Loren Data's SAM Daily™

Home Today's SAM Search Archives Numbered Notes CBD Archives Subscribe

10 -- Request for Information for High Altitude Airship Based Relay Mirror Technology Demonstration

Notice Date
Notice Type
Sources Sought
Contracting Office
Department of the Air Force, Air Force Materiel Command, Kirtland AFB, NM ASC/TMK, 3300 Target Road Bldg 760, Kirtland, NM, 87117
ZIP Code
Solicitation Number
Response Due
Archive Date
Point of Contact
Mel Pearson, Contracting Officer, Phone (505) 853-3270, Fax (505) 846-2931, - Mel Pearson, Contracting Officer, Phone (505) 853-3270, Fax (505) 846-2931,
E-Mail Address
mel.pearson@kirtland.af.mil, mel.pearson@kirtland.af.mil
THIS DOCUMENT IS A REQUEST FOR INFORMATION (RFI) ONLY. THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT INTEND TO AWARD A CONTRACT ON THE BASIS OF THIS RFI OR TO OTHERWISE PAY FOR THE INFORMATION RECEIVED EXCEPT AS AN ALLOWABLE COST UNDER OTHER CONTRACTS AS PROVIDED IN SUBSECTION 31.205-18, BID AND PROPOSAL COSTS, OF THE FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATION. DO NOT PREPARE OR SUBMIT PROPOSALS IN RESPONSE TO THIS RFI. THE PURPOSE OF THE RFI IS TO RECEIVE INPUT FROM INDUSTRY ON THE FOLLOWING TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS. TECHNICAL QUESTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS SHOULD BE ADDRESSED TO DR. DON WASHBURN AS STATED IN THE CONTACT SECTION BELOW. SPECIFIC QUESTIONS ARE LISTED AT THE END OF THE DOCUMENT. RESPONSES TO THIS RFI ARE DUE BY 24 JULY 2003. SEND RESPONSES TO CAPT STEPHEN OTT, MDA/AL, 3300 TARGET RD, BLDG 760, KIRTLAND AFB, NM 87117-6612. CONTACTS Technical questions, comments, or suggestions should be directed to Dr. Don Washburn, AFRL/DE, at 505-846-1597 or donald.washburn@kirtland.af.mil. Contracting questions should be directed to Capt. Stephen Ott, MDA/AL, at 505-853-6754 or stephen.ott@kirtland.af.mil. For ARMS PDR slides contact Capt. Eric Furman, AFRL/DEBA, 505-846-2005, eric.furman@kirtland.af.mil. RFI Technical Information A. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION The Department Of Defense (DOD) is interested in receiving proposals for a high altitude airship (HAA) based laser relay mirror (RM) demonstration in the MDA Pacific Test Range. The envisioned mission is to relay a ground (MAUI) based illuminator beam through a relay mirror on the MDA HAA ACTD airship to actively track space or mid-course objects, perhaps objects that are part of the Integrated Flight Test (IFT) series. The demonstration will provide risk reduction for a variety of laser relay and HAA missions. The active track mission directly demonstrates the ability of an RM to enhance active tracking of mid-course or space objects. In addition, the demonstration, although envisioned at low power (500W), obviously demonstrates the ability to relay a high power beam for various high energy laser (HEL) kill missions. Information on the MDA HAA ACTD can be found at http://www.acq.osd.mil/bmdo/barbb/haaactd.htm. The approximate program budget is $30M over 3 + years. There are at least two approaches to achieve the above objectives: I. Approach I would augment an existing Air Force program known as the Aerospace Relay Mirror System (ARMS) to achieve the objectives. ARMS is a relay mirror demonstrator with two 75 cm apertures currently being developed by Boeing/SVS in Albuquerque for approximately $20M. Under this scenario, the ARMS test bed would be provided GFE to the winner of a BAA competition. The competition would be for all or the appropriate parts of the upgrade of ARMS, currently a low altitude dual line of site demonstrator, to fly at high altitude (65,000 ft) and perform the active track mission. The upgrade would probably include lightweight telescopes, a sidecar LWIR acquisition system and an upgraded IRU. Integration of all components and testing at low altitude would be carried out. Next, the enhanced ARMS would be integrated with the MDA HAA ACTD and tested in the Pacific test range with a GFE illuminator laser (current laser is the 500W HiBrite laser). II. Approach II would build a stand-alone new platform to achieve the program objectives. For this approach, the design information obtained in the current ARMS program would be made available, but a totally new platform would be built for the MDA mission. This approach would have the benefit of providing a separate platform and leaving the ARMS testbed available for other investigations. A key question is can this be done within the envisioned schedule and a budget of $30M. This request for information seeks industry input on the above or alternate approaches to this initiative. Preliminary information on ARMS and a suggestive list of questions are given below. MDA HAA ACTD information can be found at http://www.acq.osd.mil/bmdo/barbb/haaactd.htm. B. ARMS TECHNICAL DESCRIPTION The objective of the ARMS program is to design, fabricate and integrate a subscale (.75m) relay mirror system, demonstrating utility and characterizing performance in laboratory and field experiments. The ARMS statement of objectives is defined below. 