· Web viewAllen Spencer and William Moore, Design Trade-Offs For Homing Missiles, ADA282245,...

MISSILE DEFENSE AGENCY (MDA)17.2 Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR)

Proposal Submission Instructions

INTRODUCTION

The Missile Defense Agency's (MDA) mission is to develop, test, and field an integrated, layered, ballistic missile defense system (BMDS) to defend the United States, its deployed forces, allies, and friends against all ranges of enemy ballistic missiles in all phases of flight.

The MDA Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Program is implemented, administered, and managed by the MDA SBIR/STTR Program Management Office (PMO), located within Advanced Technology (DV). Specific questions pertaining to the administration of the MDA SBIR Program should be submitted to:

Missile Defense Agency SBIR/STTR Program Office

MDA/DVRBldg. 5224, Martin Road

Redstone Arsenal, AL 35898

Email: [email protected]: 256-955-2020

Proposals not conforming to the terms of this announcement will not be considered. MDA reserves the right to limit awards under any topic, and only those proposals of superior scientific and technical quality will be funded. Only Government personnel with active non-disclosure agreements will evaluate proposals. MDA reserves the right to withdraw from negations at any time prior to contract award.

Please read the entire DoD announcement and MDA instructions carefully prior to submitting your proposal. Please go to https://www.sbir.gov/about/about-sbir#sbir-policy-directive to read the SBIR Policy Directive issued by the Small Business Administration.

Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs) and Support Contractors

The offeror's attention is directed to the fact that non-Government advisors to the Government may review and provide support in proposal evaluations during source selection. Non-Government advisors may have access to the offeror's proposals, may be utilized to review proposals, and may provide comments and recommendations to the Government's decision makers. These advisors will not establish final assessments of risk and will not rate or rank offeror's proposals. They are also expressly prohibited from competing for MDA SBIR or STTR awards in the SBIR/STTR topics they review and/or on which they provide comments to the Government.

All advisors are required to comply with procurement integrity laws. Non-Government technical consultants/experts will not have access to proposals that are labeled by their proposers as "Government Only." Pursuant to FAR 9.505-4, the MDA contracts with these organizations include a clause which requires them to (1) protect the offerors’ information from unauthorized use or disclosure for as long as it remains proprietary and (2) refrain from using the information for any purpose other than that for which it was furnished. In addition, MDA requires the employees of those support contractors that provide

MDA-1

technical analysis to the SBIR/STTR Program to execute non-disclosure agreements. These agreements will remain on file with the MDA SBIR/STTR PMO.

Non-Government advisors will be authorized access to only those portions of the proposal data and discussions that are necessary to enable them to perform their respective duties. In accomplishing their duties related to the source selection process, employees of the aforementioned organizations may require access to proprietary information contained in the offerors' proposals.

OFFEROR SMALL BUSINESS ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS

Each offeror must qualify as a small business at time of award per the Small Business Administration’s (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR 121.701-121.705 and certify to this in the Cover Sheet section of the proposal. Additionally, in accordance with SBA SBIR Program Policy Directive dated 24 February 2014 offerors must re-certify at certain points during the Phase I and Phase II period of performance to ensure that the awardee is in compliance with the program’s requirements.

SBA Company Registry

Per the SBIR Policy Directive, all SBIR applicants are required to register their firm at SBA’s Company Registry prior to submitting an application. Upon registering, each firm will receive a unique control ID to be used for submissions at any of the 11 participating agencies in the SBIR or STTR programs. For more information, please visit the SBA’s Firm Registration Page: http://www.sbir.gov/registration.

Performance Benchmark Requirements for Phase I Eligibility

MDA does not accept proposals from firms that are currently ineligible for Phase I awards as a result of failing to meet the benchmark rates at the last assessment. Additional information on Benchmark Requirements can be found in the DoD Instructions of this announcement.

ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST (OCI)

The basic OCI rules are covered in FAR 9.5 as follows (the Contractor is responsible for compliance):

(1) the Contractor's objectivity and judgment are not biased because of its present or planned interests which relate to work under this contract;

(2) the Contractor does not obtain unfair competitive advantage by virtue of its access to non-public information regarding the Government's program plans and actual or anticipated resources; and

(3) the Contractor does not obtain unfair competitive advantage by virtue of its access to proprietary information belonging to others.

All other applicable rules under the FAR Section 9.5 apply to Contractors.

USE OF FOREIGN NATIONALS

See the “Foreign Nationals” section of the DoD program announcement for the definition of a Foreign National (also known as Foreign Persons).

ALL offerors proposing to use foreign nationals MUST disclose this information regardless of whether the topic is subject to export control restrictions. Identify any foreign citizens or

MDA-2

individuals holding dual citizenship expected to be involved on this project as a direct employee, subcontractor, or consultant. For these individuals, please specify their country of origin, the type of visa or work permit under which they are performing and an explanation of their anticipated level of involvement on this project. You may be asked to provide additional information during negotiations in order to verify the foreign citizen’s eligibility to participate on a SBIR contract. Supplemental information provided in response to this paragraph will be protected in accordance with the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a), if applicable, and the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(6)).

Proposals submitted with a foreign national listed will be subject to security review during the contract negotiation process (if selected for award). If the security review disqualifies a foreign national from participating in the proposed work, the contractor may propose a suitable replacement. In the event a proposed foreign person is found ineligible to perform proposed work, the contracting officer will advise the offeror of any disqualifications but may not disclose the underlying rationale.

EXPORT CONTROL RESTRICTIONSThe technology within some MDA topics is restricted under export control regulations including the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) and the Export Administration Regulations (EAR). ITAR controls the export and import of listed defense-related material, technical data and services that provide the United States with a critical military advantage. EAR controls military, dual-use and commercial items not listed on the United States Munitions List or any other export control lists. EAR regulates export controlled items based on user, country, and purpose. You must ensure that your firm complies with all applicable export control regulations. Please refer to the following URLs for additional information: http://www.pmddtc.state.gov/regulations_laws/itar.html and http://www.bis.doc.gov/index.php/regulations/export-administration-regulations-ear.

Proposals submitted to export control-restricted topics will be subject to security review during the contract negotiation process (if selected for award). In the event a firm is found ineligible to perform proposed work, the contracting officer will advise the offeror of any disqualifications but may not disclose the underlying rationale.

CLAUSE H-08 PUBLIC RELEASE OF INFORMATION (Publication Approval)Clause H-08 pertaining to the public release of information is incorporated into all MDA SBIR and STTR contracts and subcontracts without exception. All materials which relate to work performed by the contractor under MDA SBIR and STTR contracts must be submitted to MDA for review and approval prior to release to the public. Subcontractor public information materials must be submitted for approval through the prime contractor to MDA.

FLOW-DOWN OF CLAUSES TO SUBCONTRACTORS

The clauses to which the prime contractor and subcontractors are required comply include, but are not limited to the following clauses: MDA clause H-08, DFARS 252.204-7000, and D FARS clause 252.204- 7012.

Confirm in your proposal that you will comply with the requirement to flow down, by contractual agreement with your subcontractors, all contract clauses and provisions which require flow down, including those specifically listed above.

Confirm also that you have received from your subcontractor written agreement that they will receive and comply with the clauses listed above.

MDA-3

These must be flowed down to each of your subcontractor exactly, without exception or modification of the wording. Unless otherwise stated, the technology involved with the performance of your contract is controlled unclassified information.

