1

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Space Technology Research Institutes (STRI)

Overview for the NAC TI&E Committee

Dr. Jay Falker, STMD Early Stage Portfolio Executive

28 March 2017

Introducing the Space Technology Research Institutes

Event Date

Draft Solicitation Release May 20, 2016

Public Comment Due June 10, 2016

Formal Appendix Release July 01, 2016

Notices of Intent Due July 14, 2016

Preliminary Proposals Due July 28, 2016

Notification of Preliminary Proposal Evaluations August 18, 2016

Full Proposals Due October 24, 2016

Selection Announcement February 16, 2017

Award Date Spring 2017

Complement the individual research grants and project opportunities already offered

Enable universities to focus on high priority research for several years

Enhance the capabilities of U.S. universities, and improve their ability to meet the needs of NASA’s science and technology programs.

Create, fortify, and nurture the talent base of highly skilled engineers, scientists, and technologists

2STRI Solicitation: NNH16ZOA001N-16STRI-B3

3

STRI 2017 Requirements

• Only U.S. universities may submit proposals • The PI on the proposal must be a tenured faculty member or untenured,

tenure-track faculty member in an engineering or science department at the lead university

• Creative teaming arrangements are sought – Other universities (required) – 2+ – Non-profits (permitted) – Industry (permitted)

• Co-Investigators are required – Technical Co-Is are required – A management Co-I is permitted

• Institute leadership or participation from Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) or other Minority Serving Institutions (MSIs) is strongly encouraged.

• Collaboration - non-paid teaming with OGAs and FFRDCs is permitted (NASA CS or JPL employees may NOT appear on a submitted proposal, even as collaborators)

• 70% of the budget must go to U.S. universities

4

Space Technology Research Institutes 2017: Key Features and Award Information

Key Features • Empowered university-led team • Guiding Vision with resilient

research strategy • Specific research objectives with

credible expected outcomes in next 5 years

• Multidisciplinary research program

• Leveraging SOA capabilities (likely created by OGA investments)

• Talented, diverse, cross-disciplinary, fully-integrated team

• Low to mid TRL • Innovative technical approaches • Publications (many) and open

source access to results

Award Information • Expected duration: 5 years • Award amount up to $3M per year

($15M over 5 years) • Institutes expected (and empowered)

to implement their own review processes

• NASA oversight – annual reviews and brief quarterly status reports

• Award instrument: grants

Bio-Manufacturing for Deep Space

Exploration

Computationally Accelerated Materials Development for Ultra

High Strength Lightweight Structures

5

National Aeronautics andSpace Administration

STRI 2016 Topic 1:

Bio-Manufacturing for Deep Space

Exploration

6

Topic 1: Bio-Manufacturing for Deep Space Exploration

1. In situ Microbial Media Production • Conversion of carbon dioxide, water, and other needed resources to microbial substrates (“in situ media”

production) • Supporting physico-chemical and biological methods that process local resources.

2. In situ Production of Mission Products • Developing microorganisms with targeted metabolisms to produce target products using in situ media • Novel systems for growth and harvesting of target products. • Demonstration of manufacture of products for mission applications.

3. In situ Food Production • Increase yield, volume efficiency, and photosynthetic efficiency. • Enhance overall nutritional attributes. • Enhance secondary product recovery from inedible biomass.

7

0007: Center for the Utilization of Biological Engineering in Space (CUBES)

(Adam Arkin, UC Berkeley)

Center for the Utilization of Biological Engineering in Space (CUBES) [Version 2] Vision Statement and Research Objectives: CUBES will • create an integrated, multi-function, multi-organism biosystem; • demo continuous and semiautonomous biomanufacture of fuel,

materials, pharmaceuticals, and food in Mars-like conditions; • conduct multidisciplinary research in: artificial photosynthesis,

a biological Haber-Bosch process, CO2 reduction to other C1 compounds, ammonia nitrification, perchlorate reduction, the generation of C1/C2/C3 and nitrous oxide fuels, biopolymer production and use in additive manufacturing devices, microbe and plant pharmaceutical synthesis, increased food production by plants and microbes, organism extreme-environment cultivation and testing in a Mars-environment simulator, and overall biosystem integration, seeding and testing.

