The current science-related subtopics are oriented across four priority topics: 

INSTALG: Technologies are sought to develop new science instruments and computing methods to study planetary bodies, with an emphasis on the Earth, the Moon, and Mars. This includes instruments and components for in situ, remote, and suborbital observations, as well as advanced computing for data sets including those for Earth science, planetary science, heliophysics, and astrophysics.

COSMO: Technologies are sought to develop precision components for space-based telescopes and experimental apparatus to study fundamental physics and astrophysics. This includes detectors, mirrors and assemblies, advanced observatory and instrument technologies, and artificial intelligence techniques to advance designs.

INSITU: Technologies are sought to conduct in situ science operations on planetary bodies, with an emphasis on the Earth, the Moon, and Mars. This includes mobility systems on, under, and over the surface of a planetary body, and science experiments across microgravity, partial gravity, and varied planetary environments.

SPWx: Technologies are sought to improve our ability to understand and forecast space weather (environmental conditions driven by solar activity). Advanced instruments and sensors, including those that are quantum-based, are sought together with methods to convert research data to applications.

Q1: This topic mentions both noise reduction technology and prediction capability. In Phase I, beyond normal-incidence testing, would NASA expect some modeling and design tool development for more representative engine-related conditions such as ducted/grazing flow?

A1: Successful commercialization of new acoustic liners for aircraft propulsion systems will depend on an ability to understand the performance of materials and structures in realistic operating conditions. Developing design and analysis tools and comparing predictions against measurements of proof-of-concept prototype liners are important steps in the maturation of liner technology for aircraft engines.

Q2: Under this topic, would NASA have greater interest in exhaust noise reduction, inlet noise reduction, or either one if the propulsion-noise benefit is clearly demonstrated?

A2: Proposals should clearly demonstrate a propulsion noise benefit, without adversely affecting other aircraft propulsor performance criteria such as aerodynamic efficiency. Progress is made when dominant sources of noise on an aircraft are reduced, and that will depend upon the propulsion system/airframe configuration and flight trajectory. It is incumbent upon the proposer to clearly identify the noise reduction potential of their technology for aircraft propulsion noise reduction.

Q3: What level of Phase I demonstration would NASA expect for a material-based exhaust noise reduction concept?

A3: In this case for a Phase I effort, NASA expects a basic demonstration of the proposed aircraft engine exhaust noise reduction concept. Phase I deliverables can include a demonstration of a model or code to predict the material performance, an advanced diagnostic tool for measuring the performance of the material, or a proof-of-concept demonstration for a new material used to reduce aircraft engine exhaust noise.

Q1: Does AERO.3.S26B consider solid-state thermal energy recovery technologies that convert waste heat to electrical power as an integrated element of the engine thermal management architecture, or is the scope limited to passive heat transfer and thermal storage approaches?

A1: Yes, solid-state thermal energy recovery technologies that convert waste heat to electrical power as an integrated element are in-scope.

Q1: Within Airspace Management Automation, does “reduce reliance on voice communication” include improvements in digitization of voice communications, or only solutions that fully replace voice channels with non-voice digital protocols?

A1: Improvement in digitization of voice communication is included to enable increasingly autonomous operations.

Q1: The solicitation notes applications from small drones to piloted aircraft. Should the solution be considered a bolt-on option, or built into the system? Are you looking for the generator design to electricity, or a complete hybrid solution.

A1: We are seeking a component that converts fuel to electrical power. By defining the size, mass, key interfaces, conversion efficiency, and electrical output characteristics users can determine if it is best to use in a new system as a built in component or as an add on.  We are seeking a component which converts fuel to electrical power output, not a complete hybrid system.

Q2: Specifically what is the common fuel for conversion here?

A2: Updated 5/7/26: The common fuel is Jet A, diesel, or heavy fuels. This includes fuels widely used in air, ground, and marine transportation.

Q3: Is heavy fuel capability a discriminator? The topic mentions a broad range of scale but very small vehicles are the most practical for flight demonstration on a limited SBIR budget. Is there a preferred size range?

A3: No. The preferred size range is for components that are compatible with UAS Group 2 or 3 drones or aircraft which fall within the FAA CFR Part 23. Reference 23.2005 for maximum certified takeoff weight, passenger count and speed.

Q1: Does NASA have preferred modeling, simulation, or design environments that the proposed work should support or interface with, such as Open Vehicle Sketch Pad, computational fluid dynamics tools, rotorcraft comprehensive analysis tools, flight dynamics models, acoustic prediction tools, or multidisciplinary design, analysis, and optimization workflows?

A1: Proposed solutions should consider and be able to demonstrate usability of any modeling, simulation, or design environments with relation to the work being done, technology being developed, and the stakeholders. Additionally, the tools should be chosen to provide the most accurate results that support decision making within the scope of the work, and if possible can be translated and transferred with minimal extra work.

Q2: While the RFP title includes both AAM and VTOL, are you considering STOL solutions to the AAM problem?

A2: STOL/SSTOL solutions will be considered.  All proposals, regardless of the vehicle, are advised to provide topic relevant and highly desired advancements in technology under AAM with well-defined deliverables and stakeholders.

Q3: Are there concerns about security and adversarial robustness of models?

A3: Yes, but will most likely depend on the model type and heritage. These concerns around AI/ML integrated models are currently evolving and being addressed more every day.  Currently, when applicable these aspects should be covered by the contract through ethics related requirements, cybersecurity, and increasing requirements addressing AI/ML integration directly. 

Q4: What level of instrumentation fidelity and data quality would NASA expect for Phase II, particularly for time synchronization, rotor speed measurement, motor torque or power measurement, six-degree-of-freedom motion tracking, acoustic measurement, air data, structural loads, and uncertainty quantification?

A4: Proposed solutions should show that the data acquisition fidelity and quality will be sufficient to demonstrate that all testing results will be strongly defendable. In most cases, decision quality data are the product.

Q1: The subtopic specifies shortage of AF-E-411 precursors. Is the shortage related only to EPDM or to the other components too? Would an elastomer that incorporates EPDM at much lower percentage than AF-E-411 be within the scope of this subtopic?

A1: The composition of cure schedule for AF-E-411 can be found in the Space Shuttle Seal Material and Design Development for Earth Storable Propellant Systems document: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19740005081/downloads/19740005081.pdf

Of the components listed, the EPDM material – Nordel 1635 (an old duPont material), at a minimum, is no longer available, and there is a distinct lack of information available on it.

Research should be conducted to ensure that the other materials are still available; from a quick search.

An elastomer with equivalent mechanical/physical properties to AF-E-411, with consistent make up and chemical compatibility is desired. A material that may have a lower EPDM composition, may be appropriate if it meets such requirements.

Q1: For onboard implementation, what computational constraints should proposers assume, including processor class, memory, power, execution time, radiation tolerance, real-time operating constraints, and compatibility with space computing platforms or NASA Core Flight System?

A1: Proposers can assume potential high performance computational constraints within the 5-10 year need horizon listed in the solicitation. Proposers are encouraged to propose implementations using current computational constraints and platforms to demonstrate capability in the short term.

Q2: For precision landing and terrain-relative navigation, what sensing assumptions should proposers use: active light detection and ranging imaging, optical cameras, inertial measurement units, star trackers, altimeters, radar, terrain maps, onboard three-dimensional terrain reconstruction, or operation at previously unmapped bodies with no long-duration survey phase?

