Ocean of Things - darpa.mil of Things Proposers Day.pdfOcean of Things Mr. John Waterston Program...

Ocean of Things

Mr. John Waterston

Program Manager, DARPA/STO

Proposers Day

04 January 2018

Enable persistent maritime situational awareness by deploying low cost, intelligent floats as a distributed, composable network

Distribution Statement "A" (Approved for Public Release, Distribution Unlimited)

Agenda

Thursday, January 4th

• 9:00 Check-in

• 9:30 Welcome – John Waterston

• 9:35 Security – Jackie Croat

• 9:45 Doing Business with DARPA – Doug McCreary

• 10:15 Ocean of Things Program Overview – John Waterston

Enhanced Mobile Satellite Services – Jiral Shah

SSC Data Center Architecture – Jeff Ellen

Ocean of Things Simulations – Basil Papadales

• 12:15 STO Overview – Dr. Dan Patt

• 12:30 Poster session

Begin Breakout Sessions with Program Manager

2Distribution Statement "A" (Approved for Public Release, Distribution Unlimited)

Distribution Statement A: Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

Ocean of ThingsSecurity Overview

Strategic Technology Office

Jason PotterProgram Security Officer

(703) 526-2687

Jackie CroatProgram Security Representative

(703) [email protected]

4 Jan 2018

mailto:[email protected]

Ocean of Things Proposers Day

January 4, 2018

DARPA Contracts Management Office

Doug McCreary – Contracting Officer

“Doing Business with DARPA – the BAA process”

Ocean of Things HR001118S0013


HR001118S0013

• FedBizOpps: www.fbo.gov BAA BAA Amendments Proposer Day slides Q&A

• Important Dates: Posting Date: December 19, 2017 Proposers Day: January 4, 2018 Deadline to Submit Questions: January 25, 2018 Proposal Abstract Due Date: January 26, 2018 Proposal Due Date: March 23, 2018 BAA Closing Date: June 18, 2018

NOTE: If there is any discrepancy between what is presented today and the BAA, the BAA takes precedence.


http://www.fbo.gov/

BAA Process: Regulations

• Described in Federal Acquisition Regulation Part 35: For the acquisition of basic and applied research

FAR 35.016 (a): Shall only be used when “meaningful proposals with varying technical/scientific approaches can be reasonably anticipated.”

Not a Request for Proposal (RFP)

FAR Part 15 does not apply*

*NOTE: FAR SUBPART 15.4 WILL APPLY FOR CONTRACT PRICING


BAA Process: Evaluation

• Per FAR 35.016(d): “Proposals received as a result of the BAA shall be evaluated in accordance with evaluation criteria specified therein through a peer or scientific review process. Written evaluation reports on individual proposals will be necessary but proposals need not be evaluated against each other since they are not submitted in accordance with a common work statement.”

• Proposals are not ranked. No color, adjectival, or numerical “scoring” systems are employed during the Scientific Review Process


BAA Process: Evaluation Criteria

• In Descending Order of Importance:Overall Scientific and Technical Merit; Potential Contribution and Relevance to the DARPA Mission; Proposer’s Capabilities and/or Related Experience Cost and Schedule Realism

• Complies with guidance at FAR 35.016(e):

“The primary basis for selecting proposals for acceptance shall be technical, importance to agency programs, and fund availability. Cost realism and reasonablenessshall also be considered to the extent appropriate.”


BAA Process: Award Information

• Soliciting for Phase 1 and Phase 2 ROM

• Must address BOTH Phases

• Two (2) Technical Areas: TA-1: Float Development

TA-2: Data Analytics

• Multiple Phase 1 Awards anticipated:

Proposers can submit for more than one technical area

However, requires a separate proposal PER technical area

Must address BOTH phases per proposal



• DARPA reserves the right(s) to:

Select for negotiation all, some, one, or none of the proposals received and to make awards with/without discussions

Accept proposals in their entirety or only portions of proposals for award

Segregate portions of proposal into pre-priced options

Negotiations may be opened with proposer



• DARPA reserves the right(s) to: Fund proposals in phases with options for continued work at the end of one or more

of the phases

Remove proposers from award consideration should the parties fail to reach agreement on award terms, conditions and cost/price

• Fundamental/Non-Fundamental Research: Indicate in proposal whether scope of research is fundamental or notNon-fundamental: Pre-publication approval will be required


BAA Process: Award Instrument(s)

• FAR-based procurement contract or Other Transaction (OT) Agreement

• No grants or cooperative agreements

• Proposers without a DCAA-approved cost accounting system should submit an SF 1408 with proposal to receive a cost reimbursement contract

• Other Transaction (OT) – must meet eligibility criteria – refer to 10 U.S.C. § 2371b

• CO has sole discretion to select award instrument type and to negotiate all instrument terms and conditions with selectees


