OMB Approval Number 2700-0087

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION (NASA) HEADQUARTERS AERONAUTICS RESEARCH MISSION DIRECTORATE 300 E STREET, SW WASHINGTON, DC 20546-0001

RESEARCH OPPORTUNITIES IN AERONAUTICS 2010 (ROA-2010)

NASA RESEARCH ANNOUNCEMENT (NRA): NNH10ZEA001N SOLICITING BASIC AND APPLIED RESEARCH PROPOSALS

CATALOG OF FEDERAL DOMESTIC ASSISTANCE (CFDA) NUMBER: 00.000

ISSUED: June 2, 2010 PROPOSALS DUE STARTING July 15, 2010 THROUGH July 31, 2011

RESEARCH OPPORTUNITIES IN AERONAUTICS (ROA) 2010 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This NASA Research Announcement (NRA), entitled RESEARCH OPPORTUNITIES IN AERONAUTICS (ROA) 2010, solicits foundational research in support of the Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate (ARMD), National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). This NRA covers a variety of topics in aeronautics fundamental research that are being pursued by NASA personnel. Specific research thrusts are outlined in the Appendices. A major focus of this NRA is to encourage collaboration between other organizations and NASA to help achieve specific goals in a variety of foundational aeronautics research programs. Details for award scope are provided for each project task area listed in the Appendices. Awards will be made as grants, cooperative agreements or contracts, depending on the nature of the proposing organization and/or program requirements. It is anticipated that the majority of awards will be cooperative agreements or contracts due to the expected collaborative nature of the work specified in the technical appendices. Section D of the NASA Guidebook for Proposers (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/procurement/nraguidebook) provides a discussion regarding funding mechanisms. The typical period of performance for an award is three years, although a few programs may specify shorter or longer (maximum of five years) periods. Note that it is generally NASA's policy to conduct research with non-U.S. organizations on the basis of no exchange of funds. Details of the solicited program elements along with any changes or modifications to any of these guidelines will be specified in the descriptions in the Appendices of this solicitation. Proposal due dates are given in Tables 2 and 3 which are located at the end of this NRA.

RESEARCH OPPORTUNITIES IN AERONAUTICS (ROA) 2010 TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMMARY OF SOLICITATION I. Funding Opportunity Description (a) Strategic Goals of NASAs Research Program (b) NASAs Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate Programs (c) References to Unique NASA Capabilities (d) NASA Safety Policy (e) Availability of Funds for Awards (f) Changes from ROA-2009 II. Award Information (a) Funding and Award Policies (b) Successor Proposals and Resubmissions III. Eligibility Information (a) Eligibility of Applicants (b) Number of Proposals and Teaming Arrangements (c) Cost Sharing or Matching IV. Proposal and Submission Information (a) Proposal Instructions and Requirements (b) Content and Form of the Proposal Submission (i) Electronic Proposal Submission (ii) Proposal Format and Contents (iii) Additional ROA Requirement for Budget Format (iv) Submission of Proposals via NSPIRES, the NASA Proposal Data System (v) Submission of Proposals via Grants.gov (vi) Notice of Intent to Propose (vii) Conflict of Interest Check Information (c) Proposal Submission Dates, Time, and Location (d) Proposal Funding Restrictions (e) Proposal Requirements for Relevance V. Proposal Review Information (a) Evaluation Criteria (b) Review and Selection Processes (c) Partial Awards and Participation with Others (d) Selection Announcement and Award Dates (e) Process for Appeals (i) Ombudsman Program Page 1 1 2 3 3 3 3 4 4 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 7 7 8 9 11 13 14 15 15 15 16 16 16 17 17 17 17 18

(ii) Protests VI. Award Administration Information (a) Notice of Award (b) Administrative and National Policy Requirements (c) Award Reporting Requirements VII. Points of Contact for Further Information VIII. Ancillary Information (a) Announcement of Updates/Amendments to Solicitation (b) Electronic Submission of Proposal Information IX. Concluding Statement TABLE 1. NASA Strategic Goals and Outcomes TABLE 2. Solicited Research Programs (in order of proposal due dates) TABLE 3. Solicited Research Programs (in order of Appendices AE)

18 18 18 18 18 19 19 19 20 20 21 23 24

RESEARCH OPPORTUNITIES IN AERONAUTICS (ROA) 2010 TABLE OF CONTENTS APPENDICES APPENDIX A. FUNDAMENTAL AERONAUTICS PROGRAM A.1 Overview A.2 Subsonic Fixed Wing Project A.3 Subsonic Rotary Wing Project A.4 Supersonics Project A.5 Hypersonics Project APPENDIX B. AVIATION SAFETY PROGRAM B.1 Overview B.2 Aircraft Aging and Durability Project B.3 Integrated Intelligent Flight Deck Technologies Project B.4 Integrated Vehicle Health Management Project B.5 Integrated Resilient Aircraft Control Project B.6 Verification and Validation of Flight Critical Systems APPENDIX C. AIRSPACE SYSTEMS PROGRAM C.1 Overview C.2 NextGen-Concepts and Technology Development Project C.3 NextGen-Systems Analysis, Integration, and Evaluation Project APPENDIX D. INTEGRATED SYSTEMS RESEARCH PROGRAM D.1 Overview D.2 Environmentally Responsible Aviation Project APPENDIX E. AERONAUTICS TEST PROGRAM E.1 Overview E.2 Facility Related Research Project E.1 E.3 D.1 D.3 C.1 C.2 C.4 B.1 B.2 B.4 B.6 B.8 B.10 A.1 A.2 A.5 A.7 A.9

RESEARCH OPPORTUNITIES IN AERONAUTICS (ROA) 2010 SUMMARY OF SOLICITATION

I. FUNDING OPPORTUNITY DESCRIPTION (a) Strategic Goals of NASAs Research Program The National Aeronautics and Space Administrations (NASA) Mission, To pioneer the future in space exploration, scientific discovery, and aeronautics research, draws support from NASAs world-class capability for aeronautical research founded on a tradition of expertise in aeronautical engineering and core research areas. The Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate (ARMD) is responsible for achieving NASA Strategic Goal 3E, Advance knowledge in the fundamental disciplines of aeronautics and develop technologies for safer aircraft and higher capacity airspace systems. The objectives of ARMD are three fold to meet this Goal: (1) take responsibility for the intellectual stewardship of the core competencies (to include facilities) of aeronautics for the Nation in all flight regimes, (2) establish a milestone-based approach to research that enables nearterm results while focusing on long-term cutting edge research, and (3) ensure long-term, stable, strategic investment in aeronautics research to benefit both civilian and military applications. In addition, the ARMD research plans directly support the National Aeronautics R&D Policy and accompanying Executive Order 13419 signed by the President on December 20, 2006 and the National Plan for Aeronautics R&D and Related Infrastructure that was released in December 2007. A Technical Appendix to the National Plan was approved on December 22, 2008, and contains additional technical content on Aeronautics R&D goals and objectives and a preliminary assessment of current relevant Federal Aeronautics R&D activities. Specifically, ARMD conducts high-quality, cutting-edge research that includes foundational research across a breadth of core aeronautics competencies that supports aeronautics and space exploration activities; research in key areas related to the development of advanced aircraft technologies and systems, including those related to aircraft safety, environmental compatibility, and fuel efficiency; systems-level technology assessments in relevant environments; and research that supports the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) in partnership with the Joint Planning and Development Office (JPDO). In addition, ARMD is pursuing a coordinated approach to managing the Nations research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E) infrastructure with other agencies, particularly the DOD. Additional information about ARMD can be found at http://www.aeronautics.nasa.gov. An important goal of the ARMD NRA is to generate knowledge that can benefit the

Nation. Therefore, it is expected that award recipients will publish their work and will utilize peer-reviewed publications to the greatest practical extent. Further valuable, in-depth insight into NASAs strategic plan and supporting aeronautical research areas may be found in the following document: The 2006 NASA Strategic Plan, available at http://www.nasa.gov. The NASA strategic goal and outcomes for aeronautics from The 2006 NASA Strategic Plan are given in Table 1. (b) NASAs Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate Programs ARMD addresses the above objectives in five programs: the Fundamental Aeronautics Program, the Aviation Safety Program, the Airspace Systems Program, the Integrated Systems Research Program, and the Aeronautics Test Program. The Airspace Systems Program will directly address the Air Traffic Management (ATM) research needs of the Next Generation Air Transportation Systems (NextGen) initiative as defined by the Joint Planning and Development Office (JPDO). The Aviation Safety Program will take a proactive approach to safety challenges with new and current vehicles and with operations in the Nations current and future air transportation system. The Fundamental Aeronautics Program will pursue long-term, cutting edge research in all flight regimes to produce data, knowledge, and design tools that will be applicable across a broad range of air vehicles that fly through any atmosphere at any speed. The Integrated Systems Research Program will conduct research at an integrated system-level on promising concepts and technologies and explore/assess/demonstrate the benefits in relevant environments. The Aeronautics Test Program (ATP) is focused on ensuring a healthy suite of facilities and platforms to meet the nations testing needs including the development of new test instrumentation and test technologies. This NASA Research Announcement (NRA) solicits proposals for all five of these programs: (1) Fundamental Aeronautics Program, (2) Aviation Safety Program, (3) Airspace Systems Program, (4) Integrated Systems Research Program, and (5) Aeronautics Test Program. Appendices A-E provide a detailed description for each of the research programs listed above. Each of these appendices is prefaced with an Overview section that provides an introduction to the research program content that all interested applicants to this NRA are encouraged to read. Proposals in response to this NRA should be submitted to the most relevant aeronautics program elements described in Appendices A-E (see also the Table of Contents that prefaces this NRA). Table 2 lists these programs in the order of their calendar deadlines for the submission of proposals, while Table 3 lists them in the order in which they appear in the appendices of this NRA. Questions about each specific program should be directed to the Program Officer(s) identified in the Summary of Key Information subsection that concludes each program description. These appendices also provide clarifications or modifications, if any, to the general guidelines contained in this Summary of Solicitation for the individual program 2

elements. (c) References to Unique NASA Capabilities NASAs Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate uses a variety of specialized test and high-end computational facilities to achieve its mission. Any need for these specific facilities for the proposed research must be explicitly described in the proposal, including the asset, rationale and justification of the need, how it supports the investigation, and when during the proposed period the resource will be required. As evaluation panels review the intrinsic merit of the proposed investigation, they will be asked to consider the realism and reasonableness of the request for unique NASA capabilities and whether it is an appropriate utilization of a highly constrained asset. Proposals selected for funding will be considered for an allocation of the requested NASA resources needed for their investigation, but availability of the resource to support the fully requested level cannot be guaranteed. (d) NASA Safety Policy Safety is the freedom from those conditions that can cause death, injury, occupational illness, damage to or loss of equipment or property, or damage to the environment. NASAs safety priority is to protect the public, astronauts and pilots, the NASA workforce (including employees working under NASA award instruments), and high-value equipment and property. (e) Availability of Funds for Awards Prospective proposers to this NRA are advised that funds are not in general available for awards for all of its solicited programs at the time of its release. The Governments obligation to make awards is contingent upon the availability of sufficient appropriated funds from which payment can be made and the receipt of proposals that NASA determines are acceptable for award under this NRA. (f) Changes from ROA-2009 Proposers should be aware of the following significant changes in this NRA from ROA-2009. Proposers can submit proposals via NASAs proposal data system, NASA Solicitation and Proposal Integrated Review and Evaluation System (NSPIRES) (http://nspires.nasaprs.com) or via Grants.gov (http://www.grants.gov). New Program and Project elements have been added to ROA-2010. In addition to the listed significant changes, this NRA and the NASA Guidebook for Proposers incorporate a large number of additional changes, including both 3

policy changes and changes to proposal submission requirements. Many sections of both documents have been clarified since the release of ROA-2009. All proposers are urged to read this NRA and the current edition of the NASA Guidebook for Proposers Responding to a NASA Research Announcement (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/procurement/nraguidebook) carefully, since all proposals must comply with their requirements, constraints, and guidelines. II. AWARD INFORMATION (a) Funding and Award Policies The amount of funds expected to be available for new awards for proposals submitted in response to this NRA is given in the Summary of Key Information subsection that concludes each program description in the appendices. The number of awards that may be made for each program element is also given in this location. Any deviation from the usual maximum duration for awards of three years will also be noted (some programs may specify only one year for activities of limited scope to as long as five years for extensive, comprehensive studies). While the Summary of Key Information provides estimates for the funding and the number of awards, these amounts may vary greatly depending on merit of the proposals submitted and the funding available at the time of selections. In all cases, NASAs goal is to initiate new awards within 46 days after the selection of proposals is announced for each program. However, this time period may be longer based on the workload experienced by NASA, the availability of appropriated funds, and any necessary post-selection negotiations with the proposing organization(s) needed for the award(s) in question. Regarding this last item, every proposer is especially encouraged to submit full and detailed explanations of the requested budget (see further below) to help expedite the processing of the award should their proposal be selected. Awards made through this NRA will be in the form of grants, cooperative agreements, or contracts depending on the nature of the work proposed, the submitting organization, and/or the specific requirements for awards given in each program description in the appendices. The type of award to be offered to selected proposers will generally follow the policies in Appendix D.1 of the NASA Guidebook for Proposers, although in a few cases only one type of award may be offered as specified in the program description. A NASA awards officer will determine the appropriate award instrument for the selections resulting from this solicitation. Grants and cooperative agreements will be subject to the provisions of the NASA Grants and Cooperative Agreement Handbook, hereafter referred to as the Grants Handbook (http://prod.nais.nasa.gov/portals/pl/index.html) and Appendix D of the NASA Guidebook for Proposers. In the case of any conflict, the Grants Handbook takes precedence. Contract awards will be subject to the provisions of the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) and the NASA FAR Supplement http://prod.nais.nasa.gov/portals/pl/index.html. Depending upon the Technical, Scientific and Research requirements (i.e., by Project or Thrust Area) ARMD may make Multiple Year Awards under this NRA. Multiple Year Awards will be managed in accordance with Appendix D of the NASA Guidebook for Proposers. 4

(b) Successor Proposals and Resubmissions Generally, Principal Investigators holding previous awards selected through any of the programs offered through earlier NRAs are welcome to submit successor proposals that seek to continue a previously funded line of research (see Section 1.5 of the NASA Guidebook for Proposers). However, in order to ensure equitable treatment of all submitted proposals, NASA does not extend any special consideration to such successor proposals in terms of preferential handling, review, or priority for selection. Note that the instructions regarding successor proposals in the NASA Guidebook for Proposers may have changed from past years. Proposers are strongly encouraged to review them. Applicable proposals that were submitted but not selected for any previous NASA solicitation(s) may be submitted either in a revised or original form. Such submissions will be treated as a new proposal and will be subjected to a full peer review. Funds provided as a result of instruments awarded under this NRA can not be applied as contributions under Space Act Agreements that NASA may execute in support of related programs. III. ELIGIBILITY INFORMATION (a) Eligibility of Applicants Participation in this program is open to all categories of U.S. and non-U.S. organizations, including educational institutions, industry, and not-for-profit institutions. Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), Other Minority Universities (OMUs), small disadvantaged businesses (SDBs), veteran-owned small businesses, service disabled veteran-owned small businesses, HUBZone small businesses, and women-owned small businesses (WOSBs) are encouraged to apply. Participation by eligible non-U.S. organizations in this program is welcome but subject to NASAs policy of no exchange of funds, in which each government supports its own national participants and accounts for associated costs (further information on foreign participation is provided in Section 1.6 of the NASA Guidebook for Proposers). Other government agencies, Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs), and NASA Centers are not eligible to submit proposals under this NRA or participate as team members under proposals submitted by eligible entities. NASA Centers will be involved to the extent they are carrying out responsibilities in connection with cooperative agreement or contracts. Additional information on collaboration opportunities may be found in appendices (A-E). Questions regarding NASA roles under cooperative agreements should be sent to the designated Point of Contact listed in the appropriate technical appendix (A-E). (b) Number of Proposals and Teaming Arrangements There is no restriction on the number of proposals that an organization may submit to this

solicitation or on the teaming arrangements for any one proposal. However, each proposal must be a separate, stand-alone, complete document for evaluation purposes. The NRA is structured in a way that facilitates responses to individual subtopic areas. However, some project areas provide special instructions for addressing more than one subtopic in a single proposal. The proposer is responsible for reviewing any additional information that may be provided in project area instructions. (c) Cost Sharing or Matching If an institution of higher education or other not-for-profit organization is selected to receive a grant or cooperative agreement, cost sharing is not required, although NASA can accept cost sharing if it is voluntarily offered (see the Grants Handbook, Section B, Provision 1260.123, Cost Sharing or Matching). If a commercial organization is selected to receive a grant or cooperative agreement, cost sharing is typically required unless the commercial organization can demonstrate that it does not expect to receive substantial compensating benefits for performance of the work. If this demonstration is made, cost sharing is not required but may be offered voluntarily (see also Section D, Provision 1274.204, of the Grants Handbook). See also Section V(a) below. IV. PROPOSAL AND SUBMISSION INFORMATION (a) Proposal Instructions and Requirements All information needed to respond to this solicitation is contained in this ROA NRA and in the companion document entitled Guidebook for Proposers Responding to a NASA Research Announcement (hereafter referred to as the NASA Guidebook for Proposers) located at http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/procurement/nraguidebook. By reference, the 2010 edition of the NASA Guidebook for Proposers is incorporated into this NRA, and proposers are responsible for understanding and complying with its procedures for the successful, timely preparation and submission of their proposals. Proposals that do not conform to its standards may be declared noncompliant and rejected without review. The introductory material, as well as the appendices, of the NASA Guidebook for Proposers provide additional information about the entire NRA process, including NASA policies for the solicitation of proposals, guidelines for writing complete and effective proposals, and NASAs general policies and procedures for the review and selection of proposals and for issuing and managing the awards to the institutions that submitted selected proposals. Questions regarding this NRA or its program elements should be directed to the cognizant Program Officer listed in the program elements description. Clarifications or questions and answers will be posted on the relevant program element(s)s web page(s). A group of Frequently Asked Questions provides additional miscellaneous information about a variety of the NASA proposal and award processes, policies, and procedures. The Frequently Asked Questions with general applicability to the majority or all of the solicitation are posted on the ARMD ROA page on NSPIRES. In addition, each Project

Element may post additional Frequently Asked Questions in their respective pages on NSPIRES. (b) Content and Form of the Proposal Submission (i) Electronic Proposal Submission All proposals submitted in response to this ROA NRA must be submitted in a fully electronic form. No hard copy of the proposal will be accepted. Electronic proposals must be submitted by one of the officials at the proposal principal investigators organization who is authorized to make such a submission; electronic submission by the authorized organization representative (AOR) serves for the proposal as the required original signature by an authorized official of the proposing organization. Proposers may opt to submit proposals in response to this ROA NRA via either of two different electronic proposal submission systems: either via the NASA Solicitation and Proposal Integrated Review and Evaluation System (NSPIRES), the NASA proposal data system (http://nspires.nasaprs.com; see Section IV(b)(iv) below), or via Grants.gov (http://www.grants.gov; see Section IV(b)(v) below). Proposers are discouraged from submitting the same proposal to both electronic submission systems. NASA plans to use the NSPIRES system to facilitate the review process so all proposals received through Grants.Gov will be transferred into NSPIRES. Note carefully the following requirements for submission of an electronic proposal regardless of the intent to submit via NSPIRES or Grants.gov. Every organization that intends to submit a proposal to NASA in response to this NRA, including educational institutions, industry, and not-for-profit institutions, must be registered in NSPIRES. This applies equally for proposals submitted via Grants.gov, as well as for proposals submitted via NSPIRES. Every organization that intends to submit a proposal through Grants.gov must also be registered in Grants.gov. Registration for either proposal data system must be performed by an organizations electronic business point-of-contact (EBPOC) in the Central Contractor Registry (CCR). Any organization requesting NASA funds through the proposed investigation must be listed on the Proposal Cover Page. NASA will not fund organizations that do not appear on the Proposal Cover Page. Each individual team member (e.g., PI, co-investigators, etc.), including all personnel named on the proposals electronic cover page, must be individually registered in NSPIRES. This applies equally for proposals submitted via Grants.gov, as well as for proposals submitted via NSPIRES. Each individual team member (e.g., PI, co-investigators, etc.), including all personnel named on the proposals electronic cover page, must specify an organizational affiliation. The organizational affiliation specified must be the organization through which the team member is participating in the proposed investigation. If the individual has multiple affiliations, then this organization may be different from the individuals primary employer or preferred mailing address.