A2: Sensing assumptions are left open to the firm proposers but should consider the mission phase concepts and associated design resources that are publicly available about the NASA Moon to Mars program and other initiatives.

Q3: Is there a set of expected inputs or input types for the process or is this to be proposed in submissions?

A3: Inputs and input types are to be proposed in submissions.

Q4: What level of onboard autonomy is NASA seeking: ground-in-the-loop decision support, onboard navigation with ground-approved maneuvers, onboard maneuver targeting, autonomous contingency response, autonomous trajectory replanning, or fully integrated mission planning, navigation, and maneuver execution?

A4: Onboard autonomy should be designed to enable the proposed flight dynamics and navigation technology and be tied to NASA’s Moon to Mars and other NASA initiatives’ mission concepts. The varying levels of autonomy queried are available to proposers, pending the justification and connection to public information on NASA mission concepts.

Q1: For high performance detector technologies COSMO.1, are quantum technologies of interest?

A1: Yes, quantum technologies would be considered for the COSMO.1.S26A subtopic and, in fact, a subset of quantum detectors (superconducting detectors) are specifically included in the call. Any technology that has the potential to meet the sensitivity needs for ultraviolet, X-ray, and/or gamma detection (as outlined in the reference materials) would be of interest, provided performance could be demonstrated on the need horizon timeline.

Q1: Is manufacturability, using AI on an astrophysics-relevant part, a need in this subtopic?

A1: Manufacturability alone does not address the design/analysis needs in the subtopic. From the subtopic language, proposed solutions must focus on hardware design acceleration and demonstrate feasibility on at least one subsystem or component relevant to astrophysics mission needs. Also review the deliverables for Phase I regarding design automation workflow and embedded analysis capability.

Q2: Does the solicitation’s usage of ‘subsystem’ refer to subsystems within an AI framework or within a complex component model? Paragraph two suggests a desire for an end-to-end system of agents, where paragraph 3 could be read to suggest that a piece of the AI chain might also be appropriate.

A2: “Solutions must focus on hardware design acceleration and, in Phase I, demonstrate the capability on at least one subsystem or component.” Subsystem means a hardware subsystem, such as an avionics box.

Q3: Is the baseline measure for ‘design loop completed at least 5X— faster than current practice’ already determined at various scales and complexities?

A3: Updated 5/11/26: We do not have a series of benchmarks for comparison. The demonstration of process acceleration is up to the proposer.

Q1: The subtopic specifies several quantitative ranges for segmented aperture primary mirrors. Could you clarify how firm each is for Phase I scoping? Segment size 1.5 to 3.5 m: are small excursions (1.0 to 1.4 m or 3.6 to 4.0 m) responsive? Aperture 6 to 16 m segmented: is ±4 m flexibility allowed? Areal density 15 to 150 kg per square meter: are modest excursions (say ±10) in scope? First mode greater than 150 Hz: given JWST 16 Hz SOA, are designs at 80 to 150 Hz in scope?

A1: UVO Observatories need segments in this size range that are lightweight, stiff (> 150 Hz), smooth (< 5 nm rms) and with < 5 ppb/K CTE homogeneity. SBIR is soliciting technical solutions that can provide such a mirror. It is expected that any demonstration will be at the subscale level – consistent with Phase 1 or Phase 2 budgets.

There are multiple opto-mechanical challenges to achieving a 6 to 16-m segmented aperture mirror with diffraction limited performance of ~ 300 nm: Deployments, Structural Mechanical and Thermal Stability, Stiffness, Vibration Mitigation, Active Control, etc.

The best way to answer this is to say that the primary mirror cannot exceed about 4500 kg. So, a 6-m mirror needs areal density of < 150 kg/m2. A 16-m mirror needs < 20 kg/m2.

Webb’s mirror segment’s first mode was ~ 220 Hz. The entire primary mirror was about 16HZ. HWO wants segments to be > 150 Hz. I want the whole PM to be as stiff as possible.

Q1: Is this project specifically targeted for the following PNs: HB1301-KIT HPSC Base Kit QTY 1, HB1304-KIT HPSC Expansion Kit QTY1, HB1340-KIT-PDC 10 port SFP QTY 1?

A1: This subtopic targets NASA’s High Performance Spaceflight Computing (HPSC) project [1] which is delivering the HPSC SoC (system-on-a-chip). Two evaluation platforms are available: the HB13xx-KIT [2] family of boards and the HX1000-KIT [3]. Several vendors are creating in-form factor flight units (e.g., [4] [5]).

[1]: https://www.nasa.gov/game-changing-development-projects/high-performance-spaceflight-computing-hpsc/

[2]: https://ww1.microchip.com/downloads/aemDocuments/documents/MPU64/ProductDocuments/Brochures/PIC64-HPSC-Evaluation-Platform-00005464.pdf

[3]: https://www.microchip.com/en-us/development-tool/hx1000-kit

[4]: https://www.moog.com/products/avionics/spacecraft-avionics/payload-processing-products/cascade-single-board-computer.html

[5]: https://www.ideas-tek.com/hpsc

Q1: For the assembly operations use case, are there specific structural archetypes (e.g., solar array deployment, habitat foundation leveling, communication towers) that NASA considers the highest priority or lowest-hanging fruit for a near-term (5-year) commercial flight demonstration?

A1: Proposers should justify their application based on their interpretation of NASA’s publicly declared goals, their own commercial business case, and viability of partnership/investor contributions to support a near-term demonstration mission. As stated in the appendix, this subtopic seeks innovative concepts for flight demonstration of commercial in-space logistics, robotic manipulation, and automation systems that will enable advanced exploration, science operations, and in-space production capabilities enabling a commercial ecosystem. Innovative partnerships are highly encouraged but must include evidence of partner funding viability.

Q2: How does this EXPAND subtopic interface with existing NASA in-space assembly research, such as the ARMADAS (Automated Reconfigurable Mission Adaptable Digital Assembly Systems) or Tall Lunar Tower (TLT) projects? Should we specifically align our Phase I use cases to support those ongoing architectures, or is NASA strictly looking for novel, separate commercial applications?

A2: Proposers may use existing NASA concepts, or propose new ones.

Q3: For the in-space assembly tasks, what is NASA’s expectation regarding the level of autonomy versus human-in-the-loop teleoperation? Given lunar/orbital communication latencies, should the system emphasize edge-compute autonomy with human supervisory control, or is high-bandwidth teleoperation acceptable for the initial flight demonstration?

A3: Proposers should provide rationale for their decision of level of autonomy, considering the final use case, and the relevance and feasibility of the flight demonstration.

Q4: What interface assumptions should proposers use for robotic logistics and manipulation systems, including mechanical grasping interfaces, electrical/data interfaces, fiducials, cooperative servicing aids, modular payload fixtures, cargo packaging standards, and compatibility with future commercial low Earth orbit platforms or exploration assets?

A4: Proposers are encouraged to use systems that comply with relevant standards (e.g. voluntary consensus standards listed here: https://satelliteconfers.org/page/confers-publications).

Q5: What level of autonomy is NASA seeking: teleoperated manipulation, supervised autonomy, shared human-robot control, task-level autonomy, multi-agent robotic coordination, autonomous planning and scheduling, autonomous fault recovery, or high-tempo autonomous operations in dynamic mission conditions?

