SOMA Small Explorer Acquistion.
Science Office for Mission Assessments: Explorer (EX) Acquisition: Q&A
Explorer (EX) Concept Study Q&As
Question79:
Does Requirement CS-67 apply to Civil Servant services, or the use of Government facilities or equipment, provided at no cost per the AO or PEA?
Does Requirement CS-67 apply to Civil Servant services, or the use of Government facilities or equipment, provided at no cost per the AO or PEA?
Answer:
Requirement CS-67 does not apply to standard services provided by the Program Offices (e.g. Explorers, Launch Services, International Space Station)
that do not involve expenditure of PI-Managed Explorer funds. Examples include SRBs (Q&A 51), nominal launch services, or access to and accommodation
at the International Space Station. Any services that do involve expenditure of PI-Managed Explorer funds for Civil Service costs, such as Launch Services
Program defined mission unique costs, must be documented in Cost Table 5.
Posted 08/27/2012
Question78:
NPR 7120.5E was effective as of August 14, 2012. AMENDMENT TO EXPLORER CONCEPT STUDY GUIDELINES RE NEW 7120 REQUIREMENTS in the Guidelines states “For now, the applicable version for defining post-downselect planned work is the second version of NPR 7120.5D NID (NM 7120-97). If a newer version is approved by the Agency before CSR’s are due, instructions will be provided regarding the version that is applicable for this requirement.” Will there be any changes to Requirements CS-100 and CS-101, and/or are there any specific instructions?
NPR 7120.5E was effective as of August 14, 2012. AMENDMENT TO EXPLORER CONCEPT STUDY GUIDELINES RE NEW 7120 REQUIREMENTS in the Guidelines states “For now, the applicable version for defining post-downselect planned work is the second version of NPR 7120.5D NID (NM 7120-97). If a newer version is approved by the Agency before CSR’s are due, instructions will be provided regarding the version that is applicable for this requirement.” Will there be any changes to Requirements CS-100 and CS-101, and/or are there any specific instructions?
Answer:
Due to the limited time until CSRs are due, no change is required for the CSR submission. However, each study team is directed to prepare updated
responses to Requirements CS-100 and CS-101 based on replacing relevant instances of NM 7120-97 with NPR 7120.5E. These updates will be
due 2 days prior to each team’s site visit, as part of early written responses to significant weaknesses and questions.
Posted 08/21/2012
Question77:
Is a Fixed Price Option for the Bridge Phase as discussed in Q&A 70 a requirement?
Is a Fixed Price Option for the Bridge Phase as discussed in Q&A 70 a requirement?
Answer:
The expectation for the Bridge Phase is that it will be an option to the Phase A contract, where the contract type remains unchanged. This will
facilitate a timely start for the Bridge Phase. However, a Fixed Price Option is not an absolute requirement and a team will not be penalized for
proposing an alternative contract type. For example, a cost reimbursement contract may be permissible for the Bridge Phase as it is allowed
by the Guidelines for Phase B, with a not-to-exceed amount. Specification of an alternative contract type may result in a slight delay in the start
of the Bridge Phase, as a new contract will be required with a different set of terms and conditions, and clauses from the Phase A contract.
Posted 08/21/2012
Question76:
As a followup to Q&A 69, how many electronic (CD or DVD) "review" copies are required?
As a followup to Q&A 69, how many electronic (CD or DVD) "review" copies are required?
Answer:
Requirement CS-6 states that 1 electronic (CD or DVD) copy is required for each paper copy. While we have limited the number of paper copies,
we still require the full complement of electronic copies. Therefore please submit 90 electronic (CD or DVD) "review" copies, of which 10 should
accompany the paper "review" copies.
Posted 08/21/2012
Question75:
Is there a document that provides a general flow of Launch vehicle activities? Also, is there a list of items that are required by the launch vehicle team, like interface details?
Is there a document that provides a general flow of Launch vehicle activities? Also, is there a list of items that are required by the launch vehicle team, like interface details?
Answer:
The “Mission_Review_Schedules_Descriptions” PDF shows all the reviews/telecons/meetings LSP holds as part of its service,
and the “LV and SC Deliverables” PDF is a list of typical LV and SC deliverables required as input.
Both files have been uploaded to the Explorer Program Library.
