SOMA Small Explorer Acquistion.

Project start and end dates are up to the proposer and should reflect the requirements that ensure the success of your specific science investigation. The “Planning date for start of investigation” in Section 3 of the Explorer USPI PE indicates when NASA expects to be able to announce selections and start a new award. No NASA funding can be provided before the planning date. A project start date that begins after that planning date is acceptable. NASA will not be able to support a project start date before that planning date. NASA would assess the impact to the science feasibility of any investigation of the expected funding delay from the proposed start date to the planning date. Posted 02/02/2011

There is no requirement for that. The SALMON AO and Explorer Science Missions of Opportunity PEA H7 do not include a specific numbering requirement. Proposers should use a scheme that is (1) compliant with the requirements in PEA H7 Table B.1, and (2) best organizes their material to enable peer reviewers to find and reference proposal elements. Posted 02/10/2011

Table B-5 of the SALMON PEA is a standard cost table for PI-led science investigations. The first row below the "Contributions" heading is labeled "Student Collaboration Incentive (if applicable)". A Student Collaboration Incentive is offered in the Explorer 2011 AO. Such an incentive is not offered in the SALMON AO or Explorer 2011 Science Missions of Opportunity PEA H7. Thus, a student collaboration incentive contribution is not applicable to SALMON proposers for this opportunity. For SALMON proposers, all student collaboration costs must be included within the PI-managed mission cost. For Explorer 2011 AO proposers, all student collaboration costs above the student collaboration incentive must be included in the PI-managed mission cost. Posted 01/28/2011

No, the only options available are those currently in NSPIRES. The roles available are those recognized by SMD mission management directives and so are the "standard AO" default roles for AO team members (see Section 5.4 of the Explorer AO and the Proposal Summary Information document found in the Program Library). These roles are further defined in the body of the AO where there might be ambiguity (e.g., the difference between a Co-Investigator and collaborator). Posted 01/28/2011

No. Table B-3 is as intended, the requirement for the Explorer 2011 AO is for RY totals by phases. Posted 01/28/2011

Section 4.6.7 refers to Co-Investigators. Co-investigators, domestic or foreign, indicate their individual commitment to the proposed mission through NSPIRES. Section 4.8.3 provides additional instructions for non-U.S. individuals and/or institutions participating as team members or contributors, especially in the case that government funding or support is required. Posted 01/28/2011

No, the orbit disposal requirement refers to the proposed spacecraft and any mission unique deployment elements. Debris analysis for the launch vehicle will be performed when the specific vehicle is procured. Posted 01/28/2011

The limitation in Section 4.6.2 applies to Partner Missions of Opportunity (PMO), while the limitation in Section 7.4.3 applies to all mission of opportunity categories. Therefore, for PMO, both of these limitations apply and the proposer should use the most conservative (which is the one in Section 7.4.3, NASA funding for Phases A-B must be limited to no more than 25% of the NASA commitment for Phases A-D). Posted 01/25/2011

Proposed NASA costs should be relative to the phasing as proposed for the NASA component of the mission and not the host mission phasing. Section 4.6.2 then refers to NASA¹s Phase C. Posted 01/25/2011

The Federal Acquisition Regulations on small business subcontracting plans have been revised to set the minimum threshold at $650K (FAR 52.219-9). The Explorer 2011 AO (NNH11ZDA002O) has been corrected to indicate this change and the corrected version of the AO is posted in NSPIRES. The only changes are: in Section 5.5.1 Small Business Participation and in Appendix A Section XIII Small and Small Disadvantaged Business Subcontracting, the minimum contract value to which the FAR 52.219-9 regulations apply has been corrected from $500K to $650K. The change in regulations also applies to contracts awarded in response to SALMON. However we are not correcting the version of SALMON that is posted in NSPIRES. Posted 01/18/2011

No, our instructions have not changed. The governing Program and Project Management Requirements document is NM 7120-81. The NODIS link at http://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/displayDir.cfm?Internal_ID=N_PR_7120_005D_ _ points to the file named NM_7120-81_.pdf, with title "NASA Interim Directive (NID) for NASA Procedural Requirements (NPR) 7120.5D". This Interim Directive changes some requirements in 7120.5D and is in effect until 7120.5D is revised with the release of 7120.5E. Posted 01/18/2011

Please see the Letter of Agreement (LOA) Template in the SALMON Reference Library. Pages 3 and 4 of the sample LOA contain a list of specific responsibilities assigned to the foreign partner and a list of specific responsibilities assigned to NASA. Section XII, Appendix 6 of SALMON asks for a draft of the responsibilities that would be assigned to each partner for your proposed concept. The format of this information is not important, what is important is the list of the proposed division of specific responsibilities between the partners. Posted 01/14/2011

NASA cannot advise you on what is a reasonable approach for your proposed investigation. Section 5.6.3 of the Explorer 2011 AO states that adequate unencumbered cost reserves are defined to be a minimum of 25% and are measured as a percentage against the cost to complete through Phases A/B/C/D. The detailed allocation of that reserve among WBS elements, mission phase, and year of development is up to the proposer and should reflect the effort required to ensure the success of your specific investigation within the committed cost and schedule. Posted 01/13/2011

Within the ELV Launch Services Program Information Summary, costs of the isolation system must be included within the PI-managed cost. It is not permissible to treat these costs as unencumbered reserve dollars. Posted 01/13/2011

No, this is not correct. Section 4.6.9 of the SALMON AO pertains only to Co-Investigators (see also Q&A #77) with all co-investigators, domestic or foreign indicating their commitment through NSPIRES. Section 4.6.8 of the SALMON AO states that letters of commitment ARE required for organizations providing critical or major contributions. The host for a partner mission of opportunity is considered to be a critical participant to the success of such an investigation. Posted 01/13/2011

Yes. Posted 01/13/2011

Proof of Operation (Engineering) test flights have been required of first time LDB instruments since the Balloon Program Office (BPO) initiated LDB in the early 1990’s. Those wishing to propose to not undergo an engineering test flight, must discuss how they would achieve full system verification and validation in lieu of such a test flight. Posted 01/06/2011

Return telemetry rates for over-the-horizon are limited to 6kbps using the Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System (TDRSS) balloon Omni Directional antenna and up to 150kbps using the TDRSS balloon High Gain Antenna. NASA Long Duration Balloon (LDB) mission planners should anticipate daily TDRSS outages due to Zones Of Exclusion (ZOE), depending upon trajectory/balloon position. ZOE durations can vary depending upon balloon latitude and longitude. ZOE durations increase as the trajectory approaches 90 degrees south latitude. BPO can assist with mission planning for these scenarios. Line-of-sight (LOS) telemetry can support 500 kbps return rates for the first hours after launch before moving downrange beyond LOS. Posted 01/06/2011

Ultra-Long Duration Balloon (ULDB) vehicles are not a part of the baseline offering per this Salmon AO. However, NASA recognizes that the schedule of this solicitation aligns with the development of the new super pressure balloon vehicle such that an opportunity to fly on a “qualified” super pressure balloon may be possible at the time the proposer wants to conduct their mission. In this case, the proposer should demonstrate how they can achieve their mission requirements by use of currently qualified zero pressure balloons. Additional explanation can be provided in the proposal as to how the science would be enhanced with a longer duration mission that could be achieved by using a ULDB vehicle should a design become fully qualified in time to support the proposed mission. Zero pressure balloons can achieve half-global circumnavigation trajectories depending upon how much ballast can be configured. Proposers should contact the Balloon Program Office (BPO) to discuss their requirements and obtain specific guidance in the formulation of options that can be accomplished for mid-latitude long-duration balloon missions. Posted 01/06/2011

The two AO’s are written as intended. NASA does not anticipate amending the Explorer Science Missions of Opportunity PEA to change the approach. Posted 01/06/2011

In general, full missions are of larger scope and greater technical complexity than missions of opportunity. NASA does not anticipate changing the Phase A concept study cost cap currently listed in the EX AO and SALMON AO. Posted 01/06/2011

The Technical, Management, and Cost (TMC) reviewers are bound by the descriptions listed in NPR 7120 and 8705.4. These describe the requirements for each class and the TMC uses these for their evaluations. Posted 12/29/2010

The Technical, Management, and Cost (TMC) cost evaluators will use the same set of models, input criteria, and evaluation techniques across all proposals. Additionally, a plenary process is used specifically to ensure consistent and level evaluations. Posted 12/29/2010