A5: Proposers should provide rationale for their decision of level of autonomy, considering the final use case, and the relevance and feasibility of the flight demonstration.

Q6: For this topic, what would NASA consider the minimum credible flight-demonstration pathway within the required five-year launch window: a suborbital flight, hosted payload, International Space Station demonstration, commercial low Earth orbit platform demonstration, free-flyer demonstration, rideshare mission, or another low-cost flight opportunity?

A6: Proposals may employ any of these approaches.

For reference, here is the solicitation language: All proposals must include a plan to develop a flight demonstration with launch within the next five years, with strong recommendation to utilize NASA’s Space Technology Mission Directorate (STMD) Flight Opportunities program or other low-cost flight demonstration options that enable space flight validation. Proposals must advance space logistics and/or robotic manipulation capabilities and must be applicable to one or more of the target applications defined below. Proposals may include planetary surface (Moon and Mars) demonstration but will only be considered if relevance of an orbital flight technology demonstration mission can be demonstrated or surface demos are achievable at NASA funding levels similar to low Earth orbit (LEO) demonstrations.

Q7: Is there a specific requirement for lossless feature-based CAD migration to maintain the digital thread across multi-vendor platforms?

A7: No.

Q8: Does the agency seek solutions that autonomously regenerate parametric intent from ‘dumb’ geometry to facilitate robotic assembly and servicing?

A8: The Government cannot advise on the relevance or merit of any specific technical solution during the solicitation period. You are responsible for reviewing the solicitation and determining whether their proposed approach aligns with the stated objectives and requirements.

Q1: EXPAND.3.S26B asks for autonomous onboard health management for small spacecraft and distributed systems. Does this subtopic admit a Phase I demonstration on a terrestrial Earth-analog testbed (flight-hardware roadmap in Phase II/III), or is flight-hardware required in Phase I?

A1: A Phase I demonstration on a terrestrial Earth-analog testbed is acceptable, with the expectation that Phase II will advance toward flight-hardware validation and Phase III toward operational infusion.

Q2: For EXPAND.3.S26B, are there preferred representative mission contexts or test scenarios for evaluating distributed spacecraft health-management, such as swarm continuity, degraded-node operation, cross-satellite health exchange, or autonomous recovery under communication constraints?

A2: The mission contexts and evaluation scenarios listed in the question are all relevant and appropriate. Proposers should select test scenarios that best demonstrate their technical approach and its applicability to small spacecraft missions for NASA, other government agencies, and/or commercial industry.

Q3: For T12:T24r EXPAND.3.S26B Phase I, may we validate a concept of operation against an Earth-analog distributed-platform deployment (e.g., remote field operations under intermittent uplink) as a proxy for spacecraft swarm/constellation health management, with Phase II targeting ESPA-class small-spacecraft integration? Or must Phase I validation use simulated or actual small-spacecraft hardware only?

A3: It is acceptable to validate a concept of operation against an Earth-analog distributed-platform deployment as a proxy for spacecraft swarm/constellation health management in Phase I, with Phase II advancing toward ESPA-class small-spacecraft integration and validation. Proposers should clearly articulate how their Earth-analog testing relates to the envisaged small spacecraft application.

Q4: The subtopic states that the desired Phase II outcome may be a prototype or minimal viable product of software or sensor demonstrated on a representative hardware environment. Can NASA clarify whether, for a software prototype, a flight-like processor-in-the-loop or avionics-in-the-loop testbed using representative telemetry and injected faults would satisfy the representative hardware environment expectation, absent development of new sensing hardware?

A4: Yes, for a software-focused prototype, a flight-like processor-in-the-loop or avionics-in-the-loop testbed using representative telemetry and injected faults would satisfy the “representative hardware environment” expectation for Phase II. The key is demonstrating the software’s performance in conditions representative of the target spacecraft environment, even if new sensing hardware is not developed. Proposers should clearly describe how their testbed represents the target operational environment and validates their approach.

Q1: Does the agency prioritize materials that offer secondary In-Situ Resource Utilization benefits “such as those that can be refined from mission-generated biological waste” over traditional synthetic elastomers for long-duration Mars exploration?

A1: Materials derived from In-Situ Resource Utilization of mission-generated biological waste are not within scope for this subtopic. This solicitation seeks materials and designs that provide mass reduction, thermal control, and structural performance in the Mars environment. Pressure garment materials must meet stringent human-rating, certification, and quality control requirements that are best addressed through traditional material qualification processes.

Q2: Given the extreme temperature fluctuations of the Martian environment, does the agency have a minimum Glass Transition Temperature (Tg) or specific thermal stability threshold for novel elastomeric materials?

A2: No specific minimum Glass Transition Temperature (Tg) is specified for this subtopic. Thermal performance requirements are application-dependent and vary based on the material’s location and application within the suit system. The Mars surface thermal environment ranges from approximately -220°F to +70°F. Materials must maintain required mechanical properties throughout this range, or demonstrate that the suit thermal control system adequately protects materials from temperature extremes that would compromise performance.

Q3: For EVA.1.S26A, is the agency interested in high-crystallinity biopolymers, specifically those derived from chitin/chitosan, as a primary or composite layer for radiation mitigation and mass reduction in Mars pressure garments?

A3: This subtopic is open to all materials that demonstrate feasibility for Mars pressure garment applications, including biopolymers as long as they otherwise meet requirements for the application in question. Radiation mitigation is not identified as a critical gap in this subtopic. This subtopic focuses on suit architecture, mass reduction, bearing/disconnect interfaces, and thermal control.

Q1: Between minimizing total power consumption, peak power consumption, and preheat time, what is your highest priority?

A1: The highest priority is the minimization of the total power consumption.

a. This all comes down to the power available on the spacecraft. We can work with some peak power consumption as it comes up, but it’s really down to the amount of power we put into the thruster from the batteries.

b. The second highest priority is the pre-heat time. If we have a way to get to pre-heat temperatures faster, that can save us some power. It also makes our operations better because we can decrease the time to get ready for maneuvers.

Q2: What are some of the biggest challenges with conventional resistive heaters and insulation for this application that you’ve seen so far?

A2: Some of the biggest challenges for resistive heaters are:

a. Cost and lead-time are sometimes difficult for the thruster manufacturers. It’s gotten better over the last few years though, but it can still be a critical path item for the vendors.

b. They are kind of a custom design for each thruster size. We do a different design for the coils for each diameter/length change on the thrusters

c. The resistive heaters are effective though. We are trying to get to a more cost-effective and energy-efficient type configuration.

Q3: Are current SOTA ASCENT catalysts considered acceptable for higher thrust missions? Is this solicitation open to innovation on the catalyst in addition to pre-heat optimization?

A3: This one is difficult to answer without understanding the context of the vendor’s questions. We know that we can build 100 mN thrusters with catalyst beds that are acceptable. It’s not 100% certain that we can do this same catalyst configuration/type at higher usage levels. It’s not easy to answer with any definitive yes or no. I think we are open to it, but it would have to be focused on how we configure, manufacture, or otherwise incorporate lowering the pre-heat power. I know these two things are closely related (heaters and catalyst beds).

Q4: Is the catalyst bed required to be at the 400 C temperature consistently throughout the mission or only prior to thruster use?

A4: The thruster pre-heat is only to get ready for thruster firing. We don’t keep the thrusters at pre-heat temperatures continuously.