Earth Analog Benefits: These include • bioengineered organism utilization in

deserts, ice sheets, remote/rural civilization, and other environments, thereby "going beyond" the bioreactor and converting scarce resources to useful products while in similarly extreme environments;

• carbon capture that reduces greenhouse gases, combats climate change, and converts C 1 intermediates to fuels, chemicals, etc.;

• food/water production and waste/nutrient recycling to address famine, drought, global warming, and burgeoning populations;

• on-demand pharmaceutical production, medical diagnostics, and cell-based treatments/therapeutics that can lead to personalized medicine, targeted delivery of clinical treatments, rapid and decentralized responses to biosecurity threats, emergency responses to catastrophic medical failures, etc.

Team: Adam P. Arkin, PI, UC Berkeley

Amor A. Menezes, Co-I (Science PI), UC Berkeley Craig S. Criddle, Co-I (Institutional PI), Stanford U

Karen A. McDonald, Co-I (Institutional PI), UC Davis Lance C. Seefeldt, Co-I (Institutional PI), Utah State U

Aaron J. Berliner, Other Professional, Autodesk Bruce Bugbee, Co-I, Utah State U

Christopher J. Chang, Co-I, UC Berkeley Douglas S. Clark, Co-I, UC Berkeley

Devin Coleman-Derr, Co-I, UC Berkeley Kalimuthu Karuppanan, Co-I, UC Davis

Somen Nandi, Co-I, UC Davis Robert M. Waymouth, Co-I, Stanford U

Peidong Yang, Co-I, UC Berkeley

(This quadrant intentionally blank – for evaluation notes)

7

8

National Aeronautics andSpace Administration

STRI 2016 Topic 2:

Computationally Accelerated Materials

Development for Ultra High Strength

Lightweight Structures

9

Topic 2: Computationally Accelerated Materials Development for Ultra High Strength Lightweight Structures

1991-Early 2000s - Early national

investments in CNT research

- NASA interest in structural properties

- Powder form CNT unable to enhance mechanical properties to compete with structural materials SOA

2004 - CNT sheets first

became available- Manufacturing

maturation heavily supported by DoD, including Title III funding

- Property enhancements were focused on electrical properties

- CNT sheets for electrostatic charge dissipation were used on Juno which launched in 2011

2015 - NASA GCD supported

efforts in structural CNT resulted in mechanical property improvements to commercially available CNT yarn for composite application

- NASA’s internal efforts supported 500% increase in specific strength and 1600% increase in specific modulus of CNT composites over 3 years despite non-optimal CNT composites

- CNT composites at tipping point, needing better understanding of mechanisms for load transfer to continue improvements in mechanical properties

2022 - 5-year STRI funding

expected to yield fundamental understanding of CNT composite mechanical properties to reach panel level properties that will enable systems level mass reduction

- MGI accelerated panel properties development required by STRI will yield both models to enhance understanding of CNT composites and continued maturation of CNT materials manufacturing

- Vision for STRI includes complementary internal NASA efforts to assure timely integration of this technology in systems architecture concepts

CNT Powder

CNT Sheets

High Strength CNT Yarn

Ultra High Strength Composite Panel

10

Topic 2: Computationally Accelerated Materials Development for Ultra High Strength Lightweight Structures

Topic Focus Ultra high strength lightweight structural material enabled by Materials Genome Initiative (MGI) computational guidance

Distinctive Features of Topic • MGI approach that spans entire materials development cycle • Requires demonstration article with challenging property targets at the end of period of performance • Panel properties specified are at least double state of the art carbon fiber composite properties • Properties defined with systems guidance on overall payoff in mass reduction for aerospace systems