Generically, an electronic proposal consists of one or more electronic forms, including an electronic cover page and one or more attachments. The attachments contain all sections of the proposal, including the science/technical/management section, as well as all required and allowed appendices; see Section IV(b)(ii) below for further requirements. Submission of electronic proposals via either NSPIRES or Grants.gov requires several coordinated actions from the proposing organization. In particular, when the PI has completed entry of the data requested in the required electronic forms and attachment of the allowed PDF attachments, including the science/technical/management section, an official at the PIs organization who is authorized to make such a submission, referred to as the authorized organization representative (AOR), must submit the electronic proposal (forms plus attachments). Coordination between the PI and his/her AOR on the final editing and submission of the proposal materials is facilitated through their respective accounts in NSPIRES and/or Grants.gov. Note that if one individual is acting in both the PI and AOR roles, he/ she must ensure that all steps in the process are taken, including submitting the proposal from the organization. (ii) Proposal Format and Contents All proposals submitted in response to this NRA must include the appropriate required electronic forms available through either of two proposal submission systems, NSPIRES or Grants.gov. The science/technical/management section and other required sections of the proposal must be submitted as searchable, unlocked PDF files that are attached to the electronic submission using one of the proposal submission systems. Proposers must comply with any format requirements specified in this NRA and in the NASA Guidebook for Proposers (e.g. Section 2.3 of the NASA Guidebook for Proposers). Only appendices/attachments that are specifically requested in either this NRA or in the NASA Guidebook for Proposers will be permitted; proposals containing unsolicited appendices/attachments may be declared noncompliant. Section 2 of the NASA Guidebook for Proposers provides detailed discussions of the content and organization of proposals suitable for all program elements in this NRA, as well as the default page limits of a proposals constituent parts. Note that some of the program elements in the Appendices of this NRA may specify different page limits for the main body of the proposal; if so, these page limits will be prominently given in the Summary of Key Information subsection that concludes each program element description. In the event the information in this NRA is different from or contradictory to the information in the NASA Guidebook for Proposers, the information in this NRA takes precedence. A detailed Work Plan delineating how the Recipient/Awardee will accomplish the Goals and Objectives of the proposed Program, Thrust or Project Area (including applied Research Methodologies, Processes, and Resources, etc.) shall be included as part of the proposal. The Work Plan shall be evaluated in accordance with the requirements set

forth in each of the applicable Appendices. For entities seeking contracts, a Statement of Work (SOW) should be included as part of the proposal for the award of a contract. The SOW should include the following in the order listed: (1) Scope (2) Objectives (3) SOW tasks organized in a Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) (4) Program Schedule & Milestones (5) Measurable metrics, and (6) deliverables, which should be defined and described under the applicable task / WBS portion of the SOW. The SOW does not count against the page limit and should be inserted at the end of the proposal. If a commercial organization seeks an award of a cooperative agreement that will involve cost sharing (see Section III (c)) or if milestone payments are anticipated, it is requested that a schedule of milestone payments be included in the proposal. The schedule should include a description of the milestone as a performance benchmark as well as the associated amount of funds to be paid or transferred upon successful completion of the milestone. The schedule does not count against the page limit of the proposal (See 1274.204(d) and 1274.908 of the Grants Handbook). Important note on creating PDF files for upload: It is essential that all PDF files generated and submitted meet NASA requirements. This will ensure that the submitted files can be ingested by NSPIRES regardless of whether the proposal is submitted via NSPIRES or Grants.gov. At a minimum, it is the responsibility of the proposer to: (1) ensure that all PDF files are unlocked and that edit permission is enabled this is necessary to allow NSPIRES to concatenate submitted files into a single PDF document; and (2) ensure that all fonts are embedded in the PDF file and that only Type 1 or TrueType fonts are used. In addition, any proposer who creates files using TeX or LaTeX is required to first create a DVI file and then convert the DVI file to Postscript and then to PDF. See http://nspires.nasaprs.com/tutorials/PDF_Guidelines.pdf for more information on creating PDF documents that are compliant with NSPIRES. PDF files that do not meet NASA requirements cannot be ingested by the NSPIRES system; such files may be declared noncompliant and not submitted to peer review for evaluation. (iii) Additional ROA Requirement for Budget Format The uniform policy concerning the review of proposals submitted in response to this ROA NRA against the cost evaluation criterion is described in Appendix C of the NASA Guidebook for Proposers. Peer reviewers will provide recommendations on the budget summary and budget justification for cost realism and cost reasonableness to ensure that the proposed technical work is feasible. NASA program personnel will conduct the complete evaluation of cost including the detailed budget and budget justification for all relevant factors including cost realism, cost reasonableness, total cost and comparison of the proposed cost to available funds. In order to allow this division of review responsibilities, NASA will provide limited but sufficient proposal budget information to the peer review (work effort and personnel, other direct costs including procurements and subawards/subcontracts) while reserving certain proposal budget details for NASAs use (costs of direct labor, indirect costs, total costs).

Therefore, ARMD places additional requirements on the submission of proposals in response to this ROA NRA. Where the requirements in this NRA conflict with requirements and instructions found elsewhere (e.g., in the NASA Guidebook for Proposers, NSPIRES instructions, or Grants.gov instructions), the requirements in this NRA have precedence. It is important that all proposers responding to this ROA NRA follow these additional instructions carefully to enable an appropriate evaluation of their proposals. In addition to the budget summary information provided in the NSPIRES or Grants.gov Cover Page forms, all proposers are required to include more detailed budgets and budget justifications, including detailed subcontract/subaward budgets, in a format of their own choosing in the Budget Justification. For this NRA, this additional budget must be divided into three parts: the Budget Justification: Narrative; the Budget Justification: Details, both as described in Section 2.3.10 of the NASA Guidebook for Proposers; and the Total Budget, a requirement specific to this ROA NRA. The Budget Justification: Narrative includes the Table of Proposed Work Effort and the description of facilities and equipment, as well as the rationale and basis of estimate for all components of cost including procurements, travel (destination, purpose and number of travelers), publication costs, and all subawards/subcontracts. The Table of Proposed Work Effort must include the names and/or titles of all personnel (including postdoctoral fellows and graduate students) necessary to perform the proposed investigation regardless of whether these individuals require funding from the current proposal. The number of person-months each person is expected to devote to the project must be given for each year. The Budget Justification: Details must include the detailed proposed budget including all of the Other Direct Costs and Other Applicable Costs specified in the NASA Guidebook for Proposers. For this NRA, the Budget Justification: Narrative and the Budget Justification: Details should not specify the cost of Direct Labor or any Administrative Costs (e.g., overhead). While the appropriate award instrument will be determined by the Government, offerors must indicate the assumed type of award used during budget preparation. If a contract is assumed, offerors must indicated the type of contract proposed (i.e. cost plus fixed fee, cost sharing, fixed price, etc.). Note that some topics described in Appendices A-E may specify an expected award type. The Total Budget file must specify the complete set of cost components including all costs discussed in the Budget Narrative and Budget Details, as well as the Total Estimated Cost, cost of Direct Labor, and Administrative Costs (overhead). The Total Budget document will not be provided to the non-government peer review, but will be used by NASA in the evaluation of total cost and comparison of the proposed cost to available funds. Proposers may also choose to include any data they consider to be sensitive financial information in the Total Budget file required by this Section of the ROA NRA. However, if any such information is excluded from the Budget Justification:

10

Narrative and Details sections, a note should be included in the applicable section of the Budget Justification: Narrative or Details section to clarify where the information is located in the Total Budget file. The required Budget Justification: Narrative and Details section of the proposal may be incorporated into the proposal document as these will be provided to the peer review (for submission via NSPIRES, the Budget Justification: Narrative and Details must be incorporated into the single proposal PDF file). Regardless of whether the proposal is submitted via NSPIRES or Grants.gov, proposers to the ROA must provide the Total Budget in a file called totalbudget.pdf, which is uploaded as a separate attachment in either NSPIRES or Grants.gov. The peer reviewers only have access to the Budget Justification: Narrative and Details, and will not have access to the Total Estimated Cost, the cost of Direct Labor, and Administrative Costs (e.g., overhead). Therefore, failure to provide sufficient budget justification and data in the Budget Narrative (including the Table of Proposed Work Effort) and the Budget Details, will prevent the peer review from appropriately evaluating the cost realism of the proposal. A finding by the peer review of insufficient information to properly evaluate cost realism will be considered a weakness of the proposal. Inconsistent budget information between these budget descriptions will also be considered a weakness of the proposal. (iv) Submission of Proposals via NSPIRES, the NASA Proposal Data System Proposals may be submitted electronically via NASAs master proposal data base system, the NASA Solicitation and Proposal Integrated Review and Evaluation System (NSPIRES). In order to submit a proposal via NSPIRES, this NRA requires that the proposer register key data concerning the intended submission with NSPIRES; NSPIRES is accessed at http://nspires.nasaprs.com. Potential applicants are urged to access this site well in advance of the proposal due date(s) of interest to familiarize themselves with its structure and enter the requested identifier information. It is especially important to note that every individual named on the proposals electronic Cover Page form (see below) as a proposing team member in any role, including coinvestigators and collaborators, must be registered in NSPIRES and that such individuals must perform this registration themselves; no one may register a second party, even the Principal Investigator of a proposal in which that person is committed to participate. This data site is secure and all information entered is strictly for NASAs use only. All team members identified on the NSPIRES proposal cover page may indicate their commitment to the proposed work via NSPIRES. Each team member will receive an email from NSPIRES indicating that he/she has been added to the proposal and should log in to NSPIRES. Once logged in, the team member should follow the link in the "Reminders and Notifications" section of his NSPIRES homepage, titled "Need Co-I and/or Collaborator Statement of Commitment For: Proposal to Solicitation <<solicitation number>>." On the "Team Member Statement of Commitment -Confirmation" 11

page, the team member should read the commitment language, click the "Accept" button, and then click "OK". PI's may monitor the status of team member commitments by examining the "Commitment Confirmed" column on the Team Member page of the NSPIRES proposal cover page record. If desired, statements of commitment from team members may be provided as letters attached to the proposal application

All proposals submitted via NSPIRES in response to this NRA must include a required electronic Cover Page form that is accessed at http://nspires.nasaprs.com. This form is comprised of several distinct sections: a Cover Page that contains the identifier information for the proposing institution and personnel; a Proposal Summary that provides an overview of the proposed investigation that is suitable for release through a publicly accessible archive should the proposal be selected; and a Budget Summary of the proposed research effort. Unless specified in the program description itself, no other forms are required for proposal submission via NSPIRES. See the NASA Guidebook for Proposers, Sections 2 and 3, for further details. The required elements of the proposal, including the science/technical/management section, must be submitted as one or more PDF documents that are attached to the Cover Page using the tools in NSPIRES. It is possible that the complete proposal is submitted as a single, searchable, unlocked PDF document, that contains the complete proposal, including the science/ technical/ management section and budget justification (but not the Total Budget), assembled in the order provided in the NASA Guidebook for Proposers (see Section 2.3) and uploaded using the tools in NSPIRES. The Total Budget must be uploaded as a separate attachment in a file named totalbudget.pdf. One advantage of submitting the proposal as one PDF document as described above is that it is easier for the proposer to create a table of contents that will be correct. If separate files are uploaded, there may be slight differences in page numbering due to the concatenation process. Any mismatch with the table of contents caused by this process does not impact the evaluation of the proposal. NSPIRES will provide a list of all elements that make up an electronic proposal, and the system will conduct an element check to identify any item(s) that is (are) apparently missing or incomplete. Proposers are encouraged to begin their submission process early. Tutorials and other NSPIRES help topics may be accessed through the NSPIRES online help site at http://nspires.nasaprs.com/external/help.do. For any questions that cannot be resolved with the available on-line help menus, requests for assistance may be directed by E-mail to nspires-help@nasaprs.com or by telephone to (202) 479-9376, Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. 6:00 p.m. Eastern Time. (v) Submission of Proposals via Grants.gov In furtherance of the Presidents Management Agenda, NASA offers proposers the option

12

to utilize Grants.gov to prepare and submit proposals in response to this ROA NRA. Grants.gov allows organizations to electronically find and apply for competitive grant opportunities from all Federal grant-making agencies; it provides a single access point for over 1000 grant programs offered by the 26 Federal grant-making agencies. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is the managing partner for Grants.gov. In order to submit a proposal via Grants.gov, Grants.gov requires that the Principal Investigator download an application package from Grants.gov. Identifying the appropriate application package requires the funding opportunity number for that program; the funding opportunity number may be found in the Summary of Key Information subsection that concludes each program description. Proposals submitted via Grants.gov must be submitted by the AOR. Submitting a proposal via Grants.gov requires the following steps: Grant researchers do NOT need to register with Grants.gov. However, every individual named in the proposal as a proposing team member in any role, including PI, co-investigators and collaborators must be registered in NSPIRES (http://nspires.nasaprs.com) and those individuals must perform this registration themselves; no one may register a second party, even the PI of a proposal in which that person is committed to participate. This data site is secure and all information entered is strictly for NASAs use only. Follow Grants.gov instructions provided at the website to download any software tools or applications required to submit to Grants.gov. Download the application package from Grants.gov by selecting Download grant application packages under Apply for Grants at http://www.grants.gov. Each program element described in Appendices A-E requires a different application package and has a different Funding Opportunity Number; the Funding Opportunity Number may be found in the Summary of Key Information at the end of the program element description in each appendix. Enter the appropriate Funding Opportunity Number to retrieve the desired application package. All NASA application packages may be found by searching on CFDA Number 00.000. Complete the required Grants.gov forms including the SF424 (R&R) Application for Federal Assistance, R&R Other Project Information, R&R Senior/Key Person Profile, and R&R Budget. Every named individual must be identified with the organization through which they are participating in the proposal, regardless of their place of permanent employment or preferred mailing address. Complete the required NASA specific forms: NASA Other Project Information, NASA Principal Investigator and Authorized Representative Supplemental Data Sheet, NASA Senior/Key Person Supplemental Data Sheet (this form is only required if there are Senior/Key Persons other than the Principal Investigator). Complete any NASA program-specific form that is required for the specific program element. Program-specific forms may be found by clicking on the hyperlink in the NASA Other Project Information form or by directly accessing http://nspires.nasaprs.com/grants.gov. Directions for accessing and submitting program-specific forms, if there are any, are provided in the NASA Other Project Information form.

13

Create a proposal in PDF including the science/technical/management section and all other required proposal sections (see Section 2 of the NASA Guidebook for Proposers). Upload sections as separate PDFs as prompted by Grants.gov. Submit the proposal via the authorized organization representative (AOR); the proposal principal investigator may not submit the application to Grants.gov unless he/she is an AOR.

Potential applicants are urged to access Grants.gov site well in advance of the proposal due date(s) of interest to familiarize themselves with its structure and download the appropriate application packages and tools. Additional instructions for formatting and submitting proposals via Grants.gov may be found in Sections 2 and 3 of the NASA Guidebook for Proposers. Instructions for the use of Grants.gov may be found in the Grants.gov User Guide at http://www.grants.gov/CustomerSupport. Instructions for NASA-specific forms and NASA program-specific forms may be found in the application package and at https://nspires.nasaprs.com/Grants.gov. These NASA program-specific forms are required, and failure to properly include them may result in the proposal being deemed nonresponsive. For any questions that cannot be resolved with the available on-line help menus and documentation, requests for assistance may be directed by E-mail to support@grants.gov or by telephone to (800) 518-4726. (vi) Notice of Intent to Propose For most of the programs advertised through this solicitation, a brief Notice of Intent (NOI) to propose is encouraged, but not required, for the submission of proposals to this solicitation. The information contained in an NOI is used to help expedite the proposal review activities and, therefore, is of considerable value to both NASA and the proposer. To be of maximum value, NOIs should be submitted by the proposal principal investigator to NSPIRES, NASAs master proposal data system located at http://nspires.nasaprs.com, by the dates given in Tables 2 or 3 below for each program in the Appendices. Note that NOIs may be submitted within NSPIRES directly by the proposal principal investigator; no action by an organizations AOR is required to submit an NOI. Grants.gov does not provide NOI capability; therefore, NOIs must be submitted via NSPIRES regardless of whether the proposal will be submitted via NSPIRES or Grants.gov. Interested proposers must register with NSPIRES before it can be accessed for use; see Section IV(b)(i) above. Since NOIs submitted after the deadline may still be useful to NASA, late NOIs may be submitted by E-mail as directed in Section 3.1 of the NASA Guidebook for Proposers.

14

(vii) Conflict of Interest Check Information In order to ensure that all proposal evaluations are conducted as fairly as possible, it is important to ascertain whether prospective reviewers may have conflicts of interest that might affect their capacity to function with impartiality. To facilitate the process of identifying potential conflicts of interest, it is necessary to collect information about the organizations participating in each proposal. A NASA program-specific form will be used to collect this information. This form will be part of a submission to the NSPIRES system. Proposers using Grants.gov will have to ensure that they complete the NASA program-specific form as described in section IV.b(iii). Failure to submit this form via the NSPIRES system may result in the proposal being deemed nonresponsive to the NRA.

(c) Proposal Submission Dates, Time, and Location For each program in Appendices A through E of this NRA, the electronic proposal must be submitted in its entirety by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the appropriate proposal due date given in Tables 2 or 3 below. All proposals must be submitted electronically using NSPIRES or Grants.gov (see Sections IV(b)(iv), above). Proposals that are late will be handled in accordance with NASAs policy as given in Section (g) of Appendix B of the NASA Guidebook for Proposers (also see Sections 3.2 and F.23). Proposals received after the due date may be returned without review. If a late proposal is returned, it is entirely at the discretion of the proposer whether or not to resubmit it in response to a subsequent appropriate solicitation. It is not possible to submit a late proposal electronically via NSPIRES unless the electronic Cover Page was initially created prior to the proposal due date. Late proposals may not be submitted via Grants.gov. (d) Proposal Funding Restrictions In addition to the funding restrictions and requirements given in the NASA Guidebook for Proposers and the Grants Handbook, the following restrictions are applicable to this ROA NRA. The estimated funding and number of proposals anticipated to be funded, as shown in the Summary of Key Information at the end of each program element, are subject to the availability of appropriated funds, as well as the submission of a sufficient number of proposals of adequate merit. The construction of facilities is not an allowed activity for any of the programs solicited in this NRA unless specifically stated. For further information on the allowability of costs, refer to the cost principles cited in the Grants Handbook, Section 1260.127. Typically travel, including foreign travel, is allowed as may be necessary for the meaningful completion of the proposed investigation, as well as for publicizing its

15

results at appropriate professional meetings. Profit for commercial organizations is not allowable under grant or cooperative agreement awards but is allowable under contract awards. U.S. research award recipients may directly purchase supplies and/or services from non-U.S. sources that do not constitute research, but award funds may not be used to fund research carried out by non-U.S. organizations. However, subject to export control restrictions, a foreign national may receive remuneration through a NASA award for the conduct of research while employed either full or part time by a U.S. organization (see Section 1.6 of the NASA Guidebook for Proposers).

(e) Proposal Requirements for Relevance Proposals for all NASA sponsored research programs are usually evaluated on three criteria: intrinsic merit, relevance to NASAs objectives, and cost realism and reasonableness (see Appendix C of the NASA Guidebook for Proposers). These criteria may be modified in the Appendix of this NRA. Each program element includes a specific description of how it is relevant to the NASA Strategic Plan. Therefore, unless otherwise stated in the program element, it is not necessary for individual proposals to show relevance to NASAs broader goals and objectives. The proposal should instead focus on demonstrating relevance by discussing how the proposed investigation addresses the goals and objectives of the specific program element. Note that this NRA references the strategic goals and objectives in the 2006 NASA Strategic Plan (see Section I(a) and Table 1). V. PROPOSAL REVIEW INFORMATION (a) Evaluation Criteria Evaluation by peers of the proposing personnel will be used to assess each proposals intrinsic scientific and technical merit, its relevance to NASAs stated objectives, and its cost realism and reasonableness. See Appendix C.2 of the NASA Guidebook for Proposers for further discussion of these criteria and their relative weights. Some of the projects in the attached Appendices contain additional or tailored evaluation criteria. If any criteria in Appendices A-E conflicts with any other part of the NRA, the criteria identified in the Appendices take precedence over this and other sections of the NRA. The evaluation factors include factors evaluated by peer reviewers, as well as factors evaluated by NASA program personnel. Note the following specific points: Some of the programs discussed in the Appendices will provide specific factors, based on the solicited research objectives, which will be considered when evaluating a proposals technical merits and/or its relevance to program objectives. As discussed in Section IV(e) above, relevance will be judged in part by the proposals focus on specific objectives for the ARMD program element. Opinions on a proposals cost may be offered by peer review (for cost realism and

16

cost reasonableness), but NASA personnel will conduct the complete cost evaluation (for cost realism, cost reasonableness, total cost and comparison to available funds). Proposers must follow the budget format requirements in Section IV(b)(iii). The selection official may take program balance into account when selecting proposals for funding. Cost sharing is generally not considered as part of the evaluation (see Section III(c) above). However, cost sharing may become a factor at the time of selection when deciding between proposals of otherwise equal technical merits.

(b) Review and Selection Processes Review of proposals submitted to this NRA will be consistent with the general policies and provisions given in Sections C.1 through C.4 of Appendix C of the NASA Guidebook for Proposers, and selection procedures will be consistent with the provisions of Section C.5 of that document. Unless otherwise specified, the Program Director responsible for a thrust area is the final Selecting Official. In cases where a conflict of interest exists, the Selecting Official will be designated by the Associate Administrator for Aeronautics. (c) Partial Awards and Participation with Others NASA reserves the right to select only a portion of a proposed investigation, usually at a level of support reduced from that requested in the original proposal or may also offer tentative selections in which NASA requests investigators to team in a joint investigation. Additionally, NASA may decide to award an effort for less than the full period of the proposal. In these cases, the proposer will be given the opportunity to accept or decline such selection. If the proposer accepts such an offer, a revised budget and statement of work may be required before funding action on the proposal can be initiated. If the proposer declines the offer of a partial selection, or participation in a joint investigation, the offer of selection may be withdrawn in its entirety by NASA. (d) Selection Announcement and Award Dates NASAs stated goal is to announce selections as soon as possible. However, NASA does not usually announce new selections until the funds needed for those awards are approved through the Federal budget process. Therefore, a delay in the budget process for NASA usually results in a delay of the selection date(s). After 150 days past the proposal due date for which a proposal was submitted, proposers may contact the responsible Program Officer listed at the conclusion of that program description in the appendices for the status of the selection activity. Those proposers not selected will be notified by postal or electronic mail and offered a debriefing consistent with the policy in Section C.6 of the NASA Guidebook for Proposers. (e) Process for Appeals

17

(i) Ombudsman Program The NASA Procurement Ombudsman Program is available under this NRA as a procedure for addressing concerns and disagreements. The clause at NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) 1852.215-84 (Ombudsman) is incorporated into this NRA. The cognizant ombudsman is Director, Contract Management Division Office of Procurement NASA Headquarters Washington, DC 20546 Telephone: 202-358-0445. (ii) Protests Only prospective offerors seeking contract awards under this NRA have the right to file a protest, either at the Government Accountability Office (GAO) or with the Agency, as defined in FAR 33.101. The provisions at FAR 52.233-2 (Service of Protest) and NFS 1852.233-70 (Protests to NASA) are incorporated into this NRA. Under both of these provisions, the designated official for receipt of protests to the Agency and copies of protests filed with the GAO is Assistant Administrator for Procurement Office of Procurement NASA Headquarters Mail Stop 5G70 Washington, DC 20546. VI. AWARD ADMINISTRATION INFORMATION (a) Notice of Award Notification of both the selected, as well as the nonselected proposers, will be consistent with the policy given in Section C.5.3 of the NASA Guidebook for Proposers. For selected proposers, the offerors business office will be contacted by a NASA Awards Officer, who is the only official authorized to obligate the Government. For a grant or cooperative agreement, any costs incurred by the offeror in anticipation of an award will be subject to the policies and regulations of the Grants Handbook (see Section B, Part 1260.125(e)). (b) Administrative and National Policy Requirements This solicitation does not invoke any special administrative or national policy requirements, nor do the awards that will be made involve any special terms and conditions that differ from NASAs general terms and conditions as given in the Grants Handbook and the NASA Guidebook for Proposers. Please note that it is expected that proposers will comply with Homeland Security Presidential Directive/ HSPD-12. HSPD12 applicability will be determined during negotiation for award for selected proposals. (c) Award Reporting Requirements 18

The reporting requirements for awards made through this NRA will be consistent with Exhibit G of the Grants Handbook. Any additional requirements will be specified in the program description.