OWNERSHIP ELIGIBILITY

Prior to award, the Missile Defense Agency may request business/corporate documentation to assess ownership eligibility as related to the requirements of the Guide to SBIR/STTR Program Eligibility. These documents include, but may not be limited to, the Business License; Articles of Incorporation or Organization; By-Laws/Operating Agreement; Stock Certificates (Voting Stock); Board Meeting Minutes for the previous year; and a list of all board members and officers. If requested by MDA, the contractor shall provide all necessary documentation for evaluation prior to SBIR/STTR award. Failure to submit the requested documentation may lead to loss of consideration or award.

FRAUD, WASTE, AND ABUSE

To Report Fraud, Waste, or Abuse, Please Contact: MDA Fraud, Waste & AbuseHotline: (256) [email protected]

DoD Inspector General (IG) Fraud, Waste & AbuseHotline: (800) [email protected]

Additional information on Fraud, Waste and Abuse may be found in the DoD Instructions of this announcement; sections 3.6 and 4.19.

PROPOSAL FUNDAMENTALS

Proposal SubmissionAll proposals MUST be submitted online using the DoD SBIR/STTR submission system (https://sbir.defensebusiness.org). Any questions pertaining to the DoD SBIR/STTR submission system should be directed to the DoD SBIR/STTR Help Desk: 1-800-348-0787.

Classified ProposalsClassified proposals are not accepted under the MDA SBIR/STTR Program. Contractors currently working under a classified MDA SBIR/STTR contract must use the security classification guidance provided under that contract to verify new SBIR/STTR proposals are unclassified prior to submission. Phase I contracts are not typically awarded for classified work. However, in some instances, work being performed on Phase II contracts will require security clearances. If a Phase II contract will require classified work, the proposing firm must have a facility clearance and appropriate personnel clearances in order to perform the classified work. For more information on facility and personnel clearance procedures and requirements, please visit the Defense Security Service Web site at: http://www.dss.mil/index.html.

CommunicationAll communication from the MDA SBIR/STTR PMO will originate from the [email protected] email address. Please white-list this address in your company’s spam filters to ensure timely receipt of communications from our office.

MDA-4

Proposal StatusThe MDA SBIR/STTR PMO will distribute selection and non-selection email notices to all firms who submit a MDA SBIR/STTR proposal. The email will be distributed to the “Corporate Official” and “Principal Investigator” listed on the proposal coversheet. MDA cannot be responsible for notification to a company that provides incorrect information or changes such information after proposal submission.

DebriefingIn accordance with FAR Part 35, MDA will not offer debriefs. However, we will provide feedback comments to unsuccessful offerors regarding your proposal. Requests for feedback must be submitted in writing to the MDA SBIR/STTR PMO within 30 calendar days of non-selection notification. Non-selection notifications will provide instructions for requesting proposal feedback.

Discretionary Technical Assistance (DTA)Section 9(b) of the SBIR and STTR Policy Directives allows agencies to enter into agreements with vendors to provide technical assistance to SBIR or STTR awardees, which may include access to a network of scientists and engineers engaged in a wide range of technologies or access to technical and business literature available through on-line data bases.

MDA permits award recipients to obtain technical assistance in accordance with the SBIR and STTR Policy Directives. An SBIR or STTR firm may acquire the technical assistance services described above on its own. Firms must request this authority from MDA and demonstrate in its SBIR or STTR proposal that the individual or entity selected can provide the specific technical services needed. In addition, costs must be included in the cost volume of the offeror’s proposal. The DTA provider may not be the requesting firm, an affiliate of the requesting firm, an investor of the requesting firm, or a subcontractor or consultant of the requesting firm otherwise required as part of the paid portion of the research effort (e.g. research partner or research institution). If the awardee demonstrates this requirement sufficiently, MDA will permit the awardee to acquire such technical assistance itself, in an amount up to $5,000 per year, as an allowable cost of the SBIR or STTR award. The per year amount will be in addition to the award and is not subject to any profit or fee by the requesting firm and shall be inclusive of all indirect rates. The per-year amount is based on the original contract period of performance and does not apply to period of performance extensions. Requests for DTA funding outside of the Phase I or Phase II proposal submission will not be considered.

PHASE I PROPOSAL GUIDELINES

The DoD SBIR/STTR Proposal Submission system (available at https://sbir.defensebusiness.org) will lead you through the preparation and submission of your proposal. Read the front section of the DoD announcement for detailed instructions on proposal format and program requirements. Proposals not conforming to the terms of this announcement will not be considered.

MAXIMUM PHASE I PAGE LIMIT FOR MDA IS 20 PAGES

Any pages submitted beyond the 20-page limit within the Technical Volume (Volume 2) will not be evaluated.

Phase I Proposal

MDA-5

https://www.sbir.gov/about/about-sbir#sbir-policy-directive

A complete Phase I proposal consists of four volumes: Volume 1: Proposal Cover Sheet (does not count towards maximum page limit) Volume 2: Technical Volume Volume 3: Cost Volume (does not count towards maximum page limit)

Volume 4: Company Commercialization Report (does not count towards maximum page limit)

MDA intends for the Phase I effort to determine the merit and technical feasibility of the concept. The contract period of performance for Phase I shall be six (6) months and the award shall not exceed $100,000. A Phase I Option may be submitted with a period of performance of 6 months and an amount not to exceed $50,000. This option may or may not be exercised at the sole discretion of the agency. A list of topics currently eligible for proposal submission is included in these instructions, followed by full topic descriptions. These are the only topics for which proposals will be accepted at this time.

References to Hardware, Computer Software, or Technical DataIn accordance with the SBIR Directive, SBIR contracts are to conduct feasibility-related experimental or theoretical R/R&D related to described agency requirements. The object of the Phase I is to determine the scientific and technical merit and feasibility of the proposed effort and quality of performance of the Small Business Concern. It is not for formal end-item contract delivery, and ownership by the Government of your hardware, computer software, or technical data.

Based on this, in your technical proposal, do not use the term "Deliverables" when referring to your hardware, computer software, or technical data. Instead use the term: “Products for Government Testing, Evaluation, Demonstration, and/or possible destructive testing.”

The standard formal deliverables for a Phase I are the Report of Invention and Disclosure, Certificates of Compliance, Computer Software Product (normally not applicable for a Phase I), Prototype Design and Operation Document (normally not applicable for a Phase I,) Monthly Reports for months 1 through 4, Draft Final Report for month 5, and Final Report for month 6.

52.203-5 Covenant Against Contingent Fees

As prescribed in FAR 3.404, the following FAR 52.203-5 clause shall be included in all contracts awarded under this BAA:

(a) The Contractor warrants that no person or agency has been employed or retained to solicit or obtain this contract upon an agreement or understanding for a contingent fee, except a bona fide employee or agency. For breach or violation of this warranty, the Government shall have the right to annul this contract without liability or to deduct from the contract price or consideration, or otherwise recover, the full amount of the contingent fee.

(b) Bona fide agency, as used in this clause, means an established commercial or selling agency, maintained by a contractor for the purpose of securing business, that neither exerts nor proposes to exert improper influence to solicit or obtain Government contracts nor holds itself out as being able to obtain any Government contract or contracts through improper influence.

"Bona fide employee," as used in this clause, means a person, employed by a contractor and subject to the contractor's supervision and control as to time, place, and manner of performance, who neither exerts nor proposes to exert improper influence to solicit or obtain Government contracts nor holds out as being able to obtain any Government contract or contracts through improper influence. "Contingent fee," as used in this clause, means any commission, percentage, brokerage, or other fee that is contingent upon the success that a person or concern has in securing a Government contract.

MDA-6

"Improper influence," as used in this clause, means any influence that induces or tends to induce a Government employee or officer to give consideration or to act regarding a Government contract on any basis other than the merits of the matter.

