that NASA occupies as a government organization performing CA must be considered when determining the kinds of augmentation that would truly be helpful. While CARA does have the ability to perform OD activities in support of CA, these are accomplished on the JSpOC operational system; at present the CARA project does not have the capability, and at this time is not particularly interested in developing the capability, to perform OD at the Goddard facility. Furthermore, USAF sensor tracks are not released for use at GSFC; they are available to the OSAs only on the JSpOC certified system. This means that, in order to be useful to CARA, augmenting tracking data must be certified for receipt and processing by the JSpOC, or a method must be constituted to combine a JSpOC-generated state estimate (such as that provided in the Conjunction Data Message [CDM]) with augmenting tracking data into a combined state estimate of equivalent or superior accuracy to that routinely achieved by the JSpOC's OD process. Augmenting tracking data is a crucial foundational step, but the ability to combine it with JSpOC state estimate products to produce an equally trustworthy updated state estimate and covariance commensurate with JSpOC product quality standards will greatly facilitate the immediate utility of such data augmentation. No solicitation exists; therefore, do not request a copy of the solicitation. If a solicitation is released it will be synopsized in FedBizOpps. It is the potential offeror's responsibility to monitor these sites for the release of any solicitation or synopsis. Responses must include the following: name and address of firm, size of business. This RFI is for information and planning purposes and is not to be construed as a commitment by the Government, nor will the Government pay for information requested. Respondents will not be notified of the results of the evaluation. Respondents deemed fully qualified will be considered in any resultant solicitation for the requirement. The Government reserves the right to consider a small business or 8(a) set-aside business based on responses hereto. All responses shall be submitted to CARA Management via email CARA-management@lists.nasa.gov no later than 2:00 PM EST. April 25, 2017 please reference "CARA PROGRAM" in your subject line when submitting your response. All questions, inquires, and request for additional technical details must be directed to the Point of Contact identified below. Name: CARA Management Phone: (301) 286-1630 E-mail: CARA-management@lists.nasa.gov The questions that follow attempt to provide a framework through which the particular sensors, data types, data availability, quality assurance provisions, and pricing arrangements for a data and data product vendor can be systematically described to NASA. The intent is to focus the response on the items of greatest interest. Interested offerors having the required specialized capabilities to meet the above requirement should submit a capability statement of 25 pages or less addressing the following questions listed below. 0. Definitions LEO: Low Earth Orbit; orbital period < 225 minutes HEO: Highly-Elliptical Orbit; orbital period > 225 minutes and eccentricity > 0.25 GEO: Geosynchronous Orbit; orbital period between 1300 and 1800 minutes, eccentricity < 0.25, and inclination < 35 degrees. I. Sensors A. LEO tracking (orbits with < 1000km perigee height) The SSN is quite effective at routine and reliable tracking of larger objects in nearly all near earth (NE) orbits. Availability issues can arise with smaller objects, for which only a subset of the SSN sensors may be applicable. 1) What radar assets can you bring to bear to track small NE objects? Please comment on the following aspects of your radar tracking capabilities: • Number of sensors; • Geographical locations; • Radar types (e.g., phased array, dish, interferometer); • Operating frequency and power; • Minimum detectable target size at 1000 km observing range (please indicate any assumptions used in calculating this, such as shape, Swerling fluctuation model, etc.); • Whether observables beyond range and angles are provided; • Whether signature data (averaged radar cross section [RCS] or actual time-intensity RCS data) can be obtained, and whether RCS in only the principal or in both the principal and orthogonal polarizations can be provided; • Range and angular measurement errors (1-σ); and • Typical track lengths and formed observations per track. 2) What optical assets can you bring to bear to track small NE objects? Please comment on the following aspects of your optical tracking capabilities: • Modality (e.g., regular optical telescope used for terminator passes only; camera constructed for red spectral response for daylight tracking; full IR tracking; laser illumination, satellite laser ranging); • Telescope description and tracking approach (e.g., aperture size, sidereal versus rate tracking); • Minimum detectable target at 1000km observing range (please indicate any assumptions used in calculating this, such as angular rates and target shape and albedo); • Whether signature data (averaged visual magnitude [VM] or actual time-intensity VM data) can be obtained; • Angular (and range if SLR) measurement errors (1-σ); and • Typical track lengths and formed observations per track. 3) What passive radio frequency (RF) assets can you bring to bear to track small NE objects? Please limit your response to capabilities for tracking microsatellites and comment on the following aspects of your passive RF tracking capabilities: • Frequency range; • Types of microsatellites trackable; • Observables supported (angles-only or additional parameters); • Measurement errors in the observables (1-σ); and • Typical track lengths and formed observations per track. B. HEO and GEO tracking Here, the NASA interest is in tracking relatively large HEO objects (not at perigee) and geosynchronous objects of all sizes, including objects that lie below the de facto size threshold for the JSpOC geosynchronous catalogue. 1) What radar assets can you bring to bear to track GEO objects and larger HEO objects? Please comment on the following aspects of your potential radar tracking: • Number of sensors; • Geographical locations; • Radar types (e.g., phased array, dish, interferometer); • Operating frequency and power; • Minimum detectable target size at 36000 km observing range (please indicate any assumptions used in calculating this, such as shape, Swerling fluctuation model, etc.); • Whether observables beyond range and angles are provided; • Whether signature data (averaged RCS or actual time-intensity RCS data) can be obtained, and whether RCS in only the principal or in both the principal and orthogonal polarizations can be provided; • Range and angular measurement errors (1-σ); and • Typical track lengths and formed observations per track. 