The requirements for new technologies and advanced development items are given in Section 5.2.3 of the Explorer 2011 AO; the associated evaluation criteria are provided in Section 7.2.4, Factor C-3. Specifically, evaluators assess the maturity and technical readiness of the spacecraft, subsystems, and operations systems proposed. For technologies not demonstrated as being at TRL 6 or above, the evaluators look for a robust technology development plan and assess the adequacy of backup plans to ensure success of the mission if the new technologies cannot be matured on the timescale proposed. The evaluation includes the adequacy of the plan to mature systems within the proposed cost and schedule, the robustness of those plans, including recognition of risks and mitigation plans for retiring those risks, and the likelihood of success in developing that technology. Because Section 5.2.3 of the Explorer 2011 AO permits investigations that include a limited number of less mature technologies, proposals with adequate development and backup plans are reviewed no differently than those that do not contain less mature technologies. Posted 12/29/2010

See Sections 5.7.2 and 5.7.3 of the Explorer 2011 AO, specifically requirement 67 detailing letters of commitment. Posted 12/29/2010

Not necessarily. Evaluation Factor C-4 states that TMC will assess the adequacy and robustness of the management approach and schedule, including the capabilities of the management team. This factor includes the proposed project and schedule management tools to be used, which could include EVM. Earned Value Management (EVM) is a required tool for measuring and assessing project performance, the TMC evaluation will assess seeking a waiver in a manner that is consistent with NASA's established procedures for waiving requirements and will not, in and of itself, be considered a risk. What will be assessed is the adequacy and robustness of the proposed management approach including any EVM implementation. Posted 12/29/2010

NASA has adjusted the page limits for the Explorer 2011 Missions of Opportunity as noted in Amendment 8 to the SALMON AO. Posted 12/29/2010

The first sentence of the requirement refers to the submitted material being limited to a maximum of three PDF files: one for the main proposal, one for the tables referred to in Requirement B-50 and B-67, and one for appendices. All files must be searchable. Posted 12/22/2010

Core E/PO plans are not solicited and will not be evaluated. If a proposer exercises the E/PO option, an acknowledgement that an optional E/PO plan will be submitted in Step 2 and demonstration that funding has been allocated in the proposed budget for that plan are sufficient for this Step 1 proposal. Proposers are permitted also to include an optional Student Collaboration in their proposal. Section 7.2 explains how any optional student collaboration will be evaluated. Two pages are allocated for describing the Student Collaboration and to acknowledge any intent to submit an a core E/PO plan in Step 2. If neither option is exercised, the two pages would not be included in the proposal. The reference to Appendix B(XI) is intended to guide the proposers to the requirements for the description of the Student Collaboration. A sufficient E/PO acknowledgement statement would be: “I intend to submit a E/PO program that meets the goals described in the Explanatory Guide to the NASA Science Mission Directorate Educational and Public Outreach Evaluation Factors document. I will submit an E/PO plan with my Concept Study Report if this proposal is selected.”; Posted 12/17/2010

The Proposal Summary Information referred to in the revised Table B.1 is indeed the electronically submitted “Cover Page and Proposal Summary” referenced in Section 6.2.3 and Section III of Appendix B in the SALMON AO. Proposers are required to submit this electronically and provide a printed copy (or a facsimile containing the same information) in the proposal. Appendix B, Section III of the SALMON AO provides the option to attach a graphic cover page; Appendix A, Section V provides information on adding an optional statement on the Use and Disclosure of Proposal and Quotation Information; Section 4.9.1 provides instruction on adding the required information on Export Controlled Material. The statements in Appendix A, Section V and Section 4.9.1 are specific and expand the information provided via the Proposal Summary Information including the provision of specific page numbers containing export controlled material. NASA has updated Table B.1 to explicitly define the space limitations for these items. Posted 12/17/2010

Section 4.5.1 of the SALMON AO states that investigations must be proposed at an appropriate risk classification per NPR 8705.4, Risk Classification for NASA Payloads, and may include a proposed payload designation of Class C or Class D as appropriate. A Class C or Class D with selective upgrades as required for a man-rated flight is appropriate for this solicitation. Posted 12/17/2010

(a) During Phase B, a proposing institution generates a Product Assurance Implementation Plan (PAIP) in response to the Mission Assurance Plan (MAP). In the PAIP, the institution explains how their processes meet the intent of the MAP. The PAIP will be approved by the leading technical authority center. (b) Selection of a mission is not based on the presence of an approved PAIP (an agreed-to S&MA plan between NASA and the project), this agreement is made after the Step 2 mission selection. (c) No, there is not. Posted 12/10/2010

Yes. The Explorer MO proposal should have as much information as possible to permit NASA to assess the feasibility of both the proposed MO instrument and the feasibility of accommodating it on the contemplate host mission. However we would expect the feasibility of accommodating the MO instrument on the contemplated host mission to also be evaluated in the TMC review of the Step 2 concept study report of the host mission. NASA will evaluate and select based on the information that is presented in the Explorer MO proposal; the more complete and definitive that information is, the easier it will be for NASA to evaluate the proposed investigation¹s feasibility and likelihood of success. Posted 12/08/2010

Offerers should propose the project management, accountability, and financial structure appropriate for their investigation. In the event a government organization is part of the organization, NASA would disperse project funds directly to that organization at the authority and discretion of the PI. Posted 12/08/2010

Row 8 in Table B1 in SALMON Amendment 8 states that "schedule foldouts do not count against limit'. All other foldouts are counted as stated in the SALMON AO, e.g., each each 'n-page' foldout counts as 'n' pages." Posted 12/08/2010

Section 4.5.1 of the Explorer 2011 encourages proposal teams to contact the Chief for Plans and Programs at the NASA IV&V Facility to gain a preliminary understanding of the potential level of safety and mission critical software that their project contains and the associated project system software risks. Contact information is provided. Proposers should scope the level of effort required for their team to transfer appropriate information to the IV&V facility and propose resources to transfer information covering the full range of safety and mission critical software. Posted 12/08/2010

Your interpretation is incorrect and the language in the AO is correct. Appendix. B, Section VII provides guidelines for the preparation of proposal material relevant to the Science Merit and Science Implementation Merit and Feasibility of your investigation. This section becomes a primary source of reference for the review of Evaluation Factors A-1 through A-4 and B-1 through B-6, as defined in Sections 7.2.1 and 7.2.2 of the SALMON PEA H7. The indented requirements referred to in your question support these criterion, and these requirements clearly include the extent that the mission concept, data analysis and archiving, and science/technology team support the science implementation of the proposed investigation. Similarly, Appendix B, Sections VIII, IX, and X provides guidelines for the preparation of proposal material relevant to the feasibility of your mission implementation, including cost risk (also commonly referred to as Technical, Management, Cost (TMC). These sections, along with the others, become a primary reference source for Evaluation Factors C-1 through C-5, as defined in Section 7.2.3 of the SALMON PEA H7. Posted 12/07/2010

Proposers may consult with the technical point of contact for high altitude scientific balloon missions given in Section 9 of the SALMON PEA H7. Posted 12/03/2010

NASA has intentionally not defined “instrument” in this context because of the creativity of NASA proposers in proposing investigations. Generally an instrument collects data. For a traditional telescope system, the detectors are instruments but the telescope is not. However we are hesitant to make absolute statements about what can and cannot be considered an instrument. Proposers must justify their determination that an element of their mission architecture (like a telescope) is an instrument; NASA will ask the peer review panel to evaluate the validity of that justification. This Q&A is related to Q&A #28. Posted 12/03/2010

Currently (December 1, 2010) NASA is working under a continuing resolution that continues the full cost accounting of FY10 into FY11. However this is irrelevant – you should follow the instructions in the AO that direct proposers on how to propose for NASA civil servant labor in proposals. Whether or not NASA is working under full cost accounting or unified labor accounting at the time proposals are submitted, all proposals must be submitted with the full cost of any NASA civil servant participation as described in Section 5.6.6 of the Explorer 2011 AO for Explorer full mission proposals and Section 4.7.1 of the SALMON AO for Explorer Mission of Opportunity proposals. Regardless of whether NASA is working under full cost, ULA, or a continuing resolution, the AO will not require amending if there is a change. Posted 12/03/2010

The SALMON AO text in Appendix B, Section VIII is correct although the web link is outdated. Proposers should refer to http://rsdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/catalog.html. Posted 12/03/2010