Posted 08/17/2012
Question74:
Is GN2 purge for the payload after shipment to KSC till launch part of the standard cost or mission unique?
Is GN2 purge for the payload after shipment to KSC till launch part of the standard cost or mission unique?
Answer:
$300K should be budgeted for T-0 Grade B GN2 purge.
Posted 08/17/2012
Question73:
Who is the commercial vendor at CCAFS for hydrazine fueling operations?
Who is the commercial vendor at CCAFS for hydrazine fueling operations?
Answer:
LSP no longer offers this service. Astrotech, Lockheed Martin Technical services, and United Paradyne are a few companies that could be solicited for ROMs.
Posted 08/17/2012
Question72:
The "Launch Services Information Summary" PDF in the Explorer Program Library says that, under the ground rules for option A, the interface is a 38-inch separation system. However, the NLS LV planning tool (elvperf.ksc.nasa.gov) says that one of the assumptions for the performance estimation is a 66-inch payload adapter. Please expand on this apparent inconsistency. Are there cost impacts associated with particular separation systems?
The "Launch Services Information Summary" PDF in the Explorer Program Library says that, under the ground rules for option A, the interface is a 38-inch separation system. However, the NLS LV planning tool (elvperf.ksc.nasa.gov) says that one of the assumptions for the performance estimation is a 66-inch payload adapter. Please expand on this apparent inconsistency. Are there cost impacts associated with particular separation systems?
Answer:
Athena I and Athena II performances on elvperf.ksc.nasa.gov are based on 66-inch separation systems. However, for the Explorer opportunity, the baseline
is a 38-inch separation system. The use of this smaller diameter system may improve performance. Any other size system is considered non-standard for Explorer
and would incur a Mission Unique Adapter cost.
Posted 08/17/2012
Question71:
Can you provide guidance on the timing of the Integrated Baseline Review (IBR)?
Can you provide guidance on the timing of the Integrated Baseline Review (IBR)?
Answer:
The IBR is one of the reviews that is shifting due to changes in NPR 7120.5. NM 7120-97, section 2.2.8 states that the IBR will be conducted prior to KDP-C.
In order to properly cost this review, follow the requirements listed in Appendix N of the Guidelines.
Posted 08/15/2012
Question70:
Are there any additional guidelines for preparing the Bridge Phase Proposal?
Are there any additional guidelines for preparing the Bridge Phase Proposal?
Answer:
In addition to the Guidelines, answers to Questions 39, 48, and 58 address the Bridge Phase Proposal. Here are some further clarifications. The new Appendix
should be Appendix 21, titled "Bridge Phase Proposal." This is an electronic only Appendix. The cost data presented in this Appendix should be in the same
tabular format as presented for Phase B. The expectation is that the Bridge Phase will be a Fixed Price Option on the Phase A contract.
Posted 08/15/2012
Question69:
Can the 'ninety (90) paper “review” copies of the CSR' defined in Requirement CS-5 be relaxed?
Can the 'ninety (90) paper “review” copies of the CSR' defined in Requirement CS-5 be relaxed?
Answer:
Yes, only ten (10) paper "review" copies of the CSR need be submitted.
Posted 08/15/2012
Question68:
Can you clarify what are considered detailed cost tables for Appendix M16? Should quotes and Basis of Estimate tables be included as both hardcopy and electronic?
Can you clarify what are considered detailed cost tables for Appendix M16? Should quotes and Basis of Estimate tables be included as both hardcopy and electronic?
Answer:
TMC validation efforts require at least subsystem-level costing details for each individual instrument and flight element. Additional detail for these,
and other WBS elements, down to the lowest level of detail the project is working with supports independent cost validation by allowing lower-level
comparisons to past missions, and demonstrates the basis used to develop the proposed cost estimate. Detailed cost tables must be consistent with
the summary cost tables but do not need to be provided in hardcopy format. Quotes, Basis of Estimate tables, and any other information that supports
credibility of the proposed costs should be provided in both hardcopy and electronic formats.
Posted 08/15/2012
Question67:
For a Mission of Opportunity is the ISS considered the separate flight element with regards to Requirement CS-4? Can the use of ISS count for the 2 separate flight element pages since the interfaces/launch/configuration must be described?
For a Mission of Opportunity is the ISS considered the separate flight element with regards to Requirement CS-4? Can the use of ISS count for the 2 separate flight element pages since the interfaces/launch/configuration must be described?