VII. POINTS OF CONTACT FOR FURTHER INFORMATION General questions and comments about the policies of this NRA may be directed to: Tony Strazisar Senior Technical Advisor, NASA Headquarters, Aeronautics Research Directorate E-mail: NASA-roa@nasa.gov Note: Proposals shall not be submitted to this E-mail address. Proposals shall be submitted electronically as described in Section IV above. Specific questions about a given program element in this NRA should only be directed to the Program Officer(s) listed in the Summary of Key Information subsection that concludes each program description. No communication concerning this NRA may be made to any other NASA official other than those specifically listed in this NRA. Inquiries about accessing or using the NASA proposal data base located at http://nspires.nasaprs.com should be directed by an E-mail that includes a telephone number to nspires-help@nasaprs.com or by calling (202) 479-9376. This help center is staffed Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. 6:00 p.m. Eastern Time. Inquiries about accessing or using Grants.gov located at http://www.grants.gov should be directed by an E-mail to support@grants.gov or by calling (800) 518-4726. This customer support contact center is staffed Monday through Friday, 7:00 a.m. 9:00 p.m. Eastern Time. VIII. ANCILLARY INFORMATION (a) Announcement of Updates/Amendments to Solicitation It is possible that additional programmatic information for any of NASAs programs may develop before their proposal due dates. If so, such information will be added as a formal amendment to this NRA as posted at its homepage at http://nspires.nasaprs.com. It is the responsibility of the prospective proposer to check this NRAs homepage for updates concerning the program(s) of interest. Any clarifications or questions and answers that are published will be posted either with the summary ROA NRA information or on the relevant program element(s)s web page(s) at http://nspires.nasaprs.com.

19

(b) Electronic Submission of Proposal Information On-time electronic submission over the World Wide Web is required for every proposal. While every effort is made to ensure the reliability and accessibility of this Web site and to maintain a help center via E-mail and telephone, difficulty may arise at any point on the Internet, including the users own equipment. Therefore, prospective proposers are urged to familiarize themselves with this site and to submit the required proposal materials well in advance of the deadline(s) of the program(s) of interest. Difficulty in registering with or using a proposal submission system (either NSPIRES or Grants.gov) is not, in and of itself, a sufficient reason for NASA to consider a proposal that is submitted after the proposal due date (see Section IV(c)). IX. CONCLUDING STATEMENT Through this ROA NRA, NASA encourages the participation of the aeronautics communities in its Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate research and technology programs. Comments about this NRA are welcome and may be directed to the point of contact for general questions and comments identified in Section VII above.

Jay Dryer Director Fundamental Aeronautics Program Doug Rohn Director Aviation Safety Program John Cavolowsky Director Airspace Systems Program Jean Wolfe Director (Acting) Integrated Systems Research Program Mike George Director Aeronautics Test Program Jaiwon Shin Associate Administrator Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate

20

TABLE 1. NASA STRATEGIC GOALS AND OUTCOMES

TABLE 1A. NASAS STRATEGIC GOALS Strategic Goal 1: Fly the Shuttle as safely as possible until its retirement, not later than 2010. Strategic Goal 2: Complete the International Space Station in a manner consistent with NASAs International Partner commitments and the needs of human exploration. Strategic Goal 3: Develop a balanced overall program of science, exploration, and aeronautics consistent with the redirection of the human spaceflight program to focus on exploration. Strategic Sub-goal 3A Study Earth from space to advance scientific understanding and meet societal needs. Strategic Sub-goal 3B Understand the Sun and its effects on Earth and the solar system. Strategic Sub-goal 3C Advance scientific knowledge of the origin and history of the solar system, the potential for life elsewhere, and the hazards and resources present as humans explore space. Strategic Sub-goal 3D Discover the origin, structure, evolution, and destiny of the universe, and search for Earth-like planets. Strategic Sub-goal 3E Advance knowledge in the fundamental disciplines of aeronautics, and develop technologies for safer aircraft and higher capacity airspace systems. Strategic Sub-goal 3F Understand the effects of the space environment on human performance, and test new technologies and countermeasures for long-duration human space exploration. Strategic Goal 4: Bring a new Crew Exploration Vehicle into service as soon as possible after Shuttle retirement. Strategic Goal 5: Encourage the pursuit of appropriate partnerships with the emerging commercial space sector. Strategic Goal 6: Establish a lunar return program having the maximum possible utility for later missions to Mars and other destinations.

From The 2006 NASA Strategic Plan, available in February 2006 at http://www.nasa.gov.

21

TABLE 1B. NASAS STRATEGIC OUTCOMES Strategic Sub-goal 3E Advance knowledge in the fundamental disciplines of aeronautics, and develop technologies for safer aircraft and higher capacity airspace systems.

NASA Outcomes: 3E.1 By 2016, identify and develop tools, methods and technologies for improving overall aircraft safety of new and legacy vehicles operating in the Next Generation Air Transportation System (projected for the year 2025). 3E.2 By 2016, develop and demonstrate future concepts, capabilities, and technologies that will enable major increases in air traffic management effectiveness, flexibility, and efficiency, while maintaining safety, to meet capacity and mobility requirements for the Next Generation Air Transportation System. 3E.3 By 2016, develop multidisciplinary design, analysis, and optimization capabilities for use in trade studies of new technologies, enabling better quantification of vehicle performance in all flight regimes and within a variety of transportation system architectures. 3E.4 Ensure the continuous availability of a portfolio of NASA-owned wind tunnels/ ground test facilities, which are strategically important to meeting national aerospace program goals and requirements.

22

TABLE 2. SOLICITED RESEARCH PROGRAMS (IN ORDER OF PROPOSAL DUE DATES)

APPENDIX D-2

PROGRAM N+2 Advanced Vehicle Concepts Study (ERA1)

NOI DUE DATE 6/14/2010

PROPOSAL DUE DATE 7/15/2010

Note: It is expected that additional project areas will be added in future amendments.

23

TABLE 3. SOLICITED RESEARCH PROGRAMS (IN ORDER OF APPENDICES AE)

APPENDIX D-2 PROGRAM N+2 Advanced Vehicle Concepts Study (ERA1) NOI DUE DATE 6/14/2010 PROPOSAL DUE DATE 7/15/2010

Note: It is expected that additional project areas will be added in future amendments.

24

APPENDIX A: Fundamental Aeronautics Program A.1 Program Overview Currently the United States (US) is highly dependent on the health of the aviation and aerospace industry as it contributes to the transport of passengers and cargo domestically and abroad and to the security of the US homeland. The ability to transport people and goods point-to-point domestically and internationally is critical to all levels of the economy. Further, it is essential that this ability be realized with as much flexibility, affordability, and environmental responsibility as possible. The public and economic benefits from continued growth in the transport of passengers and cargo are dependent on future air vehicles that can meet demanding environmental and performance challenges. In addition, the United States strategic decision to move forward with a manned space program for purposes of human exploration and scientific discovery is also dependent on advancements in aeronautical technology and innovations. Specifically, aeronautical technology will address spacecraft flight through planetary atmospheres, thereby addressing the mounting cost and mitigate the high risk challenges of space access and exploration. To these ends, the Fundamental Aeronautics (FA) Program is chartered to address national challenges in air transportation and enable advanced technological capabilities for improving the performance and environmental impact of future air vehicles. The FA Program consists of four projects. The Subsonic Fixed Wing (SFW) Project addresses the challenge of enabling dramatic improvements in noise and emissions reduction, as well as in performance (fuel burn and reduced field length) characteristics of subsonic/transonic aircraft. The Subsonic Rotary Wing (SRW) Project addresses the challenge of radically improving the transportation system using rotary wing vehicles by increasing speed, range, and payload while decreasing noise and emissions. The Supersonics (SUP) Project addresses the challenge of eliminating the environmental and performance barriers that prevent practical supersonic vehicles (cruise efficiency, noise and emissions, performance). The Hypersonics (HYP) Project addresses the challenge of enabling airbreathing access to space and high mass entry, descent, and landing into planetary atmospheres. The work in the Fundamental Aeronautics Program directly benefits the public through the development of techniques and concepts for both subsonic and supersonic vehicles that are cleaner, quieter, and more energy efficient. Research efforts in revolutionary aircraft configurations, lighter and stiffer materials, improved propulsion systems, and advanced concepts for high-lift and drag reduction all target the efficiency and environmental compatibility of future air vehicles. NASA will benefit from fundamental technology advances that can impact our ability to both access space and survive the A-1

planetary entry, descent, and landing phase. The program also helps the country develop and maintain excellence in the aeronautics workforce by providing significant research opportunities in all of its projects. A major emphasis of the Fundamental Aeronautics Program is on the mastery and intellectual stewardship of key core competencies of Aeronautics for the Nation across all flight regimes. However, NASA will principally conduct long-term research that is both focused and integrated across disciplines in areas that are appropriate to our unique capabilities. NASA will invest broadly and deeply producing knowledge, technology, and tools that are applicable across a broad range of air vehicles. The awards from this NRA will support U.S. leadership in aerospace through its commitment to identify and advance innovative ideas, concepts, technologies, and approaches to the aeronautics challenges described below for each of the four Fundamental Aeronautics thrust areas. A.2 Subsonic Fixed Wing Project 1. Project Overview A major focus of the Subsonic Fixed Wing (SFW) project is to develop improved prediction methods and technologies for lower noise, lower emissions, and higher performance for subsonic aircraft. Increased performance requires increased energy efficiency and operability for advanced airframe and engine systems and subsystems. The ten-year strategy includes providing novel test methods and validated prediction tools that can be used to improve system trades for advanced concepts that are capable of meeting long-term noise, emissions, and performance targets. Table 1 summarizes NASAs technology goals for future generation subsonic aircraft, each of which represents a corner of the trade space. It is desirable to identify vehicle solutions that simultaneously meet the goals for noise, emissions, and energy usage (fuel burn).

A-2

Table 1 NASAs Technology Goals for Future Subsonic Vehicles

2. Description of Specific Solicited Research The Subsonic Fixed Wing Project is not soliciting research topics at this time. Please continue to monitor this solicitation for future amendments. 3.0 Summary of Key Information Expected annual program budget for new awards Number of new awards pending adequate proposals of merit Maximum duration of awards Due date for Notice of Intent to propose (NOI) Due date for proposals General information and overview of this solicitation Detailed instructions for the preparation and submission of proposals TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD See the Summary of Solicitation of this NRA. See the NASA Guidebook for Proposers Responding to a NASA Research Announcement 2010 at http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/procurement/nraguidebook/.

A-3

Page limit for the central ScienceTechnical-Management section of proposal Submission medium

TBD Electronic proposal submission is required; no hard copy is required. See also Section IV in the Summary of Solicitation of this NRA and Chapter 3 of the NASA Guidebook for Proposers. http://nspires.nasaprs.com/ (help desk available at nspires-help@nasaprs.com or (202) 479-9376) TBD TBD TBD

Web site for submission of proposal via NSPIRES Expected contract type Funding opportunity number NASA technical point of contact concerning this program NASA Procurement point of contact concerning this program

TBD

A-4

A.3 Subsonic Rotary Wing 1. Project Overview The challenge of the Subsonic Rotary Wing project of the NASA Fundamental Aeronautics program is to develop validated physics-based multidisciplinary design and analysis tools for rotorcraft, integrated with technology development, enabling rotorcraft with advanced capabilities to fly as designed for any mission. Meeting this challenge will require innovative technologies and methods, with an emphasis on integrated, multidisciplinary, first-principle computational tools specifically applicable to the unique problems of rotary wing aircraft. The focus of the Subsonic Rotary Wing project of the Fundamental Aeronautics program is to radically improve the transportation system using the unique capabilities of rotary wing vehicles. Several facets will be addressed at the fundamental research level: efficiency, including aerodynamic performance and structural weight; productivity, which requires high speed, large payload, long range, and good maneuverability; and environmental acceptance, particularly noise and handling qualities. The challenges faced in rotary wing aviation are among the most complex and demanding of any configuration: highly complex, three-dimensional rotor and fuselage structures, unsteady flows in speed regimes from low subsonic to high transonic, dynamically-stalled components, harsh operating environments, highly-loaded propulsion systems, and a vehicle that is statically unstable. The Subsonic Rotary Wing project will focus its research effort in the most persistent technical challenge areas in order to produce advances in prediction tool capability and technology. The Subsonic Rotary Wing project will utilize this NASA Research Announcement (NRA) to leverage in-house foundational research with academic institutions, non-profit organizations and industry performing foundational and applied research to address technology needs that are focused on unique aspects of rotorcraft configurations. 2. Description of Specific Solicited Research The Subsonic Rotary Wing project is not soliciting research topics at this time. Please continue to monitor this solicitation for future amendments.

A-5

3.0 Summary of Key Information Expected annual program budget for new awards Number of new awards pending adequate proposals of merit Maximum duration of awards Due date for Notice of Intent to propose (NOI) Due date for proposals General information and overview of this solicitation Detailed instructions for the preparation and submission of proposals Page limit for the central ScienceTechnical-Management section of proposal Submission medium TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD See the Summary of Solicitation of this NRA. See the NASA Guidebook for Proposers Responding to a NASA Research Announcement 2010 at http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/procurement/nraguidebook/. TBD Electronic proposal submission is required; no hard copy is required. See also Section IV in the Summary of Solicitation of this NRA and Chapter 3 of the NASA Guidebook for Proposers. http://nspires.nasaprs.com/ (help desk available at nspires-help@nasaprs.com or (202) 479-9376) TBD TBD TBD

Web site for submission of proposal via NSPIRES Expected contract type Funding opportunity number NASA technical point of contact concerning this program NASA Procurement point of contact concerning this program

TBD

A-6

A.4 Supersonics 1. Project Overview The Supersonics Project is aligned with the ARMD principles of maintaining intellectual stewardship of aeronautical core competencies for the nation in the supersonic flight regime and of focusing research in areas that are appropriate to NASAs unique capabilities. The Project supports the Fundamental Aeronautics Program strategy of developing systems level multidisciplinary capabilities for supersonic civilian and military applications. The Supersonics Project is a broad-based effort designed to develop knowledge, capabilities and technologies that support vehicles that fly in the supersonic speed regime with a focus on eliminating the efficiency, environmental and performance barriers to practical supersonic cruise vehicles. The Project has identified a set of key Technical Challenges that are barriers to success for this vehicle type. These are: Efficiency Challenges Supersonic Cruise Efficiency Light Weight, Durable Airframes and Engines for Supersonic Cruise Temperatures Environmental Challenges Airport Noise Reduction Sonic Boom Modeling High Altitude Emissions Reduction Performance Challenges Aero-Propulso-Servo-Elastic (APSE) Analysis and Design Multidisciplinary Design, Analysis and Optimization Challenges (Understanding and exploiting the interactions of all these supersonic technology challenges is the key to the creation of practical design.) Systems Integration, Assessment and Validation Flight Research & Validation Flight Validation and Test Technique Development

The Supersonics project is committed to expanding its research activity by reaching out to other organizations. The objective of this investment will be to stimulate innovative and creative research in conjunction with the NASA internal efforts in order to successfully meet the major technical challenges for acceptable supersonic flight. The project will solicit and select university, small business, and industry participation, through the NASA Research Announcement (NRA) process. 2. Description of Specific Solicited Research The Supersonics Project is not soliciting research topics at this time. Please continue to monitor this solicitation for future amendments.

A-7

3.0 Summary of Key Information Expected annual program budget for new awards Number of new awards pending adequate proposals of merit Maximum duration of awards Due date for Notice of Intent to propose (NOI) Due date for proposals General information and overview of this solicitation Detailed instructions for the preparation and submission of proposals Page limit for the central ScienceTechnical-Management section of proposal Submission medium TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD See the Summary of Solicitation of this NRA. See the NASA Guidebook for Proposers Responding to a NASA Research Announcement 2010 at http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/procurement/nraguidebook/. TBD Electronic proposal submission is required; no hard copy is required. See also Section IV in the Summary of Solicitation of this NRA and Chapter 3 of the NASA Guidebook for Proposers. http://nspires.nasaprs.com/ (help desk available at nspires-help@nasaprs.com or (202) 479-9376) TBD TBD TBD

Web site for submission of proposal via NSPIRES Expected contract type Funding opportunity number NASA technical point of contact concerning this program NASA Procurement point of contact concerning this program

TBD

A-8

A.5 Hypersonics 1. Project Overview The Hypersonics Project is investing a substantial portion of its allocated budget through NRA solicitations. Objectives of this investment include the support of core research to enable the Hypersonics Project to achieve its goals and the development of a new pool of experts in the requisite technology areas. The vision of the investment is directly aligned with the Fundamental Aeronautics Program principle that we will dedicate ourselves to the mastery and intellectual stewardship of the core competencies of aeronautics for the Nation in all flight regimes. There are two areas of interest to the Hypersonics Project: Reusable Airbreathing Launch Vehicles (RALV) and Planetary Atmospheric Entry Systems (PAES). These missions were chosen to focus technology and tool development efforts in support of NASAs Strategic Goal 3: Develop a balanced overall program of science, exploration, and aeronautics. The RALV mission was chosen to build on work started in NASAs Next Generation Launch Technology (NGLT) Program to provide new vehicle architectures and technologies to dramatically increase the reliability of future launch vehicles. The design of reusable entry vehicles that provide low-cost access to space is challenging in several technology areas. The severe heating environment encountered during hypersonic flight dictates the shape of the vehicle. Boundary-layer transition and turbulence at hypersonic speeds are especially significant because of the large differences in heating rates between laminar and turbulent flows. The interaction of bow shock and wing shock (shock-shock interaction) leads to local enhancement of heating at the impingement point. Therefore, the accurate definition of the hypersonic environment is of paramount importance, placing great emphasis on computational tools and high-temperature experimental measurement capabilities. Since these vehicles fly from the Earths surface at low speeds and enter space and re-enter the atmosphere at hypersonic speeds, the vehicle performance, controllability, and energy management across the entire Mach range is another significant challenge requiring rapid and accurate computational tools. The development of hypersonic-unique air breathing propulsion systems and the integration of the propulsion system with the airframe further impact vehicle performance and controllability and drive the need for an integrated physics-based design methodology. The hypersonic heating environment coupled with the emphasis on reusability, creates additional technology challenges for materials, material coatings, and structures that are low weight with high thermal-shock resistance yet also possess long-life and durability. Technologies that enable these systems will require advancements in foundational knowledge and development of discipline-level tools for accurate analysis and design. These tools are integrated to achieve the system-level goal of the Hypersonics Project to develop predictive capabilities using physics-based multi-disciplinary analysis, design optimization, and uncertainty quantification tools and technologies.