PHASE I PROPOSAL SUBMISSION CHECKLIST

All of the following criteria must be met or your proposal will be REJECTED.

____1. The following have been submitted electronically through the DoD submission site by 8:00 p.m. (EDT) 21 June 2017.

_____ a. Volume 1: DoD Proposal Cover Sheet

_____ b. Volume 2: Technical Volume (DOES NOT EXCEED 20 PAGES): Any pages submitted beyond this will not be evaluated. Your Proposal Cover Sheet, Cost Volume, and Company Commercialization Report DO NOT count toward your maximum page limit.

_____ c. If proposing to use foreign nationals; identify the foreign national(s) you expect to be involved on this project, the type of visa or work permit under which they are performing, country of origin and level of involvement.

_____ d. Volume 3: Cost Volume. (Online Cost Volume form is REQUIRED by MDA)

_____ e. Volume 4: Company Commercialization Report. (required even if your firm has no prior SBIR/STTR awards).

____2. The Phase I proposed cost plus option does not exceed $150,000. (this amount does not include DTA)

PHASE I OPTION MUST BE INCLUDED AS PART OF PHASE I PROPOSAL

MDA implements the use of a Phase I Option that may be exercised at MDA’s sole discretion to fund interim Phase I activities to bridge the gap between Phase I and Phase II contracts. The exercise of a Phase I option does not guarantee an award of a Phase II contract. The Phase I Option, which must be included as part of the Phase I proposal, should cover activities over a period of up to six months and describe appropriate initial Phase II activities that may lead to the successful demonstration of a product or technology. The Phase I Option must be included within the 20-page limit for the Phase I proposal.

Proposal titles, abstracts, anticipated benefits, and keywords of proposals that are selected for contract award will undergo an MDA Policy and Security Review. Proposal titles, abstracts, anticipated benefits, and keywords are subject to revision and/or redaction by MDA. Final approved versions of proposal titles, abstracts, anticipated benefits, and keywords will appear on the DoD SBIR/STTR awards website (https://sbir.defensebusiness.org).

MDA PROPOSAL EVALUATIONS

MDA will evaluate and select Phase I and Phase II proposals using scientific review criteria based upon technical merit and other criteria as discussed in this announcement document. MDA reserves the right to

MDA-7

award none, one, or more than one contract under any topic. MDA is not responsible for any money expended by the proposer before award of any contract. Due to limited funding, MDA reserves the right to limit awards under any topic and only proposals considered to be of superior quality will be funded.

MDA Phase I and Phase II proposals will be evaluated based on the criteria outlined below, including potential benefit to the Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS). Selections will be based on best value to the Government considering the following factors which are listed in descending order of importance:

a) The soundness, technical merit, and innovation of the proposed approach and its incremental progress toward topic or subtopic solution.

b) The qualifications of the proposed principal/key investigators, supporting staff, and consultants. Qualifications include not only the ability to perform the research and development but also the ability to commercialize the results.

c) The potential for commercial (Government or private sector) application and the benefits expected to accrue from this commercialization.

In Phase I and Phase II, firms with a Commercialization Achievement Index (CAI) at or below the 20th percentile will be penalized in accordance with the DoD program announcement.

Please note that potential benefit to the BMDS will be considered throughout all the evaluation criteria and in the best value trade-off analysis. When combined, the stated evaluation criteria are significantly more important than cost or price.

It cannot be assumed that reviewers are acquainted with the firm or key individuals or any referenced experiments. Technical reviewers will base their conclusions on information contained in the proposal. Relevant supporting data such as journal articles, literature, including Government publications, etc., should be contained in the proposal and will count toward the applicable page limit.

Qualified advocacy letter(s) will count towards the proposal page limit and will be evaluated towards criterion C. Advocacy letters are not required for Phase I or Phase II. Advocacy letters shall not be contingent upon receipt of a subcontract.

A qualified advocacy letter is from a relevant commercial or Government Agency procuring organization(s) working with MDA, articulating their pull for the technology (i.e., what BMDS need(s) the technology supports and why it is important to fund it), and possible commitment to provide additional funding and/or insert the technology in their acquisition/sustainment program. This letter should be included as the last page(s) of your technical upload. Advocacy letter(s) which are faxed or e-mailed separately will NOT be considered.

Phase II Proposal Submission

Per DoD SBIR Phase II Proposal guidance, all Phase I awardees from the 17.2 Phase I announcement will be permitted to submit a Phase II proposal for evaluation and potential award selection. Details on the due date, content, and submission requirements of the Phase II proposal will be provided by the MDA SBIR/STTR PMO either in the Phase I award contract or by subsequent notification. Only firms who receive a Phase I award resulting from the 17.2 announcement may submit a Phase II proposal. MDA will evaluate and select Phase II proposals using the Phase II evaluation criteria listed in the DoD Program announcement. While funding must be based upon the results of work performed under a Phase I award and the scientific and technical merit, feasibility and commercial potential of the Phase II proposal; Phase I final reports will not be reviewed as part of the Phase II evaluation process. The Phase

MDA-8

II proposal should include a concise summary of the Phase I effort including the specific technical problem or opportunity addressed and its importance, the objective of the Phase I effort, the type of research conducted, findings or results of this research, and technical feasibility of the proposed technology. Due to limited funding, MDA reserves the right to limit awards under any topic and only proposals considered to be of superior quality will be funded. MDA does NOT participate in the DoD Fast Track program.

All Phase II awardees must have a Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) approved accounting system. It is strongly urged that an approved accounting system be in place prior to the MDA Phase II award timeframe. If you do not have a DCAA approved accounting system, this will delay/prevent Phase II contract award.

Approved for Public Release 17-MDA-8989 (23 January 17)

MDA-9

MDA SBIR 17.2 Topic Index

MDA17-001 High Speed Missile to Missile CommunicationsMDA17-002 Resource Utilization Prediction and Planning for Complex SimulationsMDA17-003 Intelligent Dynamic Data LoggingMDA17-004 Run Time Data Compression TechniquesMDA17-005 Endo-atmospheric Electro-Optical/Infrared Seeker WindowsMDA17-006 Advanced Lightweight, Low Cost, High-g Seeker GimbalMDA17-007 Advanced High-g Accelerometers in Small Form Factor for Inertial Measurement Unit

ApplicationsMDA17-008 Advanced High-G Propulsion Controls TechnologyMDA17-009 Radar Cross Section Testing for Modeling and SimulationsMDA17-010 “Green” Liquid Propellant Upper Stage Engine for Air Launched TargetsMDA17-011 3D Printed Component Packages for Semiconductor DieMDA17-012 3D Printed Microscale Radiation ShieldMDA17-013 Radio Frequency Transparent Thermal Protection System MaterialsMDA17-014 Improvements in Flight Control Response TimeMDA17-015 Miniaturized Avionics for Missile Systems

MDA-10

MDA SBIR 17.2 Topic Descriptions

MDA17-001 TITLE: High Speed Missile to Missile Communications

TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Electronics, Weapons

The technology within this topic is restricted under the International Traffic in Arms Regulation (ITAR), which controls the export and import of defense-related material and services. Offerors must disclose any proposed use of foreign nationals, their country of origin, and what tasks each would accomplish in the statement of work in accordance with section 5.4.c.(8) of the Announcement.

OBJECTIVE: Seek innovative solutions for High Speed Missile to Missile communications; either modifying the existing radio frequency (RF) communications data downlink or implementing an alternative design for an interceptor missile.

DESCRIPTION: An interceptor missile uses a two-way wireless RF transmission data link between the launch control point and missile for guidance and status information. Information can be sent from an interceptor missile to launch control which in turn can send guidance update information to a second missile. The time required for the missile to launch control to missile communications to occur has prompted the request for an innovative solution for direct missile to missile high speed communications. Alternative solutions should permit secure two-way high speed data link communications between missiles in flight.