Answer:
No. There are various interface requirements for all missions.
Posted 08/15/2012
Question66:
With regards to Question 57, can you clarify if the FY13 funding limits are specified in Real Year 2013 $ of FY11$?
With regards to Question 57, can you clarify if the FY13 funding limits are specified in Real Year 2013 $ of FY11$?
Answer:
The limits established in Question 57 are Real Year $.
Posted 08/15/2012
Question65:
Please clarify the wording on page 19 of the CSR Guidelines v22, in section F.1 Level 1 Science Requirements with regards to Mission Success criteria and Level 1 requirements. Specifically the phrase, "Mission success criteria are based on the threshold science requirements. Level 1 requirements then would flow down from the mission success criteria. "
Please clarify the wording on page 19 of the CSR Guidelines v22, in section F.1 Level 1 Science Requirements with regards to Mission Success criteria and Level 1 requirements. Specifically the phrase, "Mission success criteria are based on the threshold science requirements. Level 1 requirements then would flow down from the mission success criteria. "
Answer:
As described in NPR 7120.5D NID (NM 7120-97), the Mission Success criteria are based upon the Threshold Science Requirements. However, the Level 1
Science requirements should be those that will achieve the Baseline Science Mission as correctly stated in Requirement CS-18. The second sentence quoted
above is incorrectly phrased.
Posted 08/15/2012
Question64:
What is the correct version of the Education & Public Outreach Evaluation Factors document that should be used for the Explorer 2011 missions?
What is the correct version of the Education & Public Outreach Evaluation Factors document that should be used for the Explorer 2011 missions?
Answer:
We have updated the Explanatory Guide to the NASA Science Mission Directorate Education & Public Outreach Evaluation Factors document in the
EX Program Library to Version 3.1 (dated November 2010). A Change History Log is provided on page 3 of the document in order to facilitate an evaluation
of the changes from the previously provided Version 3.0 (dated April 2008).
Posted 06/15/2012
Question63:
The answer to Question 21 indicates "the elimination of Falcon 1e and Falcon 1 … from option A" that contributed to the 11/4/11 update of the "Explorers 2011 AO ELV Launch Services Program Information Summary." However, "Figure 2 Option A 63" Fairing Static Envelope" was not changed to reflect the Falcon 1e and Falcon 1 elimination. Was a change warranted?
The answer to Question 21 indicates "the elimination of Falcon 1e and Falcon 1 … from option A" that contributed to the 11/4/11 update of the "Explorers 2011 AO ELV Launch Services Program Information Summary." However, "Figure 2 Option A 63" Fairing Static Envelope" was not changed to reflect the Falcon 1e and Falcon 1 elimination. Was a change warranted?
Answer:
Yes. The elimination of the Falcon 1e and Falcon 1 should have resulted in an update to the Option A 63" fairing. A stand alone document with the update has been
uploaded to the EX Program Library. Note that the update provides additional volume within the envelope.
Posted 06/08/2012
Question62:
Will the Explorer office cover the cost of the mission’s Project Scientist?
Will the Explorer office cover the cost of the mission’s Project Scientist?
Answer:
Project Scientists are not within the management structure of the Explorer Program Office and therefore their costs are outside of the Program Office. If proposed by the PI,
a Project Scientist would be considered part of the project, so should be covered by that project's PI-Managed Mission Cost.
Posted 06/08/2012
Question61:
If a project plans to use NASA High-End Computing facilities, will the time share allocation for the use of the supercomputer be considered a contribution by SMD?
If a project plans to use NASA High-End Computing facilities, will the time share allocation for the use of the supercomputer be considered a contribution by SMD?
Answer:
Since allocations are provided at no cost by SMD to any qualified Users on a competitive and as-available basis, any time share allocation for NASA High-End Computing (HEC)
Capability Assets will not be considered a contribution to Explorer 2011. Information for requesting NASA HEC time is given at:
http://www.hec.nasa.gov/request/request.html.
Posted 04/25/2012
Question60:
Does each PI-led team have to cost out of the PI-Managed mission cost a Mission Manager and a Financial Manager out of the Explorer Office?
Does each PI-led team have to cost out of the PI-Managed mission cost a Mission Manager and a Financial Manager out of the Explorer Office?