Q5: Does GO.1.S26A consider novel thermal energy delivery technologies for catalyst bed pre-heating beyond resistive heater optimization, such as alternative heat generation or thermal management architectures that reduce pre-heat time or power draw?

A5: We are open to alternative ideas, for sure. We have the most experience with resistive heaters, so that is typically what we use. It’s quite possible that the existing resistive heaters are just about as optimized as we can get them.

Q1: Is simulation and analysis of propellantless momentum management methods within scope of this subtopic? Is hardware development expected for Phase I and/or Phase II?

A1: Yes, it is within scope and hardware development would definitely be desired in Phase II if not preliminary in Phase I.

Q1: The solicitation does not specify a target CFD framework. We request clarification on the following:

(a) Does NASA have a preferred or required CFD platform (an in-house NASA code) into which the developed model?

(b) If no platform is mandated, are participating firms permitted to use their own proprietary or open-source CFD framework?

A1: It is preferable to employ CFD tools used by NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center and/or Glenn Research Center, but models can be implemented in any finite volume CFD tool as long as the delivered solution can easily be ported to NASA’s preferred tools in the future. The formulated model(s) may be demonstrated in a commercial or proprietary framework, but should not be inherently dependent on proprietary platforms or libraries that NASA does not have access to. An additional reference with information on models used by NASA: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20230016135

Q2: Scope of “”Analytical Model”” Formulation Only, or Full CFD Implementation?

A2: The proposed solution should include formulation and at least a preliminary implementation to complete a proof-of-concept demonstration.

Q3: CFD Code Platform — NASA-Specified or Performer’s Discretion?

A3: It is preferable to employ CFD tools used by NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center and/or Glenn Research Center, but models can be implemented in any finite volume CFD tool as long as the delivered solution can easily be ported to NASA’s preferred tools in the future. The delivered model(s) should not have dependencies on proprietary platforms or libraries that NASA does not have access to.

Q4: Phase II Deliverable Definition — Standalone Validated Code, or Library/API for NASA Integration? We think that implementing a tightly coupled multiphase, multispecies model as a library is difficult

A4: It is up to the offeror to decide what is the most effective approach with their chosen platform as the numerics for these models may not lend themselves to implementation in a separate library. It is preferred that the proposed solution be implemented in or work with CFD tools used for combustion simulations at MSFC and/or GRC, but the only requirement is that the model can be incorporated into NASA’s preferred tools in the future. An additional reference with information on models used by NASA: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20230016135

Q5: An efficient injection model that is suitable for design and system-level analysis will need to be specific to the type of injector of interest, and will require significant tuning and calibration to trusted validation data. Will a specific injector type(s) be provided along with validation data? The minimum data required for good calibration would be droplet size distributions and velocity components at multiple locations in the spray field.

A5: Updated May 7 to add the text in bold:

This solicitation is not seeking the development of specific models for specific injector designs, but rather improvements in modeling methods and computational architectures that can reduce the turnaround time required for multi-timescale unsteady limit-cycle calculations. The methods and architectures desired would not be code-specific, but rather something that could be implemented by the user community across a variety of codes. Demonstration of the models developed in this effort should address a component or engine test relevant to NASA’s applications, and data may be provided by NASA for this purpose.

Q1: On p. 118 of the announcement, the “Expected TRL or TRL Range at completion of the Project: 3 – 4,” is that with reference to the end of Phase I or Phase II?

A1: Typically, we would expect an end TRL 3 at the end of Phase I and TRL 4 at the end of Phase II. These are only guidelines and may vary between projects.

Q1: What environmental and reliability requirements should be assumed for Phase I and Phase II design trades, including temperature range, radiation tolerance, dust tolerance, vacuum operation, power limits, mass limits, contamination control, duty cycle, and expected operational lifetime?

A1: The ultimate mission environment should be considered for the concept to be developed. Phase II would normally develop to about TRL 4 so with validation in a laboratory environment.

Q2: For mobility technologies, what operational environment should proposers use as the primary design reference: long-range day and night traverse, steep and rocky terrain, high-slip regolith, permanently shadowed lunar regions, Martian dust and thermal cycling, subsurface access, aerial reconnaissance, or ocean-world surface and near-surface operations?

A2: These environments for mobility are all of interest for potential NASA missions. Various future missions could utilize SBIR technologies so development of technologies could influence the viability for NASA to choose specific missions to pursue.

Q3: What level of autonomy is NASA seeking for this topic: operator-assisted mobility, supervised autonomy, autonomous navigation, onboard slip and embedding detection, autonomous sampling-site selection, autonomous manipulation and sample transfer, or learning-enabled adaptation in uncertain planetary terrain?

A3: Autonomy technologies are of interest that will enable robotic systems to make decisions that previously needed to be made by human operators on Earth, including autonomous navigation, fault detection and recovery, sampling site detection, manipulation, sampling, and sample transfer. Various approaches to autonomy are of interest including learning-enabled adaptation in uncertain environments.

Q1: For in situ instruments and instrument components INSTALG.1, are quantum technologies of interest?

A1: Yes, our subtopic is interested in quantum sensors. Quantum sensors can be relevant to our subtopic depending on how they are focused, and if the target measurement is in line with our subtopic call.

Our subtopic had the below two Phase II awards, with the second one developing a Cs atom interferometer laser needed for a JPL quantum accelerometer.

S13.05-2543 (2023 Phase II)

Proposal Title: Quantum Sensor for D/H Ratio Measurement in Water in Outer Planets

Firm : QuantCAD, LLC

S13.05-1353 (2023 Phase II)

Proposal Title: Cs Atom Interferometer Laser

Firm: Opto-Atomics Corp.

Q2: Would a subsystem be in scope vs a complete flight instrument? Is a seismic source instrument relevant to this subtopic?

A2: Yes, a subsystem is in scope. A seismic source instrument is applicable to lunar subsurface exploration and therefore is relevant to this subtopic. One example is the Portable Active Seismic Source (PASS). Please see the below news and abstract

Artemis mission to use Japanese system to explore moon’s surface: https://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/16323101

Portable Active Seismic Source for Lunar Geophysical Exploration: https://www.hou.usra.edu/meetings/lunarsurface26/pdf/5011.pdf

Q1: Are wafer-level high frequency capable interconnects between dissimilar substrates for mid IR applications responsive to INSTALG.4.S26B – Detectors and Integrated Electronics? For example low-force methods for bonding HgCdTe and other fragile materials to silicon readout circuits?

A1: This could be considered responsive as it deals with technology that could potentially improve the yield of fragile-detector-material base detector arrays.

Q2: Does INSTALG.4.S26B include enabling technologies for detector thermal management or localized power conditioning that directly improve detector performance, or is the scope strictly limited to the detector elements and readout electronics themselves?

A2: There is general interest in low power consumption (and dissipation) in large-format high dynamic range FPAs. Relevant concepts to address power consumption/dissipation could be of interest.

Q1: Are there specific remote sensing use cases where rapid beam pointing or scanning performance is considered a key limitation today?

A1: Pertaining to the lidar aspect, the solicitation specifically focuses on the solicitation specifically focuses on non-mechanical scanner technology. Rapid and continuous beam pointing remains a significant limitation for non-mechanical scanners. 3D Mapping and Hazard Detection instruments listed in the solicitation can benefit from robust, rapid scanners.