PHASE I: Develop a proof of concept design; identify designs, down select alternatives and conduct a feasibility assessment for the proposed solution. Perform analysis and limited bench level testing to demonstrate the concept and develop an understanding of the new and innovative technology.

PHASE II: Validate the feasibility of the Phase I concept by development and demonstrations that will be tested to ensure performance objectives are met. Validation should include, but not be limited to, system simulations, operation in test-beds, or operation in a demonstration subsystem. The Phase II effort should result in a prototype.

PHASE III DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: Apply the innovations demonstrated in the first two phases to one or government systems, subsystems, or components. Demonstrate the scalability of the developed technology, transition the component technology to the government system integrator or payload contractor, mature it for operational insertion, and demonstrate the technology in an operational level environment.

REFERENCES:1. McDonald, R. L., and Witte, R. W., “Guidance System Development,” Johns Hopkins APL Tech. Dig. (4), 289−298 (1981).

2. Murota, K., and Hirade, K., “GMSK Modulation for Digital Mobile Radio Telephony”, IEEE Trans. Commun., 29(7), 1044−1050 (1981).

3. Proakis, J., Digital Communications, 4th Ed., McGraw-Hill, New York (2000).

4. Cole Jr., C. E., Missile Communication Links, Johns Hopkins APL Technical Digest, Vol 28, Num 4 (2010)

KEYWORDS: secure data link system design, high speed two-way data link, RF communication

MDA17-002 TITLE: Resource Utilization Prediction and Planning for Complex Simulations

MDA-11

TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Information Systems

OBJECTIVE: Develop a capability to predict run time and network resource loading of complex federations of missile defense engineering and/or Hardware-in-the-loop (HWIL) simulations, assess scenario features driving resource loading, and predict affected components to warn of un-executable scenario designs, assist configuring Modeling and Simulation (M&S) networks, and support automated batch scheduling.

DESCRIPTION: During execution of large scale federated engineering simulations computer/network resources can be overtaxed resulting in slow execution and thinned representations that are not able to be accredited or are outright execution failures. Execution of the actual simulation can be chaotic as small changes in event timing result in different events chains as component systems make different decisions. This affect is multiplied during simulation as the resource loading to model events varies and components of the simulation architecture interact. The M&S architectures vary with the event participants and have new software and hardware developed in isolation and integrated for the first time. A tool to predict run times and resource loading on prospective M&S architectures is needed. Inputs should be 1) the missile defense scenario, and 2) the prospective architectures. The desired technology should support more efficient operations of large scale federated simulations and be extendable to any large scale distributed computer network architectures. Analytical, simulation-of-a-simulation, learning heuristics, or other innovative techniques may be applicable to the problem.

PHASE I: Develop the proposed approach to a sufficient level to demonstrate its viability and identify requirements for full development. The following are anticipated at the conclusion of Phase I: a) a demonstration/proof-of-concept of the viability of the proposed approach, b) an algorithmic description of the developed approach to include a description of required inputs and expected sources of this data, and likely form of outputs, and c) a plan for the full development of the capability, to include the plan to gain Information Assurance (IA) approval to operate the software on government computers.

PHASE II: Deliver an initial working prototype capability, usable by the government on an experimental basis. Under the working assumption that the capability will be provided in the form of software, the following are anticipated by the conclusion of Phase II: a) a demonstration of a usable initial capability to include some level of validation of results, b) delivery of the initial capability software, c) initiate Information Assurance approval of software for use on government computers, d) user documentation for the initial capability sufficient to support trial use, e) documentation of the initial capability’s software architecture and description of its algorithms, and f) an initial validation test results against actual government M&S architectures.

PHASE III DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: Focus on delivering phased incremental improvements to the prototype until a full operational capability is achieved. At each increment the following would be anticipated: a) Demonstration the incremental additions/improvements, b) a software release for use/testing by government M&S engineers, c) government IA approval of the software for use on government computers, d) updated user documentation, e) updated software and algorithmic description documentation, and f) validation test results. At the conclusion of Phase III provide the final executable software and documentation.

REFERENCES:1. Missile Defense Agency Fact Sheet: The Ballistic Missile Defense System https://www.mda.mil/global/documents/pdf/bmds.pdf

2. A modeling Approach for Estimating Execution Time of Long-Running Scientific Applications https://users.cs.fiu.edu/~raju/WWW/publications/hpgc2008/paper.pdf

3. Predicting Execution Time of Computer Programs Using Sparse Polynomial Regression http://www.linghuang.org/research/spore.pdf

4. Federated Simulations for Systems of Systems Integration http://www.informs-sim.org/wsc08papers/134.pdf

MDA-12

5. Summary of Objective Simulation Framework (OSF) 16 Oct 2012. https://www.mda.mil/global/documents/pdf/TBE_OSF_Fact_Sheet_FINAL_16_Oct_2012.pdf

6. Summary of Objective Simulation Framework (OSF) 18 Aug 2015. https://www.mda.mil/global/documents/pdf/OSF_Product_Sheet_Final_20150818.pdf

KEYWORDS: execution time, run time, federated simulations, modeling & simulation, computer networks, prediction, computer resources

MDA17-003 TITLE: Intelligent Dynamic Data Logging


OBJECTIVE: Develop innovative software to reduce run time inline simulation processor usage, memory usage, and network data bandwidth requirements to manage analytical data capture and storage.

DESCRIPTION: Current data logging methods in simulations use significant processor, memory, and network data bandwidth. To meet execution speed requirements and prevent crashes, generally only a minimal set of data items are logged in as run-for-records. However, this minimal set is often insufficient in diagnosing problems with the simulation (e.g. element model crash) or in understanding complex events of interest in the simulation (e.g. a missed intercept). In addition, many of the desired data items for the events of interest are only needed for a few seconds of execution time, but their occurrence is not predictable prior to execution. This topic seeks innovative solutions to these data logging issues. Specifically, there is a desire for efficiently logging data items during an execution based on the occurrence/predicted occurrence of the simulator and the simulated events of interest (all while maintaining the execution speed and reliability). Improvements to current cloud based logging methods, such as Morpheus or hybrid cloud logging methods, are areas of interest as are solutions that embed artificial intelligence.

PHASE I: Design and develop a concept for intelligent data logging in simulations. Demonstrate the feasibility of the approach, including simulation performance impacts, and define an incremental development plan for Phase II and Phase III that will deliver a usable capability.

PHASE II: Develop a prototype for intelligent data logging capable of being tested by simulation engineers in a run-for record in a parallel or “no-harm” means. Demonstrate that this capability can be incorporated into simulation architecture without major rework or significant additional cost while achieving the increased performance (faster logging that leads to quicker simulation run times.) Begin Information Assurance (IA) accreditation of the prototype software so that the software can be tested on government computer networks.

PHASE III DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: Complete IA accreditation and deliver a fully usable capability for use with both a Hardware-in-the-Loop and a Tier II digital Objective Simulation Framework (OSF) based simulation architecture. Demonstrate the capability for logging OSF Public Interface (OPI) and element data logging, coordinate the objectives and conditions for logging as well as what needs to be logged by each model/components needed and incorporate the intelligent data logger into the simulations and into an event. The commercialization prospects should increase greatly if the technologies developed also are applicable to other simulation architectures.

REFERENCES:1. What is Data logging (Daren Perrucci) - https://www.morpheusdata.com/blog/2016-03-23-what-is-data-logging.