Requirement 29 of the EX2011 AO states “… proposals shall demonstrate satisfaction of the orbit disposal requirement by providing a mission lifetime analysis and indicating whether disposal is in orbit or with a reentry, either controlled or uncontrolled (see Appendix B, Section J.7, for additional detail)”. While NASA cannot advise proposers on the adequacy of a particular approach, the evaluation criteria in this particular area can be clarified. Evaluation Factor C-2 includes "an assessment of the overall mission design and mission architecture." As applied to mission lifetime, this factor includes an assessment of (a) the proposer’s full understanding of the end-of-mission disposal requirement as applicable to their mission concept, (b) the proposer’s plan of action to meet the specific requirement, and (c) the level of commitment toward meeting the disposal requirement including further analysis and reserves appropriate to mature the disposal plan proposed. If selected, proposers will partner with the Johnson Space Center to further mature mission disposal plans during the Phase A Concept Studies. Posted 12/03/2010

Appendix B, page B-21, Requirement B-59, Exploded Diagram: not changed.
Appendix B, page B-26, Table B1, Example Science Traceability Matrix: not changed.
Appendix B, page B-27, Table B2, Example Mission Traceability Matrix: not changed.
Appendix B, page B-28, Table B3: Additional level of detail is requested for WBS element #4
Appendix B, page B-30; Table B5, MEL: no change.
 
If a diagram or table was replaced without change, the intent was to substitute a clearer, sharper image; an intent that may not have been as successful as would otherwise have been desired. Posted 12/03/2010

No. NASA will amend the EX2011 Mission of Opportunity PEA to reflect its intent that any optional core E/PO element proposed can follow requirements similar to those of the full Explorer missions. Posted 12/03/2010

No. As written, the SALMON AO currently says space missions only. NASA does not plan to amend this limitation for the Explorer 2011 MO PEA. Posted 12/03/2010

Yes, there is no additional cost for alternate launch sites or the larger payload fairing. As a consequence of the new launch options available with the NLS-II contract, the additional cost for a larger fairing has been eliminated; however, proposers need to be aware of limitations on the use of a larger fairing given specific orbit insertion requirements. With the release of the final AO and based on the structure of the NLS-II contract, the Explorer Program has set aside funds from the total funding available to cover the range of potential launch sites that might be proposed; therefore proposers do not have to budget costs for specific launch ranges. Posted 12/01/2010

Commercial launch providers proposed a wide range of vehicles, performances and launch site capabilities to the NLS II contract. However, the providers did not propose every capability listed in user guides and elsewhere be made available to NASA in the future. Section 5.9.2 of the Explorer 2011 AO states that funds allocated to the PI-Managed Mission Cost cannot be used to purchase a launch vehicle or standard launch services beyond those vehicles and services described in the AO. Posted 12/01/2010

The most likely candidate vehicles for the Explorers AO timeframe that are available on the NLS II contract are:
 
–Option A: Taurus-XL, Falcon 1e, Athena II
–Option B: Pegasus-XL, Falcon 1, Athena I
 
There are options for launch vehicle providers to bid other vehicles if they choose.   Posted 12/01/2010

Supplemental propulsion is no longer considered part of the Launch Services provided by NASA; it is expected that bidders will provide supplemental propulsion systems as part of the integrated spacecraft. The bidders should contact the manufacturer of the system they choose to use. Posted 12/01/2010

NASA expects proposers to use the extra pages for the purpose for which they were given. NASA recognizes that the addition of an instrument or separate flight element can create a need for more description within several sections, thus the AO permits the distribution of the additional space amongst any of the several permitted sections, at the proposer's discretion. Posted 12/01/2010

Yes, such an investigation can be accommodated within the requirements for the Explorer 2011 USPI PE. The proposal should be written for the entire effort; it is the entire effort that must be peer reviewed. Section 2.2.3 of the Explorer2011 USPI PE states, "Proposals should be for the entire duration of the proposed investigation. This may be no more than through the prime science mission, plus one year for additional data archiving for the baseline scientific investigation. The budget justification in the body of the proposal should cover this entire period." We intend to amend the EX2011 USPI PE to add the following language to Section 2.2.3: "If the proposed investigation is for more than five years, then a continuation proposal may be submitted for a new award covering a period of up to five additional years. The progress and accomplishments of the initial five years of the investigation will be reviewed as part of the decision making process for the continuation award. The budget for only the first five years of the investigation should be entered into the NSPIRES or Grants.gov electronic budget forms." Posted 12/01/2010

The ISS Payload office will evaluate feasibility with whatever detail proposers provide and will update evaluations as proposers provide additional information. There is no specific format for ISS investigation concept information. The information required for the Step 1 mission concept definition is mass, volume and dimensions, power and data requirements, return plan and a top-level operational concept for installation, operation, and removal. From this, any unique integration and accommodation concerns can be identified and queried. Typically, the ISS Payload Office holds 2-4 meetings with prospective proposers to fully understand the conceptual design. Additional information is requested and potential “outliers” from the requirements point of view are identified. At the conclusion of those meetings, the requirements letter is drafted, sent to the proposer to review, and then finalized into signature. In general, proposers should allow a minimum of three weeks from receipt of the draft letter to receipt of the final signed document. Posted 12/01/2010

That is correct and is, in fact, exactly what we think this requirement states. Posted 12/01/2010

NPD 2820.1 "NASA Software Policy" is obsolete. Proposers should follow NPD 7120.4D (NASA Engineering and Program/Project Management Policy) as the guiding document. NPD 7120.4D references two additional documents, NPR7150.2 (NASA Software Engineering Requirements) and NPR 2210.1C (Release of NASA Software), which is to be followed when developing software for flight on NASA missions. Posted 12/01/2010

For the purpose of the Step 1 evaluation, the practice of the TMC evaluation is to base their evaluation on the qualifications of the primary PM. The purpose of allowing an alternate PM is so that proposed project management organizations can identify the same individual as the primary PM on more than one proposal. Under these circumstances, NASA can assess the impact of selecting two proposals with the same named primary PM. Currently NASA does not contemplate using the alternate PM information in any other way. Posted 12/01/2010

No. Posted 12/01/2010

Agreed. Table B-3 is to be customized by removing the blackout for the optional Student Collaboration, by relabeling columns with actual fiscal years, and/or by including Phase F, as is applicable for your investigation. Posted 12/01/2010

Section 7.4.2 of the Explorer 2011 AO states that this budget information will be requested from all proposers selected to conduct a Phase A study. It is not required to be included in the Step 1 proposal. Posted 12/01/2010

Your interpretation is incorrect and the language in the AO is correct. The AO says that a small business subcontracting plan is not required if there are not subcontracting opportunities for the list of business categories in Section 5.5.1. This is valid whether or not you are subcontracting work in Phase A. Posted 12/01/2010

Yes, this is allowed. See the Explorer 2011 Science Missions of Opportunity PEA H7 Section 5.5 for limitations on the launch vehicle. Posted 12/01/2010

No, NASA would fund any selected proposal at a level appropriate to the technology development required. See also, Q&A #52. Posted 12/01/2010

The TRL requirements are the same for balloon and space missions. Posted 12/01/2010

The division of factors does not imply weighting. The weighting is provided in Explorer AO section 7.2.1. Posted 12/01/2010

Yes, the AO does not call out a specific charge for the use of radiological sources. Posted 12/01/2010

The Explorer AO only commits to clarification for technical (TMC) weaknesses. It is NASA’s intent to try and include science weaknesses as well for the Explorer 2011 evaluation. This will be a trial and may not be implemented or continued in future selections. Posted 12/01/2010

Although NASA regulations allow for a proposal to be selected after a technology development phase, as the Explorer program has regular solicitations; the mission will be required to re-propose to a future AO. Posted 12/01/2010

No. Reference to the decadal Survey can be used to support the compelling nature of the proposed science investigation. However alignment with the decadal survey is not an evaluation criterion, whereas alignment with the SMD Science Plan is an evaluation criterion. Posted 12/01/2010

An SEO may provide a benefit to the proposing team by a potential broadening of the scientific impact. The option to provide an SEO in a proposal has been provided by NASA because many PIs have asked how they can propose such optional elements to NASA. The advantage of a SEO to a proposed science investigation is either obvious to the proposing PI or it is not. The primary purpose for inclusion in the proposal is to have an early evaluation to allow adequate time for implementation by NASA should NASA decide at some time in the future to consider the SEO for implementation. Posted 12/01/2010

No, please see Q&A #23. Posted 12/01/2010

The Center of Gravity (CG) offset requirement from the separation plane and centerline is different for each launch vehicle (LV) provider. These requirements are developed considering the structural capability of the separation system and adapter cone for each specific vehicle. If the proposed spacecraft CG exceeds the requirements then additional analysis and design may be needed.
 