BAA Process: Eligibility Information

• Only organizations capable of receiving, processing, and storing export-controlled information are eligible for awards

• Non-U.S. organizations may participate but shall comply with any necessary non-disclosure agreements, security regulations, export control laws (see below) and other governing statutes applicable under the circumstances

• Foreign participants may participate to the extent authorized by applicable Export Laws (ITAR, EAR)

• No portion of the BAA will be reserved for small business, no evaluation preference

• Classified submissions have specific requirements



• Government agencies/labs, FFRDCs cannot propose to this BAA in any capacity, UNLESS:

Can clearly demonstrate the work is not otherwise available from the private sector, AND

Provide written documentation citing the specific statutory authority (as well as, where relevant, contractual authority) establishing eligibility to propose to government solicitations



• Organizational Conflicts of Interest:

Without prior approval or a waiver from the DARPA Deputy Director, in accordance with FAR 9.503, a contractor cannot simultaneously provide scientific, engineering, technical assistance (SETA) or similar support and also be a technical performer

Must address in your proposal if providing SETA or similar support to any DARPA technical office(s) through an active contract or subcontract

Contact DARPA in advance of submitting proposal


BAA Process: Proposal Requirements

• Clearly mark proprietary and classified information

• Volume I, Technical and Management Proposal: Section I: Administrative Section II: Summary of Proposal Section III: Detailed Proposal Information Section IV: Additional Information

• Volume II, Cost Proposal: Cost tables in MS Excel format w/ formulas intact Cost breakdown: Direct labor, indirect rates, ODC, Material Subcontractor proposals: Required/may be submitted to Govt. directly Supporting documentation for proposed ODC & Material amounts


BAA Process: Proposal Considerations

• Small Business Subcontracting Plan (required for FAR contracts > $700K awarded to large businesses)

• Certified Cost and Pricing Data Required (FAR contracts > $750K)

• Organizational Conflict of Interest & Procurement Integrity (SETA/Performer)

• Online Representations & Certifications – FAR & DFAR

• Wide Area Workflow (WAWF)

• i-Edison


BAA Process: Administrative & Policy Requirements

• Human Subjects Research

• Animal Use

• Export Control – Clause/Language will be included in award

• Subcontracting

• System for Award Management (SAM)

• Cost Accounting Standards (CAS) Notice & Cert

• Reporting Executive Compensation and First-Tier Subcontract Awards

• Safeguarding Covered Defense Information and Cyber Incident Reporting


BAA Process: Intellectual Property

• Data Rights Assertions – DFARS 252.227-7013/7014:

Identify all non-commercial and commercial technical data & computer software to be generated, developed, and/or delivered to which the Government will receive less than Unlimited Rights and assert specific restrictions on those deliverables

Assertions required for Prime and Subs Use defined “Basis of Assertion” and “Asserted Rights Category” Justify “Basis of Assertion” This information is assessed during evaluations and will be incorporated into any

contract award Avoid broad/vague assertions


BAA Process: Intellectual Property

• PATENTS: Include documentation proving your ownership of or possession of appropriate licensing rights to all patented inventions (or inventions for which a patent application has been filed) that will be utilized under your proposal for the DARPA program.

• i-Edison: All patent reports and notifications must be submitted electronically


BAA Process: Communications

• ALL questions to [email protected]

• After Receipt of Proposals – Government (PM/PCO) may communicate with proposers to understand the meaning of some aspect of the proposal that is not clear or to obtain confirmation or substantiation of a proposed approach, solution, or cost estimate

• Only a duly authorized Contracting Officer may obligate the Government

• Informal feedback will be provided upon request once selections are made. No formal “debriefing” (see FAR 15.506) will be provided.


mailto:[email protected]

BAA Process: “Best Practices”

• Read the BAA in its entirety – several times

• Pay special attention to:

Evaluation Criteria Proposal instructions – cover all required elements Include Representations & Certifications

• Take advantage of templates & checklists provided

• Submit questions by due date and time

• Submit proposal abstract by due date and time

• Be detailed and thorough


Program Overview

Ocean of Things


PROBLEM: Significant gaps in ocean awareness

Affordably increasing maritime capability and coverage

The military, commercial, and scientific communities desire additional understanding of their environment. Ocean of

Things provides persistent, wide-area, multi-modal coverage through large scale employment of floats.