2. Missile Defense Agency Fact Sheet: The Ballistic Missile Defense System https://www.mda.mil/global/documents/pdf/bmds.pdf.

MDA-13

3. MDA Testing - https://www.mda.mil/system/testing.html.



KEYWORDS: Plug-and-play, Objective based logging, situational logging, eclipse, Objective Simulation Framework (OSF), Platform-As-A-Service (PAAS), cloud-based logging, Microsoft Azure, metadata, Heroku

MDA17-004 TITLE: Run Time Data Compression Techniques


OBJECTIVE: Develop innovative data compression techniques to reduce federate and/or distributed simulation data transmission times and storage capacity requirements.

DESCRIPTION: Innovative data compression techniques are sought that can be applied at run time to reduce data logging path bandwidth requirements within the architecture and decrease memory and storage required for data logging. Transmission and storage of data within simulation architectures take significant bandwidth and memory. While there are several data compression algorithms which are available to compress files of different formats such as Shannon-Fano Coding, Huffman coding, Adaptive Huffman coding, Run Length Encoding and Arithmetic coding, an advanced solution is sought that improves upon these methods and works in highly complex missile defense simulation and test architectures. A major design goal is for the developed technologies to be used in existing simulation infrastructures with minimal modification.

PHASE I: Develop and demonstrate the technical feasibility of the improved data compression algorithm(s). Analyze and provide expected performance in relation to increasing data transmission throughput and storage during execution of federated/distributed simulations.

PHASE II: Develop a prototype to be used in a run time data compression test by simulation engineers in a missile defense simulation. Demonstrate and evaluate that the prototype can be incorporated into the Objective Simulation Framework (OSF) or another framework without major rework or significant additional cost while improving performance. Initiate Information Assurance (IA) accreditation of the prototype software (will be required before any test on government computer networks).

PHASE III DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: Complete full development of the run time data compression software. Complete information assurance of the software. Incorporate the run time data compression software into the OSF or another missile defense simulation.

REFERENCES:1. Introduction to data compression (Carnegie Mellon), The future of data compression in unity, Data compression transformations for dynamically allocated data. Shanmugasundaram, Senthil.

2. "A Comparative Study of Text Compression Algorithms" International Journal of Wisdom Based Computing," Vol. 1 (3), December 2011. 68-76.


MDA-14


KEYWORDS: inline data compression, big data Run-length encoding (RLE)

MDA17-005 TITLE: Endo-atmospheric Electro-Optical/Infrared Seeker Windows

TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Materials/Processes, Sensors, Weapons


OBJECTIVE: This topic seeks highly innovative solutions to the challenges of robust transparent window materials and configurations for electro-optical/infrared (EO/IR) seeker windows capable of surviving and performing in endo-atmospheric interceptor environments characterized by high heating rates, temperatures, pressures, and accelerations.

DESCRIPTION: EO/IR seekers operating in endo-atmospheric flight require transparent window materials that transmit light from objects in the seeker field of view through an optical system onto a detector without loss of window or thermal protection system (TPS) integrity. Thermal gradients across the window, aggravated by vibration, acceleration, and shock, can cause failure within the bulk of the window or at material interfaces. In addition, thermal emissions from heated windows add to sensor noise. Window configurations that relocate the window from the nose tip to other positions on the interceptor body to reduce thermal and pressure loads impact optical field of regard and engagement strategy. Window coolants reduce local window temperatures; however, they introduce additional system complexity and create additional aero-optic effects at the window interface.This topic seeks highly innovative solutions to the challenges described above. Desirable attributes of proposed solutions include long operation times; survivability at high steady state temperatures; survivability in high heating rates; survivability at high three-axis accelerations; all-weather survivability; and, high transmissivity and low emissivity in infrared wavebands. The technology should also have excellent manufacturability, maintainability, reliability, simplicity of operation, low cost, and low size weight and power requirements.

PHASE I: Conduct research and analysis to quantify the proposed solution’s expected performance metrics and ability to meet all or most of the desirable attributes listed above. Complete a design for a seeker window configuration for a notional interceptor, including a description of how it will interface with the aeroshell / Thermal Protection System (TPS) and/or underlying structure and how it will be optically coupled with the detector array. Collaborate with appropriate window and aeroshell/TPS fabricators to develop a plan, schedule, and cost for fabricating material coupon samples. Identify fabrication risks and describe risk mitigation steps. Conduct material testing and analysis to predict the performance of the material.

PHASE II: Fabricate material coupon samples integrated with advanced structure/TPS using representative interfaces. Conduct testing to confirm performance and survivability through the expected stressful environments. Compare measured to predicted results and update window configuration design and analytical modeling accordingly. Repeat fabrication, test, and analysis to improve the window configuration design as funding permits. The performer should collaborate with prime contractors as potential transition partners. Provide a final report detailing the design, analysis, and test results of these efforts and deliver set-aside material coupon samples to a government laboratory for independent test and validation.

PHASE III DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: Fabricate full or subscale prototypes of the interceptor missile section containing the seeker window configuration. These full or subscale prototypes should include the window, all structural interfaces for the window configuration and hardware for coupling the window configuration to the

MDA-15

detector. Work with partners to conduct appropriate ground testing of this prototype and prepare for transition to an interceptor program.

REFERENCES:1. Jeffrey L. Tosi and Kumar M. Khajurivala, Common Infrared Optical Materials and Coatings: A Guide to Properties, Performance and Applications. http://www.photonics.com/EDU/Handbook.aspx?AID=25495

2. Cary, R.H. “Avionic Radome Materials.” Advisory Group for Aerospace Research and Development. AD-A007-956. Paris, France. October 1974.

3. The Correct Material for Infrared (IR) Applications. http://www.edmundoptics.com/resources/application-notes/optics/the-correct-material-for-infrared-applications

4. Allen Spencer and William Moore, Design Trade-Offs For Homing Missiles, ADA282245, www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a282245.pdf

KEYWORDS: EO/IR, Seeker, Interceptor, missile, Endo-atmospheric, Window, Infrared, Electro-Optical, transmittance materials, high temperature materials

MDA17-006 TITLE: Advanced Lightweight, Low Cost, High-g Seeker Gimbal

TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Air Platform, Sensors, Weapons


OBJECTIVE: Develop an innovative design for a lightweight, low cost, precision, seeker gimbal assembly that can operate in endo and exo-atmospheric environments inducing high stress levels, i.e., temperature, vibration, shock, and sustained high-g.

DESCRIPTION: This topic seeks an innovative design of a lightweight, low cost, low power, high performance gimbal for missile seekers. Innovative materials and manufacturing processes can be from any of the major material types as long as they are lightweight and low cost and are able to withstand the relevant environments. Innovative manufacturing processes can be from any of the process types to include powder technology, forging, casting, additive manufacturing, etc. Assembly processes should consider semi-automated and fully automated assembly. The gimbal should be designed to accommodate electrical and cryogenic elements (assume sensor operation between 68 degrees K and 120 degrees K) necessary for operation of the sensor element on the gimbal platform. Assume a thermal environment ranging from -50 degrees C to + 70 degrees C and radiation hardness >300 krad. The gimbal should have the capability of maintaining less than 0.1 milliradians pointing accuracy, greater than 4 radians per second slew rate, less than 50 microradians RMS stabilization, and must accommodate up to 1 radian field of regard.

PHASE I: Investigate alternative gimbal designs for a low cost, lightweight gimbal capable of withstanding high stress environments and provide a feasibility assessment of the proposed solution. Develop down selection criteria based on reduced cost and weight. Provide analysis to support recommendation of the most appropriate design for further evaluation in Phase II.