Q2: For remote sensing INSTALG.5, are quantum technologies of interest?

A2: Yes—quantum technologies are of interest for this subtopic, particularly as they relate to the Active Microwave Systems area already described.

As reflected in the subtopic, there is specific interest in quantum-enabled sensing approaches that can address current limitations in sensitivity, calibration stability, dynamic range, and SWaP-C. This includes atom-based RF sensing (e.g., Rydberg atom systems), arrayed quantum receiver architectures, and quantum-enabled transduction or beamforming concepts that support distributed or spatially resolved measurements.

These approaches are relevant where they provide measurable performance improvements over conventional microwave and RF systems, or enable new remote sensing capabilities such as broadband, calibration-free electric field measurements, compact multi-band receivers, or coherent distributed sensing architectures. Quantum technologies should be considered within scope when they are implemented as practical subsystem- or component-level solutions that align with the subtopic’s emphasis on prototype development, reduced SWaP-C, and applicability to airborne or space-based platforms.

Q1: Is it acceptable to focus on either the yarn-based approach or the felt-based approach, or is NASA expecting a combined solution addressing both?

A1: The intent is for a proposer to focus on one or the other, not both.

Q2: For the >95% carbon, stretch-broken fiber, is there a preferred source or is the intent that proposers perform the stretch breaking process themselves?

A2: The use of a high-volume fiber that will be around long term is preferred. For example, PAN (Polyacrylonitrile) has been used in the work NASA has done internally in the past. It’s assumed the proposer will acquire fiber and conduct stretch breaking of the carbon when they are also stretch breaking material (e.g., Kynol®).

Q3: Is the use of a processing sizing on the stretch-broken carbon fibers acceptable prior to twisting? If so, should that sizing be removed after twisting?

A3: Sizing is typical and consequently does not need to be removed after blending and twisting with chemically cross-linked phenolic resin fibers such as Kynol®.

Q1: The solicitation refers to “Class II” infrastructure definitions and requirements. such as “Class II deployable or assemble-able surface covers”. I was not able to find anything in the references that would define what “Class II” means. I was also not able to find any NASA documents on the topic. Could you please provide an available document that defines what “Class II” is for this topic?

A1: Class II is defined in this reference… Kennedy, K. (2002). “The vernacular of space architecture”. In Proc., AIAA Space Architecture Symposium, 6102. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2002-6102

Q2: The solicitation requires proposals to be “compatible with the Lunar Innovation Park concept described in the references”, but the references are not published and information on the Innovation Park was not available. This makes it difficult to write a proposal that is compatible. Is there a published and available document or website with this information?

A2: There are several publicly available documents on Lunar Innovation Park available on NTRS. Search – NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS)

Q1: Would high-voltage device technology (like SiC, Gallium Oxide, etc.) be still of interest to NASA?

A1: Yes, we are interested in high voltage devices, but you will need to make a case for how this relates to high power transmission on the lunar surface.

Q2: The scope of the problem includes this solution: “…mmWave power beaming technologies for high-power wireless transmission, meeting performance targets of >95% beam efficiency, >65% source efficiency, and >70% rectifier efficiency.” Will NASA accept a solution incorporating X-band microwave as opposed to mmWave assuming all performance targets are met? If not, can you share the rationale for specifying only mmWave? Also, shall we assume same 500W power target as for optical?

A2: NASA will consider a solution incorporating X-band microwave if the proposed innovation can meet all of the performance targets. mmWave was specified due to the expected size of transmission hardware and beam efficiency compared to X-band. The “over distances exceeding 1 km, delivering greater than 500 W” targets are assumed for all wireless power transmission solutions for this solicitation as a baseline to demonstrate expected performance.

Q1: For radiation, can you please clarify whether it refers to the Cosmic Microwave Background or ionizing radiation (e.g., soft X-rays, MeV gamma rays, or energetic particles such as protons)? Does radiation level monitoring primarily refer to cumulative dose measurement, or is spectroscopy capability expected? For radiation sensing, is pixelation or imaging capability required?

A1: Radiation in the context of our desired observational capability refers to any type of radiation that is sourced from the Sun. This includes ionizing radiation but it does not include cosmic microwave background. Pixellation and/or imaging capability are strongly desired, but are not necessarily required. We are looking for technologies that can advance existing capabilities for making solar observations, especially for observing solar flares and the solar corona.

The solicitation also mentions that technologies should be able to withstand exposure to radiation in the space environment. In this context, we are referring to any type of radiation that the technology may be exposed to in its operational environment (typically, low Earth orbit). Ionizing radiation is typically of the greatest concern in this context.

Q2: Does SPWX.2.S26B consider enabling subsystem technologies “such as power conversion or thermal management” that improve the performance or manufacturability of space environment sensor platforms to be within scope, or is the subtopic limited to sensor and instrumentation technologies themselves?

A2: Enabling system technologies may be within scope if they are particularly well suited to heliophysics instrumentation as described in the subtopic solicitation.

Q1: For in-space logistics and manipulation, what operational task would provide the highest validation value to NASA: delivery and installation of Orbital Replacement Units, cargo unpacking and staging, sample handling, inventory management, robotic inspection, structural assembly, tool use, free-flyer manipulation, or preparation of material for Earth return via a reentry capsule?

A1: The Government cannot advise on the relevance or merit of any specific technical solution during the solicitation period. You are responsible for reviewing the solicitation and determining whether their proposed approach aligns with the stated objectives and requirements.

Q2: What would NASA consider a strong Phase II success outcome: a ground-demonstrated prototype ready for integration into a suborbital or orbital flight opportunity, a detailed flight-demonstration mission package, a validated autonomous manipulation system, a reusable robotic logistics testbed, a commercial partnership with a credible flight path, or a combination of these outcomes?

A2: The Government cannot advise on the relevance or merit of any specific technical solution during the solicitation period. You are responsible for reviewing the solicitation and determining whether their proposed approach aligns with the stated objectives and requirements.

Q3: What performance metrics would NASA consider most important for evaluating a proposed robotic manipulation or logistics concept, such as task completion reliability, manipulation accuracy, force/torque control performance, cycle time, mass and volume efficiency, power consumption, modularity, affordability, crew-time reduction, fault tolerance, or reusability across mission classes?

A3: The Government cannot advise on the relevance or merit of any specific technical solution during the solicitation period. You are responsible for reviewing the solicitation and determining whether their proposed approach aligns with the stated objectives and requirements.

Q4: Does NASA prefer proposals that mature a complete end-to-end robotic logistics system, or would a focused subsystem demonstration such as an autonomous manipulation module, end effector, robotic tool changer, modular fixture interface, perception system, task-planning software, or manipulation-control architecture be considered equally responsive if it enables a future flight demonstration?

A4: The Government cannot advise on the relevance or merit of any specific technical solution during the solicitation period. You are responsible for reviewing the solicitation and determining whether their proposed approach aligns with the stated objectives and requirements.

Q5: How should proposers handle commercial partnerships and partner funding viability, especially if the proposed flight demonstration depends on a commercial space station provider, logistics provider, hosted-payload provider, launch broker, robotics hardware vendor, or in-space manufacturing partner?