• Each float operates for > 1-year using widely available components

• Object and sensor motion allow for the collection of physical and activity-based information

• Multi-sensor fusion and machine learning techniques used to characterize maritime tracks

• Ocean of Things supports multiple missions with its heterogeneous capabilities

Thousands of

intelligent floats


Ocean of Things Coverage

Ocean of Things Activity Outputs Data Products

Mea

su

re • Periodic scalar

sensor data

• Float locations

• Fine resolution environmental

data

• Ocean of Things system

performance

Re

po

rt • Episodic event

declarations via

Iridium

• Activity cueing

• Anomaly reports

• Unique bell-ringer signatures

Fu

se

• Track reports

• Vessel tracks to common

tactical plot

• Data confidence values

Cla

ss

ify • Contact signatures

• Platform ID

• Behavioral norms

• Object/vessel behaviors

• Intelligence reporting

• Indications and warnings

PROCESS: Collect float data to understand ocean activity & environment

CMD Center

• Hydrophone

• Radio

• Magnetometer

• Camera

• Hydrocarbon

• pH

• …

Data

Accelerometer

GPS

Microphone

Temperature

Mission Sensor

PNT: Positioning, Navigation and TimingFloat behaviors to improve sensing missionAction

• Lights

• Flares

• Smokes

• RF Signals

• Submerge

• ACOMMS relay

• PNT gateway

Action Payload


• Building a low-cost, yet capable float• Modularity for multiple sensor types

• Manufacturing efficiencies at scale

• Performance of low-cost components

• Enabling float persistence in operational area• Energy

• Motion

• Biofouling

• Mitigating environmental impact• Material selection / design

• System behavior

Key Ocean of Things challenges

• Managing a distributed signal processing system• Processing balance between float and cloud

• Man-machine teaming approaches

• Data density thresholds

• Command and control and visualization

• Data discovery


Program organization

Two Phases1: Proof of Concept 2: Operational

Demonstration

Two Technical Areas

TA 1: Float Development

TA 2: Data Analytics


TA 2 BAA

Building a low-cost, yet capable float

Mission Sensor:

Avg $1816Mp Camera $30

SDR $22

Hydrophone $10

Magnetometer: $10

BoM: ~$313

BoM: Bill of Materials

SDR: Software Defined Radar

Single-unit costs

Individual Sensor Detection Range (m)

Num

ber

of S

ensors

per

1M

km

2

$500 target price

90% Probability of Track

PID = 50%

4kt Vessel

Source 2004 Sandia: Sensor

Networks for Collective Warfare

Performance for a fixed system cost of $25M / yr.

$500 / unit

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

8.8M floats

@

$2.84 per float

1,000 floats

@

$25,000 per float

Num

ber

of

floats

per

1 M

/km

2

Common Sensors: Temperature

Position

Time

Movement

Noise

Etc.

Batteries: $90

Long Life Alk, 1.5

KWh

4 Liters

Processor: $40

Radio: $120

GPS: $30

Temp: $10

3-ax Accel: <$5

Sensor: $18

Payload

Functional

Diagram


• Issue: Drift moves floats through area of interest

• Variable forces of wave, wind & current

• Existing models insufficient (~10km resolution)

• Potential mitigations

• Float design options

• Sequenced seeding of field

• Real-time performance estimates

Enabling float persistence in mission areas

Wave motion

Wind currents

Ocean currents

Analysis of surface float density in the Gulf of Mexico

Use motion to the program’s

advantage!


30

See 1-SoCalSim5.mp4

Protecting the environment and the floats

• Bio-fouling degrades performance

• Potential mitigations

• Coatings

• Material selection

• Environmentally compliance essential

• Eco-friendly construction

• Entanglement prevention

• Biodegradable components

• Eco-friendly behaviors required

• Scuttle prior to beaching or exclusion zones

• DARPA funding Environmental Assessment, via SSC-Pacific

• Approaches requiring Environmental Impact Statement discouraged


Challenge: Low-cost commercial components able

to detect both the physical and operational

environment

Approach:• Robust sensing…heterogeneity

• Signal processing compatible with TA2

• Reliable, survivable

• Considerations for future air deployability

• Command-able & reprogrammable

• Attritable device

• Modular, manufacturable design

• Balanced power efficiency

• Form factor and construction appropriate to the

environment

TA 1: Manufacturing low-cost, intelligent floats


Pro

cessin

g P

ow

er

Compression

Segmentation

AnomalyDetectionSchemes

Ocean of Things analysis trade space

NOAA Northeast Fisheries

Science Center Drifter

Maker Faire Buoy

Holey Sock

Drogue Float

(Wikipedia)

ATR: Automatic Target Recognition

Objectives:

• Selected sensor suite

• Common/hotel sensors

• Mission sensor(s)

• Signal processing

• Maximize quality w/i bandwidth

constraints (Iridium SBD)

• Floats are:

• Unclassified

• Non-ITAR restricted

• Environmentally compliant

TA 1, Phase 1 metrics

Performance Metrics TA 1 (Float Development)Phase 1

Metric Threshold Goal

Mission sensor types ≥ 3 ≥ 5

Sensor signal

processing

Compress collected dataExtract relevant features

from data

Collect sufficient data for track

generation

Optimize data collection for

track generation

Deployment

Reliability≥ 80% 24 hours after launch ≥ 95% 24 hours after launch

Buoy C2 Over-the-air float firmware updates

Form factor One-man deployable (<22kg)≤ 672 cu. In

(Vol of "A" size)

Unit cost < $1,000 < $500

Operating life 3 months 6 months

Survival ≥ 50% reach operating life ≥ 70% reach operating life

Manufacturing rate ≥ 35 floats / day ≥ 50 floats / day

Float modularity Support variety of sensors

Biofouling Resistant to biofouling

Operational

persistenceReduce drifting motion Control drifting motion

Justify your approach from

the perspective of the

system’s utility


• Converting data to knowledge:

• Sources of data:

• Periodic measurements (location, environmental)

• Event declarations (anomalies, transients)

• Cloud processing approaches:

• Supervised & unsupervised machine learning

• Topological / multi-modal data clustering

• Semantic labeling to support automation

• Others…

• Advanced analytics based on sparse data

• Sparse in quantity due to float movement

• Sparse in content due to SATCOM limitations

• Man-machine teaming to visualize / control large field of floats

• Determine data density thresholds for system performance

• Cooperation between TA1 and TA2 performers key

• Three focus areas:

• Field performance and C2

• Track generation

• Data discovery

TA 2: Managing a distributed signal processing system


Iridium Next Constellation

Global Observing System of 8651 “Observers” as of Oct 2017

• Visualization• Float location• Float status• Field performance based on capability/mission

• Single sensor performance• Composite detection performance

• Environmental data

• Prediction of float positions• Drift calculations based on observed actual motion• Analyze float motion compared to existing models

• Command and Control – provide commands to floats as needed:

• Automated changes in sensing thresholds, reporting frequency, energy consumption, etc. based on field performance history

• Directed updates as required (e.g., mission changes, payload operation, etc.)

Focus Area 1: Visualization, Prediction, C2

35

Field performance as a probabilistic expression


• Automated sensor fusion across all modalities

• Track initiation/generation:

• Associate float declarations

• Initiate tracks (and terminate tracks)

• Discriminate between multiple targets

• Develop automatic target detection and classification methods for vessel tracks

• Declaration association

• Modality heterogeneity to improve track validity

• Behavior

• Composite detections

• Identification of abnormal activity, such as fishing vessels not engaged in fishing, etc.

Focus Area 2: Track generation


• New signatures

• From existing modalities (e.g., acoustic, radiofrequency, etc.)

• New sensor modalities – innovation…

• New signature associations

• Automatic recognition of known phenomena

• Identification of new phenomena

• New missions

• Whale migration

• Oil & Gas

• Pollutants

• Others…

Focus Area 3: Data discovery

(L) Heat map of social media activity and (R) ML Clustering of like-data

during Baghdad Parliament riots

Operational characterization

derived from data analytics

What quantity and what

quality of data do we need?


Objectives:

• Display float locations, health, and performance

by capability and mission,

• Process environmental data for oceanographic

and meteorological models,

• Analyze float motion in comparison to existing

models to forecast float positions,

• Develop automatic target detection and

classification methods for vessel tracks,

• Generate tracks of vessels sensed in the Ocean

of Things area of regard,

• Discover new target signatures and new

missions capable from Ocean of Things data

TA 2, Phase 1 metrics

Performance Metrics TA 2 (Data Analytics)

Phase 1

Metric Threshold Goal

Field performance

predictionNow-cast 24-hour forecast

Multi-target

discrimination

2 targets on orthogonal

tracks

2 targets on ~60o

divergent tracks

Track initiation:

≤ 8 geo-separated

reports

≤ 5 geo-separated

reports

Single sensor ≥ 2 sensor types

Track continuity≥ 30% avg. float hold

time

≥ 60% avg. float hold

time

Track association:

75% if same sensor

modality

75% if same sensor

modality

-25% if different sensor

modality

Data discovery Automatic recognition of known phenomena

Additional MissionsTechnical performance measures for additional

missions shall be detailed in proposals[1] Note: Geo-separate means two or more floats that are not co-located and

provide ≥ 20o bearing difference to target.[2] Note: DARPA strongly desires innovation in additional mission capabilities

beyond track generation and target behavior characterization. Proposals must

detail mission specifications and technical performance measures for each

additional mission proposed.