PHASE II: Build a prototype with the goal of demonstrating that the proposed design represents a feasible approach. The contractor should provide a lessons learned summary about the results and a manufacturing tolerance study and

MDA-16

provide the gimbal to government personnel as needed for performance and environmental evaluation and testing.

PHASE III DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: Develop and execute a plan to manufacture component developed in Phase II, and assist the government in transitioning this technology to the appropriate prime contractor(s) for the engineering integration and testing.

REFERENCES:1. N. F. Palumbo, et.al, Basic Principles of Homing Guidance, Johns Hopkins APL Technical Digest, Vol. 29, No. 1 (2010).

2. P. Zarchan, Tactical and Strategic Missile Guidance, 5th Ed., AIAA, 2007.

3. Fundamentals of Modern Manufacturing: Materials, Processes, and Systems, Groover, Wiley, 2006

4. Manufacturing Engineering Handbook, Geng and Geng, Mc Graw-Hill, 2004

5. Advanced Machining Technology Handbook, Brown, Mc Graw-Hill, 1998

KEYWORDS: gimbal, missile, seeker, control system

MDA17-007 TITLE: Advanced High-g Accelerometers in Small Form Factor for Inertial Measurement Unit Applications

TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Sensors, Weapons


OBJECTIVE: Develop and demonstrate innovative approaches for advanced accelerometer technology that enhances an Inertial Measurement Unit’s (IMU’s) high-g operability and survivability.

DESCRIPTION: Accelerometers employed in missile defense IMU applications for guidance, navigation and control encounter severe accelerations, shocks and vibrations during all phases of operation. In addition, IMU in-flight systems are constrained by limits on size, weight, power and cost (SWaP-C) while requiring high performance and radiation environment operability. This topic seeks innovations in high-G accelerometer technologies which increase accuracy and decrease SWaP while enabling continuous operation through 2 to 3 times higher acceleration environments than current state of the art capability, with no more than 5% performance degradation. The proposed solution, when integrated with appropriate gyroscope, should fit within 2 times smaller packages than the current state of the art IMU packages. In addition, the proposed hardware solutions must also increase the ruggedness and survivability of accelerometers by a factor of 2 to 3 over current shock and vibration environments. Other desirable attributes of proposed accelerometer solutions include long operation times, operability in high temperature environments, operability through large thermal gradients, design simplicity, ease of manufacturability, integration ease of integrability into IMU systems, long duration storage with negligible performance degradation and low cost.

PHASE I: Develop and conduct feasibility/proof of concept study for the proposed technology to meet the desired performance requirements in high-g environments. Complete a design for the accelerometer technology, including how it will potentially integrate into an IMU. Perform modeling, simulation and analysis (MS&A) and/or laboratory experimentation to demonstrate the proof of concept. Proof of concept demonstration may be subscale and used in conjunction with MS&A results to verify scaling laws, feasibility and demonstrate the ability to maintain

MDA-17

performance standards in realistic flight environments. Identify manufacturing risks and describe risk mitigation steps. At completion of this program, the preliminary design and detailed analysis should be documented for Phase II.

PHASE II: Expand on Phase I results by producing prototype accelerometers and demonstrating the technology’s performance and survivability through appropriate prototype testing. Compare measured to predicted results and update design and analytical models accordingly. Repeat fabrication, test, and analysis of the updated design as funding permits. The performer should collaborate with prime contractors and/or prime integrators as potential transition partners into an IMU. Phase II concludes with a final report detailing the final design, test results and full IMU integration plans for the accelerometer. The performer should produce prototype accelerometer suitable for government testing.

PHASE III DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: Expand on Phase II results by optimizing designs as necessary for integration into an IMU system. Work with partners to conduct IMU integration and system level demonstration. Demonstration could include, but is not limited to testing in a real system or a system level test-bed. Work with partners to conduct appropriate ground testing of the IMU prototype and prepare for transition to an interceptor program. The performer will provide IMU prototypes to a government laboratory for independent test and validation.

REFERENCES:1. Missile Defense Agency. Undated. Overview of missile defense systems. Retrieved from http://www.mda.mil

2. Department of Defense. Undated. Link to documents with some information on some BMD near-term and long-term capabilities. Retrieved from http://www.defense.gov/bmdr

3. Department of Defense. Undated. MIL-STD-810, Environmental Engineering Considerations and Laboratory Tests. MDA - 25

4. SMC-S-016. Undated. Air Force Space Command and Space and Missile Systems Center document. Test Requirements for Launch, Upper-Stage and Space Vehicles.

5. Northrop Grumman. 2013. “LN-200 FOG Family Advanced Airborne IMU/AHRS." Retrieved from http://www.northropgrumman.com/Capabilities/LN200FOG/Documents/ln200.pdf.

6. Honeywell. 2012. “Inertial Measurement Units.” Retrieved from http://aerospace.honeywell.com/en/products/communication-nav-and-surveillance/inertial-navigation/defense-navigation/inertial-measurement-units/hg1700, https://aerospace.honeywell.com/en/products/navigation-and-sensors/hg1930.

KEYWORDS: accelerometers; sensors; micro-electronics; Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU); Guidance, Navigation and Control (GNC)

MDA17-008 TITLE: Advanced High-G Propulsion Controls Technology

TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Weapons


MDA-18

OBJECTIVE: Identify, evaluate, develop, and demonstrate innovative propulsion control system technology that advances the State-of-the-Art (SOTA).

DESCRIPTION: Missile defense interceptors employ various propulsion control systems maintain flight stability or provide trajectory corrections during various stages of flight and under a wide range of aerodynamic loads. This topic seeks technology improvements to propulsion control systems that could provide increased mission flexibility. Desire technology that reduces size, weight and power and increases agility by enabling higher delta velocity, improved acceleration rates and/or faster response times. Technological improvements are sought that are flexible and operate over a wide range of aerodynamic and aerothermal loading conditions. Technology that may be compatible with existing propulsion systems and/or is modular across multiple propulsion platforms is desired.

PHASE I: Develop and conduct feasibility/proof of concept study to identify candidate technology and/or components. Complete preliminary evaluation of the technology, showing the assessment of improvement across the battlespace. At completion of this program, the preliminary design will be documented for Phase II.

PHASE II: Expand on Phase I results by producing components and demonstrating technology through prototype testing. Test demonstrations will provide the required data to support and/or validate the improvements identified in Phase I.

PHASE III DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: Expand on Phase II results by optimizing designs as necessary for integration into a future system. Conduct integration and system level demonstration. Demonstration could include, but is not limited to testing in a real system or a system level test-bed with plans for insertion into an interceptor.

REFERENCES:1. Sutton, George P. Rocket Propulsion Elements, 8th Edition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; 2010.

2. Siouris, George M. Missile Guidance and Control Systems. Springer-Verlag New York; 2004.

KEYWORDS: Missile, Interceptor, Propulsion, Rocket Propulsion, Propulsion Control System, Interceptor Control System, Advanced Propulsion Technology, Thrust Vector Control, Thrust Control, Maneuverability, Aerodynamic Steering, Aerodynamic Control, Control Surfaces

MDA17-009 TITLE: Radar Cross Section Testing for Modeling and Simulations

TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Information Systems, Sensors

OBJECTIVE: Develop innovative methods to expedite Radar Cross Section (RCS) testing.