Answer:
The Explorer Program Office and its personnel funding are outside of the PI managed mission cost.
Posted 05/07/2012
Question59:
Can you clarify what qualifies for the 2 additional pages under Requirement CS-4? For example, would any of the following qualify for 2 additional pages: multiple copies of nearly-identical spacecraft, tethered portions of a main spacecraft, a supplemental propulsion flight system?
Can you clarify what qualifies for the 2 additional pages under Requirement CS-4? For example, would any of the following qualify for 2 additional pages: multiple copies of nearly-identical spacecraft, tethered portions of a main spacecraft, a supplemental propulsion flight system?
Answer:
It is impossible to give a completely generalized answer for every possible configuration of "separate flight element." Therefore, if clarification is needed,
please provide specific configuration questions. Concerning those currently detailed, the answers are: Yes, Yes, No, respectively.....
Posted 04/25/2012
Question58:
On page 2 of the CSR guidelines, the bridge phase is defined as lasting five months for full missions (4 months for MO). If the new guidelines specify a fixed amount of available dollars for ‘FY13, do the projects have the flexibility to extend the bridge phase to 6.5 months, to allow the bridge phase to coincide with the period of funding limitations?
On page 2 of the CSR guidelines, the bridge phase is defined as lasting five months for full missions (4 months for MO). If the new guidelines specify a fixed amount of available dollars for ‘FY13, do the projects have the flexibility to extend the bridge phase to 6.5 months, to allow the bridge phase to coincide with the period of funding limitations?
Answer:
No. The Bridge Phase Option is to provide Phase B funding for the continued project while further contract negotiations are underway. The Bridge Phase ends
when the Phase B contract is signed. NASA does not want to artificially extend the period of contract negotiation.....
Posted 04/25/2012
Question57:
Please describe the newly established limitations for FY2013 funding for the Astrophysics full Mission (EX) and Missions of Opportunity (MO).
Please describe the newly established limitations for FY2013 funding for the Astrophysics full Mission (EX) and Missions of Opportunity (MO).
Answer:
The Astrophysics Division has recently completed its future planning based upon the President's FY2013 budget. Based upon this planning, the Astrophysics
Division is limiting the FY2013 funding for the Astrophysics missions selected to enter into Phase B. Specific limits are $5.2M for the downselected Full EX
mission and $1.3M for the downselected MO.....
Posted 04/25/2012
Question56:
What is the correct version of the Mission Assurance Requirements (MAR) document that should be used for the Explorer 2011 missions?
What is the correct version of the Mission Assurance Requirements (MAR) document that should be used for the Explorer 2011 missions?
Answer:
We have updated the MAR in the EX Program Library to Revision D (dated 02/08/2012). A Change History Log is provided at the end of this document in order to
facilitate an evaluation of the changes.....
Posted 04/25/2012
Question55:
Where is the appropriate place within the CSR to provide documentation from the external NASA offices providing assessments of requirements, for example from the ISS Program Office, Balloon Program Office, or KSC Launch Services.
Where is the appropriate place within the CSR to provide documentation from the external NASA offices providing assessments of requirements, for example from the ISS Program Office, Balloon Program Office, or KSC Launch Services.
Answer:
External Program Office (ISS, Balloon, KSC) provided documentation should be included with its letter of commitment in Appendix 1. Note, however, that Section G of
the CSR must include the mission implementation details to facilitate an independent evaluation of these considerations.....
Posted 04/25/2012
Question54:
7120-97 lists a Formulation Agreement in Table C-3 as one of the Project Management, Planning, and Control Products for Phase A, noting that the Agreement should be Baseline for Phase B. Is this product required?
7120-97 lists a Formulation Agreement in Table C-3 as one of the Project Management, Planning, and Control Products for Phase A, noting that the Agreement should be Baseline for Phase B. Is this product required?
Answer:
The Phase B Baseline Formulation Agreement will be required after downselection, but not for the CSR. The Formulation Agreement is described in Appendix E
of NM 7120-97 as “a tool for communicating and negotiating … with the … Mission Directorate” that is nominally “resubmitted for
signature at KDP B”. Section N of the EX2011 Guidelines references Section 2.2.6.1 in NM 7120-97 that states “KDP B products requiring Mission
Directorate input will be finished as early in Phase B as feasible”. Due to Mission Directorate involvement, this statement holds true.....
