SBIR/STTR Phase I (2026 Appendix A SBIR and 2026 Appendix B SBIR & STTR solicitations) is sponsored by National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). NASA's SBIR/STTR program invests in small businesses and research institutions to develop new technologies addressing agency priorities. Phase I is for establishing the merit and feasibility of proposed innovations.

2026 Appendix A & B Q&A Hub - NASA International Space Station NASA’s Simulated Mars Mission Marks 200 Days Inside Habitat NASA Pushes Next-Gen Mars Helicopter Rotor Blades Past Mach 1 What’s Up: May 2026 Skywatching Tips from NASA Upcoming Launches and Landings Communicating with Missions James Webb Space Telescope International Space Station Earth Science Researchers Asteroids, Comets & Meteors The Search for Life in the Universe Astrophysics & Space Science Biological & Physical Sciences Human Space Travel Research Flight Research Innovation Technology Transfer & Spinoffs Technology Living in Space Manufacturing and Materials For Colleges and Universities Requests for Exhibits, Artifacts, Speakers & Flyovers Upcoming Launches & Landings NASA Brand & Usage Guidelines Industry Moon Lander Training Cabin Lands at NASA for Artemis NASA’s Simulated Mars Mission Marks 200 Days Inside Habitat NASA’s Roman Poised to Transform Hunt for Elusive Neutron Stars NASA’s Simulated Mars Mission Marks 200 Days Inside Habitat NASA Astronaut to Answer Questions from Students in Florida Liquid Lifeline: NASA Tech Could Create IV Fluid In Space Tracy Arm’s Post-Tsunami Landscape Melting Snow Off Shivelyuch NASA Pushes Next-Gen Mars Helicopter Rotor Blades Past Mach 1 New NASA HEAT Coloring Book Blends Art, Science, and Cultural Perspectives NASA’s STORIE Mission to Tell Tale of Earth’s Ring Current NASA’s Roman Poised to Transform Hunt for Elusive Neutron Stars For NASA’s TESS, Stellar Eclipses Shed Light on Possible New Worlds Hubble Spots a Starry Spiral Amendment 56: D.

6 APRA and D. 7 SAT Final Text and Due Dates NASA Fuel Cell Tests Pave Way for Energy Storage on Moon NASA’s Prithvi Becomes First AI Geospatial Foundation Model In Orbit Meet the Fleet: NASA Armstrong Continues Legacy of Flight Research Cornell Students Aid NASA with Drone Safety in Sky Amendment 56: D. 6 APRA and D.

7 SAT Final Text and Due Dates NASA, Industry Advance High Performance Spaceflight Computing NASA Fuel Cell Tests Pave Way for Energy Storage on Moon Space Out This Summer with Variety of NASA STEM Activities NASA, Industry Advance High Performance Spaceflight Computing NASA Fuel Cell Tests Pave Way for Energy Storage on Moon NASA Welcomes Paraguay as 67th Artemis Accords Signatory La NASA anuncia la cobertura de la misión lunar Artemis II Agenda diaria de la misión a la Luna de Artemis II de la NASA La NASA refuerza Artemis: añade una misión y perfecciona su arquitectura general Q&A Hub: 2026 Appendices 26A SBIR, 26B SBIR & 26B STTR Do you have technical questions about subtopics released in Appendices 26A SBIR, 26B SBIR, and 26B STTR?

You’re in the right place. NASA is accepting your questions clarifying the technical content of subtopics through the forms linked below and will publish responses from our subject matter experts here on a rolling basis. We recommend bookmarking this page and checking back for updates – your question may already have been asked and answered.

You may submit your questions using the below forms through May 5, 2026, at 5 p. m. ET .

Asking questions early is instrumental in helping us provide you with the appropriate answer quickly, leaving you more time for your proposal. You also will need to select the relevant subtopic to help us deliver your questions to the appropriate subject matter expert.

Please note that this method is the only way to receive responses to technical appendix-related questions, as we are now in a communications blackout period, and NASA personnel cannot discuss the appendix subtopics with firms. For general questions about the solicitation requirements or ProSAMS issues, please continue to contact the NASA SBIR/STTR Help Desk ( agency-sbir@mail. nasa.

gov ). Technical Question Responses In an effort to answer as many questions as possible, some questions may be reworded to ensure the request is for technical clarification, not proposal guidance; to remove proprietary information; and/or to summarize multiple related questions. NASA cannot provide guidance on proposal preparation or feedback on proposal ideas.