DESCRIPTION: Innovative processes, procedures and/or algorithms are sought that could reduce the time spent in RCS test facilities. Radar wavebands of interest include C, X and K (Ku, K, Ka) bands. Specific areas of interest include, but are not limited to, more efficient sampling techniques, data packaging and/or extraction methods. Innovations related to sampling could include scan speeds, bandwidths, and/or test object repositioning that will shorten the time needed for data capture. Packaging innovations could include processes to more efficiently take the captured data (and related information) for data compression. Extraction methods could involve methods to more efficiently convert the captured data (captured in Frequency Domain) and transform it over into the Time Domain for analysis. Currently there are two national facilities that can meet the stringent RCS test requirements for classification, size and criticality (data gathering and accuracy) for this data. The government requires testing in these facilities that meets requirements for number of angles, number of frequencies and level of accuracy. The goal of this effort should be to expand on the existing capabilities within these two labs and to optimize testing such that the overall time in the RCS test chamber is reduced.

MDA-19

PHASE I: Provide a proof of principle of the processes and/or procedures and algorithms. The proof should also capture the key areas where future enhancements are needed, suggest appropriate methods and technologies to realize faster data capture while meeting or exceeding the current level of data fidelity.

PHASE II: Based upon the findings from Phase I, the contractor should complete a detailed prototype design of the software/model incorporating government performance requirements. This prototype design should be used to form the development and implementation of a mature, full-scale capability that will be used in one of the test chambers for evaluation. Data fidelity and time to gather data will be principle measures of performance.

PHASE III DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: The intent of the Phase III effort will utilize the finished items in the actual testing of products for the government modeling and simulation program.

REFERENCES:1. Knott, E.F., Shaeffer, J.F. and Tuley, M.T., “Radar Cross Section – 2nd Edition,” 2004

2. NAWCAD Quick Facts, “Radar Reflectivity Laboratories (RRL), Bistatic, Large and Small Monostatic Anechoic Chambers” 2014. http://www.navair.navy.mil/nawcwd/command/ImgContent.aspx/LoadFileFromStore/235

3. Lamont V. Blake. 1980. “Radar Range-Performance Analysis.” Lexington, MA.

4. U.S. Missile Defense Agency. November 3, 2015. Ballistic Missile Defense System. Retrieved from http://www.mda.mil/index.html.

5. U.S. Department of Defense. Undated. Ballistic Missile Defense Review. Retrieved from http://www.defense.gov/bmdr

KEYWORDS: electromagnetics, radar cross section test, Fast Fourier Transform, radio wave, wave, sensor, radar, model, simulation, radio frequency

MDA17-010 TITLE: “Green” Liquid Propellant Upper Stage Engine for Air Launched Targets

TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Materials/Processes


OBJECTIVE: Develop and demonstrate enabling technologies for a liquid upper stage engine utilizing low-toxicity, non-cryogenic liquid propellants.

DESCRIPTION: The goal of this topic is to develop and demonstrate enabling technologies for an air launch/air transportable liquid upper stage engine. Propellants may be new or existing formulations but must be non-cryogenic, non-toxic, and hazard classification 1.3C or better. Gelled propellants (or other approaches for increased viscosity and reduced vapor pressure) may also be considered but must address rheological properties to show understanding of flow behavior compared to conventional Newtonian propellants. Propellants should be able to meet standardized Insensitive Munitions (IM) test parameters and passing criteria as defined by MIL-STD-2105D and be insensitive to adiabatic compression. Engine design and/or components may also be proposed. Key design parameters and associated components should be identified and demonstrated at a subscale level. One example would be addressing the ignition and combustion process of AF-M315E monopropellant that would allow scale-up of the combustion

MDA-20

chamber commensurate with performance parameters stated below. For design purposes, consider an engine with a thrust of 900 pounds-force (lbf) (4000 N), burn duration of 75 seconds, and a volumetric constraint of 50-inch diameter by 110-inch length.

PHASE I: Develop a proof-of-concept solution; identify candidate propellants, engine and/or component design concepts, test capabilities, and conduct initial design trade studies.

PHASE II: Expand on Phase I results by finalizing the engine design, building subscale, heavyweight test hardware, and conducting a hot-fire test to validate the design. The test should show high specific performance with scalability to a high thrust, flight representative engine.

PHASE III DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: The developed solution should be demonstrated via further engine hot-fire testing. Conduct engineering and manufacturing development, test, evaluation, qualification. Demonstration should include, but not be limited to, demonstration in a real system or operation in a system level testbed with insertion planning for a target program.

REFERENCES:1. George P. Sutton, "Rocket propulsion Elements; Introduction to Engineering of Rockets" 7th edition, John Willey &Sons, 2001. MIL-STD-2105D

2. US Insensitive Munitions Policy Update, DTIC

3. Toxicity of Rocket Fuels: Comparison of Hydrogen Peroxide with Current Propellants; http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/al_jub_ii/al_jub_ii_refs/n50en153/dmattie.htm

KEYWORDS: upper stage, liquid propellant, engine, thrust, low toxicity

MDA17-011 TITLE: 3D Printed Component Packages for Semiconductor Die

TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Electronics, Materials/Processes


OBJECTIVE: Design and develop an additive manufacturing process to three-dimensionally (3D) print a package around a bare semiconductor die that will comply with MIL-PRF-38535.

DESCRIPTION: This topic seeks to develop a 3D printing process that additively prints a 3D package around a bare semiconductor die where the package is tailored to fit the application. When semiconductors are fabricated, they are typically sent to a foreign country for packaging. Within the foreign country, it is possible the part is counterfeited. 3D printing of a component package around a bare die should allow for the manufacturer to keep the packaging at the same location as the die manufacturing and reduce the risk of counterfeiting. Additionally, it is desired that the proposed 3D printed component package be printed in a unique way to reduce susceptibility to counterfeiting.

PHASE I: Develop and conduct proof-of-principle studies and/or demonstrations of the process that prints a 3D semiconductor package around a bare microelectronic die. Provide evidence of adherence to MIL-PRF-38535 and summarize the proof-of-principle results in a final report.

MDA-21

PHASE II: Update/develop materials and processes and printer design based on the Phase I results. Validate process repeatability and demonstrate the ability of the printer and material to print in real-time around multiple sizes of semiconductor dies. Conduct initial operational and evaluation testing using a test flow that demonstrates compliance to class Q parts defined in MIL-PRF-38535 in a relevant test environment.

PHASE III DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: Conduct engineering and manufacturing development, test, and evaluation, qualification of materials, processes, and printer design. Demonstration would include, but not be limited to, demonstration in a real system or operation in a system level test-bed. Working with the government, formulate plans for insertion in a technology program.

REFERENCES:1. A. Kwas, E. MacDonald, D. Muse, R. Wicker, C. Kief, J. Aarestad, M. Zemba, B. Marshall, C. Tolbert, B. Connor, “Enabling Technologies for Entrepreneurial Opportunities in 3D printing of SmallSats,” 28th

2. Annual AIAA/USU Conference on Small Satellites, Aug. 2014.

3. J. Hoerber, J. Glasschroeder, M. Pfeffer, J. Schilp, M. Zaeh, J. Franke, Approaches for Additive Manufacturing of 3D Electronic Applications, Procedia CIRP, Volume 17, 2014, Pages 806-81.

KEYWORDS: microelectronics, anti-counterfeit, obsolescence, additive manufacturing, 3D printer

MDA17-012 TITLE: 3D Printed Microscale Radiation Shield

TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Electronics, Materials/Processes, Nuclear Technology, Space Platforms


OBJECTIVE: Develop a new and innovative 3D printing process that additively prints a three-dimensional radiation shield around the microelectronic piece-part.