1. Demonstrate dual line-of-sight (DLOS) acquisition, tracking and pointing with mrad precision against augmented and un-augmented space objects. 2. Demonstrate and characterize relay optical capture of an illuminator and/or surrogate HEL beam with source-to-relay cooperative tracking and alignment. 3. Develop mode logic and fire control processes that demonstrate autonomous control of relay functionality and mission timeline. 4. Deliver a relay mirror test bed that can accommodate growth enhancements for advanced experiments in adaptive optics, HEL operation, discrimination and surveillance. 5. The delivered testbed should be compatible with and accommodate an upgrade to fly on a High Altitude Airship (HAA) with minimal component obsolescence. While ARMS, as currently constituted and funded, is for a low altitude demonstration (possibly on a crane) of the above objectives, it has been designed with operation on a High Altitude Airship (HAA) as an ultimate goal. For instance, with the addition of lightweight telescopes, ARMS should be able to meet the 4000 lb weight goal. With the telescope upgrade and with the addition of high altitude processors ARMS should meet the following performance requirements listed in the table below. ARMS completed a PDR in May 2003 and is scheduled for a CDR in October 2003. Lab testing will be complete in February 2005 with field-testing complete in June 2005. Therefore, if method I is chosen by the government, it is expected that parallel development of the high altitude package will take place in 2004 and integration of the high altitude components with ARMS would take place after the planned field tests in 2005. This would allow high altitude component integration and test to be completed in time to integrate the package on the MDA HAA in the latter half of 2006 Table 1: ARMS Performance Requirements (High Altitude System) The ARMS Technical Requirements Document as well as other information can be made available upon request and upon approval by the government. C. SUGGESTED QUESTIONS Following are some specific questions and/or response guidelines for this request. Contractors should freely make any other comments or suggestions on areas not discussed here. 1) From both technical and programmatic viewpoints, does the contractor believe that one or both of the methodologies discussed above would provide a viable path to completion of the program objectives within the cost and schedule constraints specified. If not, please provide recommendations on how the program specification could be improved. 2) Are there any technical specifications that should be in the draft text that are not currently included? 3) Is there anything in the current draft text that the contractor feels is unnecessary (technically or programmatically) or that is not clearly stated? 5) Is the proposed funding profile adequate to successfully complete the one or both of the approaches as outlined? If not, please elaborate. 6) What is a reasonable page limitation for a technical proposal volume (1 inch margins, 12 point proportional Times New Roman font for body of text, 10 point proportional font for figures and tables), including all pages from title sheet through appendices? 7) In addition to responding to any of the above questions, the contractor may also offer any other comments or recommendations that it feels would improve a BAA and the proposed technical effort.
Place of Performance
Address: TBD
SN00366203-W 20030710/030708213712 (fbodaily.com)
FedBizOpps.gov Link to This Notice
(may not be valid after Archive Date)

FSG Index  |  This Issue's Index  |  Today's FBO Daily Index Page |
ECGrid: EDI VAN Interconnect ECGridOS: EDI Web Services Interconnect API Government Data Publications CBDDisk Subscribers
 Privacy Policy  © 1994-2019, Loren Data Corp.