Therefore, we will not answer these types of questions (e.g., “I have X technology. Can you direct me to the appropriate subtopic? ” “Is my specific technology, X, a high priority for this subtopic/NASA?

”) Can you list the subtopics that are relevant to Earth science? Proposers are encouraged to review all the subtopics under INSTALG and INSITU for Earth science applicability, but particular attention is called to INSTALG. 2 (previously S11.

05), INSTALG. 4 (previously S11. 04), and INSTALG.

5 (includes elements from S11. 01, S11. 02, and S11.

03). Are there overarching themes to the science-related subtopics? The current science-related subtopics are oriented across four priority topics: INSTALG : Technologies are sought to develop new science instruments and computing methods to study planetary bodies, with an emphasis on the Earth, the Moon, and Mars.

This includes instruments and components for in situ, remote, and suborbital observations, as well as advanced computing for data sets including those for Earth science, planetary science, heliophysics, and astrophysics. COSMO : Technologies are sought to develop precision components for space-based telescopes and experimental apparatus to study fundamental physics and astrophysics.

This includes detectors, mirrors and assemblies, advanced observatory and instrument technologies, and artificial intelligence techniques to advance designs. INSITU : Technologies are sought to conduct in situ science operations on planetary bodies, with an emphasis on the Earth, the Moon, and Mars.

This includes mobility systems on, under, and over the surface of a planetary body, and science experiments across microgravity, partial gravity, and varied planetary environments. SPWx : Technologies are sought to improve our ability to understand and forecast space weather (environmental conditions driven by solar activity).

Advanced instruments and sensors, including those that are quantum-based, are sought together with methods to convert research data to applications. Questions and Answers by Subtopic: AERO. 2.

S26B – Quiet Performance-Aircraft Propulsion Noise Q1: This topic mentions both noise reduction technology and prediction capability. In Phase I, beyond normal-incidence testing, would NASA expect some modeling and design tool development for more representative engine-related conditions such as ducted/grazing flow?

A1: Successful commercialization of new acoustic liners for aircraft propulsion systems will depend on an ability to understand the performance of materials and structures in realistic operating conditions. Developing design and analysis tools and comparing predictions against measurements of proof-of-concept prototype liners are important steps in the maturation of liner technology for aircraft engines.

Q2: Under this topic, would NASA have greater interest in exhaust noise reduction, inlet noise reduction, or either one if the propulsion-noise benefit is clearly demonstrated? A2: Proposals should clearly demonstrate a propulsion noise benefit, without adversely affecting other aircraft propulsor performance criteria such as aerodynamic efficiency.

Progress is made when dominant sources of noise on an aircraft are reduced, and that will depend upon the propulsion system/airframe configuration and flight trajectory. It is incumbent upon the proposer to clearly identify the noise reduction potential of their technology for aircraft propulsion noise reduction. Q3: What level of Phase I demonstration would NASA expect for a material-based exhaust noise reduction concept?

A3: In this case for a Phase I effort, NASA expects a basic demonstration of the proposed aircraft engine exhaust noise reduction concept. Phase I deliverables can include a demonstration of a model or code to predict the material performance, an advanced diagnostic tool for measuring the performance of the material, or a proof-of-concept demonstration for a new material used to reduce aircraft engine exhaust noise. AERO.

3. S26B – Advanced Thermal Management for High-Efficiency Engine Cycles Q1: Does AERO. 3.

S26B consider solid-state thermal energy recovery technologies that convert waste heat to electrical power as an integrated element of the engine thermal management architecture, or is the scope limited to passive heat transfer and thermal storage approaches? A1: Yes, solid-state thermal energy recovery technologies that convert waste heat to electrical power as an integrated element are in-scope. AERO.

7. S26B – Airspace Operations and Safety Q1: Within Airspace Management Automation, does “reduce reliance on voice communication” include improvements in digitization of voice communications, or only solutions that fully replace voice channels with non-voice digital protocols? A1: Improvement in digitization of voice communication is included to enable increasingly autonomous operations.

AERO. 8. S26B – Fuel to Electric Conversion Q1: The solicitation notes applications from small drones to piloted aircraft.

Should the solution be considered a bolt-on option, or built into the system? Are you looking for the generator design to electricity, or a complete hybrid solution. A1: We are seeking a component that converts fuel to electrical power.