A5: To ensure fairness, NASA cannot help you scope the work and deliverables planned in your proposal. As described on the NASA SBIR/STTR website, Phase I is the jumping off point for most small businesses and research institutions working with the program. It is known as the “idea generation” phase, during which small businesses (and their research institution partners in STTR) establish the scientific, technical, commercial merit and feasibility of the proposed innovation. You can also refer to the “Desired Deliverables of Phase I” section under the relevant subtopic in the solicitation for guidance.

Q6: Among the target application areas listed in the topic in-space servicing operations, in-space assembly and construction, automated science operations, in-space production support, and commercial platform or human spaceflight support which application area is NASA most interested in advancing through this solicitation cycle?

A6: The Government cannot advise on the relevance or merit of any specific technical solution during the solicitation period. You are responsible for reviewing the solicitation and determining whether their proposed approach aligns with the stated objectives and requirements.

Q7: For Phase I and Phase II, what validation environment would NASA find most convincing before a flight demonstration: benchtop hardware testing, robotic testbed demonstration, neutral-buoyancy or air-bearing testing, microgravity aircraft testing, hardware-in-the-loop simulation, digital-twin validation, thermal-vacuum testing, vibration testing, or integration with an existing NASA or commercial robotics test facility?

A7: The Government cannot advise on the relevance or merit of any specific technical solution during the solicitation period. You are responsible for reviewing the solicitation and determining whether their proposed approach aligns with the stated objectives and requirements.

Q8: Among the topics stated focus areas aerodynamics, propulsion, flight dynamics, controls, and acoustics which areas are the highest priority for NASA in this solicitation cycle, and would NASA prefer a focused investigation in one discipline or an integrated multidisciplinary investigation across multiple areas?

A8: The Government cannot advise on the relevance or merit of any specific technical solution during the solicitation period. You are responsible for reviewing the solicitation and determining whether their proposed approach aligns with the stated objectives and requirements.

Q9: For rotor and rotor airframe interaction studies, are there specific configurations, flight regimes, or operating conditions that NASA considers most important, such as hover, transition, low-speed forward flight, climb, descent, crosswind, gust response, or off-nominal control conditions?

A9: The Government cannot advise on the relevance or merit of any specific technical solution during the solicitation period. You are responsible for reviewing the solicitation and determining whether their proposed approach aligns with the stated objectives and requirements.

Q10: What type of test article would be most valuable to NASA: a complete multirotor electric Vertical Takeoff and Landing vehicle, a representative full-scale rotor “wing or rotor” airframe interaction test rig, a tethered or hover-capable vehicle, or a subscale dynamically scaled aircraft?

A10: The Government cannot advise on the relevance or merit of any specific technical solution during the solicitation period. You are responsible for reviewing the solicitation and determining whether their proposed approach aligns with the stated objectives and requirements.

Q11: For this topic, how strongly does NASA prefer full-scale vehicle testing over subscale testing with validated scaling methods, and what level of evidence would be required to show that subscale experimental results can be credibly extrapolated to full-scale Advanced Air Mobility and Vertical Takeoff and Landing aircraft?

A11: The Government cannot advise on the relevance or merit of any specific technical solution during the solicitation period. You are responsible for reviewing the solicitation and determining whether their proposed approach aligns with the stated objectives and requirements.

Q12: What experimental data products would be most valuable to NASA for validation of design and analysis tools: force and moment data, rotor inflow measurements, wake measurements, structural vibration data, acoustic signatures, control response data, flight dynamics data, propulsion system performance data, or synchronized multidisciplinary datasets?

A12: The Government cannot advise on the relevance or merit of any specific technical solution during the solicitation period. You are responsible for reviewing the solicitation and determining whether their proposed approach aligns with the stated objectives and requirements.

Q13: For the control-systems portion of the topic, is NASA primarily interested in collecting validation data for existing control and flight dynamics models, or would NASA also value development and demonstration of new control architectures, such as robust control, adaptive control, fault-tolerant control, real-time system identification, or autonomy-enabled flight-test envelope expansion?

A13: The Government cannot advise on the relevance or merit of any specific technical solution during the solicitation period. You are responsible for reviewing the solicitation and determining whether their proposed approach aligns with the stated objectives and requirements.

Q14: What would NASA consider a strong Phase II success outcome for this topic: a validated full-scale experimental dataset, a reusable test bed, validated scaling laws, improved prediction accuracy of analysis tools, a flight-test demonstration, a publicly releasable benchmark dataset, or a combination of these outcomes?

A14: The Government cannot advise on the relevance or merit of any specific technical solution during the solicitation period. You are responsible for reviewing the solicitation and determining whether their proposed approach aligns with the stated objectives and requirements.

Q15: How should proposers handle proprietary vehicle data, especially if partnering with an Advanced Air Mobility or Vertical Takeoff and Landing company, and what minimum non-proprietary dataset would NASA need in order for the Phase II results to be useful for broader model validation and community benefit?

A15: The Government cannot advise on the relevance or merit of any specific technical solution during the solicitation period. You are responsible for reviewing the solicitation and determining whether their proposed approach aligns with the stated objectives and requirements.

Q16: Would NASA prefer a focused component-level innovation, such as a heaterless actuator, low-size, weight, and power motor controller, perception sensor, dust-tolerant electrical connector, sampling end effector, or drilling subsystem, or a more integrated mobility “manipulation” sampling system concept?

A16: The Government cannot advise on the relevance or merit of any specific technical solution during the solicitation period. You are responsible for reviewing the solicitation and determining whether their proposed approach aligns with the stated objectives and requirements.

Q17: For EXPAND.3.S26B, should Phase I emphasize detection and diagnosis of known fault modes, recognition of previously unseen/off-nominal behaviors, bounded recovery-policy execution, or compact health/capability exchange across distributed small spacecraft?

A17: The Government cannot advise on the relevance or merit of any specific technical solution during the solicitation period. You are responsible for reviewing the solicitation and determining whether their proposed approach aligns with the stated objectives and requirements.

Q18: What data sources and information products would be most valuable for a Phase I proof-of-concept demonstration: airborne electro-optical and infrared imagery, fire perimeter estimates, weather and wind fields, smoke plume data, aircraft position tracks, responder locations, communications status, risk maps, predicted fire spread, or resource availability?

A18: The Government cannot advise on the relevance or merit of any specific technical solution during the solicitation period. You are responsible for reviewing the solicitation and determining whether their proposed approach aligns with the stated objectives and requirements.

Q19: Among the planetary mission contexts identified in the topic “Mars, the Moon, comets, asteroids, Ceres, and ocean worlds” which destinations or mission classes should proposers prioritize for this solicitation cycle?

A19: The Government cannot advise on the relevance or merit of any specific technical solution during the solicitation period. You are responsible for reviewing the solicitation and determining whether their proposed approach aligns with the stated objectives and requirements.

Q20: What software deliverable expectations should proposers assume for Phase I and Phase II, including programming language, modularity, documentation, interface control, open-source versus restricted delivery, compatibility with NASA software frameworks, and ability to integrate with future mission stakeholder environments?

A20: The Government cannot advise on the relevance or merit of any specific technical solution during the solicitation period. You are responsible for reviewing the solicitation and determining whether their proposed approach aligns with the stated objectives and requirements.

Q21: Among the stated capability areas “surface mobility, aerial mobility, subsurface access, manipulation, sample acquisition, sample transfer, navigation, and planetary robotic foundation models” which technology gaps are NASA most interested in advancing through this topic?