DESCRIPTION: State-of-the-art microelectronics are often found to be susceptible to radiation and systems are required to be redesigned with a new electronic piece-part or multiple kilogram metal shielding. These modifications increase weight, size, costs, and schedule to the program. This topic seeks to develop an additive manufacturing process and material that prints one-piece surface claddings of graded atomic number (Z) materials for use as a radiation shield around a packaged microelectronic piece-part. This should demonstrate a reduction in the component’s susceptibility to radiation induced failure (such as single-event upsets and dose-rate upsets). The process should meet the goal of being able to print a shield around a 484 ball Fine Pitch Ball Grid Array (FBGA) package that is unmounted or mounted on a circuit card assembly. The radiation blocking material should ultimately be capable of mitigating single event effects from a Linear Energy Transfer (LET) > 40 [MeV-cm2]/mg particle and reducing the radiation dose-rate by 50%.

PHASE I: Develop and conduct proof-of-principle studies and/or demonstrations of a 3D printer that uses radiation blocking material to print a three-dimensional shape around a microelectronic piece-part. Provide evidence that the printer can print a shield around a 484 ball FBGA package that is unmounted or mounted on a circuit card assembly. Additionally, provide analysis that the material or materials used in the shield mitigates single event effects from a LET > 20 [MeV-cm2]/mg particle and reduces the radiation dose-rate by 25%.

MDA-22

PHASE II: Update/develop materials and processes and printer design based on the Phase I results. Validate process repeatability and demonstrate the ability of the printer and material to print in real-time around multiple types and sizes of semiconductor packages. Conduct initial operational and evaluation testing in a realistic radiation environment that demonstrates that the material or materials used in the shield mitigates single event effects from a LET > 40 [MeV-cm2]/mg particle and reduces the radiation dose-rate by 50%.

PHASE III DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: The developed printing process and packaging material should have direct insertion potentialinto missile defense systems. Conduct engineering and manufacturing development, test, evaluation, qualification. Demonstration would include, but not limited to, demonstration in a real system or operation in a system level test-bed with insertion planning for a missile defense interceptor.

REFERENCES:1. Srour, J.R., and J.M. McGarrity. “Radiation Effects on Microelectronics in Space.” Proc. IEEE; (United States) 76:11 (1988).

2. A. H. Johnston, "Radiation effects in advanced microelectronics technologies," in IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science, vol. 45, no. 3, pp. 1339-1354, Jun 1998.

3. A. Kwas, E. MacDonald, D. Muse, R. Wicker, C. Kief, J. Aarestad, M. Zemba, B. Marshall, C. Tolbert, B. Connor, “Enabling Technologies for Entrepreneurial Opportunities in 3D printing of SmallSats,” 28th Annual AIAA/USU Conference on Small Satellites, Aug. 2014.

KEYWORDS: microelectronics, radiation, single-event effects, total ionizing dose, dose-rate, additive manufacturing, 3D printer

MDA17-013 TITLE: Radio Frequency Transparent Thermal Protection System Materials

TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Materials/Processes, Space Platforms


OBJECTIVE: Develop a material that is transparent to certain radio frequencies (RF) and opaque in others, that can act as a thermal protection system (TPS).

DESCRIPTION: The government has interest in a TPS material that is RF transparent in frequencies used for telemetry while opaque in other frequencies. The goal of this topic is to develop such a TPS material or class of materials, that can be used for antenna radomes without affecting other signature characteristics. The material should offer protection from thermal and mechanical loads as well as electrical discharge (e.g. lighting strike). The material should be able to be manufactured in production quantities using readily available feedstock. Environmentally friendly materials and fabrication techniques are desired, but will not be the only metric used to assess the viability of the final product. It is expected that the utility of the material would have broad applications across the aerospace industry.

PHASE I: Select, design and develop candidate materials and associated fabrication processes. Conduct coupon scale testing for appropriate RF, thermal and structural material properties. Develop preliminary material response predictions for the flight environment.

MDA-23

PHASE II: Based on the results of Phase I, optimize material selection. Scale process to component scale fabrication and demonstrate process repeatability. Conduct detailed thermos-structural and RF testing for components in relevant environments.

PHASE III DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: Demonstrate performance of candidate material by real environment testing of component materials in association with a government flight test opportunities.

REFERENCES:1. Volakis, John Lonidas, “Antenna Engineering Handbook, 4th Ed.”, McGraw-Hill, 2007


KEYWORDS: radome, radio transparent material, thermal protection system

MDA17-014 TITLE: Improvements in Flight Control Response Time

TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Air Platform


OBJECTIVE: Develop an advanced closed loop control system that minimizes reaction time latencies during missile flight.

DESCRIPTION: This topic seeks innovative solutions for advanced autonomous flight control systems that minimize reaction time latencies and improve flight performance while minimizing cost. Proposed technologies may focus on control mechanism, flight computer, sensors, and/or feedback logic. Proposals to improve existing systems will be considered, but preference will be given to new concepts. All proposals need to show applicability to agile, high velocity flight systems. Lastly, proposals do not need to be all-in-one systems as proposals addressing one or more components will be considered.

PHASE I: Develop one or more concepts to improve the control of high speed autonomous vehicles. Concepts should be modeled for viability and culminate in a proof of concept demonstration to assess viable options for Phase II.

PHASE II: Transition successful Phase I proof of concept(s) to flight ready hardware. Interface control documents will be provided by the government at this time to guide the design to be interfaced in a test vehicle for Phase III.

PHASE III DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: Conduct qualification testing and integrate the hardware and/or software into a test vehicle to increase the technology readiness level to 8 or 9.

REFERENCES:1. Li, Z, et al, “Nonlinear robust control of hypersonic aircrafts with interactions between flight dynamics and propulsion systems”, ISA Transactions, Vol 64, September 2016, pp 1-11


MDA-24

KEYWORDS: control theory, control dynamics, algorithms, flight computer, actuator

MDA17-015 TITLE: Miniaturized Avionics for Missile Systems

TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Electronics, Space Platforms, Weapons


OBJECTIVE: Design and develop future missile systems avionics based upon innovative Commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) components. Develop innovative approaches to leveraging modern miniaturized electronics to the fullest extent possible as replacements for existing missile system avionics.

DESCRIPTION: Miniaturized electronics are found in many COTS applications, including micro-electro-mechanical systems (MEMS), accelerometers, GPS receivers. The government is interested in leveraging many of these innovative COTS or custom microelectronics technologies to use as low cost and low power replacements in missile system avionics. Technologies of interest are flight computers; accelerometers; GPS receivers; and, guidance, navigation and control components. All approaches will be considered to enable a technology refresh of current avionic systems.

PHASE I: Develop proof of concept(s) for one or more the desired missile system avionic technologies. NASA Sounding Rockets environments can be used as a baseline to determine what, if any, modifications need to be made to hardware designs to accommodate COTS components. A notional prototype design is expected at conclusion of Phase I.

PHASE II: Develop prototype hardware for ground testing to demonstrate that the proposed solution(s) can meet flight environments. Upon completion the Phase II, a prototype should be able to be flown on a sounding rocket flight test.

PHASE III DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: Integrate the hardware in a flight system for an engineering flight test to fully demonstrate that the technology meets expectations.

REFERENCES:1. NASA Sounding Rockets User Handbook, Sounding Rockets Program Office, Sub-orbital and Special Orbital Projects Directorate, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Wallops Flight Facility, Wallops Island, VA 23337, July 2015.


KEYWORDS: microelectronics, COTS, missile systems, avionics, sounding rocket

Approved for Public Release 17-MDA-8989 (23 January 17)

MDA-25

· Web viewAllen Spencer and William Moore, Design Trade-Offs For Homing Missiles, ADA282245,...

Documents

Transcript of · Web viewAllen Spencer and William Moore, Design Trade-Offs For Homing Missiles, ADA282245,...