Computational Guidance Spans Materials Development Cycle • Application-guided structural materials design – predictive modeling of material properties including

load transfer mechanisms that will influence material and structure design • Computationally guided design, synthesis and processing to enable macroscale fabrication of ultra high

strength composite • Accelerated testing and evaluation of material properties to inform iterative advancement of materials

design, synthesis and processing

NASA Contribution to Emerging Materials Technology Development • Provide the mission pull to define relevant materials properties that make insertion into NASA

missions plausible • Leverage DoD investments in electrically conductive materials to enable the advancement of high

strength materials with broad commercial implications for aerospace • Theoretical understanding of ultra high strength CNT structures that complements internally funded

advancements in prototyping and structural design of advanced high strength composite structures

Institute for Ultra-Strong Composites by Computational Design Vision statement Serve as a focal point for partnerships between NASA, other agencies, industry, and academia to: (1) enable computationally-driven development of CNT-based ultra high strength lightweight structural materials within the Materials Genome Initiative (MGI) paradigm and (2) expand the resource of highly skilled engineers, scientists and technologists in this emerging field Research objectives • Develop a novel ultra high strength lightweight structural material

for use in deep space exploration vehicles • Establish a new computationally-driven

material design paradigm for rapid material development

• Develop modeling, processing, and testing tools and methods for carbon nanotube based material systems

Leadership team Greg Odegard, Michigan Tech, Director, SDT Team Leader Richard Liang, Florida State, Deputy Director, MST Team Leader Mike Czabaj, University of Utah, TCT Team leader John Hart, Massachusetts Inst of Tech, MMT Team leader

University members Dan Adams, Tarik Dickens, Traian Dumitrica, Susanta Ghosh, Jamie Guest, Ibrahim Guven, Ayou Hao, Hendrik Heinz, Julie King, Satish Kumar, Okenwa Okoli, Ravi Pandey, Jin Gyu Park, Trisha Sain, Ashley Spear, Adri van Duin, Brian Wardle, Chad Zeng

Industry members John Dorr (Nanocomp) Mathew Jackson (Solvay)

Non-NASA Federal lab partner Ajit Roy (Air Force Research Lab)

Approach The institute is organized into four teams that will work work collaboratively to achieve the research objectives: • The Simulation and Design Team

(SDT) will establish structure-property relationships and new material design methodologies

• The Materials Synthesis Team (MST) will pioneer precise patterning synthesis techniques and optimize interphases for material performance enhancement

• The Material Manufacturing Team (MMT) will focus on the scale-up manufacturing of highly aligned and concentrated CNT composites

• The Testing and Characterization Team (TCT) will conduct multiscale characterization of the CNT composites and develop new test methodologies to explore this new class of materials

(This quadrant intentionally blank – for evaluation notes)

12

Backup

13

STRI 2016 Appendix

Research products are expected in the conduct of the STRI Research Plan. The products developed over the course of the award should demonstrate a growing level of

validation and integration.

An STRI is intended to research and exploit cutting-edge advances in technology with the potential for revolutionary impact on future aerospace capabilities. At the same time, it will expand the U.S. talent base in research and development. An STRI has the following key features:

• A guiding Vision with a resilient research strategy to systematically address and significantly advance one of the solicited research topics

• Specific research objectives with credible expected outcomes within five years • A multi-disciplinary research program that promotes the synthesis of science, engineering and other disciplines with relevant

contributions • Leveraging of university expertise and state-of-the-art (SOA) capabilities, possibly developed through funding from NASA, other

government agencies or industry partnerships • Low to mid Technology Readiness Level (TRL) research; beginning TRL typically 1-2 • Innovative technical approaches that offer promise for accelerated progress • Empowered leadership: the STRI leadership team will define and manage all research tasks to realize the research institute’s