A21: The Government cannot advise on the relevance or merit of any specific technical solution during the solicitation period. You are responsible for reviewing the solicitation and determining whether their proposed approach aligns with the stated objectives and requirements.

Q22: For perception and navigation in challenging lighting conditions, what sensor modalities and algorithms would NASA view as most relevant: stereo vision, lidar, radar, thermal imaging, event cameras, inertial navigation, visual-inertial odometry, terrain-relative navigation, proprioceptive slip estimation, or multimodal sensor fusion?

A22: The Government cannot advise on the relevance or merit of any specific technical solution during the solicitation period. You are responsible for reviewing the solicitation and determining whether their proposed approach aligns with the stated objectives and requirements.

Q23: For INSTALG.3.S26B, are there particular software stacks, data formats, or interface standards (e.g., common NASA data repositories, workflow tools, or programming environments) that proposers should consider to maximize relevance and ease of integration with NASA systems?

A23: The Government cannot advise on the relevance or merit of any specific technical solution during the solicitation period. You are responsible for reviewing the solicitation and determining whether their proposed approach aligns with the stated objectives and requirements.

Q24: What would NASA consider a strong Phase II transition outcome: a validated prototype software tool, a model with experimental validation, a wildfire-specific Unmanned Aircraft System Traffic Management extension, a multi-agency common operating picture, a deployable decision-support system, or a commercialization path through partnerships with wildfire response agencies and aviation operators?

A24: The Government cannot advise on the relevance or merit of any specific technical solution during the solicitation period. You are responsible for reviewing the solicitation and determining whether their proposed approach aligns with the stated objectives and requirements.

Q25: For the wildfire response use case, who should be treated as the primary end user: incident commanders, air tactical group supervisors, air attack supervisors, unmanned aircraft system operators, emergency responders on the ground, state wildfire agencies, federal wildfire agencies, or National Airspace System stakeholders?

A25: The Government cannot advise on the relevance or merit of any specific technical solution during the solicitation period. You are responsible for reviewing the solicitation and determining whether their proposed approach aligns with the stated objectives and requirements.

Q26: For trajectory optimization, what problem classes would be most valuable to NASA: low-thrust multi-body trajectories, constrained cislunar transfers, station-keeping near libration orbits, small-body approach and departure, multi-spacecraft coordination, fuel-optimal maneuver planning, time-critical replanning, or robust optimization under navigation uncertainty?

A26: The Government cannot advise on the relevance or merit of any specific technical solution during the solicitation period. You are responsible for reviewing the solicitation and determining whether their proposed approach aligns with the stated objectives and requirements.

Q27: What would NASA consider a strong Phase II success outcome for this topic: a Technology Readiness Level 4 validated prototype, a laboratory or relevant-environment demonstration, a digital model with test correlation, a breadboard mobility or sampling subsystem, a field-tested robotic capability, or a mission-specific integrated technology package ready for infusion into a future planetary mission?

A27: The Government cannot advise on the relevance or merit of any specific technical solution during the solicitation period. You are responsible for reviewing the solicitation and determining whether their proposed approach aligns with the stated objectives and requirements.

Q28: Among the wildfire response needs listed in the topic persistent wildfire monitoring, data dissemination, resource allocation, multi-mission planning, Unmanned Aircraft System Traffic Management extension, communications resilience, Global Positioning System “independent navigation, predictive tools, and common operating pictures” which capability gap is NASA most interested in addressing first?

A28: The Government cannot advise on the relevance or merit of any specific technical solution during the solicitation period. You are responsible for reviewing the solicitation and determining whether their proposed approach aligns with the stated objectives and requirements.

Q29: Does NASA prioritize generative design workflows that utilize deterministic, FEA-feedback loops over purely stochastic or surrogate model-based ‘Generative AI’ guesses? Additionally, for the ‘Rapid Development’ metric, does the agency prefer sovereign AI stacks that can run locally/air-gapped on unhardened hardware to ensure data sovereignty of precision component geometry?

A29: The Government cannot advise on the relevance or merit of any specific technical solution during the solicitation period. You are responsible for reviewing the solicitation and determining whether their proposed approach aligns with the stated objectives and requirements.

Q30: What performance metrics would NASA consider most important for evaluating a proposed wildfire response system, such as reduced surveillance latency, improved airspace deconfliction, increased communications availability, improved mission replanning speed, reduced operator workload, better resource allocation, improved responder safety, or increased quality of the common operating picture?

A30: The Government cannot advise on the relevance or merit of any specific technical solution during the solicitation period. You are responsible for reviewing the solicitation and determining whether their proposed approach aligns with the stated objectives and requirements.

Q31: For perception and navigation in challenging lighting conditions, what sensor modalities and algorithms would NASA view as most relevant: stereo vision, lidar, radar, thermal imaging, event cameras, inertial navigation, visual-inertial odometry, terrain-relative navigation, proprioceptive slip estimation, or multimodal sensor fusion?

A31: The Government cannot advise on the relevance or merit of any specific technical solution during the solicitation period. You are responsible for reviewing the solicitation and determining whether their proposed approach aligns with the stated objectives and requirements.

Q32: Should proposers prioritize autonomous navigation, autonomous maneuver planning, trajectory optimization, onboard mission planning and scheduling, onboard state estimation, terrain-relative navigation, simultaneous localization and mapping, or an integrated guidance, navigation, and control architecture that combines several of these capabilities?

A32: The Government cannot advise on the relevance or merit of any specific technical solution during the solicitation period. You are responsible for reviewing the solicitation and determining whether their proposed approach aligns with the stated objectives and requirements.

Q33: For rendezvous and proximity operations or noncooperative object capture, what target conditions are most relevant to NASA: cooperative targets with fiducials, noncooperative tumbling targets, small bodies with uncertain gravity fields, uncharacterized debris or derelict spacecraft, low-light environments, or targets with incomplete shape and state knowledge?

A33: The Government cannot advise on the relevance or merit of any specific technical solution during the solicitation period. You are responsible for reviewing the solicitation and determining whether their proposed approach aligns with the stated objectives and requirements.

Q34: What validation approach would NASA consider most credible for Phase I and Phase II: high-fidelity simulation, Monte Carlo campaign, hardware-in-the-loop testing, processor-in-the-loop testing, integration with NASA flight dynamics tools, comparison against General Mission Analysis Tool, Copernicus, Evolutionary Mission Trajectory Generator, Mission Analysis, Operations, and Navigation Toolkit Environment, Goddard Image Analysis and Navigation Tool, or testing on a representative flight-software?

A34: The Government cannot advise on the relevance or merit of any specific technical solution during the solicitation period. You are responsible for reviewing the solicitation and determining whether their proposed approach aligns with the stated objectives and requirements.

Q35: For sampling and sample transfer, what sample types and handling requirements are most important to NASA: loose regolith, rock cores, icy material, volatile-bearing samples, subsurface material, atmospheric or plume-derived material, or samples requiring strict contamination control and preservation?

A35: The Government cannot advise on the relevance or merit of any specific technical solution during the solicitation period. You are responsible for reviewing the solicitation and determining whether their proposed approach aligns with the stated objectives and requirements.

Q36: How should proposers address the scarcity of high-fidelity flight data for planetary robotics when developing foundation models or learning-enabled systems, and what forms of validation would NASA consider credible for such approaches?