By defining the size, mass, key interfaces, conversion efficiency, and electrical output characteristics users can determine if it is best to use in a new system as a built in component or as an add on. We are seeking a component which converts fuel to electrical power output, not a complete hybrid system. Q2: Specifically what is the common fuel for conversion here?

A2: Updated 5/7/26: The common fuel is Jet A, diesel, or heavy fuels. This includes fuels widely used in air, ground, and marine transportation. Q3: Is heavy fuel capability a discriminator?

The topic mentions a broad range of scale but very small vehicles are the most practical for flight demonstration on a limited SBIR budget. Is there a preferred size range? A3: No. The preferred size range is for components that are compatible with UAS Group 2 or 3 drones or aircraft which fall within the FAA CFR Part 23.

Reference 23. 2005 for maximum certified takeoff weight, passenger count and speed. AERO.

9.

T26B – Full-Scale (Passenger/Cargo) Advanced Air Mobility (AAM) and Vertical Takeoff and Landing (VTOL) Interdisciplinary Investigations Q1: Does NASA have preferred modeling, simulation, or design environments that the proposed work should support or interface with, such as Open Vehicle Sketch Pad, computational fluid dynamics tools, rotorcraft comprehensive analysis tools, flight dynamics models, acoustic prediction tools, or multidisciplinary design, analysis, and optimization workflows?

A1: Proposed solutions should consider and be able to demonstrate usability of any modeling, simulation, or design environments with relation to the work being done, technology being developed, and the stakeholders. Additionally, the tools should be chosen to provide the most accurate results that support decision making within the scope of the work, and if possible can be translated and transferred with minimal extra work.

Q2: While the RFP title includes both AAM and VTOL, are you considering STOL solutions to the AAM problem? A2: STOL/SSTOL solutions will be considered. All proposals, regardless of the vehicle, are advised to provide topic relevant and highly desired advancements in technology under AAM with well-defined deliverables and stakeholders.

Q3: Are there concerns about security and adversarial robustness of models? A3: Yes, but will most likely depend on the model type and heritage. These concerns around AI/ML integrated models are currently evolving and being addressed more every day.

Currently, when applicable these aspects should be covered by the contract through ethics related requirements, cybersecurity, and increasing requirements addressing AI/ML integration directly.

Q4: What level of instrumentation fidelity and data quality would NASA expect for Phase II, particularly for time synchronization, rotor speed measurement, motor torque or power measurement, six-degree-of-freedom motion tracking, acoustic measurement, air data, structural loads, and uncertainty quantification?

A4: Proposed solutions should show that the data acquisition fidelity and quality will be sufficient to demonstrate that all testing results will be strongly defendable. In most cases, decision quality data are the product. CARITL.

1. S26A – Development of Hydrazine-Compatible Elastomeric Materials for Long-Duration Spaceflight Q1: The subtopic specifies shortage of AF-E-411 precursors. Is the shortage related only to EPDM or to the other components too?

Would an elastomer that incorporates EPDM at much lower percentage than AF-E-411 be within the scope of this subtopic? A1: The composition of cure schedule for AF-E-411 can be found in the Space Shuttle Seal Material and Design Development for Earth Storable Propellant Systems document: https://ntrs. nasa.

gov/api/citations/19740005081/downloads/19740005081. pdf Of the components listed, the EPDM material – Nordel 1635 (an old duPont material), at a minimum, is no longer available, and there is a distinct lack of information available on it. Research should be conducted to ensure that the other materials are still available; from a quick search.

An elastomer with equivalent mechanical/physical properties to AF-E-411, with consistent make up and chemical compatibility is desired. A material that may have a lower EPDM composition, may be appropriate if it meets such requirements. COMNAV.

1. S26B – Flight Dynamics and Navigation Technologies Q1: For onboard implementation, what computational constraints should proposers assume, including processor class, memory, power, execution time, radiation tolerance, real-time operating constraints, and compatibility with space computing platforms or NASA Core Flight System?

A1: Proposers can assume potential high performance computational constraints within the 5-10 year need horizon listed in the solicitation. Proposers are encouraged to propose implementations using current computational constraints and platforms to demonstrate capability in the short term.

Q2: For precision landing and terrain-relative navigation, what sensing assumptions should proposers use: active light detection and ranging imaging, optical cameras, inertial measurement units, star trackers, altimeters, radar, terrain maps, onboard three-dimensional terrain reconstruction, or operation at previously unmapped bodies with no long-duration survey phase?