Vision • A talented, diverse, cross-disciplinary, and fully integrated team to execute the research program, including multi-university

participation; participation from Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) and other Minority Serving Institutions (MSIs) is strongly encouraged

• The involvement of university students in the research teams • Active, long-term, and mutually beneficial interactions with NASA Centers, industry, other government agencies, and non-profit

laboratories to achieve infusion of the capabilities developed • A supportive infrastructure and management system; adequate personnel commitments to manage the research program and

interact with outside entities • Peer-reviewed publications of and open source access to results wherever possible

14

STRI 2016 Appendix Eligibility Requirements

• Only accredited U.S. universities are eligible to submit proposals to this solicitation. The PI on the proposal must be a tenured faculty member or untenured, tenure-track faculty member in an engineering or science department at the lead university. − A university may be the lead on at most one proposal submitted under each topic; a lead university can receive

only one award through this Appendix. − There is no limit on the number of STRI proposals in which a university may participate in a non-lead capacity.

• An individual may serve as Principal Investigator (PI) on only one proposal and may not participate as PI or Co-Investigator (Co-I) on any other proposals submitted to this Appendix.

• Co-Investigators (Co-Is) from the participant organizations, who are responsible for leading and managing major elements of the Research Plan, are required. A Co-I on one proposal may also participate in other proposals.

• Teaming among accredited U.S. universities is required, with a minimum of three participant universities (including the lead university), each receiving at least 15% of the overall research institute budget.

• Other universities (i.e., with < 15% of the overall research institute budget), non-profit laboratories, and industry may be part of the overall STRI team to fill specific technical gaps in the organization of the STRI.

• At least 70% of the overall budget must go to the university participants of the STRI over the course of the award.

• Research institute leadership or participation from HBCUs or other MSIs is strongly encouraged.

• Government laboratories and FFRDCs, except as prohibited below, may collaborate on the research but may not receive STRI funds directly or via subaward. As specified in 1.4.2 of the NASA Guidebook for Proposers, a collaborator is less critical to the proposal than a Co-I would be; specifically, a collaborator is committed to providing a focused but unfunded contribution for a specific task. − NASA civil servants and Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) employees may not appear as collaborators (or in any

other role) on submitted proposals

• Collaboration by non-U.S. organizations in proposed efforts is permitted as specified in 3.3 of the NRA.

15

STRI 2016 Proposal Elements

Relevance • Directly addresses a topic • Case for VI • Basis in current and past research programs

and leverages OGA investments • Addresses integration of fundamental

research in 5 years and yields outcomes that NASA can act upon

Technical • SOA • Definition of interdependent research

objectives • Exemplar projects associated with each

research objective • Milestone chart • Milestone metrics and research products • Risks and mitigation strategy

Management • How will disparate set of institutions and

activities be managed • Value of each team member • Approach to update Research Plan • Institutional commitment of lead and partner

organizations • IP

Criterion PP % FP %

Relevance 60 30

Technical 40 40

Management (and Cost)

- 30

Appendix Para #

Proposal Section Max Page Length

FP-1 Executive Summary 2 FP-2 Table of Contents 1 FP-3 Summary/Overview Chart 1 FP-4 Technical and Management Section 35 FP-5 Data Management Plan 2

FP-6 References and Citations As needed FP-7 Biographical Sketches for PI and Co-Is 2 pages for each FP-8 Current and Pending Support As needed FP-9 Letters of Support 1 page each, if needed

FP-10 Budget Justification Plan/Cost Proposal As needed FP-11 Special Notifications and/or Certifications As needed

16

STRI Step 2 Evaluation Criteria (slide 1 of 2)

Relevance (weight: 30%)

Extent to which the proposed research • addresses one of the topics in 1.3 and the objectives of the solicitation • demonstrates a compelling Vision that is best pursued or enabled by a multidisciplinary, multi-institutional,

university-led research institute • is innovative • has a credible and strong basis in existing and past research programs • is well structured to yield outcomes that NASA can incorporate or act upon to facilitate progress