The Launch Services Program AO Evaluation Form does not have a specific call out for CG or LV environment requirements (see attachment 2 of the Launch Services Information Summary in the EX Program Library). However, under the LV to Spacecraft Interface section, there is a topic named "Area of Concern". If the spacecraft exceeds the CG level for the all LV providers in the launch service class, then this will be noted as a concern to the TMC. Please contact the NASA Launch Service Program Point of Contact, Garrett Skrobot at Garrett.L.Skrobot@nasa.gov for information specific to your mission concept. Posted 11/18/2010

Yes, letters of commitment should be addressed to the PI. The PI is the central person in charge of each investigation, with full responsibility for its scientific/technical integrity, for integrating with all of the other aspects of the mission, and for the execution of the investigation within the committed cost and schedule. As such, the commitment from partners is to you as the PI of the investigation. Please see Questions 77 and 78 for additional information concerning Letters of Commitment. Posted 11/18/2010

No, as stated in Section 2.4 of the SALMON PEA H7, a single selection meeting will select proposals, and all Explorer selections will be funded from the same Explorer future mission budget; there is no separate budget for Explorer MOs. For the Explorer program, the Science Mission Directorate of NASA does not presume that the best science investment can only be obtained from a full mission rather than from one or more missions of opportunity. Therefore SMD does not intend to set aside resources for either option in advance of selecting the best science investigations. Posted 11/18/2010

No, NASA does not require or expect that ESA Cosmic Vision study phase proposals be submitted in response to the Explorer MO or USPI call. After ESA makes selections, the Heliophysics and Astrophysics Divisions may choose to discuss the potential for a strategic collaboration with ESA for one or more missions; they may then choose to fund US collaborators through a funding mechanism appropriate to the form of that collaboration.  Posted 11/10/2010

Section 6.3 of the SALMON PEA H7 provides the proposal submission requirements applicable to this solicitation: the original signed proposal and 65 paper copies, each of which contains an attached, clearly labeled CD-ROM that contains electronic proposal files. Note that Section I of Appendix B in the SALMON AO, states "In the event of an apparent conflict between the guidelines in the SALMON AO, Appendix A, Appendix B, and a PEA, the order of precedence is: the PEA, then the SALMON AO, then Appendix B, then Appendix A." Posted 11/04/2010

The Technical, Management, Cost (TMC) review follows three basic assumptions:(1) the proposer is the expert on their proposal; (2) the proposer's task is to provide evidence that the investigation implementation risk is low; (3) the TMC panel's task is to validate the proposer's assertion of low risk. Thus, in the area of cost, the TMC looks for information in the proposal that will allow them to validate the proposed costs. Information in the MEL, schedule, organization and management plan, heritage appendix, and other sections all contribute to the foundation of a credible basis of estimate (see evaluation Factor C-5 in Section 7.2.4 of the Explorer AO). Requirements 50 through 65 and Requirements B-46 through B-51 provide the only specific requirements for the proposer. It is up to the proposer to use best judgment to provide the information to NASA that is required to validate the proposer's assertion that the proposed mission is feasible within the proposed cost and schedule. TMC reviewers are skilled at utilizing many different types of information when reviewing proposals. Posted 11/04/2010

The proposal cover page, especially the submission of the proposal by an authorized organizational representative, is sufficient to demonstrate the commitment of the PI and the proposing organization. However an additional Letter from the proposing organization is permitted (but not required). Some organizations have an organizational culture that includes submitting a signed "cover letter" with a proposal demonstrating the organization's commitment to the proposal. Such a Letter is not required. Posted 10/29/2010

No, the AO is correct. We don't require letters from Co-Is for the commitment of their time anymore. Co-Is provide their individual commitment through NSPIRES. See Appendix B, Section IV of the SALMON AO. Letters are required for all other goods and/or services both U.S. and non-U.S. (see Section 4.6.7 of the SALMON AO). Posted 10/29/2010

Definition of a "Minimum Investigation" is optional for Mission of Opportunity proposals (which are proposed in response to the SALMON AO). This is not optional for Explorer missions (which are proposed in response to the Explorer AO). The breadth of types of MO investigations is broad, from small instruments to small complete missions. The proposer is expected to determine whether the definition of a Minimum Investigation is appropriate for his/her particular MO investigation. NASA expects proposers to structure their proposed investigations so as to maximize science within acceptable cost and risk. The use of a Minimum Investigation (which adds robustness but also complexity) is one such tool for the proposer to use in structuring their proposed MO investigation. Please note, the term "Threshold Mission" refers to the investigation that meets the minimum required science goals. Posted 10/29/2010

CCSDS File Delivery Protocol (CFDP) service is available from the DSN. It is not strictly required, however, its use is very strongly recommended by the DSN. CFDP service is not currently available from the NEN, however, CFDP Class 2 service is being implemented and will be available in the 2013 timeframe. Its use will not be required by the NEN. Refer to the NASA¹s Mission Operations and Communications Services document and the contact for NEN services for more information. CFDP service is not available from the SN and therefore its use is not required by the SN. Posted 10/29/2010

BACKGROUND
 
On the one hand, foreign participation reduces the cost to NASA and enhances the science return for a given mission concept. On the other hand, foreign participation raises the mission risk by placing a necessary component of mission success (provision of the foreign contribution) beyond the control of NASA and/or the PI. For strategic missions, NASA accepts and manages this risk; one risk management tool available to NASA is the MOU with the foreign partner.
 
The AO requires the PI to "manage this risk" for PI-led missions. This is reasonable because the PI created this risk by partnering with a foreign partner in order to enhance the proposed mission. The Explorer AO states (Section 5.3.4, Risk management) that "Proposals that include international participation must address the risk resulting from any international contributions to the proposed mission." It also states (Section 5.6.7,Contributions) that "A contributed item that is essential for the success of the proposed investigation and/or is in the critical path of mission development is a risk factor. Risks include the failure of funding or contributions to materialize when they are outside the control of the PI. Mitigation may include, but is not limited to, descoping the contributed items and/or holding reserves to develop the contribution directly. When no mitigation is possible, this should be explicitly acknowledged." and (Section 5.7.2, General Guidelines Applicable to Proposals including Non-U.S. Participation) that "Mitigation may include, but is not limited to, descoping the contributed items and/or holding reserves to develop the contribution directly. Note that reserves held for this purpose will be considered by NASA to be encumbered. When no mitigation is possible, this must be explicitly acknowledged."
 
The AO states that NASA will enter into a MOU with any foreign partner, after selection, in a manner similar to the MOUs that it enters into for strategic missions. The Explorer AO states (Section 5.7.3, Agreements with Selected Non-U.S. Participants) that "Should a non-U.S. proposal or a U.S. proposal with non-U.S. participation be selected, NASA's Office of International and Interagency Relations will arrange with the non-U.S. sponsor for the proposed participation on a no-exchange-of-funds basis, in which NASA and the non-U.S. sponsor will each bear the cost of discharging its respective responsibilities."
 
