A Computationally Efficient Method for High Energy Charged Particle Transport | Apply Online

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

1) What is this funding opportunity?

This is an Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL), Space Vehicles Directorate opportunity under BAA RV 10 01, Call 011. It seeks algorithm-focused research to improve Monte Carlo radiation transport simulations for space applications.

2) What problem is AFRL trying to solve?

The call targets the computational cost and practical limitations of charged-particle transport simulations used for space radiation analysis. Specifically, it focuses on how energetic charged particles (electrons, protons, and heavier ions) are modeled as they move through materials and interact with spacecraft hardware or astronauts.

3) What space radiation impacts are these simulations used to assess?

The simulations are used to understand and predict effects of the natural space radiation environment that can drive mission risk, including radiation dose, hardware degradation, and single-event effects in electronics.

4) What kind of research is AFRL looking for?

AFRL is looking for algorithm-focused research that makes Monte Carlo radiation transport simulations faster and more practical without sacrificing accuracy.

5) What is the technical goal of the call?

The technical goal is to develop and demonstrate a computationally efficient and accurate alternative to the standard condensed-history Monte Carlo approach for charged particle transport.

6) What is meant by a "condensed-history" Monte Carlo method in this call?

In condensed-history methods, many small interactions are lumped together into fewer steps to reduce computation time. The call notes this can introduce limitations depending on the problem type, particle energy, and the level of detail needed.

7) What approach does AFRL want instead of (or beyond) condensed history?

AFRL is specifically interested in an approach well-suited to single-event Monte Carlo simulation. That means supporting discrete, event-level interactions in a way that is far less expensive than full analog single-event simulation (where every interaction is tracked explicitly).

8) Does the approach need to preserve accuracy?

Yes. The call emphasizes making simulations faster and more practical without sacrificing accuracy, and calls for an alternative that is both computationally efficient and accurate.

9) What is the expected outcome or deliverable?

The expected outcome is a new or improved algorithm that can be integrated into public domain, general-purpose production codes used by the broader community.

10) Which software codes are specifically mentioned as target platforms?

MCNPX and GEANT are explicitly called out as target platforms for eventual implementation.

11) How many awards did AFRL expect to make?

AFRL anticipated making one award, while reserving the right to make multiple awards or no awards depending on proposal quality and program needs.

12) What type of funding instrument was anticipated?

The Air Force anticipated using a grant instrument, but noted it could choose the instrument best aligned to the research under applicable DoD assistance regulations.

13) Is cost sharing or matching required?

No. The opportunity states there is no cost sharing or matching requirement.

14) Who is eligible to apply?

Eligibility is listed as unrestricted, meaning any type of entity can apply as long as it meets the requirements stated in the call and the baseline BAA.

15) What is the planned period of performance?

The planned period of performance is 60 months (five years). The full period is intended for technical work, with a final report due upon completion.

16) How much funding is estimated for the project?

The funding profile was presented as an estimate totaling roughly $500,000 over the life of the effort.

17) What is the estimated funding by fiscal year?

The call provided an estimated funding profile as follows: FY11: $58.3K; FY12-FY15: $100K each year; FY16: $41.7K.

18) Is the funding profile guaranteed?

No. AFRL emphasized the profile was not a binding commitment. Actual funding depends on government discretion and availability.

19) When were proposals due?

Proposals were due by 12:00 noon Mountain Standard Time on January 21, 2011.

20) Are late proposals accepted?

No. The call states late proposals would not be considered.

21) How could proposals be submitted?

Submissions could be made either electronically through Grants.gov or by mailing a hard copy plus CD to the AFRL contracting office at Kirtland AFB.

22) Was there any special instruction for electronic submissions?

Yes. Offerors submitting electronically were instructed to notify the contracting specialist immediately after submission.

23) What proposal attachments were required?

The call points proposers to required attachments A through E covering proposal preparation, budget instructions, certifications and representations, proprietary information certification (if applicable), and a suggested format for the contractor statement of work.

24) Who was the technical point of contact?

The technical point of contact was Dr. Judy Fennelly.

25) Who were the contracting/submission points of contact?

For contracting and submission issues, the points of contact were Francis M. Eggert (contracting specialist) and Jean A. Barnes (contracting officer).