A-9

2. Description of Specific Solicited Research The Hypersonics Project is not soliciting research topics at this time. Please continue to monitor this solicitation for future amendments. 3.0 Summary of Key Information Expected annual program budget for new awards Number of new awards pending adequate proposals of merit Maximum duration of awards Due date for Notice of Intent to propose (NOI) Due date for proposals General information and overview of this solicitation Detailed instructions for the preparation and submission of proposals Page limit for the central ScienceTechnical-Management section of proposal Submission medium TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD See the Summary of Solicitation of this NRA. See the NASA Guidebook for Proposers Responding to a NASA Research Announcement 2010 at http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/procurement/nraguidebook/. TBD Electronic proposal submission is required; no hard copy is required. See also Section IV in the Summary of Solicitation of this NRA and Chapter 3 of the NASA Guidebook for Proposers. http://nspires.nasaprs.com/ (help desk available at nspires-help@nasaprs.com or (202) 479-9376) TBD TBD TBD

Web site for submission of proposal via NSPIRES Expected contract type Funding opportunity number NASA technical point of contact concerning this program NASA Procurement point of contact concerning this program

TBD

A-10

APPENDIX B: Aviation Safety Program B.1 Program Overview Air traffic within American airspace is expected to continue to grow, and radical innovation will be required to meet the increased demand. The goal of the NextGen is to make passage through increasingly crowded skies efficient and speedy while maintaining or increasing safety. NextGen will achieve its mandates with state-of-the-art networking technology, continually updating its data and sharing that information with pilots and controllers. Aircraft will be able to immediately adjust to changing factors such as weather, traffic congestion, the position of other aircraft, flight trajectories and any terrestrial or airborne security concerns. NASA's Aviation Safety Program (AvSP) helps to realize NextGen's full potential by examining concerns to further reduce risk in any complex, dynamic operating domain. AvSP's contribution ranges from providing fundamental research in known safety concerns, to working with partners to address the challenges created as we transition to NextGen, where we expect significant increases in air traffic, introduction of new vehicle concepts, continued operation of legacy vehicles, increased reliance on automation, and increased operating complexity. AvSP is looking at hardware and software systems that will operate in the NextGen. The program is initiating an effort to examine key challenges in verifying and validating (V&V) that flight-critical systems meet the extremely high levels of safety required for NextGen operations. The program seeks to provide increasing capabilities to predict and prevent safety issues, to monitor for safety issues in-flight and mitigate against them should they occur, to analyze and design safety issues out of complex system behaviors, and to constantly analyze designs and operational data for potential hazards. These technologies can be leveraged to support safety in other complex systems, such as NASA long-duration missions in space science and exploration. For example, one goal of AvSP is to develop validated tools, technologies and techniques for automated detection, diagnosis and prognosis of adverse events that occur in flight. Another goal is pursing flight-deck-related technologies to ensure crew workload and situational awareness are both safely optimized and adapted to the NextGen operational environment. The program also advances state-of-the-art design tools to detect, avoid, and protect against loss-ofcontrol due to potential adverse events including atmospheric and vehicle system factors, and develops advanced capabilities for detection and mitigation of aging-related hazards before they become critical. For more information, see http://www.aeronautics.nasa.gov/programs_avsp.htm

B-1

B.2 Aging Aircraft and Durability Project (AAD) 1. Project Overview The goal of the AAD research is to develop advanced diagnostic and prognostic capabilities for detection and mitigation of aging-related hazards. The research and technologies to be pursued will decrease the susceptibility of current and next generation aircraft and onboard systems to premature deterioration, thus greatly improving vehicle safety and mission success. Emerging civilian and military aircraft are introducing advanced material systems, fabrication techniques, and structural configurations for which there is limited service history. There will be an emphasis on new material systems/fabrication techniques and the potential hazards associated with aging-related degradation. The intent is to take a proactive approach to identifying aging-related hazards before they become critical, and to develop technology and processes to incorporate aging mitigation into the design of future aircraft. Foundational research in aging science will ultimately yield multidisciplinary subsystem and system-level integrated, and mitigation/management of aging-related hazards for future civilian and military aircraft. 2. Description of Solicited Research The AAD Project is not soliciting research topics at this time. Please continue to monitor this solicitation for future amendments. 3.0 Summary of Key Information Expected annual program budget for new awards Number of new awards pending adequate proposals of merit Maximum duration of awards Due date for Notice of Intent to propose (NOI) Due date for proposals General information and overview of this solicitation Detailed instructions for the preparation and submission of proposals Page limit for the central Science-Technical-Management section of proposal TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD See the Summary of Solicitation of this NRA. See the NASA Guidebook for Proposers Responding to a NASA Research Announcement 2010 at http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/procurement/nraguidebook/ TBD

B-2

Submission medium Web site for submission of proposal via NSPIRES Expected type of award Funding opportunity number NASA points of contact

Electronic proposal submission is required; no hard copy is required. See also Section IV in the Summary of Solicitation of this NRA and Chapter 3 of the NASA Guidebook for Proposers. http://nspires.nasaprs.com/ (help desk available at nspires-help@nasaprs.com or (202) 479-9376) TBD TBD TBD

B-3

B.3 Integrated Intelligent Flight Deck Technologies (IIFDT) 1. Project Overview The goal of the IIFD research is to develop tools, methods, principles, guidelines, and technologies for revolutionary flight deck systems. In doing so, the program seeks to expand our ability to predict and create the comprehensive set of developments (technologies, procedures, and specifications for crew training) demanded for truly novel concepts of operation, such as those proposed for the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen). Trajectories may be defined in distinctly new ways, pilots' tasks may expand to include collaboration and negotiation with other aircraft and with air traffic controllers, and may require managing large disparate sets of information to support a wide range of decisions made both individually and collaboratively. Current projections for NextGen operations also prescribe an increased use of automation, much of which will need to interact with, and support, the cognitive activities of pilots and air traffic controllers. The scope of the IIFD research also includes the development of a comprehensive surveillance system design that enables robust detection of external hazards with sufficient time-to-alarm for safe maneuvering to avoid the hazards. The products of the IIFD research should enable system designers to eliminate the safety risk of unintended consequences when introducing new and advanced systems into an operational environment. 2. Description of Solicited Research The IIFDT Project is not soliciting research topics at this time. Please continue to monitor this solicitation for future amendments. 3.0 Summary of Key Information Expected annual program budget for new awards Number of new awards pending adequate proposals of merit Maximum duration of awards Due date for Notice of Intent to propose (NOI) Due date for proposals General information and overview of this solicitation Detailed instructions for the preparation and submission of proposals TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD See the Summary of Solicitation of this NRA. See the NASA Guidebook for Proposers Responding to a NASA Research Announcement 2010 at http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/procurement/nraguidebook/ B-4

Page limit for the central Science-Technical-Management section of proposal Submission medium Web site for submission of proposal via NSPIRES Expected type of award Funding opportunity number NASA points of contact

TBD Electronic proposal submission is required; no hard copy is required. See also Section IV in the Summary of Solicitation of this NRA and Chapter 3 of the NASA Guidebook for Proposers. http://nspires.nasaprs.com/ (help desk available at nspires-help@nasaprs.com or (202) 479-9376) TBD TBD TBD

B-5

B.4 Integrated Vehicle Health Management (IVHM) 1. Project Overview The goal of the IVHM research is to advance the state of highly integrated and complex flight-critical health management technologies and systems. These technologies will enable nearly continuous onboard situational awareness of the vehicle health state for use by the flight crew, ground crew, and maintenance depot. Improved safety and reliability will be achieved by onboard systems capable of performing self-diagnostics and selfcorrection of anomalies that could otherwise go unattended until a critical failure occurs in structures, propulsive systems, avionics hardware, or software. A key enabling technology will be the ability for sharing and processing large amounts of information among the various vehicle subsystems to more accurately diagnose the system health state and execute the logic to self-correct any critical anomalies detected. This data mining capability can also be applied to operational data about both aircraft and airspace. An IVHM reference document is available on the Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate website (http://www.aeronautics.nasa.gov/nra_pdf/ivhm_tech_plan_c1.pdf). 2. Description of Solicited Research The IVHM Project is not soliciting research topics at this time. Please continue to monitor this solicitation for future amendments. 3.0 Summary of Key Information Expected annual program budget for new awards Number of new awards pending adequate proposals of merit Maximum duration of awards Due date for Notice of Intent to propose (NOI) Due date for proposals General information and overview of this solicitation Detailed instructions for the preparation and submission of proposals TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD See the Summary of Solicitation of this NRA. See the NASA Guidebook for Proposers Responding to a NASA Research Announcement 2010 at http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/procurement/nraguidebook/

B-6

Page limit for the central Science-Technical-Management section of proposal Submission medium Web site for submission of proposal via NSPIRES Expected type of award Funding opportunity number NASA points of contact

TBD Electronic proposal submission is required; no hard copy is required. See also Section IV in the Summary of Solicitation of this NRA and Chapter 3 of the NASA Guidebook for Proposers. http://nspires.nasaprs.com/ (help desk available at nspires-help@nasaprs.com or (202) 479-9376) TBD TBD TBD

B-7

B.5 Integrated Resilient Aircraft Control (IRAC) 1. Project Overview The goal of the IRAC research is to advance our ability to detect, avoid and prevent lossof-control in. Taking into account the advanced automation and autonomy capabilities as envisioned by NextGen, the research will pursue methodologies to enable an aircraft to automatically detect, mitigate, and safely recover from an off-nominal condition that could lead to a loss of control. Key components of the research will be to develop technologies that would enable an aircraft control system to avoid or mitigate the effects of loss-of-control and the rigorous verification and validation of such software-based flight-critical systems. Likewise, research seeks to better understand causes of upset flight conditions, including icing and this structural degradation, and to detect the existence of degraded conditions. 2. Description of Solicited Research The IRAC Project is not soliciting research topics at this time. Please continue to monitor this solicitation for future amendments. 3.0 Summary of Key Information Expected annual program budget for new awards Number of new awards pending adequate proposals of merit Maximum duration of awards Due date for Notice of Intent to propose (NOI) Due date for proposals General information and overview of this solicitation Detailed instructions for the preparation and submission of proposals Page limit for the central Science-Technical-Management section of proposal Submission medium TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD See the Summary of Solicitation of this NRA. See the NASA Guidebook for Proposers Responding to a NASA Research Announcement 2010 at http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/procurement/nraguidebook/ TBD Electronic proposal submission is required; no hard copy is required. See also Section IV in the Summary of Solicitation of this NRA and Chapter 3 of the NASA Guidebook for Proposers.

B-8

Web site for submission of proposal via NSPIRES Expected type of award Funding opportunity number NASA points of contact

http://nspires.nasaprs.com/ (help desk available at nspires-help@nasaprs.com or (202) 479-9376) TBD TBD TBD

B-9

B.6 Verification and Validation of Flight Critical Systems (VVFCS) 1. Project Overview The goals of verification and validation of flight critical systems research include providing methods for rigorous and systematic high-level validation of system safety properties and requirements from initial design through implementation, maintenance and modification, as well an understanding of trade-offs between complexity and verification methods for supporting robustness and fault-tolerance in distributed systems, especially considering effective human-interaction. Further, the development of tools to reduce cost and increase safety through improved software assurance and dependability, as well as analysis and testing capabilities of systems-of-systems, will be pursued. 2. Description of Solicited Research The VVFCS Project is not soliciting research topics at this time. Please continue to monitor this solicitation for future amendments. 3.0 Summary of Key Information Expected annual program budget for new awards Number of new awards pending adequate proposals of merit Maximum duration of awards Due date for Notice of Intent to propose (NOI) Due date for proposals General information and overview of this solicitation Detailed instructions for the preparation and submission of proposals Page limit for the central Science-Technical-Management section of proposal Submission medium Web site for submission of proposal via NSPIRES TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD See the Summary of Solicitation of this NRA. See the NASA Guidebook for Proposers Responding to a NASA Research Announcement 2010 at http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/procurement/nraguidebook/ TBD Electronic proposal submission is required; no hard copy is required. See also Section IV in the Summary of Solicitation of this NRA and Chapter 3 of the NASA Guidebook for Proposers. http://nspires.nasaprs.com/ (help desk available at nspires-help@nasaprs.com or (202) 479-9376)

B-10

Expected type of award Funding opportunity number NASA points of contact

TBD TBD TBD

B-11

APPENDIX C: Airspace Systems Program C.1 Program Overview The Airspace Systems Program (ASP) performs foundational research to enable the development of revolutionary improvements to, and modernization of, the National Airspace System, as well as the introduction of new systems for vehicles whose operation can take advantage of the improved, modern air traffic management (ATM) system. The benefit to the flying public from ASP research, although clearly focused on development of capabilities that enable more efficient operations and reduce flight delays, will be realized as a reduction in doorstep-to-destination trip duration. ASP research is focused to achieve the vision of NextGen including; accommodating projected growth in air traffic while preserving and enhancing safety; providing all airspace system users more flexibility and efficiency in the use of airports, airspace and aircraft; meeting our civil aviation, national defense, and homeland security needs as a national priority; and maintaining pace with a continually evolving scientific and technical environment. ASP research occurs principally at two field centers, Ames Research Center and Langley Research Center. A subset of this in house research is in partnership with other federal agencies and international partners to achieve mutually beneficial goals and conservation resources. Additional ASP portfolio research is funded by ASP and performed by industry and academia. The objectives of ASP are to: Perform research to enable new aircraft system capabilities and air traffic technology to increase the capacity and mobility of the nations air transportation system Perform research to maximize operational throughput, predictability, efficiency, flexibility, and access into the airspace system while maintaining safety and environmental protection. Explore and develop concepts and integrated solutions to define and assess the allocation of centralized and decentralized automation concepts and technologies necessary for NextGen. Perform research to support the sustainment of a world-class aeronautics workforce Transition research results through dissemination, integration and transition. ASP is comprised of two projects: NextGen Concepts and Technology Development (CTD) and NextGen System Analysis, Integration and Evaluation (SAIE). The two projects are formulated to make major contributions to air traffic needs of the future through the development and research of foundational concepts and technologies and their analysis, integration and maturation in relevant, system-level environments. Both projects are, much like the airspace system itself, highly integrated, and pay close attention to critical system integration and transition interfaces in the national airspace C-1

system. For more information, please see http://www.aeronautics.nasa.gov/programs_asp.htm C.2 NextGen Concepts and Technology Development Project 1. Project Overview The NextGen Concepts and Technology Development Project (CTD) develops and explores fundamental concepts, algorithms, and technologies to increase throughput of the National Airspace System (NAS) and achieve high efficiency in the use of valuable resources. Traffic flow management concepts will be expanded to address weathermodeling uncertainty to promote higher predictability and efficiency and to provide trajectory planning and execution across the spectrum of time horizons from "strategic planning" to "separation assurance. Dynamic airspace configuration research will address the technical challenges of migrating from the current structured, static homogenous airspace to a dynamic, heterogeneous airspace that adapts to user demands and meets changing constraints of weather, traffic congestion, and a highly diverse aircraft fleet. The Project will conduct simulations of automated separation assurance subject to sequencing, spacing, and scheduling constraints. The simulations will evaluate a range of controller and pilot roles and responsibilities. Experiments will be designed with common assumptions, scenarios, uncertainty and metrics such that the experimental results generated by different concepts can be directly compared. CTD will develop and explore fundamental concepts that address the optimal allocation of ground and air automation technologies, development of human/automation information requirements and decision-making guidelines for human-human and human-machine airportal decision-making necessary for NextGen. The project will also develop algorithms to generate robust, optimized solutions for surface traffic planning and control, and initial algorithms for airportal arrival and departure balancing. This will include evaluations of benefits in both nominal and off-nominal conditions with increased airportal traffic density and consideration of environmental constraints. Specific CTD Project technical goals include: Increasing capacity through dynamic allocation of airspace structure and controller resources Effectively allocating demand through departure-time management, route modification, adaptive speed control, etc., in the presence of uncertainty Developing algorithms, automation prototypes, and procedures that relieve the capacity constraints imposed by human-controlled separation of aircraft in transition and cruise airspace Quantifying the performance-enhancing effects of emerging airborne technologies Optimizing surface traffic operations to enable capacity enhancements Exploring transformational approaches, enabled by NextGen capabilities, for increasing airportal throughput

C-2

Maximizing the capacity of individual runways and multiple runways with airspace and taxi interactions (closely-spaced parallel and converging/intersecting runways) Minimizing runway incursion threats in all weather conditions Balancing arrival and departure traffic management to enable capacity improvements.

2. Description of Solicited Research The CTD Project is not soliciting research topics at this time. Please continue to monitor this solicitation for future amendments. 3.0 Summary of Key Information Expected annual program budget for new awards Number of new awards pending adequate proposals of merit Maximum duration of awards Due date for Notice of Intent to propose (NOI) Due date for proposals General information and overview of this solicitation Detailed instructions for the preparation and submission of proposals Page limit for the central Science-Technical-Management section of proposal Submission medium Web site for submission of proposal via NSPIRES Expected type of award Funding opportunity number NASA points of contact TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD See the Summary of Solicitation of this NRA. See the NASA Guidebook for Proposers Responding to a NASA Research Announcement 2010 at http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/procurement/nraguidebook/ TBD Electronic proposal submission is required; no hard copy is required. See also Section IV in the Summary of Solicitation of this NRA and Chapter 3 of the NASA Guidebook for Proposers. http://nspires.nasaprs.com/ (help desk available at nspires-help@nasaprs.com or (202) 479-9376) TBD TBD TBD

C-3

C.3 NextGen - Systems Analysis, Integration, and Evaluation Project 1. Project Overview The NextGen Systems Analysis, Integration, and Evaluation (SAIE) Project will conduct systems analysis, integration, and evaluation of key concepts currently being pursued within the surface, terminal, transitional airspace, and en route domains that will provide operational benefits, and demonstrate these integrated capabilities in a relevant environment. Through system analysis, key concepts will be down-selected based on their potential benefit towards increasing efficiency, and then matured and tested in both fast-time and real-time full mission simulations to determine their technical viability. From this testing, a sub-set of these integrated concepts will be further demonstrated and evaluated through field tests integrating both air and ground capabilities. To accomplish this goal, the following SAIE Project technical objectives will be satisfied: Define operational issues, factors and concerns that must be considered in conducting system analysis Assess collective impact of these technologies using fast-time modeling and simulation and feedback results into the baseline program to enhance and validate research concepts Examine the feasibility of the integrated concepts and technologies using human performance models and human-in-the-loop simulations Demonstrate the impact of the integrated concepts and technologies using field trials Assess alternate fleet implications on trajectory based operations Collaborate with industry and government partners to transition technologies that enable increases in capacity and efficiency, while maintaining safety and environmental conditions. 2. Description of Solicited Research The SAIE Project is not soliciting research topics at this time. Please continue to monitor this solicitation for future amendments. 3.0 Summary of Key Information Expected annual program budget for new awards Number of new awards pending adequate proposals of merit Maximum duration of awards TBD TBD TBD

C-4

Due date for Notice of Intent to propose (NOI) Due date for proposals General information and overview of this solicitation Detailed instructions for the preparation and submission of proposals Page limit for the central Science-Technical-Management section of proposal Submission medium Web site for submission of proposal via NSPIRES Expected type of award Funding opportunity number NASA points of contact

TBD TBD See the Summary of Solicitation of this NRA. See the NASA Guidebook for Proposers Responding to a NASA Research Announcement 2010 at http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/procurement/nraguidebook/ TBD Electronic proposal submission is required; no hard copy is required. See also Section IV in the Summary of Solicitation of this NRA and Chapter 3 of the NASA Guidebook for Proposers. http://nspires.nasaprs.com/ (help desk available at nspires-help@nasaprs.com or (202) 479-9376) TBD TBD TBD

C-5

APPENDIX D: Integrated Systems Research Program D.1 Program Overview As the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) evolves, researchers must address the national challenges of mobility, capacity, safety, security, energy and the environment in order to meet the expected growth in air traffic. The Integrated Systems Research Program (ISRP) focuses on maturing and integrating NextGen technologies into major vehicle/operational systems and subsystems that will address these national challenges. Using a system-level approach, NASA researchers explore, assess and demonstrate the benefits of those technologies in a relevant environment. By focusing on technologies that have already proven their merit at the foundational level, this program will help transition them more quickly to the aviation community, as well as inform future foundational research needs. The program synchronizes its work with the longterm, foundational research conducted by other programs within the directorate, and closely coordinates with research efforts of other federal government agencies. The first project within ISRP is the Environmentally Responsible Aviation Project. The primary goal of this project is to select vehicle concepts and technologies that can simultaneously reduce fuel burn, noise and emissions. The awards as a result of this NRA will help to address the national challenges and transition integrated system-level aeronautics technologies quickly to the aviation community. For more information on ISRP and its focus, please visit http://www.aeronautics.nasa.gov/programs_isrp.htm.

D.2 Environmentally Responsible Aviation (ERA) Project 1. Project Overview NASAs Environmentally Responsible Aviation (ERA) Project is the first and, currently, only project under the new Integrated Systems Research Program (ISRP), which started under NASAs Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate (ARMD) in FY 2010. The goal of ISRP is to serve as a technology transition bridge between the lower technology readiness level (TRL) efforts on-going in the fundamental ARMD Programs and higher TRL needs of potential users. NASAs ERA Project will conduct research into technologies and integrated aircraft systems that will allow subsonic transport aircraft entering into service in the 2025 or beyond timeframe to simultaneously reduce noise, emissions and fuel burn. It is believed that to achieve the required aircraft system readiness level (SRL) in this time frame, all critical technologies that could be considered enabling technology need to be at a TRL level of 6 by 2020. NASA subsonic transport system level metrics/goals for ERA are shown in Table 1. As highlighted in the middle column of this table, the ERA Project is focused on the fuel burn (a surrogate for carbon dioxide (CO2)), landing and takeoff (LTO) nitrogen oxide (NOx) and noise goals. Furthermore, ERA will focus energy and resources on maturing certain very promising technologies over the next five years. D-1

Table 1 NASAs Technology Goals for Future Subsonic Vehicles The projected growth of the air transportation system will increase emissions of greenhouse gases, such as CO2, NOx, water vapor, and particulates, and the number of people exposed to airport noise. It is also widely believed that environmental and energy concerns will continue to grow as well, leading to increasingly stringent certification levels for noise and emissions, and an unending requirement for vehicle fuel efficiency improvements. All this must be achieved without adversely affecting the outstanding record of the global aeronautics enterprise for safety, reliability, and security. It is for these reasons that the ERA project chose the simultaneous reduction of noise, emissions and fuel burn as the focus. The proposed vehicle concept(s) must efficiently operate within the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) that is currently being developed. Results of this study are meant to be complementary to other ongoing U. S. Government led programs listed in Table 2. Agency Project or Activity CLEEN Funded Years FY10FY14 Vehicle Focus N+1 Proposed TRL 6-7 Goal: Major Reduction/ Minor Reduction Noise Emissions Fuel burn DoD ADVENT/ HEETE/ AD-HEETE FY10FY14 N+2 >6 Fuel burn Noise Emissions

FAA

D-2

NASA

ERA

FY10FY15

N+2

4-6

Simultaneous Noise Emissions Fuel Burn

NASA

SFW & SUP

FY10FY15

N+3

2-4

Noise Emissions Fuel Burn

DoD

RCEE

FY10FY14

Beyond N+3

2-6

Fuel Burn Emissions Noise

Table 2 - Complementary Government Research Programs*

* CLEEN = Continuous Lower Energy, Emissions and Noise ADVENT = Emissions and Noise Adaptive Versatile Engine Technology HEETE = Highly Efficient Embedded Turbine Engine SFW = Subsonic Fixed Wing; SUP = Supersonics RCEE = Revolutionary Configurations for Energy Efficiency

The NASA ERA Project has been organized into two distinct phases as seen in Figure 1 below. Phase 1 began in FY2010, and will run until the end of FY 2012. Phase 1 has approximately thirty research efforts divided into three sub-projects, each with a project engineer responsible for guiding those efforts. Many of the current research projects transitioned from NASAs Fundamental Aeronautics Programs Subsonic Fixed Wing Project and are technologies believed ready to advance to TRL 6. The three ERA subprojects are: 1) Airframe Technology, which includes research into lightweight structures, flight dynamics and control, drag reduction, and noise reduction; 2) Propulsion Technology, which includes research into combustors, propulsor concepts, and the core engine; and 3) Vehicle Systems Integration, which includes research in systems analysis, Propulsion Airframe Integration (PAI), Propulsion Airframe Aeroacoustics (PAA), and advanced vehicle concepts. Additional information on the ERA Project can be found on the ISRP website (http://www.aeronautics.nasa.gov/programs_isrp.htm).