RESPONSE
 
A MOU process similar to that used for strategic missions is always used to establish MOUs with foreign partners after downselection of a proposed PI-led mission. However NASA will not enter into negotiations or agreements with potential foreign partners before the competitive process is completed. To do otherwise would imply to the foreign partner that NASA has a commitment to an unselected mission proposal. PIs are permitted to establish signed agreements (at an "institution to institution" level) as part of the mission formulation and proposal activity. The PI may submit such a signed agreement with the proposal (as a Letter of Commitment, see Section 5.7.2 of the Explorer AO). It is up to the PI to advocate in the proposal whether this constitutes risk mitigation sufficient to reduce the need for other risk mitigations, e.g. to descope the contributed items or to encumber the reserves (see Section 5.6.7 of the Explorer AO). The PI's risk mitigation strategy for the foreign contribution will be evaluated as described in Section 7.2.4 of the Explorer AO. Part of NASA's evaluation includes an assessment of the authority of the foreign official who signed the Letter/Agreement to commit resources to the proposed investigation.    Posted 10/27/2010

Yes, Section 5.5 of the SALMON AO states that small complete missions must include their own access to space. Any cost associated with that must be included within the mission of opportunity cost cap. Proposed access to space arrangements will be reviewed by NASA consistent with existing policy and regulations. The demonstrated reliability and the resultant probability of mission success for any launch services will be evaluated by NASA consistent with U.S. Space Transportation Policy and NASA's Launch Services Risk Mitigation Policy (NPD 8610.7D, NASA Launch Services Risk Mitigation Policy for NASA-Owned or NASA-Sponsored Payloads/Missions). Note also that NASA is prohibited by law from purchasing non-U.S. launch vehicles, nor may NASA funds provided to an investigation be used to purchase a launch vehicle from a non-U.S. source. Posted 10/21/2010

Proposers will not be penalized for development schedules that exceed 36 months. Proposals will be assessed against the criteria listed in the Evaluation Criteria section of the final AO (see Section 7.2 of the draft AO). Mission implementation is assessed for adequacy and robustness as proposed, not against an predetermined model. Posted 10/21/2010

The SALMON AO, of which this Mission of Opportunity PEA is a part, is available through the NSPIRES web site: http://nspires.nasaprs.com in the Open Solicitations area. The SALMON AO is solicitation #NNH08ZDA009O. The final Explorer Missions of Opportunity solicitation will be posted on November 1 to this SALMON AO web site as Program Element Amendment (PEA) H7. Posted 10/19/2010

Yes, an orbital debris assessment is required for Partner Missions of Opportunities prior to PDR. Appendix B, Section XII, Part 7 of the SALMON AO entitled Orbital Debris Generation Acknowledgement, states that missions of opportunity that are not complete missions, including Partner Missions of Opportunity, will be required to submit an assessment following Appendix A.3 of NASA-STD-8719.14. Posted 10/14/2010

Yes, TDRS Ku-band services are available. Refer to the NASA¹s Mission Operations and Communications Services document in the Explorer Program Library and the contact for Space Network services. Posted 10/14/2010

NASA mission funds may not be used to build new communication terminals. Upgrading a NASA communication facility is a possibility. It requires coordination with the Space Communications and Navigation (SCaN) program office. A Letter of Commitment is necessary. Initiate discussions with the SCaN Points of Contact named in the NASA¹s Mission Operations and Communications Services document in the Explorer Program Library. Posted 10/14/2010

Yes. Any non-deep space research band can be used as long as the use is in accordance with the international Telecommunication Union (ITU) Radio Regulations, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) manual and applicable Space Frequency Coordination Group (SFCG) Recommendations. In particular, the following bands are available and shown with the applicable restrictions:

Use of NASA funds to upgrade an existing non-NASA facility is a possibility. In general, NASA Space Communications and Navigation (SCaN) networks are expected to be used to meet communications requirements. However, where appropriate and cost-effective for NASA, pre-existing non-NASA capabilities may be used. Coordination with the SCaN program office is required. As noted, NASA funds may not be used for new facilities. A new antenna would be considered a new facility. Upgrading an electronics box would likely not be considered a new facility. Contact the SCaN Headquarters' Point of Contact named in the NASA's Mission Operations and Communications Services document in the Explorer Program Library to determine what would be allowable. Posted 10/14/2010

Although formal negotiations with NASA SOMD for accommodation and access to the ISS would be conducted during the Phase A Concept Study time period, if the proposal were to be selected, proposers should be working with the Space Station Payload Office concerning the feasibility for proposed provisions for access and accommodation at the space station. NASA plans to refine the instructions for potential ISS investigations in the final Explorer Mission of Opportunity PEA in a number of ways. In particular, it is intended to update Section 4.3 of the PEA based on the following draft language:
 
In addition to the requirements given in the SALMON AO, all proposed Explorer MO investigations must also provide: (1) a detailed description of the proposed provisions for sharing of science data, plans that scientific data returned from at least those aspects of the mission in which NASA is involved shall be made available to the U.S. scientific community in a timely way, and the status of the host mission sponsoring agency's commitment to enter into an appropriate agreement with NASA for data sharing; and (2) a detailed explanation of how the U.S. heliophysics or astrophysics science community benefits from the proposed investigation.
 
In addition to the requirements given in the SALMON AO, all proposed partner MO investigations must also demonstrate: (1) their formal relationship with the sponsoring agency's host mission (e.g., already selected contribution, invited contribution, or proposed contribution); and (2) the status of the host mission within the sponsoring agency (i.e., Pre-Phase A, Phase A, or Phase B), including the level of commitment that the sponsoring agency has made to complete the mission.
 
In addition to the requirements given in the SALMON AO and the requirements in the previous paragraph, all proposed partner MO investigations requiring flight on the ISS must also provide a Letter of Acknowledgement from the NASA Space Station Payload Office. This Letter of Acknowledgement must contain: (1) a description of the formal relationship with the sponsoring agency's host mission for access and accommodation at the space station, (2) identification of known challenges and/or conditional provisions for access or accommodation of the host mission, and (3) a description of the level of technical interchange and negotiation required to mature the host mission¹s provisions for access and accommodation.
 
In addition to the requirements given in the SALMON AO, all proposed small complete mission investigations with the exception of investigations requiring flight on the ISS must also provide a Letter of Commitment from the program or agency providing access to space. This Letter of Commitment must contain: (1) a detailed description of the proposed provisions for access to space (e.g., type of high altitude scientific balloon platform, sponsored flight to the ISS, secondary ride on another U.S. sponsored mission, etc.), and (2) the status of those proposed flight provisions within the sponsoring program or agency (i.e., conditional, confirmed, conceptual, etc.) including the level of commitment that the sponsoring program/agency has made to support that flight opportunity.
 
In addition to the requirements given in the SALMON AO, all small complete mission investigations requiring flight on the ISS must also provide a Letter of Feasibility from the NASA Space Station Payload Office. This Letter of Feasibility must contain: (1) a conceptual description of the feasibility for proposed provisions for access and accommodation at the space station, (2) identification of known challenges and/or conditional provisions for access or accommodation, and (3) a description of the level of technical interchange and negotiation required to mature the proposed provisions for access and accommodation. For any selected investigations, flight commitment to the ISS will be negotiated with NASA's Space Operations Mission Directorate during the Phase A Concept Study time period.
 
Regarding Section 4.4 of the draft PEA, access to the International Space Station would be negotiated through SOMD during the Phase A Concept Study time period, if the proposal were to be selected. Access to ISS is expected to be provided on a non-NASA launch vehicle (e.g. ATV, HTV, Dragon, Cygnus) through the utilization of NASA-controlled upmass; there would be no cost to the PI. Note that the provision of NASA upmass resources on a non-NASA launch vehicle are not considered NASA launch services and therefore do not violate the policy in Section 4.4 of the Draft Explorer MO PEA that "No launch vehicle will be provided by NASA through this solicitation." Posted 10/14/2010

The SALMON AO defines what is meant by "reserves" in Appendix E. Proposals are required to carry 25% unencumbered cost reserves on their "cost to complete." This base cost includes all items whose costs are included in the project budget. NASA is not providing the launch service outside of the PI-management mission cost for small complete MOs (like it is for Explorer missions). Therefore this is a cost that is clearly in the project budget, and launch services need to be included in the calculation of unencumbered cost reserve. The detailed allocation of that reserve among WBS elements, however, is up to the proposer. Posted 10/13/2010

No. Posted 9/27/2010

Yes, the guidance is expected to be consistent to that shown in the Draft Explorer AO and Draft Explorer Mission of Opportunity PEA released on June 22 of this year. Investigations may target any heliophysics or astrophysics scientific investigation in order to advance the objectives outlined in Section 2.1 of the draft AO and SALMON PEA and also shown in the 2010 SMD Science Plan. No science objective has priority over any other for this solicitation. Posted 9/17/2010

(a) The "contractor" is the prime contractor. The EVM requirement is flowed down to applicable subcontractors.
(b) The contractor will submit to the government an EVM compliance plan and schedule which includes compliance for subcontractors.
(c) The contractor's EVM reporting to the government includes all applicable subcontractor effort. Posted 9/17/2010

Section 4.5.1 of the SALMON AO details the policies for mission of opportunity risk classification. Explorer mission of opportunity investigations, including balloon missions, must be proposed at an appropriate risk classification per NPR 8705.4, Risk Classification for NASA Payloads, and may include a proposed payload designation of Class C or Class D as appropriate. Posted 8/6/2010