2) What optical assets can you bring to bear to track GEO objects and larger HEO objects? Please comment on the following aspects of your potential optical tracking: • Modality (e.g., regular optical telescope used for terminator passes only; camera constructed for red spectral response for daylight tracking; full IR tracking; laser illumination, satellite laser ranging); • Telescope description and tracking approach (e.g., aperture size, sidereal versus rate tracking); • Minimum detectable target at 1000km observing range (please indicate any assumptions used in calculating this, such as angular rates and target shape and albedo); • Whether signature data (averaged visual magnitude [VM] or actual time-intensity VM data) can be obtained; • Angular (and range if SLR) measurement errors (1-σ); and • Typical track lengths and formed observations per track. II. Sensor Calibration A. LEO tracking (orbits with < 1000km perigee height) Sensor calibration is an extremely important activity in order to understand the relative quality of a sensor's data vis-à-vis other sensors and apply appropriate weighting in the OD process. It is also a way to check for anomalous behavior or degraded conditions at a particular sensor site, which may inform a decision not to employ a particular dataset. 1) What particular sensor calibration procedures are employed for the radar assets that perform LEO tracking? Please describe your process, commenting at least on the following items: • Which calibration satellites are used, and how the precision ephemerides for these satellites are generated or obtained; • How frequently these are tracked by the radars to be calibrated; • For phased-array radars, whether full-face calibration tracks are used or whether calibration tracking data are limited to tracks very near the radar bore-sight; • Whether corrections for ionospheric and/or tropospheric refraction and wavefront delay are applied (if so, please briefly describe the models used for these corrections); • Whether a full radar systematic error model is employed at the radar (if so, please briefly describe this model and the frequency with which the model constants are updated); • What kinds of sensor calibration information are produced by your process-is it just a mean and variance for each of the observables, or are dependencies on other aspects of the observing situation considered (e.g., sensor local time, elevation angle, etc.); • Whether any calibration techniques are applied for RCS data (if so, please describe the approach); and • How the produced calibration data can be used to make a general assessment of observational quality. 2) What particular sensor calibration procedures are employed for the optical assets that perform LEO tracking? Please describe your process, commenting at least on the following items: • Which calibration satellites are used, and how the precision ephemerides for these satellites are generated or obtained; • How frequently these are tracked by the optical sensors to be calibrated; • What particular telescope calibration procedures are run before each observing session (e.g., zero-point calculation, dead pixel identification, atmospheric extinction solutions, etc.); • Whether a mount-model error model is used or whether in-frame metric processing (astrometry) makes this unnecessary; • What star catalogue is used for metric and photometric registration stars; • What kinds of sensor calibration information are produced by your process-is it simply a mean and variance for each of the observables, or are dependencies on other aspects of the observing situation considered; • Whether any calibration techniques are applied for VM data (if so, please describe the approach); and • How the produced calibration data can be used to make a general assessment of observational quality. 3) What particular sensor calibration procedures are employed for the passive RF assets that perform LEO tracking? Please describe your process, commenting at least on the following items: • Which calibration satellites are used, and how the precision ephemerides for these satellites are generated or obtained; • How frequently these are tracked by the passive RF sensors to be calibrated; • What kinds of sensor calibration information are produced by your process-is it simply a mean and variance for each of the observables, or are dependencies on other aspects of the observing situation considered; and • How the produced calibration data can be used to make an assessment of observation quality. B. HEO and GEO tracking 1) What particular sensor calibration procedures are employed for the radar assets that HEO and GEO tracking? Please describe your process, commenting at least on the following items: • Which calibration satellites are used, and how the precision ephemerides for these satellites are generated or obtained; • How frequently these are tracked by the radars to be calibrated; • Whether corrections for ionospheric and/or tropospheric refraction and wavefront delay are applied (if so, please briefly describe the models used for these corrections); • Whether a full radar systematic error model is employed at the radar (if so, please briefly describe this model and the frequency with which the model constants are updated); • What kinds of sensor calibration information are produced by your process-is it just a mean and variance for each of the observables, or are dependencies on other aspects of the observing situation considered (e.g., sensor local time, elevation angle, etc.); • Whether any calibration techniques are applied for RCS data (if so, please describe the approach); and • How the produced calibration data can be used to make a general assessment of observational quality. 