D-3

Figure 1- ERA project flow and annual budget Phase 2, which is planned to begin in FY 2013 and run for the remainder of the ERA project, will be focused on a relatively small number of key technology demonstrations (perhaps 3 to 5) that either show significant promise towards meeting the ERA project goals or perhaps represent enabling technologies. These could be extensions of the ERA Phase 1 work, new technologies, or new system integration work. This solicitation and subsequent studies are expected to provide a menu of potential ERA Phase 2 investigations for NASA consideration. 1.1 Overview of Solicited Research This NRA solicitation will focus on developing advanced vehicle concepts and their enabling technologies that have high potential to simultaneously meet all three NASA N+2 subsonic transport system level metrics and test campaigns that increase the TRL of both the concepts and their technologies. The first research component is the advanced vehicle concepts study whose purpose is to identify advanced integrated vehicle concepts and component technology concepts that will allow subsonic transport aircraft to simultaneously meet the NASA system level goals of reduced noise, emissions and fuel burn in the 2025 (or beyond) time frame as defined in Table 1. This study will define Preferred Systems Concepts (PSC). These advanced vehicle concepts must operate efficiently within the NextGen airspace system that is currently being developed. It is believed that to achieve the required aircraft system readiness level (SRL) in this time frame, all critical technologies that could be considered enabling technology need to be D-4

at a TRL level of 6 by 2020. NASA anticipates awarding up to 4 teams to conduct the advanced vehicle concepts study. There are two additional research components to this solicitation. These are options that the government may fund pending the results of the advanced vehicle concepts study. These options are as follows: Option 1: Preliminary Design of an ERA/UAS Subscale Testbed Vehicle Option 2: Risk Reduction Testing and Assessment to Validate the Preliminary Design of an ERA/UAS Subscale Testbed Vehicle

Option 1 is focused on the development of a preliminary design for an ERA/UAS subscale testbed vehicle. The objective of this subscale flight test vehicle is to demonstrate a subscale version of the design teams PSC incorporating in an integrated fashion key enabling technologies required to simultaneously meet the ERA noise, emissions, and fuel burn goals. An emerging new project under ISRP will develop and assess technologies and techniques that will allow the routine operation of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) in the National Airspace System (NAS). The second objective for the proposed subscale flight test vehicle is as a testbed and demonstrator of UAS in the NAS capabilities and technologies that will be developed under this new project. It is desired that the design of the subscale testbed vehicle accommodate the insertion of these technologies for both development and demonstration purposes in the 2015 and beyond timeframe. These key technologies shall address issues such as separation assurance and collision avoidance, robust command, control and communications, remote pilot-vehicle interface issues, and environmental hazards detection/avoidance to name just a few. Option 2, risk reduction testing and assessment of the proposers subscale testbed vehicle design concept, will be performed as part of the preliminary design study. Only those awardees selected for Option 1 will be eligible for Option 2. The purpose of Option 2 is to increase the probability of the subscale testbed vehicle successfully meeting its goals. It is envisioned that this testing would include scale-model tests that provide information necessary to validate the subscale testbed vehicle preliminary design methods. Risk reduction evaluations may include boundary layer control experiments and PAI tests that may be needed, along with traditional low speed and transonic test cycles usually performed as part of preliminary design. The ERA Projects goals for Options 1 & 2 are to: Reduce the risk for the technologies / integrations that are critical enablers for the proposed 2025 entry into service (EIS) of the PSC Provide critical validation data for predictive methods required for design of a full scale PSC, and provide quantitative evidence that the N+2 fuel burn, emissions and noise goals can be met by the PSC Provide a preliminary design of a flexible subscale testbed vehicle for future flight campaigns. These flight campaigns will provide quantitative evidence that the D-5

N+2 fuel burn, emissions, and noise goals can be met by the PSC and will evaluate technologies needed for integrating UAS into the NAS. Specifically,
the testbed vehicle should be capable of operation in piloted, remotely piloted, and fully autonomous modes in order to demonstrate UAS operations in the NAS.

The solicitation period of performance is 27 months in total. The schedule of the proposed research activities in this NRA solicitation is shown in Table 3 below. The Advanced Vehicle Concepts Study duration will be 12 months, with final written contractor reports due 12 months after award. A Conceptual Design Review will be held 9 months after the start of the study. At the conclusion of the Conceptual Design Review, NASA will conduct a technical evaluation and make a down-selection with up to 2 design teams selected to move forward to the Preliminary Design (Option 1) and Risk Reduction Testing and Assessment (Option 2). NASA anticipates the completion of the downselection process to enable a start of Option 1 and Option 2 during the 10th month. The period of performance of Options 1 and 2 will be from months 10 through 27 after the start of the Advanced Vehicle Concepts Study.
Solicitation Research Components Advanced Vehicle System Concepts Study Period of Performance Upon Award Date 10 mo. 12 mo. 15 mo. 24 mo. Final Report Due

No. of Awards Up to 4 teams

9 mo. Preferred System Concepts (PSCs) Baseline Conceptual Design Review Proposal due

27 mo.

Option 1. Preliminary Design of an ERA/UAS Subscale Testbed Vehicle

Up to 2 teams

-Downselection process completed -Costshared design effort begins Negotiation with Design Teams for selection of cost shared testing; -Risk reduction testing begins

System Design & System Req. Review

Preliminary Design Review (PDR)

Final Report Due

Option 2. Risk Reduction Testing and Assessment to Validate Preliminary Design of an ERA/UAS Subscale Testbed Vehicle

Proposal Due

Present Results to date

Completion of Risk Reduction Testing, Present validation at Preliminary Design Review (PDR)

D-6

Table 3 Schedule of Research Efforts 2. N+2 Advanced Vehicle Concepts 2.1 Description of Solicited Research This solicitation is intended to identify advanced integrated vehicle and component technology concepts that will allow subsonic transport aircraft to simultaneously meet the NASA subsonic transport system level goals of reduced noise, emissions and fuel burn in the 2025 (or beyond) time frame. These advanced vehicle concepts must operate efficiently within the NextGen airspace system that is currently being developed. It is believed that to achieve required aircraft SRL in this time frame, all critical technologies that could be considered enabling technology need to be at a TRL level of 6 by 2020. The results of this study are meant to be complementary to a number of on-going and planned government programs such as the FAAs CLEEN program, NASAs SFW Project, and a number of Department of Defense programs as identified in Table 2. Highly integrated propulsion/airframe concepts or other significant configuration changes (vs. todays tube-and-wing) will most likely be required to simultaneously meet ERAs noise, emission and fuel burn goals. Development of Preferred Systems Concepts (PSC) for both cargo and passenger aircraft concepts will be required under this solicitation. The passenger vehicle mission should be capable of an 8,000 nm range with a 50,000pound payload, and the cargo/freighter mission will have a 6,500 nm range with a 100,000-pound payload. The required cruise Mach number is 0.85. Alternative concepts may be proposed that optimize at Mach numbers as low as 0.70 in order to highlight the sensitivity of fuel burn to speed, however at a minimum, a 0.85 concept is required. These range and payload requirements were chosen to focus the research toward long haul vehicle classes. In addition, the sensitivity of these concepts to both increases and decreases in the range, payload, or Mach number requirements are desired such that the limits of the extensibility to other missions can be defined. A significant objective of this study is to develop technology maturation plans that outline the research required to develop the technologies and integrated aircraft systems critical to simultaneously meeting the noise, emission and fuel burn goals. A requirement is the development of a 15-year time phased technology maturation plan that would enable the envisioned aircraft system concept(s) to enter service (market permitting) by 2025. Starting and ending TRLs and SRLs must be identified as part of the technology maturation plan. Contractor specific definitions of these terms (TRL and SRL) shall be provided. Another very important aspect of the technology maturation plan is an understanding and prioritization of those critical technology demonstrations that must be performed in the FY 2013-2015 time frame. These key technology demonstrations may be regarded as those that enable the PSC and/or represent those critical technologies that must be addressed initially. It is the goal of ERA to mature these identified critical technologies to TRL 6 in the 2013-2015 timeframe. D-7

2.1.1 Integration into NextGen NextGen, or the Next Generation Air Transportation System, refers to a wide-ranging initiative to transform the current air transportation system so that it can maintain or improve safety while increasing its capacity and reducing delays. It focuses on leveraging new technologies, such as satellite-based navigation, surveillance, and networking, however new airframe technologies such as wake vortex alleviation technologies to permit closer spacing may also contribute to the transformation. The initiative involves meaningful collaboration among government departments and agencies as well as companies in the aerospace and related industries. A critical element of this study will be an analysis of how the PSC will integrate into NextGen. In order to accomplish this analysis, the following three steps must be completed: 1. Based on the Joint Planning and Development Office (JPDO) and NextGen documentation (see http://www.jpdo.gov/library.asp), define what NextGen will be in 2025 for both enroute mission segments and terminal area segments. This will require making assumptions regarding the technology and resource levels available and successfully applied between now and 2025. This assumed NextGen environment is required to assess the integration of the PSC. 2. Utilizing the projected NextGen environment from the previous step, analyze the integration of the PSC into this operational environment. How will both the terminal area and en route operations change under the projected 2025 environment? How will the PSC, when integrated into the fleet, affect noise contours and LTO NOx and particulate and carbon emissions at a given airport where long-range transports represent a large fraction of the daily operations. Proposers may choose any U.S. airport where long-range transports represent a large fraction of daily operations to perform this analysis. 3. Identify any key requirements that should be provided to NASAs Airspace Systems Program and to the JPDO to enable optimal integration of the PSC into the NextGen environment. 4. Identify key requirements that will enable the PSC cargo aircraft to operate autonomously in the NAS in 2025 or beyond. This element (Section 2.1.1) should not be more than 10% of the total effort. 2.1.2 Noise The study shall identify technologies to meet the N+2 noise goal. The ultimate national goal for noise reduction is to contain objectionable noise within airport boundaries. The Environmental Protection Agency established in 1973 that, to protect health and welfare with an adequate margin of safety, outdoor noise exposure should be no more than 55 dB Day Night Level (DNL). The N+3 noise goal of -71 dB cumulative below stage 4 noise certification standards is related to achieving this ultimate noise reduction goal at the aircraft level. The N+2 metric of -42 dB cum below stage 4 represents an aggressive, but feasible interim milestone on the path towards achieving the N+3 goal that, when fully implemented for all aircraft, has the potential to contain the 65 dB DNL noise contour for D-8

most U.S. airports within the compatible land use areas. It is anticipated that this goal will require technology improvements like innovative shielding, but can also include new flight procedures such as Optimized Profile Descents (OPDs), which include such operations as Continuous Descent Approach and steeper glide path angles. 2.1.3 Emissions The primary emissions goal is to reduce LTO NOx by 75% relative to CAEP 6 standards. While LTO NOx is currently emphasized, NASA recognizes that the emphasis on other emissions related to local and global environmental and health issues may become equal to, or greater than, LTO NOx in the future. As such, the study shall also identify technologies to reduce cruise NOx and CO2, mitigate global warming effects of water vapor; and reduce aerosols and solid particulates that contribute to the formation of aircraft induced cirrus clouds; and reduce the emission of Particulate Matter (PM) 2.5. It is expected that other vehicle classes will benefit from the technologies developed for the focused N+2 vehicle concept. It should be recognized that the ERA Project has an existing NRA solicitation specifically targeting combustor technology and reductions in LTO NOx through efficient combustor design. Studies performed under this NRA should be complementary to those performed under the Low NOx Fuel Flexible Combustor Research NRA, not duplicative. 2.1.4 Performance (Fuel Burn) To minimize aircraft operating costs and environmental impact, it is necessary that improved energy efficiency be continued into the 2025 timeframe and considered for this study. Toward this end, a goal of reducing fuel burn by at least 50% compared to a 1998 EIS reference vehicle has been set for this study. It is anticipated that this ambitious goal will be met through a combination of airframe, engine, and integrated vehicle efficiency improvements, including the use of unconventional airframe configurations, alternative engine cycles, and alternative fuels. If an alternative fuel is used in the design, multidisciplinary differences in fuel characteristics (e.g. energy density, and therefore fuel tank volume) must be considered. Also, for the purpose of this research, the energy used does not include the energy required to manufacture, refine, transport, or store the fuel prior to being loaded onto the aircraft. 2.1.5 Performance (Field Length) Proposers may choose to address the runway length goal for the N+2 timeframe. However, runway length is not a primary concern for the ERA project. This could be important for certain concepts of operation in the NextGen airspace system where additional gains in fuel burn performance may be possible through operational improvements in landing and terminal area performance which may contribute to overall reduction in delays and increase in throughput. 2.1.6 Mission

D-9

Two variants of the PSC shall be designed; a passenger and cargo version. The passenger version shall be capable of carrying 50,000 lb of payload (224 passengers in three-class seating and their baggage) on an 8,000 nm range mission with a cruise Mach number of 0.85. The cargo version shall be capable of carrying 100,000 lb of payload on a 6,500 nm range mission with a cruise M = 0.85. Alternative concepts may be proposed that optimize at Mach numbers as low as 0.70 in order to highlight the sensitivity of fuel burn to speed, however at a minimum, a 0.85 concept is required. Figure 2 shows the mission profile ground rules that shall be utilized in this study.

Figure 2: Mission profile for PSC design and sizing 2.1.7 UAS Testbed The subscale testbed vehicle should be designed to test integrated technologies that are critical to the success of the PSC as well as provide a flexible testbed for future flight campaigns for integrating UAS into the NAS. Specifically, the testbed vehicle
should be capable of operation in piloted, remotely piloted, and fully autonomous modes in order to demonstrate UAS operations in the NAS. It

should also address issues related to separation assurance and collision avoidance, robust command, control and communications, remote pilot-vehicle interface issues, and environmental hazards detection/avoidance to name a few. 2.1.8 Relationship to other Government Programs.

D-10

The research conducted under this task should be complementary to a number of ongoing and planned government research efforts shown in Table 2 above. This study is intended to be a focused research effort leading to multiple integrated research experiments at the TRL level of 6. 2.2 Key Tasks The Advanced Vehicle Concepts Study is required to establish credibility, and provide traceability for the PSC benefits. Therefore, the system study shall include, at a minimum, passenger and cargo versions of the following: 1998 EIS conventional configuration reference vehicle 2025 EIS conventional configuration vehicle 2025 EIS advanced configuration vehicle, termed the Preferred System Concept (PSC)

The 1998 EIS reference vehicles serve to calibrate capabilities and establish the credibility of the results. The 2025 EIS conventional configuration and advanced configuration vehicles establish how much of the improvement toward the goals stated in Table 1 are attributable to the use of advanced technologies, and how much is attributable to the vehicle configurations defined for the PSC. The 2025 EIS vehicles shall be designed to the current mission profile ground rules shown in Figure 2, and will also be designed for the projected NextGen airspace system in order to obtain an incremental estimate for operationally derived performance benefits. The study shall produce: Task 1: 2025 EIS Projected Future Scenario A credible projected future scenario within which to describe the challenges that may be facing subsonic transport aircraft operators in the 2025 and beyond timeframe in the NextGen airspace system. This scenario establishes a context within which the passenger and cargo Preferred System Concepts (PSCs) may meet a market need and enter into service. Task 2: Preferred System Concepts Data Packages At least two Preferred System Concepts (PSC), (one passenger vehicle and one cargo vehicle) whose mission capabilities meet or exceed the mission requirements noted above, while simultaneously meeting the NASA subsonic transport N+2 system level goals stated in Table 1. Concept data packages for the 1998 EIS reference vehicle, the 2025 EIS baseline vehicle and the PSC must include at a minimum: Mission requirements, including range, payload, cruise Mach No., and take-off (balanced field length) and landing distances.

D-11

Configuration geometry/dimensions (component areas, aspect ratios, taper ratios, quarter-cord sweeps, tip to chord ratios (t/cs), etc. when applicable), dimensioned three-view, internal arrangement drawing, description of subsystems, and key overall sizing constraints. Low speed and cruise drag polars, including detailed drag buildups. Short group weight statement. Mission performance parameters including total fuel burn and fuel burn per mission segment, cruise altitude, cruise L/D, noise certification numbers, and emissions. Propulsion system total weight/overall dimensions (length, max diameter), including a detailed weight breakdown by component. List of the projected materials envisioned, by component. Propulsion performance data at key flight conditions (e.g., sea-level static, rolling takeoff, enroute climb, top-of-climb, cruise). Include engine level parameters - net thrust, ram drag, and SFC. Component level parameters such as component mass flow, total pressure ratio, total temperature ratio, appropriate efficiency parameter, and cooling requirements, as applicable, at each key flight condition. APU and other auxiliary systems are included in this, especially if they augment the aerodynamics.

Task 3: Technology Maturation Plans: 15-Year Roadmaps Technology maturation plans (TMPs) that outline the research required to develop the technologies and integrated aircraft systems critical to simultaneously meeting the noise, emission and fuel burn goals for the PSCs defined above. A requirement is the development of a 15-year time-phased TMP/roadmap that would enable EIS of the envisioned aircraft system concept(s) by 2025. Starting and ending TRL and SRL must be identified as part of the technology maturation plan. Contractor specific definitions of these terms (TRL and SRL) shall be provided. Key research, analyses, tool and method development, and necessary ground and flight tests required to mature the technology or successfully address the technical challenge in time to support the 2025 EIS date for the PSC are desired. These 15-year technology maturation roadmaps should define credible intermediate performance objectives (go/no go criteria) associated with critical tests and demonstrations. The estimated cost, schedule and expected technical outcome for each major element of the roadmap should be clearly detailed. These TMPs will span 20102025, well beyond the timeframe of the current ERA Project. This information should be detailed enough to support the advocacy of possible follow-on ISRP (or other NASA Program) projects as required and should therefore contain cost, performance and schedule estimates of sufficient quality to support strategic program planning. Task 4: Prioritized List of Time-Critical Technology Demonstrations for FY 2013-2015 A prioritized list of suggested time critical technology demonstrations that must be performed in the FY 2013 through FY2015 time frame. These key technology demonstrations may be regarded as those that enable the preferred vehicle concepts and/or represent those critical technologies that must be addressed initially within ERA D-12

Phase II. For each critical technology, an FY 2013 through FY2015 roadmap must be developed to provide costs, a detailed technology maturation plan with key research, analyses, tool and method development, and necessary ground and flight tests required, background information to set the context, current status including TRL level, a risk assessment and the technologys applicability across the vehicle classes (i.e., sensitivity information - how does the technology scale beyond the PSC?). These sensitivity studies will identify a technologys contribution towards achieving the ERA goal of simultaneously meeting the N+2 noise, fuel burn and emission metrics. Important collaborative research opportunities should be highlighted where they exist. The critical technology roadmaps should be grouped into each of the four major sub-groups of critical demonstrations: Propulsion only: The technology or technical challenge exists primarily within the propulsion system and can be addressed at the propulsion system component level. Example: test low NOx combustor system within existing engine testbed. Airframe only: The technology or technical challenge exists primarily within the airframe and can be addressed at the airframe component level. Example: Apply riblets to existing airframe for viscous drag reduction. Integrated Propulsion and Airframe only: The technology or technical challenge can only be adequately addressed through integrated propulsion airframe analysis and testing. Example: Bifurcated engine in wing installation for ultra high bypass ratio engine. Integrated Vehicle Testbed Only: The technology or technical challenge requires analysis and testing of a fullsize, fully integrated testbed vehicle (i.e., X-plane or Y-plane).