A2: Sensing assumptions are left open to the firm proposers but should consider the mission phase concepts and associated design resources that are publicly available about the NASA Moon to Mars program and other initiatives. Q3: Is there a set of expected inputs or input types for the process or is this to be proposed in submissions? A3: Inputs and input types are to be proposed in submissions.

Q4: What level of onboard autonomy is NASA seeking: ground-in-the-loop decision support, onboard navigation with ground-approved maneuvers, onboard maneuver targeting, autonomous contingency response, autonomous trajectory replanning, or fully integrated mission planning, navigation, and maneuver execution?

A4: Onboard autonomy should be designed to enable the proposed flight dynamics and navigation technology and be tied to NASA’s Moon to Mars and other NASA initiatives’ mission concepts. The varying levels of autonomy queried are available to proposers, pending the justification and connection to public information on NASA mission concepts. COSMO.

1. S26A – High Performance Detector Technologies Q1: For high performance detector technologies COSMO. 1, are quantum technologies of interest?

A1: Yes, quantum technologies would be considered for the COSMO. 1. S26A subtopic and, in fact, a subset of quantum detectors (superconducting detectors) are specifically included in the call.

Any technology that has the potential to meet the sensitivity needs for ultraviolet, X-ray, and/or gamma detection (as outlined in the reference materials) would be of interest, provided performance could be demonstrated on the need horizon timeline. COSMO. 3.

S26B – AI for Rapid Development of Space Precision Components Q1: Is manufacturability, using AI on an astrophysics-relevant part, a need in this subtopic? A1: Manufacturability alone does not address the design/analysis needs in the subtopic. From the subtopic language, proposed solutions must focus on hardware design acceleration and demonstrate feasibility on at least one subsystem or component relevant to astrophysics mission needs.

Also review the deliverables for Phase I regarding design automation workflow and embedded analysis capability. Q2: Does the solicitation’s usage of ‘subsystem’ refer to subsystems within an AI framework or within a complex component model? Paragraph two suggests a desire for an end-to-end system of agents, where paragraph 3 could be read to suggest that a piece of the AI chain might also be appropriate.

A2: “Solutions must focus on hardware design acceleration and, in Phase I, demonstrate the capability on at least one subsystem or component. ” Subsystem means a hardware subsystem, such as an avionics box. Q3: Is the baseline measure for ‘design loop completed at least 5× faster than current practice’ already determined at various scales and complexities?

A3: Correct. 5x faster than current practices. COSMO.

5. S26B – Advanced Observatory Technologies: Mirrors, Structures, Systems, Fabrication and Metrology Q1: The subtopic specifies several quantitative ranges for segmented aperture primary mirrors. Could you clarify how firm each is for Phase I scoping?

Segment size 1. 5 to 3. 5 m: are small excursions (1.

0 to 1. 4 m or 3. 6 to 4.

0 m) responsive? Aperture 6 to 16 m segmented: is ±4 m flexibility allowed? Areal density 15 to 150 kg per square meter: are modest excursions (say ±10) in scope?

First mode greater than 150 Hz: given JWST 16 Hz SOA, are designs at 80 to 150 Hz in scope? A1: UVO Observatories need segments in this size range that are lightweight, stiff (> 150 Hz), smooth (< 5 nm rms) and with < 5 ppb/K CTE homogeneity. SBIR is soliciting technical solutions that can provide such a mirror.

It is expected that any demonstration will be at the subscale level – consistent with Phase 1 or Phase 2 budgets.

There are multiple opto-mechanical challenges to achieving a 6 to 16-m segmented aperture mirror with diffraction limited performance of ~ 300 nm: Deployments, Structural Mechanical and Thermal Stability, Stiffness, Vibration Mitigation, Active Control, etc. The best way to answer this is to say that the primary mirror cannot exceed about 4500 kg. So, a 6-m mirror needs areal density of < 150 kg/m2. A 16-m mirror needs < 20 kg/m2.

Webb’s mirror segment’s first mode was ~ 220 Hz. The entire primary mirror was about 16HZ. HWO wants segments to be > 150 Hz.

I want the whole PM to be as stiff as possible. ENABLE. 2.

S26B – High Performance Onboard Computing Q1: Is this project specifically targeted for the following PNs: HB1301-KIT HPSC Base Kit QTY 1, HB1304-KIT HPSC Expansion Kit QTY1, HB1340-KIT-PDC 10 port SFP QTY 1? A1: This subtopic targets NASA’s High Performance Spaceflight Computing (HPSC) project [1] which is delivering the HPSC SoC (system-on-a-chip).