Yes. Principal Investigators (PIs) should propose the methodology/science plan that most clearly and specifically addresses the science question(s) proposed. Posted 8/6/2010

All proposals, regardless of the flight platform, will be reviewed by the same panels using the same overall methodologies. The TMC Independent Cost Assessment is highlighted on the Explorer Mission of Opportunity Technical, Management, Cost Overview presentation (slide #34) delivered during the July 13 Explorer Workshop at 3:00pm, see http://explorers.larc.nasa.gov/EX/ex_ppconf.html. While specific cost validation tools or models may differ, the steps and assessment criteria are identical for all proposals. Posted 8/6/2010

At the completion of the mission, payload support systems that are provided by the carrier provider will be recovered and returned to NASA for use on future missions. Science instrumentation may be re-used to prepare for future ROSES proposals or other NASA announcements of opportunity. In this case, the investigator should communicate this intent to the NASA Explorer Program Office to coordinate details of agreement or understanding for maintaining accountability of such property. If the intent is to propose for subsequent NASA balloon missions, coordination should also be made with the NASA Balloon Program Office by contacting Mr. David Pierce, Balloon Program Office (757) 824-1453. In cases where there is no intent for further use of the science instrument subsequent to the SALMON mission, the Explorer Program Office will determine the disposition of equipment and hardware procured through this opportunity. Posted 8/6/2010

Yes, mid-latitude long duration balloon flights using zero pressure or super pressure balloons are allowed. To determine the most appropriately sized balloon to meet your investigation’s requirements, proposers should contact Mr. David Pierce, Balloon Program Office (757) 824-1453. Posted 8/6/2010

NASA anticipates that proposers selected through the Explorer PEA H7 will be awarded a contract to conduct a Phase A concept study with a duration of approximately 11 months and capped at $250k Real Year (RY) dollars. Posted 8/6/2010

As noted in Section 5.3 of the SALMON AO, U.S. Participating Investigator (USPI) missions of opportunity do not include the provision of flight hardware. As such, the proposal and evaluation procedures provided in the ROSES NRA are considered to be sufficient and more appropriate for USPI investigations. At the same time as the release of the Explorer Mission of Opportunity PEA in SALMON, NASA will release an amendment to ROSES. The Explorer PEA will refer proposers to this new ROSES amendment. USPI Notices of Intent (NOIs) to propose and proposals will be submitted in response to the ROSES amendment, will be subject to the proposal guidelines specified in ROSES, and will be reviewed and selected using the proposal criteria specified in ROSES. It is anticipated that all due dates will be identical to those listed in the final Explorer AO and the final Explorer SALMON PEA. Posted 8/6/2010

NASA continually evaluates its proposal submission processes and has found that, for the Explorer Program, a quality review will require ~65 proposal copies in both hardcopy and electronic formats. Evaluators for full mission and mission of opportunity proposals have emphasized that paper copies are essential for notetaking, annotating, and for ease of reading during the many weeks of a review. PDF-format and Excel-format files enable robust information searches and accurate analysis of cost and schedule data. Approximately 45 science, specialist, mail-in, and technical, management, and cost evaluators will be assigned to your proposal and will be assigned individual proposal copies. Another 20 copies are required for program officer and administrative use. One of the most important Science Mission Directorate activities is the solicitation, evaluation, and selection of research investigations for NASA funding. To ensure that evaluators work from the best proposal materials available, NASA requires the proposing organization to prepare those materials. Posted 8/6/2010

Requirement 14 of the Draft Explorer AO provides that all proposals submitted to this opportunity shall be for complete science investigations requiring a spaceflight mission. Proposals may not be for the purpose of technology development. All proposals received will be evaluated using the complete set of criteria listed in the Evaluation Criteria Section of the final AO (Section 7.2 of the Draft AO). Investigations evaluated as having development shortfalls and assigned a Category III as provided by NFS 1872.403 1(e) may be selected and supported to perform technology development work on some portion of their proposed investigation. The level of support will depend on the development project identified, typical support levels have been in the hundreds of thousands of dollars for a one-year work effort. Because these selectees will not be performing a Phase A concept study and will not be approved for continuation into development, there will be no requirement for the development of E/PO plans. Posted 8/6/2010

NASA intends to identify the selected contractor as soon as the information is known, NASA anticipates that this will occur by the time of the release of the final AO and the final AO will include a full limitation for the company. Posted 8/6/2010

The Science Mission Directorate of NASA does not presume that the best science can be conducted as a hosted payload (or on the International Space Station or on a long duration balloon or on any other platform for a small complete mission Mission of Opportunity). Therefore SMD does not procure platforms (of any kind) in advance of selecting Mission of Opportunity science investigations. That is not to say that NASA has not discussed this, nor does not revisit the discussion from time to time. However the total cost of hosted payload investigations is sufficiently high (proposed investigations to date always exceed several tens of millions of dollars) that it has never been clear to SMD that guaranteeing to fly such payloads on a regular basis is commensurate with SMD’s objective of flying the best science investigations. Posted 8/6/2010

Section 5.2 of the SALMON AO states that partner MOs may be proposed for participation in non-NASA missions. That needs clarifying: partner MOs may be proposed for participation in non “strategic NASA missions.” If there are opportunities for partner MOs on strategic NASA missions, then those opportunities will be offered by NASA to all proposers (rather than being reserved only for a single proposer). A partner MO may be proposed for participation in a PI-led NASA mission from a program other than Explorer (an Explorer MO may not be proposed for an Explorer mission). Such a proposal must satisfy the following requirements: (i) The PI of the host mission provides a Letter of Commitment endorsing the partnership and (ii) the feasibility assessment of the host mission, i.e. the TMC evaluation in Step 1 and Step 2, includes the accommodations for the partner MO instrument. Posted 7/27/2010

NASA funds researchers working at U.S. institutions independent of their citizenship. Under NASA’s no-exchange-of-funds policy for collaboration with non-U.S. entities, NASA expects researchers from foreign institutions (regardless of their citizenship) to be funded by non-U.S. entities. (In NASA’s view, there is no such thing as a foreign Co-I employed at a U.S. university. An employee of a U.S. university is a U.S. researcher regardless of citizenship.) Posted 7/27/2010

No previous PI experience is required for submitting a proposal. Experience of the PI is an evaluation factor. Requirements for a PI are given in sections 5.3.1 and 5.3.3 in the Draft Explorer AO; evaluation criteria for the management approach are stated in Factor C-4. Posted 7/27/2010

The NASA data policies against which mission proposals will be judged are given in Section 4.4.2 and 4.4.3 of the Draft Explorer AO. NASA requires that data be placed in public archives as rapidly as practical. A short period of exclusive access may be proposed for data calibration and validation, but a compelling justification for it must be demonstrated. Any period of exclusive access should be the minimum that is consistent with optimizing science return from the mission. Barring exceptional circumstances, mission data will be made fully available to the public within six months following its collection. Posted 7/27/2010

The governing Program and Project Management Requirements document is NM 7120-81. The final Explorer Mission of Opportunity PEA will reflect this update. Posted 7/27/2010

The Magnetospheric Multiscale mission will study the process of magnetic reconnection, a fundamental physical process that is also of interest to DOE-supported fusion energy research projects. Posted 7/27/2010

TMC panels are instructed to assume that the proposer is the expert on his/her proposal. The proposer’s task then is to provide ample evidence in the proposal that the proposed cost numbers are valid and that investigation implementation method is low risk. The TMC panel’s task is to validate the proposed costs and proposer’s assertion of low risk. Proposers should explicitly document the bid in the proposal as validation of the cost. The TMC will expect to see information as to how the PI will handle known and unknown development problems that may occur for the vendor.. Posted 7/27/2010

The 92” diameter fairing would be considered a non-standard service . Please contact the NASA Launch Service Program Point of Contact, Garrett Skrobot at Garrett.L.Skrobot@nasa.gov for specific information on the additional cost. Posted 7/27/2010

Performance envelopes and cost figures for vehicles that may appear under the NLS contract currently under competition are not yet known. Regardless, the anticipated cost of launch vehicles in the "large-class" performance envelope of the nominal configurations of Falcon 9, Atlas V, and Delta IV are significantly outside the resource envelope currently available to the Explorer Program. . Posted 8/20/2010

The Falcon 1e LV is not on the current NLS contract. Performance envelopes and cost figures for vehicles that may appear under that new NLS contract are not yet known. Posted 7/27/2010