Given the need for the ERA project to retain flexibility for program planning and execution, each major sub-group roadmap should contain a matrix or menu of options starting with the ideal list of critical demonstrations for FY2013 through FY 2015 and showing trade-offs between scale, complexity, schedule, cost and risk for each major element. Alternate test techniques, ranges, test assets and risk levels should be assessed and presented for each of the key technical challenges. As an example, the Integrated Vehicle Testbed matrix should provide a range of options based on varying the scale of the testbed resulting in a trade between cost, schedule, and technical viability. The combination of the four major sub-groups of critical demonstrations should form a coherent and comprehensive roadmap for FY2012 through FY2015 that should be consistent with and traceable to the 15-year PSC TMP. Each prioritized list of critical technology demonstrations will help guide future ERA (and other NASA aeronautics) investment decisions, and should therefore contain cost, performance and schedule estimates of sufficient quality to support detailed program planning. Task 5: Conceptual Design of an ERA/UAS Subscale Testbed Vehicle

D-13

The objective of Task 5 is to develop the conceptual design of an ERA/UAS subscale testbed vehicle that through flight research would reduce the risk associated with designing and building a full scale vehicle based on the proposers PSC. The objective of this subscale flight test vehicle is to demonstrate a subscale version of the design teams PSC that demonstrates in an integrated fashion key enabling technologies required to simultaneously meet the ERA noise, emissions, and fuel burn goals. The contractor must present a clear and quantifiable developmental path to the PSC from the ERA/UAS subscale testbed vehicle. The vehicle should be designed to test integrated technologies that are critical to the success of the PSC as well as provide a flexible testbed for future flight campaigns for integrating UAS into the National Airspace System (NAS). Specifically, the testbed
vehicle should be capable of operation in piloted, remotely piloted, and fully autonomous modes in order to demonstrate UAS operations in the NAS. It

should also address issues related to separation assurance and collision avoidance, robust command, control and communications, remote pilot-vehicle interface issues, and environmental hazards detection/avoidance to name just a few. The cruise Mach number of the ERA/UAS subscale testbed vehicle must match the PSC design cruise speed. The ERA/UAS subscale testbed vehicle must have retractable landing gear. It is expected that the ERA/UAS subscale testbed vehicle will eventually be remotely piloted or autonomous, in order to demonstrate UAS operations in the NAS. Options for initial operation (manned, remotely piloted, autonomous) should be explored during the study with factors such as cost, operational flexibility and research potential taken into account. The proposed ERA/UAS subscale testbed vehicle design must be traceable to, and reduce the risk of, the PSC that complies with the long range N+2 Advanced Vehicle Concept mission profile for a 2025 EIS. Proposers must provide a bid on the following work deliverables and present the following products at the Conceptual Design Review (to be held 9 months after award): a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. Vehicle Description Design Reference Flight Mission(s) Concept of Operations System Requirements Option 1 Preliminary Design Implementation Plan Option 1 Preliminary Design Cost and Schedule ROM Cost and Schedule for Subscale Testbed Vehicle Build Option 2 Preliminary Design Test And Evaluation Plan with cost and scheduleRisk reduction testing and assessments during Preliminary Design Phase i. Cost-share funding details for Options 1 and 2 2.3 Reviews, Reports and Schedule

D-14

A combination of monthly progress reports, oral presentations/reviews and a final written report suitable for publication are required. The tables below list the proposed reviews and reporting requirements for the 12 month period of performance. 2.3.1 Reports A combination of monthly progress reports, oral presentations and a final written report suitable for publication are required. Short monthly progress reports are expected. The information in these reports will be one of the factors used to determine whether adequate progress has been made. These reports should focus on key activities and the current progress against the planned cost, schedule and performance profile. They should be approximately 10 pages in length. In an attempt to provide the ERA project with the best insight into the progress of the study, the monthly reports are not expected to be publically available. The final report for the advanced vehicle concept study will be delivered at the end of the 12th month after award. The final report will be published as a NASA Contractor Report (CR). A public version of the final report as well as a government only version of the final report will be required. The release schedule of the content in the public version of the advanced vehicle concepts final report must be specified.

2.3.2 Meetings/Reviews/Updates Kick-off Meeting (1st week after award) The successful proposers will host one-day kick-off meetings at their facility where the critical mass of the effort will be executed. This meeting will enable the government and contractor to review the recently agreed to contractor technical plans and schedules to ensure the work effort is clearly understood by all stakeholders. 3-Month Review (3 months after award) A one-day, informal technical review will be hosted by the contractor at approximately the three-month point. This may be held electronically with remote participation by the government team. The purpose is to review the 3 month progress and identify any problems or issues that could prevent successful completion of the effort. Preferred System Concept Review (6 months after award) The contractor team will host a Preferred System Concept Review in the sixth month to review the first completed iteration on the PSC design and associated Technology Maturation Plan (TMP). Conceptual Design Review (9 months after award) A Conceptual Design Review will be held 3 months after the Preferred System Concept Review. At this review, the PSC and TMP baselines are due per the Schedule for Reviews/Reports/Presentation Deliverables Table shown below. In addition, Task 5 deliverables defined in Section 2.4 are due per the Schedule for D-15

Reviews/Reports/Presentation Deliverables Table shown below. Based on the data submitted at this review, the government will downselect to 2 design teams to execute Option 1 and 2. All design teams awarded to conduct the advanced vehicle concepts study (Tasks 1-4) will continue for an additional 3 months to complete the final report which is due at the end of the 12th month after award. 12 Month- Final Presentation (Public) A public meeting will be held to present the advanced vehicle concepts study research results. This meeting will be held at a NASA Center within the 12th month of the award. The purpose is to provide a comprehensive review of the work effort of all participants. If desired, a government only session after the public session is an option that can be proposed. Meetings/Reviews 3-Month Preferred Review System Concept Review WebEx telecon 3 months after award (1 day) @ Proposer Site 6 months after award (1 day)

Kick-off Meeting

Conceptual Design Review @ Proposer Site 9 months after award (1 day)

Final Presentation Meeting @ NASA Location Within the 12-month after award

Location Date

@ Proposer Site 1 week after award (1 day)

Schedule & Location

Report/ Presentation Material Due Date

Schedule for Reviews/Reports/Presentation Deliverables Technical, 3-Month Preferred Conceptual Cost and Review System Concept Design Schedule (PSC) Review Review Status Reports Monthly One week One week after One week excluding after end of the end of 6 after the end Review 3 months months @ of 9 months Months Proposers Site @ Proposers Site 2 weeks after 1 week prior 1 week prior to 2 weeks prior end of month to 3-Month PSC Review to Conceptual Review date Design Review

Final Presentation Meeting During the 12th month of the contract @ NASA Location 1 week prior to Presentation Meeting

2.4 Deliverables

D-16

Presentation materials required for the Reviews are specified in the table below. Each deliverable describes the type of information that the ERA Project is expecting to see presented at the various reviews and the level of fidelity / completion the Project expects that data to be at for each presentation. Select review deliverables require both a presentation as well as a document version of the deliverable (see Task 2 and 5 deliverables). The document version of the specified deliverable can be provided in an electronic format for all reviews except for the final contractor reports (both public release and government only) which will require electronic as well as hardcopy versions. It is expected that each deliverable requiring a document format will stand alone. This requirement will enable dissemination of all review materials to the appropriate review panel subject matter experts. A compiled document of the Advanced Vehicle Concepts work is expected as part of the final contractor reports (both public release and government only). Advanced Vehicle Concepts Study Review / Presentation Deliverables Task 1: Projected Future Scenario for EIS 2025 Description of the challenges that may be facing subsonic transport aircraft operators in the 2025 and beyond timeframe in the NextGen airspace system. This scenario establishes a context within which the passenger and cargo Preferred System Concepts (PSCs) may meet a market need and enter into service. Task 2: Concept Data Packages (6 total, 3 each cargo and passenger) -EIS 1998, EIS 2025, EIS 2025 (PSC) (described above in Task 2 of Section 2.2). Task 3: Technology Maturation Plans 15-Year Roadmaps Technology maturation plans (TMPs) that outline the research required to develop the technologies and integrated aircraft systems critical to simultaneously meeting the noise, emission and fuel burn goals for the PSCs defined above. A requirement is the development of a 15-year time phased technology maturation plan that would enable the envisioned aircraft system concept(s) by 2025. Starting and ending TRL and SRL must be identified as part of the technology maturation plan. Contractor specific definitions of these terms (TRL and SRL) shall be provided. Key research, analyses, tool and method development, and necessary ground and flight tests required to mature the technology or successfully address the technical challenge in time to support the 2025 EIS date for the PSC are desired. The PSC 15-Year Roadmaps should define credible intermediate performance objectives (go/no go criteria) associated with critical tests and demonstrations. The estimated cost, schedule and expected technical outcome for each major element of the roadmap should be clearly detailed. Task 4: Prioritized List of Time-Critical Technology Demonstrations for FY 2013 through FY2015

D-17

Identify key technology demonstrations that enable the preferred vehicle concepts and/or represent those critical technologies that must be addressed initially within ERA Phase II. For each critical technology, the FY2013 through 2015 Roadmap should provide costs, a detailed technology maturation plan with key research, analyses, tool and method development, and necessary ground and flight tests required, background information to set the context, current status including TRL level, a risk assessment and the technologys applicability across the vehicle classes (i.e., sensitivity information how does the technology scale beyond the PSC?). The list should be divided up by technology demonstration category: Propulsion Only: The technology or technical challenge exists primarily within the propulsion system and can be addressed at the propulsion system component level. Airframe Only: The technology or technical challenge exists primarily within the airframe and can be addressed at the airframe component level. Integrated Propulsion-Airframe: The technology or technical challenge can only be adequately addressed through integrated propulsion airframe analysis and testing. Full-size Integrated Testbed Vehicle: The technology or technical challenge requires analysis and testing of a full-size, fully integrated testbed vehicle (i.e., X-plane or Y-plane). For each technology demonstration category address the following: Provide background information to set the context, current status including TRL level, a risk assessment and the technologys applicability across the vehicle classes (i.e., sensitivity information how does the technology scale beyond the PSC?). For each critical technology, the roadmap should provide costs, a detailed technology maturation plan with key research, analyses, tool and method development, and necessary ground and flight tests required. Results from sensitivity studies that identify a technologys contribution towards achieving the ERA goal of simultaneously meeting the N+2 noise, fuel burn and emission metrics. Identify important collaborative research opportunities.

Task 5: Review/ Presentation Deliverables The deliverables listed for Task 5 should be developed to a level of detail and rigor required for a conceptual design, but no further. They have been grouped by document, but they do not need to be in their own separate document. Unless otherwise noted, written documentation for each document group is not required prior to the Conceptual Design Review. Task 5a: Vehicle Description The purpose of this document is to capture the description of the ERA/UAS subscale testbed vehicle and the state of the current vehicle design. Dimensioned three-view drawing with table of geometric data itemized by component D-18

Short Group Weight Statement Similarity Ratios and Scaling Internal arrangement drawing Performance predictions Electrical Power Requirements Vehicle System Definitions (description, driving requirements, system schematics) Airframe Structure Propulsion and Fuel System Flight Controls Avionics System (Architecture, Guidance, Navigation & Control) Command, Control and Data Handling UAS specific systems ensuring separation assurance and collision avoidance, robust command, control and communications, environmental hazards detection/avoidance, resilient flight operations Flight Software Environmental Controls Landing Gear Research Instrumentation Payload /Cargo Capability External Interfaces Ground Operations Interfaces Future capability for testing in and integration (including autonomous operations) into the NAS

Task 5b: Design Reference Flight Mission (DRFM) The purpose of this document is to define the reference flight missions and envelopes that the ERA/UAS subscale testbed vehicle has been designed for. Subscale testbed vehicle description Design mission description Vehicle Flight Envelope Flight Test Objectives Task 5c: Concept of Operations The purpose of this document is to define the operational concept that the ERA/UAS subscale testbed vehicle will be operated under throughout its lifetime. Appropriate topics to address in this document would include (but not be limited to); manned (safety pilot option), remotely piloted or autonomous (or degree of each) for UAS integration into the NAS operations; assembly location vs. first flight location and transportation between those sites; vehicle modularity for future technology spirals; level of software and hardware V&V required; and operational contingencies for off nominal vehicle behavior, etc. This outline of the operational concept will be used to derive the system level functions and requirements that the vehicle must satisfy. Task 5d: System Requirements

D-19

The purpose of this document is to define the functional and performance requirements for the ERA/UAS subscale testbed vehicle system. Additionally define the verification methods (inspection, test, demonstration, analysis) for each of the identified functional or performance requirement. Task 5e: Option 1 Preliminary Design Implementation Plan The purpose of this document is to describe the strategy and implementation approach as well as the work breakdown structure (WBS) and organizational structure for developing a preliminary design of an ERA/UAS subscale testbed vehicle based on the proposers PSC. Task 5f: Option 1 Preliminary Design Cost and Schedule Credible cost and schedule provided for completion of the next phase (preliminary design) of the design cycle of the ERA/UAS subscale testbed vehicle. Task 5g: ERA/UAS Subscale Testbed Vehicle Cost and Schedule Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) cost and resource loaded- schedule for completion of the ERA/UAS subscale testbed vehicle design from Preliminary Design Review to Detail Design Phase through fabrication, assembly, test and verification and validation. Task 5h: Option 2 - Risk Reduction Testing and Assessment during Preliminary Design Plan with Cost and Schedule The purpose of this document is to define the experimental risk reduction testing and assessment plan to be conducted during the preliminary design phase (Option 1) to validate the proposed Preliminary Design of the ERA/UAS subscale testbed vehicle. The plan provides credible cost and schedule for the proposed tests with cost share content identified. Task 5i: Cost share funding details for Options 1 and 2 A 50% cost share is required for Options 1 and 2. The purpose of this document is to describe the potential cost-share funding to take the subscale testbed vehicle design to PDR and to conduct risk reduction testing and assessment in support of the preliminary design activity. Reviews/Reports/Presentation Deliverables
Advanced Vehicle Concept Study Product/ Deliverables Task 1. Projected Future Scenario for EIS 2025 Task 2. Concept Data Packages (6 total, 3 each cargo and passenger): -EIS 1998 -EIS 2025 3-Month Review Draft Draft PSC Review Preliminary Preliminary (Presentation and Document) Conceptual Design Review FinalAnnotate Update data BaselineAnnotate Update data (Presentation and Document) Final Presentation Review Presentation Presentation

D-20

-EIS 2025 (PSC) Task 3. Technology Maturation Plans 15-Year Roadmaps Task 4. Prioritized List of Time-Critical Technology Demonstrations for FY 2013 through FY2015 Task 5a. Vehicle Description Task 5b. Design Reference Flight Mission (DRFM) Task 5c. Concept of Operations Task 5d. System Requirements Task 5e. Option 1 Preliminary Design Implementation Plan Task 5f. Option 1 Preliminary Design Study Cost and Schedule Task 5g. ERA/UAS Subscale Testbed Vehicle Cost and Schedule Task 5h. Option 2 - Risk Reduction Testing and Assessment during Preliminary Design Plan with Cost and Schedule Task 5i. Cost share plan

Outline

Preliminary Preliminary

Final Final

Presentation Presentation

Draft (Presentation and Document) Draft (Presentation and Document) Draft (Presentation and Document)

Preliminary (Presentation and Document) Preliminary (Presentation and Document) Preliminary and Document Draft (Presentation and Document) Final (Presentation and Document) Final (Presentation and Document) ROM (Presentation and Document) Final (Presentation and Document) Presentation and Document

Presentation Presentation Presentation Presentation Presentation Presentation Presentation Presentation

Draft (Presentation and Document) Draft (Presentation and Document)

Draft (Presentation and Document)

Presentation

Final Contractor Report

o o

All the above deliverables A public version of the final report as well as a government only version of the final report will be required

To be delivered at the conclusion of the 12th month of the solicitations period of performance

2.5 Relevant ERA Milestone By FY2013, the ERA project will determine what tasks, tests, and technologies it will choose to perform and to focus on in Phase 2 of the project, which runs from FY2013 through FY2015 as shown in Figure 1. The results of these studies will play a major role in informing those decisions.

D-21

3. Option 1: ERA/UAS Subscale Testbed Vehicle Preliminary Design Option 1 will require the development of a preliminary design for an ERA/UAS subscale testbed vehicle. The purpose of Option 1 is to continue refining the conceptual design of the ERA/UAS subscale testbed vehicle to preliminary design. At the conclusion of this study in 2012, the ERA Project intends to use the results to advocate for future budget augmentations to build and test an ERA/UAS subscale testbed vehicle. The contractor must present a clear and quantifiable developmental path to the PSC from the ERA/UAS subscale testbed vehicle. The vehicle should be designed to test integrated technologies that are critical to the success of the PSC as well as provide a flexible testbed for future flight campaigns that will validate technology needed for integrating UAS into the National Airspace System (NAS). Specifically, the testbed vehicle
should be capable of operation in piloted, remotely piloted, and fully autonomous modes in order to demonstrate UAS operations in the NAS,

separation assurance and collision avoidance, ensuring robust command, control and communications, and environmental hazards detection/avoidance to name just a few. Up to two design teams, chosen from the participants in the Advanced Vehicle Concepts Study, may be selected to continue through the preliminary design phase, culminating in a Preliminary Design Review (PDR). The government will use the conceptual design deliverables for Task 5 as defined in Section 2.4 in the down-selection evaluation process. These design deliverables will be evaluated as part of the PSC review (6 months after award) and conceptual design review (9 months after award). By the Conceptual Design Review these design deliverables must be in both written as well as presentation format. Upon selection for Option 1, up to two design teams will continue to develop the preliminary design and the required engineering design deliverables detailed in Section 3.2 under Key Tasks. NASA anticipates a start of Option 1 during the 10th month. At this time, it is anticipated that government funds available will be up to $25 M (total) for the Preliminary Design Study with 50-50 cost share required. 3.1 Description of Solicited Research Option 1 is focused on the development of a preliminary design for a ERA/UAS subscale testbed vehicle. The ERA Project goals for Option 1 are to develop a subscale testbed vehicle design to: Reduce the risk for those technologies/integrations identified as part of the major integrated vehicle testbed critical technology demonstrations as described in Task 4 of the concept study that are high risk, high payoff enablers for the proposed 2025 EIS PSC (carries these enabling technologies to at least a TRL of 6). Provide critical data for the validation of predictive methods required for a full scale vehicle design of the PSC. Provide quantitative evidence that the N+2 fuel burn, emissions and noise goals can be met by the PSC. D-22

Provide a flexible ERA/UAS vehicle test bed for future flight test campaigns (spiral flight test activities, nominally in 5-6 year blocks) that might involve integration of a future advanced propulsion system, new vehicle control laws, remotely piloted or autonomous flight in the NAS, or other key component demonstrations.

It is envisioned that the ERA/UAS subscale testbed vehicle will be of sufficient scale to support current noise reduction scaling methodology. Currently the government believes that to demonstrate high Reynolds number requirements for aerodynamic efficiency and to meet the aspect ratio and scale requirements for acoustics, this means approximately a 50% scale vehicle although a proposer may certainly justify their scale selection if they feel otherwise. The ERA/UAS subscale testbed vehicle shall demonstrate controlled flight throughout the full flight envelope of the PSC vehicle. The testbed vehicle should be capable
of operation in piloted, remotely piloted, and fully autonomous modes in order to demonstrate UAS operations in the NAS. The vehicle design should allow for

insertion of developing technology and avionics that would enable the routine operation of UAS in the NAS. These should include addressing issues related to separation assurance and collision avoidance, robust command, control and communications, and resiliency to environmental hazards. It should have an endurance of at least 3 hours (longer preferred). The flight control system will be digital with research flight control system capability to allow for flexibility in assessing technologies such as advanced flight control laws. The avionics will be integrated to a data acquisition system for development of high quality flight test data. Avionics packages will be modular and allow for integration to either the NASA Aviation Safety Program (AvSP) or Airspace Systems Program (ASP) activities (see website links). During the design and development process, particular attention will be paid to possible integrated vehicle health monitoring applications for diagnostics and detection of structural integrity issues. The above description is not intended to be all inclusive nor mandatory, rather provide the design teams with a feel for some of the capabilities desired. 3.2 Key Tasks The objective of Option 1 is to develop a preliminary design of a ERA/UAS subscale testbed vehicle that serves as an integrated technology demonstrator and reduces risk for the design teams respective PSC developed in this NRA study. The following design tasks are required to provide credibility and traceability to the PSC selected and the 15year technology maturation roadmap developed as part of the NRA as well as mitigate risks identified for the development of a full-size testbed vehicle. The following key tasks must be addressed in Option 1: Task 1: Selected Preferred System Concept Data Package Refinement of the concept data package for the PSC (passenger and cargo, EIS 2025) chosen as the basis for the preliminary design of the ERA/UAS subscale testbed vehicle is sought. Updates should follow the deliverables schedule specified in Section 3.4 and should include: D-23

Mission requirements, including range, payload, cruise Mach No., and take-off (balanced field length) and landing distances. Configuration geometry/dimensions (component areas, aspect ratios, taper ratios, quarter-cord sweeps, tip to chord ratios (t/cs), etc. when applicable), dimensioned three-view, internal arrangement drawing, description of subsystems, and key overall sizing constraints. Low speed and cruise drag polars, including detailed drag buildups. Short group weight statement. Mission performance parameters including total fuel burn and fuel burn per mission segment, cruise altitude, cruise L/D, noise certification numbers, and emissions. Propulsion system total weight/overall dimensions (length, max diameter), including a detailed weight breakdown by component. List of the projected materials envisioned, by component. Propulsion performance data at key flight conditions (e.g., sea-level static, rolling takeoff, enroute climb, top-of-climb, cruise). Include engine level parameters - net thrust, ram drag, and SFC. Component level parameters such as component mass flow, total pressure ratio, total temperature ratio, appropriate efficiency parameter, and cooling requirements, as applicable, at each key flight condition. APU and other auxiliary systems are included in this, especially if they augment the aerodynamics.

Task 2: Design & Description of Subscale Testbed Vehicle Describe the ERA/UAS subscale testbed vehicle and the state of the current vehicle design. This information shall result in a Vehicle Description Document that will be baselined at the conclusion of the System Design Review (SDR)/System Requirements Review (SRR) to be held 9 months after award of Option 1. The following engineering requirements must be addressed in the ERA/UAS Vehicle Description Document (VDD): 1. Specify the following vehicle properties: a. Outer Mold Line b. Mass Properties c. Electrical Power Requirements d. Short Group Weight Statement e. Performance predictions f. Similarity Ratios and Scaling g. Vehicle configurations to include: 1. Dimensioned three-view drawing with table of geometric data itemized by component 2. Internal arrangement drawings 3. CAD models.