Posted 04/25/2012
Question53:
In Explorer_2011_Phase_A_Guidelines, Requirements CS-52 and CS-53 describe E/PO and Student Collaborations, including both that SC is identified as an E/PO element and that we demonstrate how the SC is separable from the rest of the mission. This document also describes that the student collaboration will be evaluated based on Explanatory Guide to the NASA Science Mission Directorate Educational Merit Evaluation Factors for Student Collaboration Elements (September 2007). In that document the factors for evaluation of the student collaboration proposal mentions goals and objectives.
What relationship should these goals and objective have to the overall E/PO program? Should the Student collaboration be a strategy to achieve the mission E/PO goals and objectives or should they be separate? A similar situation arises as far as evaluation goes...should there be separate evaluation for student collaboration and E/PO or should it be one coordinated effort?
In Explorer_2011_Phase_A_Guidelines, Requirements CS-52 and CS-53 describe E/PO and Student Collaborations, including both that SC is identified as an E/PO element and that we demonstrate how the SC is separable from the rest of the mission. This document also describes that the student collaboration will be evaluated based on Explanatory Guide to the NASA Science Mission Directorate Educational Merit Evaluation Factors for Student Collaboration Elements (September 2007). In that document the factors for evaluation of the student collaboration proposal mentions goals and objectives.
What relationship should these goals and objective have to the overall E/PO program? Should the Student collaboration be a strategy to achieve the mission E/PO goals and objectives or should they be separate? A similar situation arises as far as evaluation goes...should there be separate evaluation for student collaboration and E/PO or should it be one coordinated effort?
Answer:
As described in the Explorer 2011 AO, section 5.5.3 and the Explorer 2011 Guidelines Requirement CS-53, the Student Collaboration (SC) is an E/PO
element, however it is not part of the core E/PO program as the SC must be separable. It is up to the discretion of the proposers as to any linkage of
the goals of SC and core E/PO programs. Similarly, the audiences, strategies, goals and any coordination chosen for each of these programs is up to
the proposers to define. As the SC is required to be a separable effort, the budgets for these programs should remain separate.
Posted 03/09/2012
Question52:
How should MOs include the E/PO cost in the tables required in the Cost Proposal, since the E/PO cost is outside of the PI-Managed Cost? For example, where should we put WBS 11 in Cost Templates 1, 2, 3, 6?
How should MOs include the E/PO cost in the tables required in the Cost Proposal, since the E/PO cost is outside of the PI-Managed Cost? For example, where should we put WBS 11 in Cost Templates 1, 2, 3, 6?
Answer:
As NASA is providing the incentive costs for MO E/PO programs, these funds should be moved outside the PI-managed Mission Costs in
Tables 1, 2, 3, and 6 and listed in the Contributions.
Posted 03/09/2012
Question51:
Does the Explorers Program Office provide the funding for the Standing Review Board (SRB) Team members?
Does the Explorers Program Office provide the funding for the Standing Review Board (SRB) Team members?
Answer:
Funding for the SRB Team members is outside of the PI managed cost cap.
Posted 03/09/2012
Question50:
Should the EVM Threshold be calculated in real-year or fiscal-year dollars?
Should the EVM Threshold be calculated in real-year or fiscal-year dollars?
Answer:
The requirement is based on contract value, thus the cap is in Real Year dollars.
Posted 03/09/2012
Question49:
Requirement CS-89 states "Draft language for the technical content of any International Agreement(s) are required for all non-U.S. partners in the investigation. A sample agreement is available in the Program Library." But there is no sample in the Program Library. Will one be provided?
Requirement CS-89 states "Draft language for the technical content of any International Agreement(s) are required for all non-U.S. partners in the investigation. A sample agreement is available in the Program Library." But there is no sample in the Program Library. Will one be provided?
Answer:
Yes. Two samples have been uploaded to the EX Program Library, with the title "Samples of draft language for the technical content of an
International Agreement."
Posted 03/09/2012
Question48:
We don’t know what a ‘Bridge Phase Proposal’ is, it doesn’t seem to appear in the CSR guidelines. Can you provide a specific format for the bridge phase proposal? Where do we deliver this to?