Justify your approach from the

perspective of the system’s utility


System integration and logistics:

• Data platform construction

• Cloud storage and processing

• Availability to mission partners

• Data formatting and quality control

• Float deployment

• Communications with floats

• Update float behaviors

• Command effects

• Environmental compliance

SMEs across ocean sensing and signal

processing domains

Government support: Ocean data testbed / infrastructure

OGC SWE: Open Geospatial Consortium Sensor Web Enablement

API: Application Program Interface

IoT: Internet of Things

IP: Internet Protocol

MQTT: Message Queue Telemetry Transport

TA

2TA

1G

overn

ment S

upport


UNCLASSIFIED 40

UNCLASSIFIED

UNITED IN SERVICE TO OUR NATION Distribution Statement A: Approved for Public Release (DISA)UNITED IN SERVICE TO OUR NATION Distribution Statement A: Approved for Public Release (DISA)UNCLASSIFIED

Enhanced Mobile Satellite Services

Overview of Short Burst Data (SBD) Service

December 2017

Clare Grason

Program Manager, EMSS

UNCLASSIFIED 41

UNCLASSIFIED

UNITED IN SERVICE TO OUR NATION Distribution Statement A: Approved for Public Release (DISA)

• Iridium constellation: 66 satellites – 100% global coverage• Each satellite cross-linked fore/aft/side/side – built-in security• Unlimited airtime: fixed-price voice, data (SBD), push-to-talk

(DTCS), one-way Global Data Broadcast (GDB) & paging

• Downlinks at Iridium-dedicated DoD Gateway in U.S.• Meets DoD Risk Management Framework requirements• Gateway interface to PSTN/DODIN/Internet/other networks• 99,000 DoD devices provisioned• 24x7x365 Help Desk, (877) 449-0600, [email protected]

EMSS connects USG & foreign partners to the Iridium satellite constellation!

What is EMSS?

UNCLASSIFIED 42

UNCLASSIFIED


Iridium ConstellationSATCOM Cross-Links

Vessels

Aviation Platforms

DOD Enhanced Mobile Satellite Services (EMSS) OV-1

Mobile Objects

Container

Dismounts

Mobile Platforms

Fixed & Mobile Sensors

DOD EMSS

GatewayDoD

Products/Traffic

DOD Only TrafficDOD Only Traffic DOD Only Traffic

Deployed CP

This background used in Army OV-1 Depictions

Marine Sensors

DODIN

Iridium Gateway

Izhevsk, RussiaIridium Commercial

Products/Traffic

NO DoD Traffic

Iridium Gateway

Tempe, AZIridium Commercial

Products/Traffic

NO DoD Traffic

PSTN

DOD Traffic Downlinks ONLY at the DOD EMSS Gateway

UNCLASSIFIED 43

UNCLASSIFIED


Short Burst Data (SBD) End-to-End Architecture

EMSS Gateway

User Server

(IP Socket or Email)

NIPRNET/

INTERNET

SBD System

L-band

Iridium Satellite Constellation

K-band

Feeder Link

SBD Device

User Field Application

(Typically based on Iridium 9602 or 9603 Transceiver)

(The interface between the Field Application and the SBD device is a serial connection with a simple AT command interface)

SBD provides a very efficient method for transmitting small amounts of data across the Iridium network

Communication OptionsDevice DeviceDevice HQHQ Device

http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&ved=0ahUKEwjFy_bR_uTPAhVF4iYKHS8QD6wQjRwIBw&url=http://clipart.me/technology/building-website-and-internet-icons-43062&bvm=bv.135974163,d.eWE&psig=AFQjCNH9AWxxEV0_JW19-0JjqherxwWh_g&ust=1476901876725477

http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiTqN31_-TPAhUDJiYKHbw3D4UQjRwIBw&url=http://www.clker.com/clipart-wireless-signal.html&bvm=bv.135974163,d.eWE&psig=AFQjCNGY2N6yLcTu1ayf_EMMaIhYsalM8w&ust=1476902270255698

http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjgxoOP1NXPAhVBMyYKHVz2C9EQjRwIBw&url=http://www.calsky.com/?Iridium=&psig=AFQjCNEyg1RjvQnJ8wDZuJOGTH5bNhYlSg&ust=1476375129473372


http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjgxoOP1NXPAhVBMyYKHVz2C9EQjRwIBw&url=http://www.calsky.com/?Iridium=&psig=AFQjCNEyg1RjvQnJ8wDZuJOGTH5bNhYlSg&ust=1476375129473372


UNCLASSIFIED 44

UNCLASSIFIED


SBD Service Technical Characteristics

• Operating frequency: 1616 – 1625.5 MHz

• Global, on-demand, two-way data/messaging

• Near real-time delivery

• Messages can be sent to SBD device, email recipients, or IP address

• Messages are delivered via three sessions

Field application SBD Device (serial connection with AT commands)

SBD device EMSS Gateway SBD System (SBD Protocol)

EMSS Gateway SBD System User Server (IP Socket or eMail)