Two evaluation platforms are available: the HB13xx-KIT [2] family of boards and the HX1000-KIT [3]. Several vendors are creating in-form factor flight units (e.g., [4] [5]). [1]: https://www.

nasa. gov/game-changing-development-projects/high-performance-spaceflight-computing-hpsc/ [2]: https://ww1. microchip.

com/downloads/aemDocuments/documents/MPU64/ProductDocuments/Brochures/PIC64-HPSC-Evaluation-Platform-00005464. pdf [3]: https://www. microchip.

com/en-us/development-tool/hx1000-kit [4]: https://www. moog. com/products/avionics/spacecraft-avionics/payload-processing-products/cascade-single-board-computer.

html [5]: https://www. ideas-tek. com/hpsc EXPAND.

1. S26A – Flight Demonstrations of Commercial In-Space Logistics, Robotic Manipulation, and Automation Systems for Future Space Operations Q1: For the assembly operations use case, are there specific structural archetypes (e.g., solar array deployment, habitat foundation leveling, communication towers) that NASA considers the highest priority or lowest-hanging fruit for a near-term (5-year) commercial flight demonstration?

A1: Proposers should justify their application based on their interpretation of NASA’s publicly declared goals, their own commercial business case, and viability of partnership/investor contributions to support a near-term demonstration mission.

As stated in the appendix, this subtopic seeks innovative concepts for flight demonstration of commercial in-space logistics, robotic manipulation, and automation systems that will enable advanced exploration, science operations, and in-space production capabilities enabling a commercial ecosystem. Innovative partnerships are highly encouraged but must include evidence of partner funding viability.

Q2: How does this EXPAND subtopic interface with existing NASA in-space assembly research, such as the ARMADAS (Automated Reconfigurable Mission Adaptable Digital Assembly Systems) or Tall Lunar Tower (TLT) projects? Should we specifically align our Phase I use cases to support those ongoing architectures, or is NASA strictly looking for novel, separate commercial applications?

A2: Proposers may use existing NASA concepts, or propose new ones. Q3: For the in-space assembly tasks, what is NASA’s expectation regarding the level of autonomy versus human-in-the-loop teleoperation? Given lunar/orbital communication latencies, should the system emphasize edge-compute autonomy with human supervisory control, or is high-bandwidth teleoperation acceptable for the initial flight demonstration?

A3: Proposers should provide rationale for their decision of level of autonomy, considering the final use case, and the relevance and feasibility of the flight demonstration.

Q4: What interface assumptions should proposers use for robotic logistics and manipulation systems, including mechanical grasping interfaces, electrical/data interfaces, fiducials, cooperative servicing aids, modular payload fixtures, cargo packaging standards, and compatibility with future commercial low Earth orbit platforms or exploration assets?

A4: Proposers are encouraged to use systems that comply with relevant standards (e.g. voluntary consensus standards listed here: https://satelliteconfers. org/page/confers-publications) .

Q5: What level of autonomy is NASA seeking: teleoperated manipulation, supervised autonomy, shared human-robot control, task-level autonomy, multi-agent robotic coordination, autonomous planning and scheduling, autonomous fault recovery, or high-tempo autonomous operations in dynamic mission conditions?

A5: Proposers should provide rationale for their decision of level of autonomy, considering the final use case, and the relevance and feasibility of the flight demonstration.

Q6: For this topic, what would NASA consider the minimum credible flight-demonstration pathway within the required five-year launch window: a suborbital flight, hosted payload, International Space Station demonstration, commercial low Earth orbit platform demonstration, free-flyer demonstration, rideshare mission, or another low-cost flight opportunity? A6: Proposals may employ any of these approaches.

For reference, here is the solicitation language: All proposals must include a plan to develop a flight demonstration with launch within the next five years, with strong recommendation to utilize NASA’s Space Technology Mission Directorate (STMD) Flight Opportunities program or other low-cost flight demonstration options that enable space flight validation.

Proposals must advance space logistics and/or robotic manipulation capabilities and must be applicable to one or more of the target applications defined below.

Proposals may include planetary surface (Moon and Mars) demonstration but will only be considered if relevance of an orbital flight technology demonstration mission can be demonstrated or surface demos are achievable at NASA funding levels similar to low Earth orbit (LEO) demonstrations. Q7: Is there a specific requirement for lossless feature-based CAD migration to maintain the digital thread across multi-vendor platforms?