A36: The Government cannot advise on the relevance or merit of any specific technical solution during the solicitation period. You are responsible for reviewing the solicitation and determining whether their proposed approach aligns with the stated objectives and requirements.

Q37: What operational scenario should proposers use as the baseline for Phase I: early fire detection, extended wildfire perimeter monitoring, nighttime overwatch, beyond-visual-line-of-sight unmanned aircraft operations, crewed uncrewed aircraft coordination, emergency responder data relay, or multi-agency resource allocation during large fire incidents?

A37: The Government cannot advise on the relevance or merit of any specific technical solution during the solicitation period. You are responsible for reviewing the solicitation and determining whether their proposed approach aligns with the stated objectives and requirements.

Q38: Among the mission applications listed in the topic “precision landing, rendezvous and proximity operations, noncooperative object capture, crewed and uncrewed cislunar missions, small-body rendezvous or flyby, formation flying, constellation design, and coordinated operations across Earth orbit, cislunar space, libration orbits, and deep space” which use cases are the highest priority for this solicitation cycle?

A38: The Government cannot advise on the relevance or merit of any specific technical solution during the solicitation period. You are responsible for reviewing the solicitation and determining whether their proposed approach aligns with the stated objectives and requirements.

Q39: What would NASA consider a strong Phase II success outcome: a mature onboard navigation algorithm, a flight-software-ready prototype, a demonstrated onboard trajectory optimizer, a processor-in-the-loop demonstration, an integrated guidance-navigation-control software component, a stakeholder-endorsed infusion path, or a validated capability ready for follow-on flight demonstration?

A39: The Government cannot advise on the relevance or merit of any specific technical solution during the solicitation period. You are responsible for reviewing the solicitation and determining whether their proposed approach aligns with the stated objectives and requirements.

Q40: Should the proposed solution focus primarily on airspace operations and coordination, or would NASA also value an integrated concept that combines airspace management, multi-unmanned-aircraft mission planning, onboard autonomy, communications resilience, and wildfire situational awareness?

A40: The Government cannot advise on the relevance or merit of any specific technical solution during the solicitation period. You are responsible for reviewing the solicitation and determining whether their proposed approach aligns with the stated objectives and requirements.

Q41: For Phase I and Phase II validation, would NASA prefer purely simulation-based demonstrations, hardware-in-the-loop demonstrations, integration with existing wildfire datasets, field exercises with unmanned aircraft systems, coordination with emergency response partners, or a staged maturation path from simulation to relevant-environment testing?

A41: The Government cannot advise on the relevance or merit of any specific technical solution during the solicitation period. You are responsible for reviewing the solicitation and determining whether their proposed approach aligns with the stated objectives and requirements.

Q42: If a proposer already has material feasibility and fabrication capability for a high-temperature acoustic liner, would NASA expect Phase I to focus more on design optimization and validation, rather than on basic proof of concept?

A42: To ensure fairness, NASA cannot help you scope the work and deliverables planned in your proposal. As described on the NASA SBIR/STTR website, Phase I is the jumping off point for most small businesses and research institutions working with the program. It is known as the “idea generation” phase, during which small businesses (and their research institution partners in STTR) establish the scientific, technical, commercial merit and feasibility of the proposed innovation. You can also refer to the “Desired Deliverables of Phase I” section under the relevant subtopic in the solicitation for guidance.

Q43: Would software that stress-tests and hardens computer-vision models for wildfire UAS / automated aviation operations be responsive?

A43: The Government cannot advise on the relevance or merit of any specific technical solution during the solicitation period. You are responsible for reviewing the solicitation and determining whether their proposed approach aligns with the stated objectives and requirements.

Q44: For extending Unmanned Aircraft System Traffic Management to wildfire environments, what assumptions should proposers make about degraded or disconnected operations, including intermittent communications, limited network infrastructure, Global Positioning System degradation or denial, smoke-obscured visibility, and rapidly changing airspace constraints?

A44: The Government cannot advise on the relevance or merit of any specific technical solution during the solicitation period. You are responsible for reviewing the solicitation and determining whether their proposed approach aligns with the stated objectives and requirements.

Q45: Is ROC (Remote Operations Center) architecture for FAA Part 135-certified uncrewed air carrier operations within scope of AERO.7.S26B ‘Safe Routine Operations of Increasingly Automated Aircraft’? Specifically: HMI design for remote pilots managing multiple simultaneous BVLOS aircraft, workload/safety assurance frameworks, and V&V for contingency management in degraded communications environments.

A45: The Government cannot advise on the relevance or merit of any specific technical solution during the solicitation period. You are responsible for reviewing the solicitation and determining whether their proposed approach aligns with the stated objectives and requirements.

Q46: Would a coating-focused proposal that addresses performance, manufacturability, and $/m2 cost reduction be considered well aligned with this subtopic, or is primary emphasis on substrate/polishing technologies?

A46: The Government cannot advise on the relevance or merit of any specific technical solution during the solicitation period. You are responsible for reviewing the solicitation and determining whether their proposed approach aligns with the stated objectives and requirements.

Q47: The Phase II language allows prototype testing in a realistic environment or within a standard space-weather-community development and validation framework, such as the CCMC. Would validation within CCMC or a comparable community framework, without live operational deployment, satisfy the intended Phase II demonstration path?

A47: The Government cannot advise on the relevance or merit of any specific technical solution during the solicitation period. You are responsible for reviewing the solicitation and determining whether their proposed approach aligns with the stated objectives and requirements.

Q48: The description requests in situ sensor systems and mentions ‘end-to-end solutions providing needed data products.’ If our primary technical innovation is the miniaturization of a UV-Vis nutrient sensor, is it acceptable to frame the proposal’s ultimate objective and commercialization strategy around integrating this hardware into an autonomous IoT network for predictive Harmful Algal Bloom (HAB) modeling? Or should the proposal focus strictly on the isolated development of the sensor hardware?

A48: The Government cannot advise on the relevance or merit of any specific technical solution during the solicitation period. You are responsible for reviewing the solicitation and determining whether their proposed approach aligns with the stated objectives and requirements.

Q49: Is it acceptable to validate the prototype sensor and IoT data transmission in a controlled, adjacent aquatic pilot environment (such as university aquaculture or closed-system facility) to demonstrate Phase I technical feasibility?

A49: The Government cannot advise on the relevance or merit of any specific technical solution during the solicitation period. You are responsible for reviewing the solicitation and determining whether their proposed approach aligns with the stated objectives and requirements.

Q50: The subtopic states that proposers may leverage existing or upcoming space weather data and mature models to create actionable intelligence for end users. Can NASA clarify whether a responsive Phase I effort may focus on a decision-support layer that transforms existing NASA data/models into calibrated operational risk products, without developing a new underlying forecast model?

A50: The Government cannot advise on the relevance or merit of any specific technical solution during the solicitation period. You are responsible for reviewing the solicitation and determining whether their proposed approach aligns with the stated objectives and requirements.

Q51: What level of autonomy is NASA seeking for wildfire aviation operations: decision-support only, human-supervised mission planning, automated unmanned aircraft coordination, dynamic airspace deconfliction, contingency management, or progressively autonomous operations with human authorization at key decision points?

A51: The Government cannot advise on the relevance or merit of any specific technical solution during the solicitation period. You are responsible for reviewing the solicitation and determining whether their proposed approach aligns with the stated objectives and requirements.