• SBD protocol provides a reliable transport Max Message Size

TransceiverMobile

OriginatedMobile

Terminated

9602/9603 340 Bytes 270 Bytes

9522 1960 Bytes 1890 Bytes

UNCLASSIFIED 45

UNCLASSIFIED


SBD Service Performance

• SBD integrated into range of deployed solutions

Two-way communications, tracking devices, sensor platforms (ground, air, and

maritime)

Currently 62,153 provisioned EMSS subscribers

• Average of 562,307 sessions per day in 2017 with high of 860k+ sessions

Over-the-air success rate >98.5%

monitored by auto-dialers

99% of DirectIP deliveries to base

end systems completed within 1.5 sec

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Year-to-year Daily Average

UNCLASSIFIED 46

UNCLASSIFIED


SBD Equipment

Iridium SBD Transceivers

9522 9602 9603

Example SBD Products• EMSS recommends “DISA Direct Storefront” for purchase of

SBD devices to operate with the EMSS Gateway:

https://www.disadirect.disa.mil/products/asp/welcome.asp

• Iridium Transceivers can be purchased from

Iridium or authorized Iridium distributors/re-

sellers

• Note: SBD transceiver firmware must be custom

configured to operate with the EMSS Gateway .

Not all commercial products can be flashed to

operate with the EMSS Gateway

SBD Boards

https://www.disadirect.disa.mil/products/asp/welcome.asp

UNCLASSIFIED 47

UNCLASSIFIED


EMSS Contact Information

Clare A. Grason

Program Manager, EMSS

Office (301) 225-4076

[email protected]

Jiral Shah

Senior Engineer, EMSS

Office (301) 225-3398

[email protected]

Questions / Discussion

Ocean of Things

SSC Pacific Data Center Architecture

January 4, 2018

Proposers Day

DARPA-SN-18-14

Jeffrey Ellen

SPAWAR Systems Center Pacific

[email protected]

Distribution A: Approved for public release, Distribution Unlimited (SSC Pacific) 48

Distribution A: Approved for public release, Distribution Unlimited (SSC Pacific)

Ocean of Things Operational Diagram

Data transmitted

from TA 1 floats

via Iridium

Iridium SBD

Data to shore via

EMSS Gateway

Data stored in

data center

Algorithms

developed by TA

2 process data

Visualizations

hosted by data

center

49


SSC Pacific Data Center Provides:

Data format definition

Access to model/synthetic data

Access to live operational data

Access to recorded operational data

Execution platform

Baseline visualization tools

– Open source and existing government programs

Performance assessments

– Visualization/Prediction, Track Generation, Data Discovery

50


Execution Platform - Hosting

SSC PAC will select a commercial service provider

– Considering Government Cloud versions of AWS, Azure, Google

– Similar to public offerings, but US Hosted, security compliant etc.

Potential for higher levels of security than UNCLASS

51


Execution Platform - Architecture

Primarily open source, commonly used technologies

– Platforms/Deployment: Docker, Kubernetes, Ansible, Microservices

– Development Tools: Java, Javascript, Jenkins, Maven, MongoDB, Spring, Neo4J, etc

– Architecture: RESTful, Microservices

SPAWAR Unified DevOps Orchestration Engine (SUDOE)

– Deployment of software and infrastructure using micro-services, containers, and virtual

machines technologies

– Provides PKI authentication, enterprise single-sign on (CAS)

52


Execution Platform - SUDOE Workflow

All provided on government cloud

53


Execution Platform – Continuous Integration


Continuous Integration

– All parts open source except

local/hosted repo

54


Execution Platform – Continuous Delivery




local/hosted repo

SUDOE Dashboard

– Proven w/ Java, Javascript

– Expected to support all languages,

(e.g. Python, C#, etc)

55


Execution Platform – Deployment




local/hosted repo

SUDOE Dashboard

– Proven w/ Java, Javascript

– Expected to support all languages,

(e.g. Python, C#, etc)

Test/Operational Environments

– All open source/commercial

except PKI and physical location

56

57

Ocean of Things

Results from Initial Simulations

4 January 2018

This material is based upon work supported by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)

and Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center Pacific (SSC Pacific) under Contract No. N66001-17-C-4062.

Any opinions, findings and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are

those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of DARPA or SSC-Pacific.

