Game Changing Development Program, Ultra Lightweightcore Materials For Efficient Load Bearing Composite Sandwich Structures Appendix | Apply Online

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

What is the official title and identifier for this NASA grant opportunity?

The focused appendix is titled "Ultra Lightweight Core Materials for Efficient Load Bearing Composite Sandwich Structures" and is identified as NNH15ZOA001N 15GCD C1. It was released by NASA Headquarters under the Space Technology Mission Directorate (STMD) Game Changing Development (GCD) program as part of the broader SpaceTech REDDI 2015 NASA Research Announcement (NRA).

When was this opportunity released and what were the key dates?

The posting/creation date is October 24, 2014. The original and current closing date is December 16, 2014, and the archive date is January 15, 2015.

Where does this appendix fit within NASA solicitations?

This topic is a distinct appendix released under the broader umbrella solicitation called Space Technology Research, Development, Demonstration, and Infusion 2015 (SpaceTech REDDI 2015). NASA used the umbrella NRA for overarching instructions and then provided this topic as a focused appendix with its own technical goals and proposal requirements.

Where do applicants access the full appendix requirements and submit proposals?

Access and submission are handled through NSPIRES. NASA indicates that the appendix and related materials (including any posted clarifications and FAQs) are available through NSPIRES, and proposals had to be submitted electronically through that system.

What is the main technical goal of this opportunity?

The main goal is to mature and demonstrate scalable manufacturing methods for ultra-lightweight core materials that can replace conventional honeycomb or foam cores used in composite sandwich structures, while remaining structurally credible for load-bearing applications.

What types of structures is NASA focused on for these core materials?

NASA is focused on core materials for composite sandwich structures. The desired end state includes processes and resulting core structures that can be produced as both flat panels and curved components suitable for large-scale sandwich structures.

What kinds of core concepts is NASA interested in?

NASA describes interest in next-generation, hierarchical or advanced-architecture core concepts enabled by newer manufacturing techniques. The emphasis is on concepts that can move beyond laboratory demonstrations into repeatable, scalable production at meaningful size and realistic cost.

Is there a specific quantitative performance target for the core materials?

Yes. A key target is that the ultra-lightweight core structures should achieve half or less the areal density of conventional honeycomb cores while retaining mechanical properties that are equivalent or better.

Does NASA require that the new core materials match load-bearing performance?

Yes. NASA explicitly prioritizes major mass savings without trading away load-bearing capability, stating that mechanical properties should be equivalent to or better than conventional honeycomb cores while meeting the areal density reduction target.

What does NASA mean by "scalable manufacturing" in this context?

Based on the appendix description, NASA is looking for manufacturing approaches that can be repeated reliably, scaled to meaningful sizes, and used to produce both flat and curved core components. The objective is to demonstrate production approaches that are practical alternatives rather than one-off lab results.

What is the acquisition or award strategy for this opportunity?

The strategy is phased with a progressive competitive down-selection. Phase I focuses on Manufacturing Feasibility, and Phase II focuses on Scale Up and Test Article Fabrication. NASA expects later phases to build on evidence and results from earlier phases.

How long are Phase I and Phase II expected to last?

Phase I (Manufacturing Feasibility) is expected to last up to 13 months. Phase II (Scale Up and Test Article Fabrication) is expected to last up to 18 months.

How will Phase II proposals be requested and evaluated?

NASA anticipates requesting Phase II proposals primarily from Phase I contractors via request letters that outline what to submit and how proposals will be evaluated, reflecting NASA's expectation that Phase I performers are most likely to succeed in Phase II.

Can an organization participate in Phase II if it did not receive a Phase I award?

Yes, NASA states that proposals from all responsible sources will be considered if submitted by the Phase II due date. However, offerors that did not participate in Phase I must demonstrate a design maturity level equivalent to Phase I awardees and meet additional documentation and sample requirements described in the appendix summary.

What must a non-Phase I offeror provide to be competitive for Phase II?

To be competitive for Phase II without having been in Phase I, an offeror must show maturity equivalent to Phase I awardees, provide Phase I-equivalent documentation, and provide the Phase I test samples required for government testing. NASA indicates that missing any of these elements can result in the proposal being found unacceptable without further consideration.

How many awards did NASA expect to make?

The opportunity listing indicates an expected number of awards of about 10.

What type of funding opportunity is this listed as?

It is listed as a discretionary grant in the science and technology research and development category.

Is cost sharing or matching required?

No. The listing states that no cost sharing or matching is required.

What is the CFDA number associated with this opportunity?

The listing provides CFDA 43.009 (Cross Agency Support).

Why do the award floor and ceiling appear as 0 in the listing?

The summary fields show an award floor and ceiling of 0, which typically indicates that applicants should rely on the full appendix text in NSPIRES for actual funding ranges, budgets, and phasing amounts rather than the high-level summary fields.

What proposal instructions apply to this appendix?

NASA points applicants to the main SpaceTech REDDI 2015 NRA instructions and to the NASA Guidebook for Proposers Responding to an NRA or CAN (May 2014 edition). The appendix sits under the umbrella solicitation but carries its own technical goals and proposal requirements.

Who is allowed to submit the proposal in NSPIRES?

Proposals had to be submitted electronically through NSPIRES by an authorized organizational representative (AOR).

What administrative advice does NASA give about NSPIRES submission?

NASA strongly encourages organizations to register in NSPIRES early, learn the system ahead of time, and submit well before the deadline to avoid last-minute compliance issues or upload problems. NASA also encourages monitoring NSPIRES or subscribing to notifications for updates and clarifications.

How can applicants ask questions about the opportunity?

NASA provided the email address HQ_STMD_GCDC1@mail.nasa.gov for technical, programmatic, and procurement inquiries. Responses were to be provided by email and could also be incorporated into an FAQ document associated with the appendix in NSPIRES, with anonymity preserved.

Is there a named point of contact referenced for help?

Yes. The notice references Ryan Stephan (Program Executive, STMD Game Changing Development Program) for access issues and general help.

What kind of evidence is NASA looking for across the phases?

The appendix description emphasizes evidence-driven progress: Phase I is positioned to prove manufacturing feasibility and provide test samples, while Phase II is positioned to scale up and fabricate larger, more representative test articles for validation, including consideration of flat and curved forms.

Does NASA emphasize cost and manufacturability as evaluation considerations?

Yes. The description highlights an emphasis on whether the core concepts can be produced at meaningful size and at a cost that makes them realistic alternatives, not just laboratory demonstrations.

Does the opportunity specify interest in flight-like geometry?

Yes. The emphasis on producing both flat panels and curved components signals interest in real, flight-like geometry rather than only idealized coupon-level demonstrations.