2) What particular sensor calibration procedures are employed for the optical assets that HEO and GEO tracking? Please describe your process, commenting at least on the following items: • Which calibration satellites are used, and how the precision ephemerides for these satellites are generated or obtained; • How frequently these are tracked by the optical sensors to be calibrated; • What particular telescope calibration procedures are run before each observing session (e.g., zero-point calculation, dead pixel identification, atmospheric extinction solutions, etc.); • Whether a mount-model error model is used or whether in-frame metric processing (astrometry) makes this unnecessary; • What star catalogue is used for metric and photometric registration stars; • What kinds of sensor calibration information are produced by your process-is it simply a mean and variance for each of the observables, or are dependencies on other aspects of the observing situation considered; • Whether any calibration techniques are applied for VM data (if so, please describe the approach); and • How the produced calibration data can be used to make a general assessment of observation quality. III. Data Integrity and V&V There are many opportunities for error in transforming measurements from their rawest form at a sensor to the refined form that can be used at a correlation center to perform OD. Sources of error can include incorrect or incomplete coordinate transformations and incorrectly realized reference frames, failure to account for physical distortion phenomena (such as ionospheric effects for radars or light-time / relativistic effects for optical sensors), and periods of data corruption when a sensor for whatever reason fell out of calibration specifications, among others. Describe the activities you pursue to establish initially that a sensor is consistently producing accurate and reliable data and therefore should be considered a trusted data source. Please describe at some length your process to monitor continuously the data quality of your sensors to identify the beginnings of data integrity problems and correct them before they can corrupt a data user's applications. IV. Data Products A. Tracking data What are the different tracking data products that you can provide? Would a typical sensor observation contain merely the observables (i.e., range, azimuth, elevation), or would there be other amplifying data, such as error statements for each observable (covariance values coming out of the tracking filter) or signature data averaged over the observation formation interval? Would these observational data be organized in tracks? Would the data come as a formatted ASCII item or in HML or some other tagged assembly? Provide a couple of examples of these tracking data for inspection (as the purpose is to understand the contents and formatting, realistic but dummy values are acceptable) B. Ephemeris products What are the different orbit determination data products that you can provide, working from either your own tracking data or from a combination of your tracking data and a state estimation product from the JSpOC, such as a state vector or ephemeris? If you have OD capabilities and are able to provide OD products, please provide a detailed description of your OD engine, including information about estimation type (e.g., batch versus sequential estimation), conservative force models supported (gravity model, third-body effects, etc.), non-conservative force models supported (drag, solar radiation pressure), integration control options, covariance production methods, and covariance realism evaluation and correction methods. If you are able to perform a composite solution using your tracking data and JSpOC-generate state information, please describe in some detail how you accomplish this algorithmically, how you generate a covariance for the result, and how one might assess the realism of that covariance. C. Data restrictions What data rights and restrictions would convey with any purchased data, either tracking data or ephemeris products? Can NASA freely circulate these products within the entire Agency? Within the USG? If there are initial restrictions, could the data product be freely circulated after some period of time ("stale" data, useful at that point only for ex post facto analysis)? If there are no definitive answers to these questions because data rights and restrictions are subject to negotiation, please describe some of the arrangements that have been negotiated with past customers (who need not be identified) so that at least some of the range of possibilities can be envisioned. V. Availability/ Tasking/ Deconfliction 1) What level of tracking availability is typically achievable for LEO objects? Are your LEO sensor systems available 24/7/365? Perhaps the best way to describe the situation is to take several typical spacecraft orbits in this regime and provide pass schedule information, indicating times between tracking opportunities over a several-day period. 2) What level of tracking availability is typically achievable for HEO/GEO objects? Are your HEO/GEO sensor systems available 24/7/365? How are systems managed to allow more continuous coverage despite the interruptions of daylight and cloud cover? Perhaps the best way to describe the situation is to take several typical spacecraft orbits in this regime and provide pass schedule information, indicating times between tracking opportunities over a several-day period. 3) How are data requests conveyed from the customer to you as the data provider? How are they communicated to the sensor operators? 4) How are competing data requests prioritized and deconflicted across the sensor network to which you have access? Are there different tiers of service that confer greater or lesser priority in this deconfliction? 5) Does your company directly own or lease all of the sensor assets described in your response, or are at least some of them obtained via subcontracting to a sensor procuring/operating contractor? If it is the latter, Provide an enumeration of the supporting contractors with whom you have assembled a consortium and the number and types of sensor assets that each contributes. The purpose of this enquiry is not to indulge an inappropriate curiosity about the responder's subcontracting arrangements but to allow the building of confidence that any consortium is composed of established, reliable businesses, which would speak to the expected reliability and durability of a Government contractual arrangement with the provider. VI. Pricing Describe your existing pricing schedule for products and services that you presently provide. Focus the response on a hypothetical continuous arrangement for tracking on a modest number of objects, with a subset of the list of such objects changing perhaps daily.
- Web Link
-
FBO.gov Permalink
(https://www.fbo.gov/notices/2821358483cd325f06196fc108b19222)
- Place of Performance
- Address: NASA/GSFC and Vendor Facilities, Greenbelt, Maryland, 20771, United States
- Zip Code: 20771
- Zip Code: 20771
- Record
- SN04466165-W 20170412/170410235615-2821358483cd325f06196fc108b19222 (fbodaily.com)
- Source
-
FedBizOpps Link to This Notice
(may not be valid after Archive Date)
| FSG Index | This Issue's Index | Today's FBO Daily Index Page |