Prepared by:

Moiré Incorporated

Contract No. N66001-17-C-4062

Distribution Statement "A" (Approved for Public Release, Distribution Unlimited)58

A Different Paradigm

• Few sensors

• Few contacts per target

• Strive for high probability

of detection

• High payoff from long

detection range

• Relatively high unit cost

• Many sensors

• Many contacts per target

• Each sensor has a relatively

low probability of detection

• Short detection range is

acceptable

• Low unit cost

Conventional Approach Ocean of Things


Density Changes Over Time

Day 10 (10 Jan 2014) Day 90 (31 Mar 2014)

132 devices/bin

1 device/bin

9 devices/bin

1 device/bin

• Start with 4,500 devices

• Current data from the Institut français

de recherche pour l'exploitation de la

mer (IFREMER)

• Random current added to

actual surface current

• Color scale shows number

of devices in 1/10 deg bins

179 bins with ≥1 device 529 bins with ≥1 device


Evolution of Spatial Density

Day 90

Day 10


Device Drift Over 24 Hours

• 450 km x 450 km area

(202,500 sq km)

• 5,700 devices

• Varying device spatial density

• 1 m/s surface current with

randomly varying component

• Three types of sensors

Sensor Detection Range

Red 5 km

Green 3 km

Blue 2 km

Probability of Detection = 0.5

Initial Device Locations


Insert: Moiré OOT movie1.mp4

Device Trajectories Over 24 Hours


2-Moire OoT movie1new.mp4

Surface Target Tracks Over 24 Hours

Target Speed

Red 10 knots

Green 8 knots

Blue 14 knots

Magenta 12 knots

– Initial Position (T = 0 h)

– Final Position (T = 24 h)

• 202,500 sq km

• 5,700 devices

• 36 sq km per device

• Target speeds do not vary



Encounter With Four Surface Targets



Close Up of an Encounter of Red Target

Sensor Detection Range

Red 5 km

Green 3 km

Blue 2 km

Probability of Detection = 0.5

Target Tracks Over 24 Hours

De

vic

es p

er b

in


Operationally Useful Metrics

• Spatial extent

• Spatial density of devices

– Over small areas (e.g., 1/10° bins)

– Change in density over time

• Cumulative time that a target is detected

• Number of discrete detections (contacts) of a specific target


Heterogeneous Mix of Sensors

• 202,500 sq km

• 5,700 devices

• 1 m/s surface current with

randomly varying component



Alternate Metrics (Red Target)



Actions to Improve Target Estimation

• Useful for unmasking and classifying targets

• Stimulate compelling action by:

– Employing multiple devices, each performing a

simple action

– Coordinating actions among the devices

ActionChange in

Target Behavior

Improved Target

Estimate


C3 Within a OODA Loop

Data from OOT

sensors

(via satcom)

Data Verification

& Registration

Data

Processing

Tactics &

Action Plan

Commands to

OOT devices

(via satcom)

Evaluate

& Decide

Disseminate

Information

Reject

Approved

Barren Areas

High Confidence Targets

Low Confidence Targets

Available

DevicesArchived

Data

Observe

Orient

Decide

Disseminate

Plan

Act


Action Concept Taxonomy

Taxonomy Level Example

Desired Target Behavior Change course and speed

Tactics to Stimulate the

Desired Behavior

Simulate nearby marine traffic

Action Illuminate navigation lights and

transmit radio signals

OOT Implementation Radio transmitters and lights

integrated into OOT devices


Evaluating Concepts

• Compatibility with OoT device

– Size, Weight, and Power (SWaP)

– Cost

• Technology readiness

• Use of sensitive technologies

• Range of potential targets

• Communications requirements

• Human supervision requirements

• Device utilization (used more than

once while deployed?)

• Synergy with other types of devices

• Flexibility to support a wide range of

possible tactics

• Degradation in adverse weather

Screening Criteria Differentiating Factors


Initial Insights (1)• It is not critical that devices drift at the surface current velocity.

• How accurately do we need to predict device drift in currents?

• Surface currents could facilitate initial device seeding.

• How can we reduce the need for reseeding?

• Can we accurately estimate device failures from external effects?

• More contacts are generally preferable than longer contact time.

Adding devices should be more effective and less expensive than increasing

sensor range.

• Need new metrics to maximize operational effectiveness.


Initial Insights (2)• A mix of sensor types can improve detection, track, and classification –

and overall robustness.

• What is the role of a human supervisor?

– Limited information may be available to approve action.

• Some devices actions could be fully automated:

– e.g., action based on location to prevent grounding

– e.g., “sleep” buoys of same mode when adjacent

• Unpredictable actions involving multiple devices may be very effective.

• Target behaviors may not be predictable.

– How much uncertainty is acceptable?