D-24

2. Define Vehicle Systems to include a description of the system, the driving requirements and interfaces for each system and appropriate schematics of each system proposed. Note that the driving requirements should be traceable to the NASA Technology Goals for Future Subsonic Vehicles defined in Table 1 of this Solicitation. Systems of interest include: a. Airframe Structure b. Propulsion and Fuel Systems c. Flight Controls d. Avionics System (Architecture, GN&C) e. Command, control and data handling f. Flight Software g. UAS Specific Systems h. Environmental Controls i. Landing Gear j. Instrumentation (Research and Operational) k. Payload/Cargo Capability 3. Describe external interface requirement for flight test operations of the ERA/UAS subscale testbed vehicle: a. Ground Operations Interfaces b. NAS Interfaces for UAS in the NAS Operations Task 3: Design Reference Flight Mission(s) (DRFMs) The purpose of this task is to define the reference flight missions for the ERA/UAS subscale testbed vehicle being proposed. Based on the subscale testbed vehicle performance capabilities defined in Task 2 of Option 1, define the vehicle flight envelope and scope the proposed flight test program that address the ERA/UAS subscale testbed vehicle objectives identified in Section 3.1. Identify the Mission Objectives and corresponding flight test objectives for each mission objective. Additionally trace the mission and flight test objectives to the appropriate vehicle system driving requirements. The DRFM will be baselined at the Systems Design Review/System Requirements Review to be held 6 months after Option 1 award. Task 4: Concept of Operations The purpose of this task is to define the functionality necessary to formulate requirements for Mission Operations facilities, resources and personnel including deriving functional flow diagrams and performance and flight test definition requirements for flight operations. The Concept of Operations will be baselined at the System Design Review/System Requirements Review to held 6 months after Option 1 award. Specifically address: a. Operational concepts and capabilities required to support the DRFMs and to develop system level functions and requirements.

D-25

b. Nominal operations and capabilities by mission phase including logistics, manufacturing, pre-delivery, checkout of the ERA/UAS subscale testbed vehicle, flight operations and post-flight processing. c. Describe the contingency and off-nominal scenarios Task 5: Risk Assessment and Mitigation Plan Conduct a preliminary risk assessment of the proposed ERA/UAS subscale testbed vehicle. Develop risk management and risk mitigation strategies and options with associated timelines and resource and cost estimates. This risk assessment process should feed the development of the Conceptual Design Assessment and Evaluation PlanRisk Reduction Testing during Preliminary Design Phase. This risk reduction testing would be submitted for consideration to the government for Option 2 cost-shared funds. The Risk Mitigation Plan will be baselined at the Preliminary Design Review. Task 6: System Requirements The purpose of this task is to define the functional and performance requirements and interface requirements for of the ERA/UAS subscale testbed vehicle systems as defined in the Vehicle Description Document. Additionally define the verification methods for each of the identified functional or performance or interface requirements of each vehicle system and/or system component (as appropriate). The System Requirements Document will be baselined at the conclusion of the System Design Review/System Requirements Review to be held 6 months after award of Option 1. Task 7: Verification and Validation Plan The purpose of this task is to identify the verification method and define specific verification requirements for each functional or performance or interface requirement of the ERA/UAS subscale testbed vehicle preliminary design as defined in the Systems Requirements Document. Traceability to every vehicle system requirement is required. Additionally define the validation approach for the subscale testbed vehicle assembly, integration and testing. The Preliminary Verification and Validation Plan will be reviewed as part of the Preliminary Design Review to be held 15 months from Option 1 award. Task 8: Research and Operations Instrumentation Plan The purpose of this task is to identify the instrumentation required to validate both the performance of the vehicle from an operational perspective as well as the experimental and computational tools (aero, structural, simulation, etc) utilized in the design process. The research and operations instrumentation plan will be reviewed as part of the Preliminary Design Review to be held 15 months from Option 1 award. Task 9: Subscale Testbed Vehicle Cost and Schedule

D-26

The purpose of this task is to provide a credible cost and resource loaded schedule for completion of the ERA/UAS subscale testbed vehicle design from the Preliminary Design Phase through Detail Design Phase as well as through fabrication, assembly, integration, test (verification and validation) and to operational flight readiness. The credible cost and resource loaded schedule will be the final deliverable for this task at the end of the 24th month after award. Task 10. Subscale Testbed Vehicle Design and Analysis Data and Models The purpose of this task is to provide electronic copies of all CAD, FEM, CFD, SIM, Noise Prediction and Engine Decks/Propulsion Models developed as the preliminary design of the ERA/UAS Sub-scale Testbed Vehicle matures. Updates should be provided as part of the deliverables at SDR/SRR and PDR and should be included as part of the government only version of the final contractor report. 3.3 Reviews, Reports and Schedule A combination of monthly progress reports (to include data and analysis), oral presentations/reviews and a final written report are required. The tables below list the proposed reviews and reporting requirements for the nominal 17 month period of performance for Option 1 (month 10 to the end of the 27th month after solicitation award). 3.3.1 Reports Detailed monthly progress reports are expected. The information in these reports are defined in the reporting table below and should include data and analysis as well as current progress against planned cost, schedule and performance profile. These reports will be one of the factors used to determine whether adequate progress has been made and whether funding will be continued. They should be approximately 20 - 30 pages in length. In an attempt to provide the ERA project with the best insight into the progress of the study, the monthly reports are not expected to be publically available. The final contractor report for Option 1 will be delivered at the conclusion of the nominal 17-month period of performance for Option 1 (month 10 to the end of the 27th month after solicitation award). A public version of the final report as well as a government only version of the final report will be required (unless otherwise specified (see Task 10 of Section 3.2). The release schedule of the content in the public version of the Option 1 final report must be specified. The Preliminary Design Review presentation materials and select documents will be delivered nominally one month prior to the end of FY12 to meet an ARMD ERA Project programmatic milestones. These select documents will include the subscale testbed vehicle detail design and build cost estimate and resource-loaded schedule developed under Task 9 in Section 3.2. D-27

3.3.2 Meetings/Reviews The following meetings and reviews will be held during Option 1 period of performance to enable the government team to assess progress and provide guidance and feedback on the design process. The government proposes to hold all meetings and reviews at the design team site. Technical content and appropriate level of maturity of the engineering products to be reviewed is identified in the tables below. 3-Month Review (3 months after award of Option 1) The 3-Month Review is an informal web-based technical meeting to review progress in all the task areas defined in the table below. This is an opportunity to vet and discuss design challenges and options being considered by the design team in collaboration with the government team. Joint System Design Review (SDR) and System Requirements Review (SRR) A SDR/SRR will be held concurrently 6 months after Option 1 award. The purpose of this joint review is as follows: Examine the vehicle and vehicle system(s) architecture and design and the flow down to all functional elements of the vehicle. Examine the functional and performance requirements defined for the system and ensure that the requirements and the selected concept will satisfy the mission. Confirm that a concept is presented that identifies lower level systems of interest and their resource allocations, and that traceability exists among the mission science, operations and technical requirements. Successful completion of the SDR/SRR will result in recommended approval of the flight mission objectives, system and segment requirements, and subsystem requirement allocations to establish a functional baseline. It will also serve as a prerequisite to continuing with preliminary design.

The following criteria must be met prior to conducting a joint SDR/SRR. 1. Successful completion of the Conceptual Design Review technical products and closure of the Request for Actions. 2. Completion of the following technical products: a. Vehicle architecture; b. Preferred System Concept solution definition including major tradeoffs and options; c. Updated baselined documentation, as required; d. Preliminary functional requirements baseline e. Preliminary system software functional requirements; f. Updated risk assessment and mitigations D-28

g. h. i. j. k. l. m. n. o. p. q.

Updated cost and schedule data; Software requirements document(s); Interface requirements documents (including software); Updated cost & schedule (resource loaded) for this design cycle System requirements document; System software functionality description; Updated concept of operations; Updated mission requirements, if applicable; Preliminary system requirements allocation to the next lower level system; Verification and validation approach; Other specialty disciplines, as required.

The following criteria must be met for successfully passing a joint SDR/SRR: a) Systems requirements, including mission success criteria, end product acceptance criteria, and any sponsor-imposed constraints, are defined and form the basis for the proposed conceptual design. b) All technical requirements are allocated and the flow down to subsystems is adequate. The requirements, design approaches, and conceptual design will fulfill the mission needs consistent with the available resources (cost, schedule,). c) The requirements process is sound and can reasonably be expected to continue to identify and flow detailed requirements in a manner timely for development. d) The selected overall concept is reasonable, feasible, complete, responsive to the mission requirements, and is consistent with system requirements and available resources (cost, schedule,). e) System and subsystem design approaches and operational concepts exist and are consistent with the requirements set. f) Work plans have been updated, as necessary. g) Significant development, mission, and safety risks are identified and technically assessed, and a process and resources exist to manage the risks. h) Adequate planning exists for the development of any enabling new technology. i) The operations concept is consistent with proposed design concept(s) and is in alignment with the mission requirements. j) The project and development plans are at the appropriate level of maturity for the stage of the project. k) The status of the work being performed under Option 2 Risk Reduction Testing has been briefed and any challenges / risks have been brought forward. Preliminary Design Review (PDR) Following the SDR/SRR, the proposing team will refine the ERA/UAS subscale testbed vehicle preliminary design in preparation for PDR. The PDR demonstrates that the preliminary design meets functional and performance requirements with acceptable risk (technical performance, cost, and schedule) and is verifiable. It will show that the correct design options have been selected, interfaces have been identified, and verification D-29

methods have been described. Full baseline cost and schedules, as well as risk assessments, management systems, and metrics are presented. The following criteria must be met prior to conducting a PDR: 1. Successful completion of the SDR/SRR and responses made to all SDR/SRR Request for Actions or a timely closure plan exists for those remaining open. 2. Completion of the following PDR technical products a. Updated baselined documentation, as required. b. Preliminary subsystem design specifications for each configuration item (hardware and software), with supporting trade-off analyses and data, as required. The preliminary software design specification should include a completed definition of the software architecture and a preliminary database design description, as applicable. c. Updated Technology development maturity assessment plan updated using the results of the Option 2 Risk Reduction Testing and Assessment. d. Updated risk assessment and mitigation. e. Updated cost and schedule data. f. Applicable standards g. Engineering drawing tree. h. Interface control documents. i. Verification/validation plan. j. Technical resource utilization estimates and margins. k. System-level safety analysis. The following criteria must be met prior to successfully passing a PDR: a) The top-level requirementsincluding mission success criteria, technical performance measures (TPMs), and any sponsor-imposed constraintsare agreed upon, finalized, stated clearly, and consistent with the preliminary design. b) The flow down of verifiable requirements is complete and proper or, if not, an adequate plan exists for timely resolution of open items to enable completion of the contractor final report. Requirements are traceable to mission goals and objectives. c) The preliminary design is expected to meet the requirements at an acceptable level of risk. d) Adequate technical margins exist with respect to TPMs. e) Any required new technology has been identified or back-up options exist and are supported to make them a viable alternative. Plans for implementing any new required technology or back options are defined to include associated cost and schedule milestones. f) The project risks are understood and have been credibly assessed, and plans, a process, and resources is defined to effectively manage them. g) Safety and mission assurance related requirements are identified and adequately addressed in the System Requirements document. h) The operational concept is technically sound, includes (where appropriate) human factors, and includes the flow down of requirements for its execution.

D-30

i) Long-lead items that threaten schedule compliance have been identified and required resources have been estimated. Required resources (workforce and facilities) allocations are projected as part of the proposed schedule for the detail design and build phases of the ERA/UAS subscale testbed vehicle. j) Verification and Validation test approach for the vehicle system requirements defined are complete . k) The verification, operations, and other specialty engineering organizations of the design teams have reviewed the vehicle design. l) The plans and design specifications provide sufficient guidance, constraints, and system requirements for the design engineers to execute the design. m) Overall system architecture has been established and all the external interfaces have been identified and defined. All reviews will be conducted at the Proposers site. Additional meetings can be proposed at the bidders discretion. Meetings/Reviews, Option 1 3-Month System Design Review Review/System Requirements Review WebEx telecon @ Proposer Site 3 months after Option 1 award (1 day) 6 months after Option 1 award (1 day)

Kick-off Meeting

Preliminary Design Review

Location Date

@ Proposer Site 1 week after Option 1 award (1 day)

@ Proposer Site 15 months after Option 1 award (2 day)

Schedule for Reviews/Reports/Presentation Deliverables, Option 1 Technical, 3-Month System Design Preliminary Cost and Review Review/System Design Schedule Requirements Review Status Reports Review Schedule Monthly One week 3 months after 9 months after excluding after end of 3 3-Month SDR/SRR @ Review months Review @ Proposers Site Months Proposers Site Report/Presentation 2 weeks after One week 2 weeks prior to 2 weeks prior Material Due Date end of month prior to TIM System Design to Preliminary meeting date Review/System Design Requirements Review Review date

D-31

3.4 Deliverables Option 1 Presentation materials required for the Option 1 Reviews are specified in the table below. Select Option 1 review deliverables require both presentation as well as a document version of the deliverable. The document version of the specified deliverable can be provided in an electronic format for all reviews except for the final contractor reports (both public release and government only) which will require electronic as well as hardcopy versions. It is expected that each deliverable requiring a document format will stand alone. This requirement will enable dissemination of all review materials to the appropriate review panel subject matter experts. A compiled document of Option 1 work is expected as part of the final contractor reports (both public release and government only).
Product Deliverables Task 1. Concept Data Packages (1 each cargo and passenger): -EIS 2025 (PSC) Task 2. Vehicle Description (VDD) 3-Month Review Update Baseline SDR/SRR Update Baseline (Presentation and Document) Baseline (Presentation and Document) Baseline (Presentation and Document) Baseline (Presentation and Document) Update Preliminary (Presentation and Document) Task 6. System Requirements Preliminary Baseline (Presentation and Document) Preliminary Preliminary Updated Baseline (Presentation and Document) Baseline (Presentation and Document) Final PDR Final (Presentation and Document) Updated Baseline (Presentation and Document) Updated Baseline (Presentation and Document) Updated Baseline (Presentation and Document) Baseline (Presentation and Document)

Task 3. Design Reference Flight Mission (s) (DRFM(s) )

Updated preliminary (Presentation and Document) Updated Preliminary Updated Preliminary Update Preliminary

Task 4. Concept of Operations

Task 5. Risk Assessment and Mitigation Plan (Presentation and Document)

Task 7. Verification and Validation Plan Task 8. Research and Operations Instrumentation Plan

Draft Draft

D-32

Task 9. ERA/UAS Subscale Testbed Vehicle Cost and Schedule (from Detail Design through Build and Test)

Revised ROM

Task 9. ERA/UAS Subscale Testbed Vehicle Cost and Schedule (from Detail Design through Build and Test) Task 10. Subscale Testbed Vehicle Design and Analysis Data and Models Final Contractor Report o o o o o o o o CAD Models FEM Models CFD Models SIM Models Noise Prediction Models Engine Decks / Propulsion Models All the above deliverables A public version of the final report as well as a government only version of the final report will be required (unless otherwise specified (see Task 10 of Section 3.2)

Preliminary Final (Presentation (Presentation and and Electronic Electronic Copy) Copy) Electronic Copy of Final Cost and Schedule due one month prior to the end of FY12 Preliminary (Presentation and Electronic Copy) Final (Presentation and Electronic Copy)

To be delivered at the conclusion of the 27th month of the solicitations period of performance

4. Option 2: Subscale Testbed Vehicle Preliminary Design Risk Reduction Experimental Validation Option 2 will implement the risk reduction experimental validation plan proposed to demonstrate how the major risks associated with producing the ERA/UAS subscale testbed vehicle have been mitigated and the proposed preliminary design is validated. If awarded, Option 2 risk reduction testing and assessment of the proposers subscale testbed vehicle design concept will be performed as part of the preliminary design study. Only those design teams selected to conduct the preliminary design study will be eligible for Option 2. As a deliverable defined as part of Task 5 in Section 2.4, the risk reduction plan should describe the ground-based and flight-based testbed vehicle models/or components that will be fabricated and tested as necessary to validate the ERA/UAS subscale testbed vehicle design and demonstrate satisfactory solutions that overcome historical barriers such as flight controls, structural integration, etc. The objective of Option 2 is to provide information necessary to validate the subscale testbed vehicle preliminary design methods to yield a high degree of confidence in the testbed vehicle design proposed. Depending on the evaluation of necessary critical risk reduction testing proposed as part of the Conceptual Design Review deliverable, up to $10M of ERA funds total may be applied for FY11 and FY12 risk reduction testing. Again, it is expected that the proposer will provide at least cost matching funds during the model-scale ground-based and flight testing phase. The government will negotiate the phasing of the risk reduction activities

D-33

and the funds available to conduct the proposed risk reduction testing and assessments proposed shortly after the Option 1 design teams have been selected. 4.1 Description of Solicited Research Option 2 will contain all of the necessary experimental testing (wind tunnel, simulators, structural components, etc.) campaign elements required to sufficiently reduce the risk such that the testbed vehicle is practical, affordable, and has a reasonable chance of meeting the demonstrator flight-test objectives, plus provide the information necessary to validate the subscale testbed vehicle preliminary design methods. The plan should contain all of the necessary model fabrication and wind tunnel test plans required for the complete development of aerodynamic lines and loads as well as other critical demonstrations of technology integrations crucial to supporting the preliminary design review. Typical tests might include conceptual and preliminary design PSC vehicle force and moment testing at cruise and/or key off design test conditions, basic static stability and control tests, perhaps key loads testing, etc. Other types of testing may be necessary to support the PDR depending on how critical that element is to the overall risk of the ERA/UAS subscale testbed vehicle design. Examples of such tests include propulsion airframe integration testing, dynamic stability and control tests, aeroelastic and buffet clearance testing, and simulations required to support development of adequate control laws, etc. Again, this list is not expected to represent a robust list of experimental database development testing required to support the testbed vehicle development, rather it was developed to provide potential bidders some sense of the content expected. Ultimately the plan that is required is dependent to a great extent on the PSC technology suite and integrations. 4.2 Reviews, Reports and Schedule A combination of monthly progress reports (to include testing status, experimental data and analysis), oral presentations/reviews and a final written report are required and will follow the reviews and schedule defined in Section 3.4 of this solicitation. The specific product deliverables will be specified as part of the negotiated risk reduction test plan funded. 4.2.1 Reports Detailed monthly progress reports are expected. The specific information in these reports will be tailored based upon the cost-shared risk reduction testing activities selected and report content will be negotiated upon award. These reports will be one of the factors used to determine whether adequate progress has been made and whether funding will be continued. The length of the reports will be tailored based on the testing activity. In an attempt to provide the ERA project with the best insight into the progress of the study, D-34

the monthly reports are not expected to be publically available. The final contractor report for Option 2 will be delivered at the conclusion of the 27th month after award. A public version of the final contractor report will be required as well as a government-only version of the final contractor report for all Option 2 work. The release schedule of the content in the public version of the Option 2 final report must be specified. 4.2.2 Meetings/Reviews Briefings on Option 2 risk reduction testing activities will follow the Option 1 meetings and review schedule. These meetings and reviews enable the government team to assess progress and provide guidance and feedback on the design process. The government proposes to hold all meetings and reviews at the design team site. Technical content and appropriate level of detail of the risk reduction testing will be negotiated upon award. Select Option 2 deliverables will require both presentation as well as document versions of the deliverable. The document version of the specified deliverables can be provided in an electronic format for all reviews except for the final contractor reports (both public release and government only) which will require electronic as well as hardcopy versions. It is expected that each deliverable requiring a document format will stand alone. This requirement will enable dissemination of all review materials to the appropriate review panel subject matter experts. A compiled document of all Option 2 work is expected as part of the final contractor reports (both public release and government only). 4.3 Deliverables The specific deliverables for Option 2 will be tailored based on the cost-shared risk reduction testing activities selected and will be negotiated upon selection to conduct the preliminary design of the ERA/UAS subscale testbed vehicle. 5. Programmatic Considerations The solicitation period of performance is 27 months in total as shown in the table below. The Advanced Vehicle Concepts study duration will be 12 months. A Conceptual Design Review will be held 9 months after the start of the study. At the conclusion of the Conceptual Design Review, NASA will conduct a technical evaluation and make a downselection with up to 2 design teams selected to move forward to the Preliminary Design (Option 1) and Risk Reduction Testing and Assessment (Option 2). The period of performance of Options 1 and 2 will be from months 10 through 27 after the start of the Advanced Vehicle Concepts study. Unlimited NASA and ERA Project-related federal government partners (including AFRL, FAA CLEEN) government use rights for all new data and intellectual property are a pre-requisite for all products developed under this solicitation. A public release schedule of all products developed under this solicitation must be specified. Justifications D-35

as to limitations on public release exceeding 5 years of protection as well as limitation on data content/context need to be provided. Background Intellectual Property the proposing team leverages must be documented in an Appendix as part of the teams proposal response to this solicitation. It is anticipated that government funds available may be approximately $36M in total as shown in the table below. Up to $11M may be available for the Advanced Vehicle Concepts Study (Tasks 1-5); and up to $25M may be available for the Preliminary Design Study (Option 1). For Option 2, NASA anticipates up to $10M in additional government funds may be available for risk reduction testing and assessment, and the final amount will be determined by the level of proposed cost sharing. Option 1 and 2 both require 5050 cost share. N+2 Advanced Vehicle Concepts Study Up to $11M Option 1: Preliminary Design Up to $25M in NASA funds; 50% cost share required Up to 2 awards Nominally 17 months (starting month 10 and ending at the conclusion of month 27) Option 2 Risk Reduction Testing and Assessment for Preliminary Design Up to $10M in NASA funds; 50% cost share required Up to 2 awards Nominally 17 months (starting month 10 and ending at the conclusion of month 27)

Key Information Expected program budget for new awards Number of awards pending adequate proposals of merit Maximum duration of awards

Up to 4 awards 12 months (ending at the conclusion of the 12th month after award)

By September of FY2012, the ERA Project has been tasked to develop a preliminary design of a credible ERA/UAS subscale testbed vehicle with an independently validated cost estimate and resource-loaded schedule. The results of this study could be used to advocate for future budget augmentations to design and fabricate an ERA/UAS subscale testbed vehicle. One goal of the NRA process is to foster strategic partnerships between NASA and the awarded entities for collaborative research and development of innovative concepts, ideas, technologies and approaches. Therefore substantial interaction with NASA researchers may be anticipated while performing work under these awards. Proposers may include as part of the proposal visits of appropriate length to a NASA Center for the purpose of coordinating the proposed work with corresponding efforts by NASA researchers. The cost of these visits should be included in the proposed budget. 5.1 Proposal Guidance D-36

The guidance provided in this section supplements Section IV of ROA2010, Proposal and Submission Information. The technical section of the proposal is the most important for selection. It must clearly describe: (a) The background and objectives of the proposed research. (b) The approaches to be considered. (c) The level of effort to be employed. (d) The anticipated results. (e) Specific quantifiable metrics to be used to judge progress. (f) A well-defined work plan. (g) The contribution of the work to subsonic aeronautics technology in the United States. The technical section must not exceed 40 pages. An additional section (10 page limit) of the proposal outlining the management approach, schedule, budget, basis for cost estimate, and intellectual property strategy is required. Milestones with measurable metrics toward achieving the proposed goal must be provided. Required supporting appendices such as resumes, a draft Statement of Work (SOW), background intellectual property that will be used, and commitment letters will not be counted toward the 50page limit. Proposers should propose an appropriate level of effort (cost and duration). The estimated level of effort provided with the topic description is for general guidance. Additionally, relevant information to advance the knowledge of the government team as to the proposers viability as a candidate for consideration for Option 1 can be included in an Appendix. This Option 1 Appendix will have a 10 page limit. If NASA facilities are proposed for use in Option 2, the facility costs associated with testing will be covered outside of the funding for this NRA. The costs of fabricating test articles, fixtures, and instrumentation required for the testing shall be incurred by the proposer and included in the proposed cost. The proposal will need to specify the test article size, requirements, facility, and approximate testing time. Specific details such as timeframe and duration of testing will be negotiated upon selection of a proposal. A nonNASA facility may be proposed, in which case the costs must be included in the proposed cost. Information on NASA test facilities can be found in Section 6. In summary, the following checklist describes the minimum information expected in the science-technical management section of the proposal: Statement of relevance to the ERA Project specified objectives of this solicitation. Work Plan must include a schedule with milestones and measurable metrics; as well as the qualifications, capabilities, and experience of the lead organization and team members in subsonic transport aircraft design.