Not as a standard service, there are non-standard options that enable this capability. For additional information, performance quotes, mission integration inquiries, and costs please contact the NASA Launch Service Program Point of Contact, Garrett Skrobot at Garrett.L.Skrobot@nasa.gov. Posted 7/27/2010

It would be a Non-standard Service. For a 2016 order year, the additional cost would be $21M. This optional non-standard service does not include a separation system to de-mate the payload from the STAR 37FM motor. The payload would be responsible for STAR 37 motor ignition, nutation control and despin if required. Posted 7/27/2010

No. Section 5.9.2 of the Draft Explorer AO states that Co-manifested or secondary payloads on a U.S. or non-U.S. launch vehicle may not be proposed or considered under this AO. Contributed launch services cannot be proposed or considered under this AO. Regardless of the final launch cost to NASA, the Explorer Program does not expect to increase the proposed PI-managed mission cost cap. Posted 7/27/2010

Letters of commitment will be coordinated through the Explorer ISS Payload Point of Contact, Ms. Marybeth Edeen, marybeth.a.edeen@nasa.gov. Posted 7/27/2010

Yes, both the Japanese Experiment Module Exposed Facility (JEM-EF) and Express Logistics Carriers (ELC) payload sites may be proposed. Further descriptions on these options are found at the Explorer Workshop (July 13, 2010) “International Space Station Payload Office Requirements” presentation found on the Explorer Acquisition website (http://explorers.larc.nasa.gov/EX/). Information may also be obtained by contacting the Explorer ISS Payload Point of Contact, Ms. Marybeth Edeen, at marybeth.a.edeen@nasa.gov. Posted 7/27/2010

No, super pressure and ultra-long duration balloon flights are not necessarily excluded from this AO. The intent is to provide a mechanism to support balloon-borne investigations of a scope and complexity that cannot be supported by the yearly solicitations set forth in ROSES. Investigations which are of a scope that could be proposed to ROSES are unlikely to be compelling enough scientifically to merit selection within the Explorer program. Posted 7/27/2010

No. Proposal submission requirements are given in Section 6 of the SALMON AO and Section 5 of the Draft Explorer Mission of Opportunity PEA. Posted 7/27/2010

Section 5.5 of the SALMON AO states that proposers must provide their own access to space. You can propose to be a secondary or hosted payload on another mission. However you require a Letter of Commitment from the host mission. So you would need a Letter of Commitment from the host Explorer mission with whom you are partnering stating that, should you both be selected, he will provide the accommodations that you require for launch and operations. In addition the host Explorer proposal must include sufficient detailed information on accommodating your small complete mission MO so that TMC can assess the feasibility of the proposed development plan both with and without your MO. If you are asking if, in general, you can propose to be a payload on the full Explorer mission without partnering with a specific proposed mission, the answer is no. There is no presumption that a selected Explorer mission will be capable of accommodating your investigation as a payload. Posted 7/27/2010

The SALMON AO was released on September 3, 2008. There is no plan to re-release the SALMON AO nor to amend it prior to the release of the Explorer Missions of Opportunity PEA. In Section I of Appendix B in the SALMON AO, it is written that “In the event of an apparent conflict between the guidelines in the SALMON AO, Appendix A, Appendix B, and a PEA, the order of precedence is: the PEA, then the SALMON AO, then Appendix B, then Appendix A.” Posted 7/27/2010

It is Science Mission Directorate’s intent to update the SALMON AO to conform to the Standard AO model. It is not anticipated this update will occur in the timeframe covered by this solicitation. Posted 7/27/2010

The Draft Explorer AO contains no requirement on the specific version of Excel software. NASA’s Science Office for Mission Assessments maintains compatibility with the latest publically released versions of the Excel software. Posted 7/27/2010

A flight element is an element of the mission that operates separately in space; examples of flight elements are orbiters, probes, landers, and rovers. For Explorer missions, it is highly likely that a mission consists of exactly one flight element per satellite proposed (it is more complicated for planetary missions). A telescope is not a flight element (unless it has its own spacecraft bus separate from the spacecraft bus carrying the instruments as has been proposed for advanced concepts like the black hole imager). NASA has intentionally not defined “instrument” in this context because of the creativity of NASA proposers in proposing investigations. Generally an instrument collects data. For a traditional telescope system, the detectors are instruments but the telescope is not. However we are hesitant to make absolute statements about what can and cannot be considered an instrument. Proposers must justify their determination that an element of their mission architecture (like a telescope) is an instrument; NASA will ask the peer review to evaluate the validity of that justification. Posted 7/27/2010

In general, full missions are of larger scope and greater technical complexity than missions of opportunity. NASA has adjusted the page limits for the Explorer 2011 Missions of Opportunity as noted in Amendment 8 to the SALMON AO. Posted 7/27/2010 Revised 12/22/2010

Using Table 2-1 in NM7120-81, an EX mission will necessarily be Category 2 due to the expected Life Cycle Cost. We will ensure the Foreword to the Final AO is corrected to reflect this. Posted 7/27/2010

Potential launch dates vary considerably depending on the science proposed, required resources, and development challenges; there is no expectation on earliest launch date nor does the Explorer Program define one. Proposers are expected to request the launch date best supporting their science investigation and development requirements. Further schedule requirements are fully described in Section 5.9.1 of the Draft Explorer AO. Posted 7/27/2010

No, only questions and answers will be posted.. Posted 7/27/2010

No, only proposal summary information is publically accessible. These are available for past solicitations through the NASA Solicitation and Proposal Integrated Review and Evaluation System (NSPIRES) at http://nspires.nasaprs.com/. Proposals contain unpublished research results, ideas or plans; proprietary information; and sensitive budgetary data. NASA civil servants are bound by Federal regulations to maintain the confidentiality of such information. Federal law prohibits the unauthorized disclosure of confidential information (18 U.S.C. 1905).Posted 7/27/2010

Yes, that is a scenario permitted under this announcement. Section 7.3 of the draft AO fully describes the selection factors and encourages proposals well below the PI-Managed Mission Cost cap. Posted 7/27/2010

Yes, Section 4.2 of the Draft MO PEA states that the PI-managed Mission Cost cap for an Explorer MO is $55M in Fiscal Year (FY) 2011 dollars. There is no minimum cost requirement. Posted 7/27/2010

NASA’s intent for the Step 1 and Step 2 competitive processes are fully described in Section 1.1 of the Draft AO and Section 4.2 of the Draft MO PEA As the outcome of Step 1, one or more Step 1 Explorer mission proposals and one or more Step 1 Explorer Mission of Opportunity proposals may be selected for Phase A study. The number of proposals selected for further study necessarily depends on the availability of proposals of appropriate merit. Posted 7/27/2010

The Selection Process and Selection Factors are fully described in Sections 7.1.3 and 7.3 of the Draft AO and Section 6.2 of the Draft MO PEA. Selection decisions necessarily depend on the availability of proposals of appropriate merit. Therefore, an announcement as to the number of missions to be selected will not be made until the time of selection by the Associate Administrator for the Science Mission Directorate. NASA intends to keep proposers informed of the number of missions and missions of opportunity the approved Explorer Program planning budget is sufficient to support. Posted 7/27/2010

NASA’s intent is to release the final Explorer AO and Explorer Mission of Opportunity PEA sometime between late summer and early fall, 2010. Posted 7/27/2010

NASA's current agreement for the use of the Keck telescope will expire before the launch of an Explorer mission resulting from this AO. Since NASA does not have in place an agreement for Keck time that extends to the time frame contemplated for the missions from this AO, NASA cannot commit to Keck follow-up observations. It is NASA's intention to seek renewal of an agreement for Keck Observatory time through the normal processes at the appropriate time. For the purposes of this AO, if Keck Observatory time or any other ground-based observations are required for the success of a proposed EX investigation, proposers must negotiate directly with the Keck Observatory or other ground-based facility to obtain commitments concerning the observation time and associated costs. Proposers will be expected to manage these costs and any other associated resources within their PI managed Mission Cost Cap. Posted 7/2/2010

SMD has established a policy document that answers this question. Please see SPD-19, Meeting the 70% JCL Requirement in PI-led Missions (available in the Program Library). Posted 6/30/2010