We don’t know what a ‘Bridge Phase Proposal’ is, it doesn’t seem to appear in the CSR guidelines. Can you provide a specific format for the bridge phase proposal? Where do we deliver this to?
Answer:
Per Section 7.4.2 "Award Administration and Funding" of the Explorer 2011 AO, cost and pricing data, and a SOW will be requested for the Phase B bridge option.
SOWs will include the following as a minimum: Scope of Work, Deliverables (including science data), and Government Responsibilities (as applicable).
SOWs need not be more than a few pages in length. The Bridge Phase information will now be due as an Appendix to the Concept Study Report on September 21, 2012.
There is no specific format required for this Appendix. We will be issuing further details on the Bridge Phase requirements.
Posted 03/09/2012
Question47:
Can the Co-Investigator personal letters of commitment be submitted electronically through email?
Can the Co-Investigator personal letters of commitment be submitted electronically through email?
Answer:
Yes, printouts of emails to be included in Appendix M.1 are allowed.
Posted 03/09/2012
Question46:
Can accommodations be made for the submission of a classified section within the heritage appendix?
Can accommodations be made for the submission of a classified section within the heritage appendix?
Answer:
Yes, for this Explorer CSR downselect we will follow the language found in the NASA Second Stand Alone Missions of Opportunity Notice (SALMON-2) .
The requirements for accommodating any classified section are detailed in Section 5.10.3 of the SALMON-2 available at
http://go.nasa.gov/SALMON2-AO
Posted 03/09/2012
Question45:
Can the SEO subsection be moved into the Science Investigation section for the Missions of Opportunity? Particularly if the SEO doesnąt affect the instrument hardware?
Can the SEO subsection be moved into the Science Investigation section for the Missions of Opportunity? Particularly if the SEO doesnąt affect the instrument hardware?
Answer:
No. Please follow the requirements outlined in the Guidelines.
Posted 03/09/2012
Question44:
In the guidelines, CS-62 says "The rows in the [Cost Table 1] shall be the NASA standard WBS elements", while the Cost Table 1 Template indicates that the cost is to be provided by "organizations". Please clarify whether these data are to be provided by WBS or by Organization. The text in the Guidelines for the CSR, with reference to Cost Table 1, was changed from the Explorer AO but the template for Cost Table 1 was not, so it is not clear what data are requested in this table. In Step 1 it was provided by "organization".
In the guidelines, CS-62 says "The rows in the [Cost Table 1] shall be the NASA standard WBS elements", while the Cost Table 1 Template indicates that the cost is to be provided by "organizations". Please clarify whether these data are to be provided by WBS or by Organization. The text in the Guidelines for the CSR, with reference to Cost Table 1, was changed from the Explorer AO but the template for Cost Table 1 was not, so it is not clear what data are requested in this table. In Step 1 it was provided by "organization".
Answer:
The first sentence of CS-62 should refer to Cost Template Table 3 (not 1). Also, CS-75 should not refer back to CS-62. Template 1, which is discussed in CS-75,
is intended to be a cost summary of organizations by phase as shown on the example on Template 1.
Posted 03/09/2012
Question43:
What is the due date for the Bridge Phase proposal?
What is the due date for the Bridge Phase proposal?
Answer:
We would like to inform you of a change in the requirements of the Bridge Phase proposal. We had previously specified a due date of May 21, 2012.
Based on our ongoing evaluations of the President’s proposed FY2013 budget, we are changing the due date for the Bridge Phase information
only. The Bridge Phase information will now be due as an Appendix to the Concept Study Report on September 21, 2012. We will be issuing further
details on the Bridge Phase requirements in the next few weeks. I would like to stress this change has no bearing on the remainder of the selection
process criteria.
Revised 03/09/2012
Question42:
SALMON PEA H7 stated “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.” Subsequently, both the Earth Venture - 2 and Draft SALMON-2 AOs appeared to impose additional restrictions by stating “Purchased payload accommodations must be obtained only on a spacecraft that will be launched on a U.S.-manufactured launch vehicle.” Please clarify the non-U.S. launch vehicles restrictions for EX 2011 MOs.
SALMON PEA H7 stated “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.” Subsequently, both the Earth Venture - 2 and Draft SALMON-2 AOs appeared to impose additional restrictions by stating “Purchased payload accommodations must be obtained only on a spacecraft that will be launched on a U.S.-manufactured launch vehicle.” Please clarify the non-U.S. launch vehicles restrictions for EX 2011 MOs.
