Fiscal Year 2009 University Nanosat Program | Apply Online

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

What is the Fiscal Year 2009 University Nanosat Program?

The Fiscal Year 2009 University Nanosat Program was a discretionary grant opportunity run by the Air Force Office of Scientific Research (AFOSR) under AFOSR BAA 2008-6. It was designed to strengthen and sustain university research and education related to small satellites (nanosats) and the enabling technologies that make small satellites possible.

What was the main purpose of the program?

The program aimed to build hands-on satellite engineering capability in academia while advancing research areas relevant to nanosatellites. It was positioned as part of AFOSR's broader role in managing the U.S. Air Force basic research portfolio.

Who ran and funded this opportunity?

AFOSR was the grant-making organization funding university work. The effort was also described as a partnership ecosystem involving the Air Force Research Laboratory Space Vehicles Directorate (AFRL/RV) and the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA).

What was the core deliverable expected from funded projects?

The core deliverable was practical and hardware-centered: each funded project was expected to design, fabricate, and functionally test a nanosatellite.

Did each funded university need to build hardware, or could the work be purely research?

Based on the opportunity description, the expected deliverable was hardware-centered (design, fabrication, and functional testing of a nanosatellite). The program also encouraged research into enabling subsystems and components, but the primary expectation remained the construction and testing of a nanosat.

What types of research topics were encouraged in addition to building a nanosat?

The program encouraged research into enabling subsystems and components that allow small satellites to remain capable under tight size, mass, and power constraints.

Were on-orbit experiments required?

No. Teams were encouraged to think about meaningful on-orbit experiments and demonstrations of novel space technologies, but those on-orbit experiments were optional.

If on-orbit experiments were optional, why include them?

The opportunity stated that proposals including on-orbit experiments could be judged differently under the program's evaluation criteria. Applicants were also invited to coordinate with the government point of contact to understand which demonstrations were most aligned with agency interests.

Who was the government point of contact for aligning potential demonstrations with agency interests?

The notice identified Kent Miller as the government point of contact, reachable at Kent.Miller@afosr.af.mil.

What role did AIAA play in this overall effort?

AIAA planned a related competition in which a small number of nanosatellites would be selected for potential launch preparation and operations.

What role did AFRL/RV play?

AFRL/RV was described as providing active technical engagement with participants to promote space-worthy design and fabrication practices and to help prepare those nanosatellites selected for launch.

Does this program guarantee a launch opportunity for funded nanosatellites?

No guarantee was stated. The description indicated that AIAA planned a related competition and that only a small number of nanosats would be selected for potential launch preparation and operations.

How was a "nanosat" defined for this solicitation?

For this solicitation, a nanosatellite was defined as having a mass no greater than 50 kg and maximum linear dimensions of 50 x 50 x 60 cm.

Why were there specific mass and size limits?

The limits were explicitly intended to keep the effort focused on small satellites, contain costs at a reasonable level, and improve the practicality of eventually launching the spacecraft.

Who was eligible to apply?

Eligible applicants were U.S. public/state-controlled institutions of higher education and private institutions of higher education.

Were non-university organizations listed as eligible applicants?

No. The opportunity description listed only U.S. institutions of higher education (public/state-controlled and private) as eligible applicants.

What was the CFDA number for this grant opportunity?

The CFDA number was 12.800, identified as the Air Force Defense Research Sciences Program.

How was the opportunity categorized administratively?

It was categorized as a grant for science and technology and other research and development.

What was the maximum award amount (award ceiling)?

The stated award ceiling was $110,000.

Was there a cost sharing or matching requirement?

No. The opportunity stated there was no cost sharing or matching requirement.

Could universities collaborate on a proposal?

Yes, but collaboration was tightly defined. A team could consist of up to two universities.

If two universities teamed, how were proposals and awards handled?

Even in a teamed arrangement, each university had to submit its own proposal to AFOSR and each would receive its own individual grant award.

If two universities teamed, did each university still have to build a nanosat?

Yes. The description stated that even in a teamed arrangement, each university was required to produce its own nanosatellite.

How did teaming affect participation in the AIAA nanosat competition?

The two-school team would share the constraints of a single entry into the AIAA nanosat competition, effectively splitting the allowable design space between them for competition purposes.

What did teamed proposals need to include?

Teamed proposals were expected to clearly describe shared objectives, the division of responsibilities, and to name one institution as the point of contact for coordinating team operations.

What were the key dates listed for this opportunity?

The posting date and creation date were September 10, 2008. The original and current closing date was October 31, 2008. The archive date was November 30, 2008.

Where could applicants get help if they had trouble accessing the full announcement?

For access issues related to the full announcement, applicants were directed to contact the procurement analyst, Ricky Christie.

What solicitation reference was associated with this program?

The program was run under AFOSR BAA 2008-6.

What was the overall emphasis of the program: academic study, flight readiness, or both?

It was presented as more than purely academic. While it aimed to build university capability and advance research, it also emphasized space-worthy design and fabrication practices and mentioned preparation for launch for a limited subset of nanosatellites selected through the related AIAA competition.