At the time of release of the draft AO, NASA plans to release a revised ELV Launch Services Information Summary to the Program library at http://explorers.larc.nasa.gov/EX/ex_Library.html. This document will describe the performance ranges for the classes of launch vehicles to be offered. Performance options that proposers must account for in their budgets will be listed in that version of the document along with estimated costs. These options are expected to include the addition of a supplemental propulsion system and utilization of the Kwajalein launch site. Proposers are reminded that, NASA cannot ensure which specific launch vehicles will be available at the time of the launch vehicle procurement activity for any selected mission. Upon mission selection, NASA will competitively select a launch service provider for the mission based on customer requirements. Accordingly, assumption of a specific launch vehicle configuration as part of the AO proposal will not guarantee that the proposed LV configuration will be selected for award of a Launch Service Task Order, unless there is firm technical rationale for sole source. Accordingly, proposers will be advised to plan for compatibility with vehicle families that provide the required performance and are expected to be available through spacecraft PDR. It will be recommended that payload designs accommodate the full range of launch environments for these vehicle families. Posted 6/4/2010

The upcoming Explorer AO will be based on the Standard PI-led Mission AO Template available at http://sso.larc.nasa.gov/aosimplification.html. Requirements for a PI are given in sections 5.3.1 and 5.3.3 in that template AO; evaluation criteria for the management approach is stated in Factor C-3. Posted 6/4/2010

The launch date itself for a Partner Mission of Opportunity is not constrained; instead, there is a "Commitment Need Date". The proposing PI must provide evidence that the sponsoring organization intends to fund the primary host mission and that the NASA commitment for U.S. participation is required by the sponsoring organization prior to December 31, 2013. Posted 6/4/2010

It is the PI’s institution’s responsibility to produce the project's EVM reports, incorporating all subcontractor inputs and utilizing a formally validated system. Using a subcontractor’s system for primary reporting would require the approval of the Office of Chief Engineer for a deviation from NASA’s program and project management requirements (NM 7120-81). A deviation may be requested by a mission after selection. Posted 6/4/2010

Currently, it is anticipated that the Explorer missions selected from this AO will be classified as Category 2 missions (per NM 7120 81) with Class C payloads (per NPR 8705.4). The final policy will be reflected in the draft AO to be released in Spring 2010. Posted 3/8/2010

In the past, it was not unusual to include a solicitation for missions of opportunity in the same AO as for full missions. Although those AOs carefully separated the different proposal requirements for those two types of investigations, NASA found over time that proposers sometimes had difficulty understanding which requirements applied to MOs and which did not. As a result NASA wrote the Stand-alone Missions of Opportunity Notice (SALMON) AO, which is intended to clearly articulate the requirements for MO proposals. Thus the SALMON is simply a tool to convey proposal requirements on behalf of a Program, much in the same way an AO is a tool to convey proposal requirements. In the Explorer Program case, the requirements for Explorer-Program-supported full missions will appear in the 2010 Explorer AO and the requirements for the Explorer-Program-supported Missions of Opportunity will appear in an element of the SALMON AO. We are hopeful this change will help proposers respond more efficiently. All submitted proposals (Explorer full missions and SALMON missions of opportunity) will be reviewed by the same review panels at the same time. A single selection meeting will select proposals, and all Explorer selections will be funded from the same Explorer future mission budget. There is no separate budget for MOs. The December 10, 2009, community announcement (http://explorers.larc.nasa.gov/EX/) explicitly stated, "The currently approved Explorer Program planning budget is sufficient to select and execute at least one EX mission. It is also sufficient to select and execute a second EX mission or at least one MO. The decision between these two options will be based upon the proposals received in response to the EX AO and the SALMON amendment; the decision will incorporate the most recent planning budget information available at that time." Posted 7/27/2010

No, there are no updates to the Community Announcement issued on December 10, 2009. The Announcement reflects the current state of planning for the Explorer program. Posted 2/4/2010

No, NASA does not intend to institute minimum experience requirements for the proposed PI, nor will pre-screening of prospective proposers be offered. It is anticipated that requirements and evaluation criteria for PI experience and expertise will be similar to that provided in the Standard PI-led Mission AO Template, Sections 5.3 and 7.2, available at http://sso.larc.nasa.gov/aosimplification.html. Posted 1/27/2010

NASA expects to make a determination soon on whether a student collaboration option will be included in the 2010 Explorer AO. This determination will be reflected in the draft AO to be released in Spring 2010. If this option is included, it is anticipated that the guidelines and requirements will be similar to that provided in the Standard PI-led Mission AO Template, Section 5.5.3, available at http://sso.larc.nasa.gov/aosimplification.html. Posted 1/27/2010

No, there are no updates to the Community Announcement issued on December 10, 2009. The Announcement reflects the current state of planning for the Explorer program. Posted 1/15/2010

There will be a charge against the PI-managed mission cost cap for any performance options, mission unique, or special launch services beyond the standard described in the Explorer Program Library’s launch services document. NASA expects to launch Explorer investigations selected through this announcement as the primary payload on a single expendable launch vehicle (ELV) that NASA would provide as Government Furnished Equipment. This ELV would be competitively procured after selection when detailed mission requirements are known (see governing policies cited in the ELV Launch Services Information Summary in the Program Library). Due to the volatility of the launch services market, NASA cannot ensure which launch vehicles will be available at the time of procurement. Accordingly, proposers will be advised to plan for compatibility with vehicle families that provide the required mission performance and discuss flexibility for accommodation on multiple launch vehicle families. Proposers are reminded that only the standard and optional performance envelopes to be described in the final Explorer Program Library’s launch services document will be provided. NASA expects to make a determination soon on the standard and optional launch services to be offered in that document and anticipates that this information can be made available upon release of the draft AO. Posted 1/15/2010

Mission investigations proposed in response to this solicitation must be implemented by a Principal Investigator (PI) led investigation team and must be implemented through the provision of a complete spaceflight mission. No specific flight platform will be offered through this solicitation. Proposers are responsible for the implementation of the full flight system concept including the spacecraft bus and its major subsystems. Information on organizations that have expressed an interest in teaming with other organizations on Explorer proposals will be available at http://explorers.larc.nasa.gov/team.html. Posted 1/15/2010

Simultaneously to the intended Explorer AO, NASA plans to release a solicitation for Explorer Missions of Opportunity (MO) through the NASA Announcement of Opportunity NNH08ZDA009O, Stand Alone Missions of Opportunity Notice (SALMON). In that amendment NASA expects to include MO science investigations that are defined in the SALMON AO as either Partner MOs or Small Complete Mission MOs. The amendment is also expected to classify investigations requiring flight on long duration balloons and the International Space Station as types of Small Complete Mission MOs. A draft SALMON amendment with detailed descriptions of the solicitation and its limitations is expected to be ready for release for comment in Spring 2010.. Posted 1/13/2010

NASA anticipates providing, as standard launch services, a single domestic launch vehicle certified as category 3 per NPD 8610.7, NASA Launch Services Risk Mitigation Policy for NASA-Owned or NASA-Sponsored Payloads/Missions, at no charge to the PI-Managed Mission Cost. NASA also anticipates requiring an additional charge against the PI-Managed Mission Cost for any launch services beyond the standard launch services offered. Detailed information on launch vehicle options, including a description of standard launch services and the nominal costs for non-standard services, including those for a second launch, will be provided in the AO and in a ELV Launch Services Information Summary document in the Program Library; it is anticipated that this information can be made available upon release of the draft AO. It is likely that the nominal cost for a second launch will be a substantial fraction of the PI-managed mission cost cap. Posted 1/13/2010

The SALMON AO, Section 7.3, states that "A proposal may be selected for development without first completing a Phase A concept study." The proposal must make the case that it is not only necessary but that it is also technically feasible for the project to be selected for development without a competitive Phase A concept study. The proposal must also explicitly describe the technical development plan that permits the project to "skip" Phase A; for instance, the proposal must demonstrate how the project will accomplish all of the NPR7120 Phase A activities and requirements without conducting a Phase A. Finally, as the AO states, the proposal must "contain a commitment by the PI for the cost, schedule, and scientific and technical performance of the investigation with the resolution equivalent to that expected at the end of a Concept Study." The proposal must provide NASA with sufficient justification to believe such a commitment (as this is what a Phase A concept study report does - provides sufficient demonstration that the committed cost, schedule, and performance is feasible and low risk). It should also be noted that if NASA made this decision, it would preclude the possibility of selecting two EX missions after downselect. The proposer must recognize that NASA would only make such a decision without a Phase A competition if the MO proposal was sufficiently compelling. Posted 12/16/2009