Testing and Schedule


• Government team will conduct

deployment

• Ship floats to Naval Base Point Loma

• Performers will monitor floats

• Updates to float SW as needed

• Significant oversight and environmental

awareness

• Significant traffic to monitor

• Anthropogenic and naturogenic

• 4,500 in phase 1

• 15,000 in phase 2

• Action Payload tested in Phase 2

Testing

Anticipated Test Area


Task FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22TA

1

HW

/ F

loats

Hardware development

(Option of multiple performers)

• Float design and manufacturing

• Sensor integration

• Firmware support

TA

2

Da

ta A

na

lyti

cs

Software development

(Option of multiple performers)

• Three Technical tracks

1.Track generation

2.Field performance, architecture,

display and C2

3.Data discovery

Go

ve

rnm

en

t

Su

pp

ort

Te

am

Systems integrator

• Data storage and processing

• Float communications

• Field deployment

• Domain expertise

Ocean of Things program milestones and schedule

PDR CDR

1,500 floats

∆CDR

1,500 floats

1,500 floats

3m

o D

ata

Co

llection

8mo Data

Collection 1yr Data Collection

Deployment(s)

∆CDR

Modeled Data Ph 1 Test Data

7,500 floats

50,000 floats

Ph 2 Test Data

Phase 1 Phase 2 COCOM demo(not part of Program)

Real-Time Data

7,500 floats

Track 1

Track 2

Track 3

Track 1

Track 2

Track 3

Track 1

Track 2

Track 3

Data Curation / Information Logistics


Evaluation of Proposals

Ocean of Things


Evaluation Criteria

• Proposals will be evaluated on the following criteria:

• Overall scientific and technical merit

• Potential contribution and relevance to the DARPA mission

• Proposers’ capabilities and/or related experience

• Cost and schedule realism


Overall Scientific and Technical Merit

• The proposed technical approach is innovative, feasible, achievable, and complete.

• Task descriptions and associated technical elements provided are complete and in a logical sequence with all proposed deliverables clearly defined such that a final product that achieves the goal can be expected as a result of award. The proposal clearly identifies major technical risks and clearly defines feasible planned mitigation strategies and efforts to address those risks. The proposal clearly explains the technical approach(es) that will be employed to meet or exceed each program goal and system metric listed in Section 1.2 and provides ample justification as to why the approach(es) is feasible. TA 1 proposals should clearly substantiate float unit cost and future unit cost reductions due to economic order purchases and performer’s ability to achieve desired float manufacturing rates. The Government will also consider the structure, clarity, and responsiveness to the statement of work; the quality of proposed deliverables; and the linkage of the statement of work, technical approach(es), risk mitigation plans, costs, and deliverables of the prime awardee and all subawardees through a logical, well structured, and traceable technical plan.


Potential Contribution & Relevance to the DARPA Mission

• The potential contributions of the proposed effort are relevant to the national technology base. Specifically, DARPA’s mission is to make pivotal early technology investments that create or prevent strategic surprise for U.S. National Security.


Proposers’ Capabilities and/or Related Experience

• The proposer's prior experience in similar efforts must clearly demonstrate an ability to deliver products that meet the proposed technical performance within the proposed budget and schedule.

• The proposed team has the expertise to manage the cost and schedule. Similar efforts completed/ongoing by the proposer in this area are fully described including identification of other Government sponsors.


Cost and Schedule Realism

• The proposed costs are realistic for the technical and management approach and accurately reflect the technical goals and objectives of the solicitation. The proposed costs are consistent with the proposer's Statement of Work and reflect a sufficient understanding of the costs and level of effort needed to successfully accomplish the proposed technical approach. The costs for the prime proposer and proposed subawardees are substantiated by the details provided in the proposal (e.g., the type and number of labor hours proposed per task, the types and quantities of materials, equipment and fabrication costs, travel and any other applicable costs and the basis for the estimates).

• It is expected that the effort will leverage all available relevant prior research in order to obtain the maximum benefit from the available funding. For efforts with a likelihood of commercial application, appropriate direct cost sharing may be a positive factor in the evaluation. The evaluation criterion recognizes that undue emphasis on cost may motivate proposers to offer low-risk ideas with minimum uncertainty and to staff the effort with junior personnel in order to be in a more competitive posture. DARPA discourages such cost strategies.

• The proposed schedule aggressively pursues performance metrics in the shortest timeframe and accurately accounts for that timeframe. The proposed schedule identifies and mitigates any potential schedule risk.


• Write questions on cards

• Forward to right hand aisle

• Break for Gov Team to caucus

• Back here in 30 mins (depending on question load)

Q&A

85

• Those scheduled for breakout session have been notified. SETA team has schedule to verify times.

• Only 10 minutes long

• Introductions not necessary, please feel free to leave business cards if you wish

• Focus your time…

• Technical approach

• Specific questions

• Any ambiguities in BAA may result in an update to BAA or clarification on FBO.gov

• Any proprietary information will be protected

• Posters in the DCC Lobby. Please mingle, talk and build teams!

One-on-One Break-out and Poster Session


Poster Session


Conclusion

Thank you for your interest in Ocean of Things!

Mr. John Waterston

[email protected]


Date post:	16-Jul-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times

Ocean of Things - darpa.mil of Things Proposers Day.pdfOcean of Things Mr. John Waterston Program...

Documents