Control Techniques for Responsive Space Uncertain Systems Call 0017 | Apply Online

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

1) What is the name of this grant opportunity?

The opportunity is titled "Control Techniques for Responsive Space Uncertain Systems (Call 0017)".

2) Who is issuing the call?

The call is issued by the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL), Space Vehicles Directorate at Kirtland AFB.

3) What larger program or announcement is this call part of?

This call falls under the broader Space Components Technology Open 5-Year Broad Agency Announcement (BAA VS 07-03), specifically Topic Area 2.

4) Is this opportunity classified?

No. The call is described as unclassified.

5) What kinds of applicants are eligible to apply?

The opportunity is described as open to essentially any applicant type.

6) What types of awards does AFRL expect to use?

AFRL anticipates using assistance agreements (such as grants or cooperative agreements), while also reserving the right to use other instrument types, including procurement contracts, depending on what is proposed.

7) What is the main technical focus of the call?

The call seeks research and development in control, guidance, navigation, and estimation methods that make space missions more responsive, meaning faster to plan, integrate, and execute even with modeling errors, uncertain environments, and limited time for traditional pre-mission calibration.

8) How is the call organized?

The call is organized into three technical need areas. Proposers may bid on one, two, or all three areas.

9) If applying to multiple areas, can everything be submitted as one proposal?

No. If bidding on more than one area, proposers must submit separate technical and cost proposals for each area and clearly separate the work.

10) What is Area 1 about?

Area 1 targets adaptive and optimal control techniques for responsive launch vehicle ascent guidance and control, with emphasis on reducing the time required for mission-specific guidance/control design and tuning.

11) Why does AFRL consider ascent guidance and control a bottleneck for on-demand launch (Area 1)?

AFRL indicates that beyond hardware and operations, a major bottleneck is the time-consuming, mission-specific design and tuning of guidance and control software driven by factors like launch site constraints, payload differences, range safety, and insertion targets.

12) What kinds of outcomes does Area 1 seek?

Area 1 emphasizes algorithms and numerical methods enabling rapid updates on short notice, potentially after a vehicle is already on the pad. It also calls for quantifying how much pre-mission lead time is driven by ascent G&C work, identifying/improving candidate adaptive/optimal closed-loop algorithms, defining evaluation criteria, and creating simulation scenarios showing measurable improvement over traditional approaches.

13) What is Area 2 about?

Area 2 focuses on responsive spacecraft attitude determination and control with the explicit goal of reducing GNC design and integration time for satellites by reducing reliance on lengthy ground-based calibration.

14) What specific algorithm tasks does Area 2 expect proposals to address?

Area 2 lists several concrete tasks: on-orbit estimation of actuator alignment, spacecraft inertia, and sensor alignment; robust control when alignments/inertia are incorrect and disturbances are unknown; and rapid tuning methods for both estimation and control algorithms.

15) Does Area 2 require more than a conceptual idea?

Yes. Proposals are expected to go beyond concept and explain how the approach will be tested, what success metrics will be used, and how sensitive the approach is to error sources not explicitly modeled.

16) Should Area 2 include comparisons to baseline methods?

If relevant, proposals should include baseline or existing methods in the test plan to demonstrate the improvement provided by the proposed approach.

17) Are there special final reporting requirements for Area 2?

Yes. AFRL requests a full mathematical development with simulation results and comparisons, plus a dedicated section containing only the equations and explanatory notes needed to implement the algorithms in flight software.

18) What is Area 3 about?

Area 3 addresses uncertainty accommodating control across two linked problems: (1) predicting performance and robustness from measured uncertainty captured as frequency response function (FRF) data across multiple tests and conditions, and (2) designing/optimizing a controller using those uncertainty-based metrics.

19) What uncertainty and success measures are emphasized in Area 3?

Area 3 emphasizes that measured uncertainty may not fit neat bounded probability distributions, and highlights probabilistic success measures such as probability of meeting performance goals and probability of closed-loop stability.

20) Can Area 3 work start from an existing controller?

Yes. The control design approach may begin from an existing controller as an initial design point and then be optimized.

21) How will proposals be ranked for Area 3?

For Area 3, rankings will weigh how well the team demonstrates understanding of the challenge and provides a credible path to solving it, with personnel qualifications and relevant publications explicitly called out as important.

22) How many awards does AFRL expect to make in each area?

AFRL anticipated one award for Area 1, two or more awards for Area 2, and one award for Area 3, while retaining discretion to make multiple awards or none.

23) What is the estimated funding for Area 1?

The estimated total funding profile for the call (not per award) lists Area 1 at $80,000 per year for FY09, FY10, and FY11.

24) What is the estimated funding for Area 2?

The estimated total funding profile lists Area 2 at $300,000 in FY09 and $400,000 in FY10 and FY11.

25) What is the estimated funding for Area 3?

The estimated total funding profile lists Area 3 at $50,000 per year for FY09, FY10, and FY11.

26) What is the overall maximum funding referenced for the opportunity?

The overall estimate aligns with an opportunity listing award ceiling of $1,490,000.

27) Are the funding amounts guaranteed?

No. AFRL emphasizes the figures are estimates only and not contractual obligations. Funding is subject to availability and government discretion.

28) What research category does AFRL assign to this work?

The work is categorized as 6.2 applied research.

29) What is the expected period of performance?

The expected period of performance is 39 months total, structured as 36 months of technical effort plus 3 months for final report preparation.

30) What award date did AFRL anticipate?

The call anticipated an award date of July 27, 2009.

31) What deliverables are mentioned?

Deliverables include source software for algorithms and simulations, regular status reporting (the announcement references monthly status reports and also quarterly status reports), annual documentation of algorithms/software/models/simulations, and a final technical report. Areas 2 and 3 also have additional report organization requirements.

32) What does the call say about data rights?

The government states it will receive unrestricted data rights, described as the government owning all data rights.

33) Can proprietary information or products be required to complete the deliverables?

No. The call explicitly prohibits proposing proprietary information, products, or independent R&D as necessary elements to complete the statement of work deliverables. The work must be deliverable without relying on restricted background IP.

34) Is there an intent-to-propose request?

Yes. There is a request, as a non-binding courtesy, to send an intent-to-propose notification to the contracting contact.

35) Where should applicants watch for amendments or updates?

Offerors were told to monitor FedBizOps and Grants.gov for amendments that may adjust dates or modify the call.

36) Who is the technical point of contact?

The technical point of contact is Dr. Lawrence Robertson (AFRL/RVSV).

37) Who are the contracting points of contact?

Contracting points of contact include Ms. Tara Bond (Contract Specialist) and Ms. Jeannie Barnes (Contracting Officer), located at Kirtland AFB, New Mexico.

38) What is the proposal due date?

The original call text lists a proposal due date of January 26, 2009 at 12:00 pm MST. However, the opportunity metadata later reflects a February 2009 posting with a February 2009 closing window, suggesting an updated posting or administrative re-listing.

39) If the dates conflict, which closing date should applicants follow?

Applicants were expected to follow the most current closing date shown on the official posting and any amendments.

40) Is it possible AFRL makes no awards?

Yes. AFRL retains discretion to make multiple awards or none in any area.