Q8: Does the agency seek solutions that autonomously regenerate parametric intent from ‘dumb’ geometry to facilitate robotic assembly and servicing? A8: The Government cannot advise on the relevance or merit of any specific technical solution during the solicitation period. You are responsible for reviewing the solicitation and determining whether their proposed approach aligns with the stated objectives and requirements.

EXPAND. 3. S26B – Autonomous Onboard Health Management for Small Spacecraft and Distributed Systems Q1: EXPAND.

3. S26B asks for autonomous onboard health management for small spacecraft and distributed systems. Does this subtopic admit a Phase I demonstration on a terrestrial Earth-analog testbed (flight-hardware roadmap in Phase II/III), or is flight-hardware required in Phase I?

A1: A Phase I demonstration on a terrestrial Earth-analog testbed is acceptable, with the expectation that Phase II will advance toward flight-hardware validation and Phase III toward operational infusion. Q2: For EXPAND. 3.

S26B, are there preferred representative mission contexts or test scenarios for evaluating distributed spacecraft health-management, such as swarm continuity, degraded-node operation, cross-satellite health exchange, or autonomous recovery under communication constraints? A2: The mission contexts and evaluation scenarios listed in the question are all relevant and appropriate.

Proposers should select test scenarios that best demonstrate their technical approach and its applicability to small spacecraft missions for NASA, other government agencies, and/or commercial industry. Q3: For T12:T24r EXPAND. 3.

S26B Phase I, may we validate a concept of operation against an Earth-analog distributed-platform deployment (e.g., remote field operations under intermittent uplink) as a proxy for spacecraft swarm/constellation health management, with Phase II targeting ESPA-class small-spacecraft integration? Or must Phase I validation use simulated or actual small-spacecraft hardware only?

A3: It is acceptable to validate a concept of operation against an Earth-analog distributed-platform deployment as a proxy for spacecraft swarm/constellation health management in Phase I, with Phase II advancing toward ESPA-class small-spacecraft integration and validation. Proposers should clearly articulate how their Earth-analog testing relates to the envisaged small spacecraft application.

Q4: The subtopic states that the desired Phase II outcome may be a prototype or minimal viable product of software or sensor demonstrated on a representative hardware environment.

Can NASA clarify whether, for a software prototype, a flight-like processor-in-the-loop or avionics-in-the-loop testbed using representative telemetry and injected faults would satisfy the representative hardware environment expectation, absent development of new sensing hardware?

A4: Yes, for a software-focused prototype, a flight-like processor-in-the-loop or avionics-in-the-loop testbed using representative telemetry and injected faults would satisfy the “representative hardware environment” expectation for Phase II. The key is demonstrating the software’s performance in conditions representative of the target spacecraft environment, even if new sensing hardware is not developed.

Proposers should clearly describe how their testbed represents the target operational environment and validates their approach. EVA. 1.

S26A – Advanced Spacesuit Architectures, Technologies, and Designs for Mars Exploration Q1: Does the agency prioritize materials that offer secondary In-Situ Resource Utilization benefits “such as those that can be refined from mission-generated biological waste” over traditional synthetic elastomers for long-duration Mars exploration?

A1: Materials derived from In-Situ Resource Utilization of mission-generated biological waste are not within scope for this subtopic. This solicitation seeks materials and designs that provide mass reduction, thermal control, and structural performance in the Mars environment.

Pressure garment materials must meet stringent human-rating, certification, and quality control requirements that are best addressed through traditional material qualification processes. Q2: Given the extreme temperature fluctuations of the Martian environment, does the agency have a minimum Glass Transition Temperature (Tg) or specific thermal stability threshold for novel elastomeric materials?

A2: No specific minimum Glass Transition Temperature (Tg) is specified for this subtopic. Thermal performance requirements are application-dependent and vary based on the material’s location and application within the suit system. The Mars surface thermal environment ranges from approximately -220°F to +70°F.

Materials must maintain required mechanical properties throughout this range, or demonstrate that the suit thermal control system adequately protects materials from temperature extremes that would compromise performance. Q3: For EVA. 1.