Technical Approach (weight: 40%)

Extent to which the proposed research • has a feasible and sound Research Plan, consisting of interdependent research objectives with clear research

products that are tied to the Vision of the STRI. Each research objective must be well-defined, addressing gaps, barriers, anticipated breakthroughs, and the required cross-disciplinary expertise

• is likely to make significant progress within the five-year timeframe of the research institute • demonstrates a clear understanding of the SOA and related activities, including appropriate leveraging of available

knowledge and technologies outside of the STRI, and makes a case for SOA advancement • describes exemplar projects that are indicative of a high quality Research Plan • has a milestone chart that is realistic and illustrates the critical path, contributions from research projects,

interdependence of research activities, and research objectives consistent with the research institute’s Vision • has clear (specific, measurable and attainable) metrics for milestones associated with critical path activities • has well-defined research products with an associated schedule of availability • demonstrates a clear understanding of the primary technical development risks and identifies the mitigation

strategies to address them • has access to, or plans for, adequate laboratories, facilities, equipment, tools, and data for the conduct of the

proposed research

1

2

17

STRI Step 2 Evaluation Criteria(slide 2 of 2)

Suitability of PI/Team, Resources, and Cost (weight: 30%)

Extent to which • the research institute Director and Co-Is have the expertise and recent experience (e.g., publications, program

management, etc.) needed to successfully implement the proposed research program • the proposed team assembles a broad, deep and diverse mix of expertise and talent to best advance the STRI Vision

and research objectives • the management philosophy, structure and approach are appropriate and effective • the proposal describes a resilient strategy for managing Research Plan updates, including an effective role for a

Technical Advisory Board • the proposal demonstrates the institutional commitment of the lead and partner organizations to the goals of the

proposed STRI • the proposal includes plans for effective student involvement • the described interactions (with industry, other government agencies, non-profit laboratories, and even other non-

STRI universities) are likely to stimulate knowledge and technology transfer opportunities • the intellectual property policy and data management plan maximize the STRI knowledge, data, and research

products that will be publicly available at the conclusion of the work, with sound rationale for any open access limitations

• the budget is realistic and reasonable for the scope of the proposed effort, and is within the solicitation funding profile

3

18

For the overall proposal, after evaluating all of the criteria, the electronic reviewer will assign the proposal one of the overall color ratings described below and will provide an overall assessment consistent with the assigned color rating.

BLUE A compelling proposal of exceptional merit that fully responds to the objectives of the Appendix - many or significant strengths and no major weaknesses.

TEAL A proposal of high merit that fully responds to the objectives of the Appendix – strengths fully out-balance any weaknesses and no weaknesses are major.

GREEN A competent proposal that represents a credible response to the Appendix – strengths and weaknesses essentially balance each other.

YELLOW A proposal that provides a marginal response to the Appendix - weaknesses outweigh any strengths.

RED A seriously flawed proposal having one or more major weaknesses that constitute fatal flaws.

STRI Proposal Evaluation Award Recommendation

19

EVENT DATE Draft Solicitation Release Date May 24, 2016

Formal Appendix Released July 01, 2016

Notices of Intent Due July 14, 2016

Preliminary Proposals Due July 28, 2016

Preliminary Proposals Review Period August 01 – 04, 2016

Topic 1 Prelim Panel August 08, 2016

Topic 2 Prelim Panel August 09, 2016

Notification of Preliminary Proposal Evaluations August 18, 2016

Compliance Screening October 20, 2016

Invited Full Proposals Due October 24, 2016

Review Period Oct. 27 – Dec. 30, 2016

Topic 1 SME Panel January 10 – 12, 2017

Topic 2 SME Panel January 17 – 18, 2017

Source Selection Decision February 2, 2017

Selection Announcement February 16,2017

Awards in Place Spring 2017

Detailed STRI Timeline St

ep 1

St

ep 2