D-37

Provide a draft Statement of Work (SOW) using the template provided in Appendix A of this solicitation (for a contract award mechanism). The SOW appendix will not count as part of the 50-page limit. Statement of what intellectual property is expected to be publicly available at the conclusion of the work (note that it is our intent to share knowledge developed under this solicitation, thus, any restrictions to the objective may impact the evaluation of the proposal). The release schedule of the content in the public versions of the final reports must be specified. Background Intellectual Property the proposing team leverages and brings to this activity may be listed in an Appendix to the proposal. The background intellectual property appendix will not count as part of the 50 page limit. A proposed schedule of oral presentations, interim reports and documents, and final contractor reports that reflect the deliverables specified in Sections 2.4, 3.4 and 4.3.

5.2 Evaluation Criteria and Basis for Award The evaluation criteria in Appendix B, part (i) and Appendix C, paragraph C.2 of the Guidebook for Proposers Responding to a NASA Research Announcement (NRA) 2010 are superseded by the following. The principal elements considered in evaluating a proposal are its relevance to NASAs objectives, technical merit, effectiveness of the proposed work plan (including cost), and proposed team qualifications. Failure of a proposal to be highly rated in any one of the following elements is sufficient cause for the proposal to not be selected. Only those awardees selected to conduct the Advanced Vehicle Concepts study described in Section 2.0 of this Appendix will be eligible to be considered for Option 1 and Option 2. 5.2.1 Evaluation Criteria for NRA Award of Advanced Vehicle Concepts Study Relevance (Weight: 20%) Evaluation of a proposal's relevance to NASA's objectives including consideration of the potential contribution of the effort to the specific objectives and goals given in Section 2.1 of this Appendix. Technical Merit (Weight: 35%) Overall scientific or technical merit of the proposal, including unique and innovative methods, approaches, or concepts. Evaluation will also include: credibility of technical approach, including a clear assessment of primary risks and a means to address them; proposers capabilities, related experience, facilities, techniques, or unique combination of these which are integral factors for achieving the proposal's objectives; and qualifications, capabilities, and experience of the proposed principal investigator, team leader, or key personnel critical in achieving the proposal objectives. The selection process will also assess the proposal against the state-of-the-art. D-38

Effectiveness of the Proposed Work Plan (Weight: 20%) Comprehensiveness of work plan, effective use of resources, cost, management approach, and proposed schedule for meeting the objectives. Objectives with measurable metrics toward achieving the proposers goal must be provided. Documentation of approach and results in the form of final written technical reports is required. A clear statement of what intellectual property is expected to be publicly available at the conclusion of the work is required. It is NASAs intent to make public as much knowledge developed under this solicitation as possible, thus, intellectual property restrictions will affect scoring in this area. Address the proposed timing of public dissemination. Carefully outline the extent of cost-shared elements with respect to the elements funded by the government. Collaboration with NASA researchers (including joint use of facilities, sharing of materials, development of computer code modules compatible with NASAs software, and synergistic research goals) is desirable, with the objective of enhancing knowledge transfer and the long-term value of the proposed work. Proposed Team Qualifications (Weight: 25%) Experience and breadth of the team that is organized to conduct the study. Demonstrated experience of the team in conceptual design studies that examine the trade space of noise, emissions and performance for subsonic transport aircraft. Demonstrated experience of the team in advanced technology development for aircraft systems. Ability of the team to offer innovative approaches to address the subsonic aviation design requirements of the future. Experience and breadth of the team that is organized to design and build remotely piloted integrated airframe-propulsion testbed vehicles Demonstrated experience of the team in propulsion/airframe interactions and propulsion/airframe aero-acoustics at subsonic cruise speeds (community noise characterization, acoustic shielding, propulsion induced effects on vehicle aerodynamics, etc.). Demonstrated experience of the team in advanced technology flight hardware demonstrations for subsonic aircraft systems. Demonstrated experience of the team in planning and conducting model-scale experimental validation of testbed vehicles (aerodynamic/propulsion/flight controls, subsonic, transonic testing and simulations) 5.2.2 Down-selection Evaluation Criteria for Option 1 Preliminary Design of an ERA/UAS Subscale Testbed Vehicle (1) PSC and derived subscale-testbed vehicle design: D-39

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5) (6) (7)

a. The extent by which the NASA Subsonic N+2 Metrics are simultaneously achieved for EIS in 2025. b. The extent by which the subscale vehicle design addresses the capability to integrate and test UAS in the NAS technologies. c. The extent by which the subscale vehicle requirements are clearly defined, are unambiguous, internally consistent and link to the NASA Subsonic N+2 Metrics. d. The extent by which the candidate PSC will meet concept evaluation criteria. e. The extent by which the proposed technical approach is feasible, achievable, and complete. The proposed concept should be technically substantiated. f. The extent by which the concept performance attributes are substantiated via analysis or previous experimental work Design Reference Mission a. The extent by which the design reference missions are feasible. b. The extent by which the proposed mission need(s) meet the objectives of the ERA Project and the ERA/UAS subscale testbed vehicle. c. The extent by which the Mission and Flight Objectives are well defined; consistent and traceable to the ERA Project and ERA/UAS subscale testbed vehicle objectives. Preliminary Vehicle Requirements: a. The extent by which vehicle system requirements are defined and are traceable to the mission and flight test objectives b. The extent by which vehicle system requirements verification approach is defined. c. The extent by which the vehicle design will meet the design reference mission objectives defined. Option 1 cost and schedule estimates a. The extent by which the basis of estimate for cost and schedule lend credibility and realism b. The extent of cost share available for Option 1 Preliminary Design of the ERA/UAS subscale testbed vehicle Option 1 Resources other than budget a. The extent by which the basis of estimate for resources other than budget lend credibility and realism Leveraging of Existing Assets or Products for Option 1. a. The extent by which existing assets or hardware are identified and leverage that could satisfy the mission or parts of the mission. Option 1 Work Implementation Plans a. The extent by which the proposed preliminary design approach is relevant to the ERA Project Option 1 objectives and goals. b. The extent by which the Option 1 work plan is feasible and credible with respect to technical approach and implementation including cost, schedule (including product deliverables).

D-40

(8) the

c. The extent by which the qualifications, capabilities, and experience of the lead organization and team members of preliminary team is credible and feasible. d. The extent by which intellectual property is publicly available at the conclusion of the work. The timetable for public release will be negotiable. ROM Cost and Schedule for Completion of the Detail Design and Build of ERA/UAS Subscale Testbed Vehicle. a. The extent by which the basis of estimate for cost and schedule lend credibility and realism b. The extent by which the basis of estimate for resources other than budget lend credibility and realism

5.2.3 Down-selection Evaluation Criteria for Option 2: Risk Reduction Testing and Assessment to Validate Proposed ERA/UAS Subscale Testbed Vehicle Preliminary Design (1) a. b. c. d. (2) a. b. (3) a. (4) a. Option 2 Work Implementation Plans The extent by which the proposed risk reduction test plan is relevant and mitigates the risks existing in the proposed preliminary design. The extent by which the Option 2 work plan is feasible and credible with respect to technical approach and implementation including cost, schedule (including product deliverables). The extent by which the qualifications, capabilities, and experience of the lead organization and team members of the risk reduction testing and assessment team of the subscale testbed vehicle design are applicable. The extent by which intellectual property is publicly available at the conclusion of the work. The timetable for public release will be negotiable. Option 2 cost and schedule estimates The extent by which the basis of estimate for cost and schedule lend credibility and realism to the proposed risk reduction test approach and execution The extent of cost share available for Option 2 risk reduction testing Option 2 Resources other than budget The extent by which the availability of resources other than budget lend credibility and realism Leveraging of Existing Assets or Products for Option 2 The extent by which existing assets or hardware are identified and leveraged in the implementation of the risk reduction test plan proposed.

D-41

6. References 6.1 NASA Facilities The following websites provide information on NASA aeronautics facilities capabilities, testing, and contact information. NASA Center Ames Research Center, ARC Dryden Flight Research Center, DFRC Glenn Research Center, GRC Langley Research Center, LaRC URL http://windtunnels.arc.nasa.gov/ http://ffc.arc.nasa.gov/ (simulations facilities) http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/capabilities/index.html http://facilities.grc.nasa.gov/explore/explore_aero.html http://wte.larc.nasa.gov/

6.2 Other References NASA ERA Project Website http://www.aeronautics.nasa.gov/isrp/era/ NRA Proposers Guidebook (2010 version) http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/procurement/nraguidebook/proposer2010.pdf Grant and Cooperative Agreement Handbook http://prod.nais.nasa.gov/pub/pub_library/grcover.htm NASA Aviation Safety Program (AvSP) http: //www.aeronautics.nasa.gov/programs_avsafe.htm NASA Airspace Systems Program (ASP) http://www.aeronautics.nasa.gov/programs_asp.htm

D-42

7. Summary of Key Information Key Information Expected program budget for new awards Number of new awards pending adequate proposals of merit Maximum duration of awards Due date for Notice of Intent to propose (NOI) Due date for proposals NASA objective(s) which proposals must state and demonstrate relevance to Detailed instructions for the preparation and submission of proposals Page limit for the central ScienceTechnicalManagement section of proposal Submission medium N+2 Advanced Vehicle Concepts Study Up to $11M Option 1: Preliminary Design Up to $25M in NASA funds; 50% cost share required Up to 2 awards Option 2 Risk Reduction Testing and Assessment for Preliminary Design Up to $10M in NASA funds; 50% cost share required Up to 2 awards

Up to 4 awards

12 months (ending at the conclusion of the 12th month after award)

Nominally 17 months (starting month 10 and ending at the conclusion of month 27) 10 days after solicitation posting date 45 days after solicitation posting date

Nominally 17 months (starting month 10 and ending at the conclusion of month 27)

Every proposal must address the specified Topic /Option objective(s) and outcome(s) in the solicitation of this NRA.

See the NRA Proposers Guidebook 2010 at: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/procurement/nraguidebook/ proposer2010.pdf 50 page limit 50 page limit 50 page limit inclusive of a inclusive of a 10 inclusive of a 10 10 page limit on page limit on the page limit on the the Management Management Section Management Section Section Electronic proposal submission is required; no hard copy is required. See also Section IV in the Summary of Solicitation of this NRA and Chapter 3 of the NRA Proposers Guidebook 2010.

D-43

Web site for submission of proposal via NSPIRES Web site for submission of proposal via Grants.gov Expected award type Funding opportunity number NASA points of contact (POC)

http://nspires.nasaprs.com/ (help desk available at nspires-help@nasaprs.com or (202) 479-9376) http://grants.gov (help desk available at support@grants.gov or (800) 518-4726) Contract NNH10ZEA001N-ERA1 Email questions to: hq-era-nra2010@mail.nasa.gov Written responses will be posted on the solicitation website. Project Manager: Fay Collier Chief Engineer: Mark Mangelsdorf NRA Manager: Sherri Yokum

D-44

Appendix A: Statement of Work (SOW) Template

EXHIBIT A STATEMENT OF WORK FOR DEVELOPMENT OF _____________ 1.0 Introduction/Background: This section is intended to give a brief overview of the project. It should describe why the effort is being pursued and what is to be accomplished. It should also describe which Aero program and project/thrust area objectives/goals are being pursued. Recommend adding the following statement to the SOW: This statement of work is the result of a proposal submitted by Company XYZ for award under the NASA Headquarters Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate (ARMD) NASA Research Announcement (NRA) entitled Research Opportunities in Aeronautics 2010, Amendment XX, Project XX, TopicXX. 2.0 Scope of Work: This section should include an overarching statement of scope for the technology area to be investigated, specific quantifiable goals, major milestones, etc. for the effort. 3.0 Applicable Documents/Background: This section should identify appropriate specifications, standards and other documents that are applicable to the effort to be performed. 4.0 Description of Tasks/Technical Requirements: The detailed description of tasks, which represents the work to be performed under the contractor, is binding. Thus, this section should be developed in an orderly progression and in enough detail to establish the feasibility of accomplishing the overall project goals. The work effort should be segregated into major tasks and identified in separately numbered paragraphs according to a numeric decimal system (4.1, 4.2, 4.3 etc.). Each numbered major task should delineate by subtask the work to be performed (4.1.1, 4.1.2, 4.2.1 etc). The SOW must contain every major task to be accomplished. The tasks must be definite, realistic, and clearly stated. 4.1 Use Active verbs. Examples include: analyze, audit, calculate, create, design, develop, erect, evaluate, explore, interpret, investigate, observe, organize, perform, and produce (work words). For instance, the SOW could require the contractor to "conduct the experiment and produce a report describing and analyzing (or interpreting) the results." 4.2 Avoid Passive verbs that can lead to vague statements. For example, the D-45

phrase "the contractor shall perform," is preferred in lieu of "it shall be performed" because the latter does not definitively state which party shall perform. Avoid "should" or "may" because they leave the decision for action up to the contractor. Use "shall" when describing a provision binding on the contractor. Use "will" to indicate actions by the Government (i.e. Wind tunnel services will be provided by NASA LaRC). Specifically identify tasking which the contractor shall perform verses government involvement. 4.3 Vague/inexact words and generalizations are open to so many interpretations that they become meaningless. Phrases such as "securely mounted", "properly assembled", and "carefully performed" are examples of unenforceable language. Avoid catch-all and open-ended phrases, such as "is common practice in the industry," "as directed," or "subject to approval. If NASA will approve state Contractor shall not proceed until the NASA CO or COTR approves 4.4 Avoid using "any," "either," or "and/or" unless NASA wants to give the contractor a choice in what must be done. Also, avoid the use of "etc.," because the reader doesn't have any idea of the items that could be missing. 4.5 Include definitions that provide a common basis for understanding between the contractor and NASA. Ensure each "term of art" has only one universally understood meaning; otherwise define it. 4.6 Identify all planned presentations and meetings including but not limited to preliminary and critical design reviews, program reviews, regular technical interchange meetings, etc.

5.0 Deliverables: This section should contain information on what the contractor is to provide NASA and when it is required. Identify only those outputs that are essential and a part of the performance requirement's summary. Express the outputs in concise, easily understood, Notes: Attachments: If you have attachments, reference them in the appropriate paragraphs and attach to the SOW. Contractor Documentation and Reporting Requirements will be identified in Exhibit B to the contractor.

D-46

APPENDIX E: Aeronautics Test Program E.1 Program Overview NASAs Vision and mission are implemented through its four Mission Directorates. All four of these Mission Directorates, in carrying out their mission for NASA, utilize NASAs major wind tunnels/ground test facilities, and flight operations/test infrastructure. The Aeronautics Test Program (ATP) is designed to corporately manage these assets and sustain and improve NASAs core capabilities in these assets to ensure that a minimum core capability is maintained and available to support the needed Mission Directorate testing. The ATPs purpose is to ensure the strategic availability of a minimum, critical suite of aeronautical test facilities that are necessary to meet the longterm needs and requirements of the Nation. At present, the ATP is responsible for the major wind tunnels/ground test facilities at the Ames Research Center, Glenn Research Center, and Langley Research Center and the Western Aeronautical Test Range (WATR), Support Aircraft, Testbed Aircraft, and the Simulation and Loads Laboratories at Dryden Flight Research Center (DFRC). The need for reliable facilities to support future NASA aeronautics research, NASA exploration development, Department of Defense (DoD) military systems development, and the commercial sector development of new civil aircraft presents the ATP with challenges in meeting the above objectives while servicing the potential customers. Todays customers are looking for excellent service with extremely dependable test results, yet also demand cost effectiveness and efficiency. In order to meet the goals of corporate management and sustaining core capability, the ATP is formulated around the following objectives: Implement an integrated, consistent approach to the management of major wind tunnels/ground test facilities and flight operations/test infrastructure. Accomplish efficient and effective use of NASAs major wind tunnels/ground test facilities and flight operations/test infrastructure and other resources to optimize customer service and to meet national test requirements. Ensure stable, affordable, and competitive prices for ATP facilities. Maximize the return on investments through facility modernization, technology development, and sound maintenance strategies. Provide a stable level of investment, including maintenance, revitalization, and required upgrades. Periodically identify and validate a set of facilities that the Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate (ARMD) and/or Shared Capability Assets Program (SCAP) will support. Develop a facility divestment and investment plan that supports NASAs, DoDs, and the U.S. Industrys current and/or long-term missions. Maintain and develop mutually beneficial testing partnerships between NASA, DoD, and the U.S. commercial sector. The ATP has been organized into two projects to support the above objectives: Aero Ground Test Facilities Project: E-1

o Facility Operations Support: Provide 60 percent to 75 percent of the facility fixed costs for ground test facilities to ensure facility and staff availability and user price stability. o Facility Maintenance and Upgrades: Provide funding for maintenance and upgrades that correct known deficiencies in facility safety, reliability, and productivity and enable the facilities to meet near-term and future testing requirements. o Facility Test Technology: Develop and implement new technologies that increase test capability, improve productivity and efficiency, and improve data quality. o Facility Related Research: Activities in this project will be competed openly with a strong desire to involve universities with experimental work in major facilities. Flight Operations and Test Infrastructure Project: o Western Aeronautical Test Range, Support Aircraft Maintenance and Operations, Testbed Aircraft: Provide up to 100 percent of the facility fixed costs for flight facilities to ensure facility and staff availability and user price stability. o Simulation and Flight Landing Loads Laboratories: Provide up to 20 percent of the fixed costs for labs to ensure facility and staff availability and user price stability. This NRA is specifically addressing the Facility Related Research aspect of the ATP in the Aero Ground Test Facilities Project. For further information on the ATP and its facilities, please visit the following website: http://www.aeronautics.nasa.gov/atp.

E-2

E.2 Facility Related Research 1. Project Overview The ATP facility-related research primary objectives are to support research in the NASA ATP facilities that solve fundamental problems by novel means in areas such as facility characterization, simulation of test conditions, or test techniques and to foster the development of future researchers in the techniques of large scale aeronautics testing. In order to maintain NASAs facilities at a world class level, it is necessary to push the state-of-the-art in facility technologies at all levels including those at the fundamental level. The solutions to these fundamental problems are expected to apply broadly to aeronautics test facilities that could benefit more than one NASA ATP facility and potentially other facilities across the nation. 2. Description of Specific Solicited Research The Aeronautics Test Program is not soliciting research topics at this time. Please continue to monitor this solicitation for future amendments.

E-3

3.0 Summary of Key Information Expected annual program budget for new awards Number of new awards pending adequate proposals of merit Maximum duration of awards Due date for Notice of Intent to propose (NOI) Due date for proposals General information and overview of this solicitation Detailed instructions for the preparation and submission of proposals Page limit for the central ScienceTechnical-Management section of proposal Submission medium TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD See the Summary of Solicitation of this NRA. See the NASA Guidebook for Proposers Responding to a NASA Research Announcement 2010 at http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/procurement/nraguidebook/. TBD Electronic proposal submission is required; no hard copy is required. See also Section IV in the Summary of Solicitation of this NRA and Chapter 3 of the NASA Guidebook for Proposers. http://nspires.nasaprs.com/ (help desk available at nspires-help@nasaprs.com or (202) 479-9376) TBD TBD TBD

Web site for submission of proposal via NSPIRES Expected contract type Funding opportunity number NASA technical point of contact concerning this program NASA Procurement point of contact concerning this program

TBD

E-4