S26A, is the agency interested in high-crystallinity biopolymers, specifically those derived from chitin/chitosan, as a primary or composite layer for radiation mitigation and mass reduction in Mars pressure garments? A3: This subtopic is open to all materials that demonstrate feasibility for Mars pressure garment applications, including biopolymers as long as they otherwise meet requirements for the application in question.

Radiation mitigation is not identified as a critical gap in this subtopic. This subtopic focuses on suit architecture, mass reduction, bearing/disconnect interfaces, and thermal control. GO.

1. S26A – ASCENT Thruster Pre-heat Optimization Q1: Between minimizing total power consumption, peak power consumption, and preheat time, what is your highest priority? A1: The highest priority is the minimization of the total power consumption.

a. This all comes down to the power available on the spacecraft. We can work with some peak power consumption as it comes up, but it’s really down to the amount of power we put into the thruster from the batteries.

b. The second highest priority is the pre-heat time. If we have a way to get to pre-heat temperatures faster, that can save us some power.

It also makes our operations better because we can decrease the time to get ready for maneuvers. Q2: What are some of the biggest challenges with conventional resistive heaters and insulation for this application that you’ve seen so far? A2: Some of the biggest challenges for resistive heaters are: a.

Cost and lead-time are sometimes difficult for the thruster manufacturers. It’s gotten better over the last few years though, but it can still be a critical path item for the vendors. b.

They are kind of a custom design for each thruster size. We do a different design for the coils for each diameter/length change on the thrusters c. The resistive heaters are effective though.

We are trying to get to a more cost-effective and energy-efficient type configuration. Q3: Are current SOTA ASCENT catalysts considered acceptable for higher thrust missions? Is this solicitation open to innovation on the catalyst in addition to pre-heat optimization?

A3: This one is difficult to answer without understanding the context of the vendor’s questions. We know that we can build 100 mN thrusters with catalyst beds that are acceptable. It’s not 100% certain that we can do this same catalyst configuration/type at higher usage levels.

It’s not easy to answer with any definitive yes or no. I think we are open to it, but it would have to be focused on how we configure, manufacture, or otherwise incorporate lowering the pre-heat power. I know these two things are closely related (heaters and catalyst beds). Q4: Is the catalyst bed required to be at the 400 C temperature consistently throughout the mission or only prior to thruster use?

A4: The thruster pre-heat is only to get ready for thruster firing. We don’t keep the thrusters at pre-heat temperatures continuously. Q5: Does GO.

1. S26A consider novel thermal energy delivery technologies for catalyst bed pre-heating beyond resistive heater optimization, such as alternative heat generation or thermal management architectures that reduce pre-heat time or power draw? A5: We are open to alternative ideas, for sure.

We have the most experience with resistive heaters, so that is typically what we use. It’s quite possible that the existing resistive heaters are just about as optimized as we can get them. GO.

3. S26B – Advanced Momentum Management and Propellantless Control Technologies for Solar Sail Spacecraft Q1: Is simulation and analysis of propellantless momentum management methods within scope of this subtopic? Is hardware development expected for Phase I and/or Phase II?

A1: Yes, it is within scope and hardware development would definitely be desired in Phase II if not preliminary in Phase I. GO. 4.

T26B – Modernization of CFD Tools for Advanced Propulsion Applications Q1: The solicitation does not specify a target CFD framework. We request clarification on the following: (a) Does NASA have a preferred or required CFD platform (an in-house NASA code) into which the developed model? (b) If no platform is mandated, are participating firms permitted to use their own proprietary or open-source CFD framework?

A1: It is preferable to employ CFD tools used by NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center and/or Glenn Research Center, but models can be implemented in any finite volume CFD tool as long as the delivered solution can easily be ported to NASA’s preferred tools in the future.

The formulated model(s) may be demonstrated in a commercial or proprietary framework, but should not be inherently dependent on proprietary platforms or libraries that NASA does not have access to. An additional reference with information on models used by NASA: https://ntrs. nasa.

gov/citations/20230016135 Q2: Scope of “”Analytical Model”” Formulation Only, or Full CFD Implementation? A2: The proposed solution should include formulation and at least a preliminary implementation to complete a proof-of-concept demonstration. Q3: CFD Code Platform — NASA-Specified or Performer’s Discretion?

A3: It is preferable to employ CFD tools used by NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center and/or Glenn Research Center, but models can be implemented in any finite volume CFD tool as long as the delivered solution can easily be ported to NASA’s preferred tools in the future. The delivered model(s) should not have dependencies on proprietary platforms or libraries that NASA