Answer:
The following change to the SALMON-2 AO has been approved, and will apply to all relevant NASA missions.
For EX 2011, NASA will work with one proposing team to develop a package to be sent to OSTP for approval of any exemption should that team be downselected. This effort should not be interpreted as any sort of predecision or endorsement of the mission in competitive Phase A downselect. Rather, it is a recognition of a long lead item that the team cannot prepare without NASA participation. This effort simply ensures the option of selecting the mission remains viable should it be selected as part of the standard process. Posted 02/07/20121
4.6.2 Alternative Access to Space
If access to space is not provided in the applicable PEA, proposals may include alternative access to space through provision of non-NASA launch services as a secondary, co-manifested, or hosted payload. Alternative access to space may be either purchased or contributed. Alternative access to space may include spacecraft or payload accommodations on a U.S.- or foreign-manufactured spacecraft launching on a U.S.- or foreign-manufactured launch vehicle.
Access to space for NASA payloads is governed by the U.S. Space Transportation Policy (http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/space-transportation-policy-2005.pdf).
As prescribed in the U.S. Space Transportation Policy (Section V(a)), U.S. Government-sponsored payloads shall be launched on space launch vehicles manufactured in the United States unless exempted by the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, in consultation with the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs.
If access to space is not provided in the applicable PEA, proposals may include alternative access to space through provision of non-NASA launch services as a secondary, co-manifested, or hosted payload. Alternative access to space may be either purchased or contributed. Alternative access to space may include spacecraft or payload accommodations on a U.S.- or foreign-manufactured spacecraft launching on a U.S.- or foreign-manufactured launch vehicle.
Access to space for NASA payloads is governed by the U.S. Space Transportation Policy (http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/space-transportation-policy-2005.pdf).
As prescribed in the U.S. Space Transportation Policy (Section V(a)), U.S. Government-sponsored payloads shall be launched on space launch vehicles manufactured in the United States unless exempted by the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, in consultation with the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs.
- This prescription does not apply to use of foreign launch vehicles on a no-exchange-of-funds basis to support the following: flight of scientific instruments on foreign spacecraft, international scientific programs, or other cooperative government-to-government programs.
- This prescription also does not apply to the use of foreign launch vehicles to launch U.S. Government secondary scientific payloads for which no U.S. launch service is available.
For EX 2011, NASA will work with one proposing team to develop a package to be sent to OSTP for approval of any exemption should that team be downselected. This effort should not be interpreted as any sort of predecision or endorsement of the mission in competitive Phase A downselect. Rather, it is a recognition of a long lead item that the team cannot prepare without NASA participation. This effort simply ensures the option of selecting the mission remains viable should it be selected as part of the standard process. Posted 02/07/20121
Question41:
The structural requirements contained in Requirement CS-30 and CS-31 (f) appear out of phase with the NPR 7120.5D activities for Phase A Concept & Technology Development. The CSR requires an assessment of launch loads and the resulting structural margins with governing load cases.
Typically this level of subsystem design and analysis is planned for Phase B Preliminary Design & Technology Completion. Requiring this level of analysis for CSR is premature and any results based on a concept study would not seem credible. In addition, the launch environment for the two launch vehicle options has not been provided. Why is the Explorer Program imposing these requirements, which deviate from NPR 7120.5D?
The structural requirements contained in Requirement CS-30 and CS-31 (f) appear out of phase with the NPR 7120.5D activities for Phase A Concept & Technology Development. The CSR requires an assessment of launch loads and the resulting structural margins with governing load cases.
Typically this level of subsystem design and analysis is planned for Phase B Preliminary Design & Technology Completion. Requiring this level of analysis for CSR is premature and any results based on a concept study would not seem credible. In addition, the launch environment for the two launch vehicle options has not been provided. Why is the Explorer Program imposing these requirements, which deviate from NPR 7120.5D?
Answer:
The intent of the structural elements of Guidelines Requirements CS-30 and CS-31 (f) is to facilitate assessment of potential CSR mission
concept redesigns resulting from launch or other structural concerns. Explorer Phase A study teams should work with Diana Calero,
(321) 867-8197, Diana.M.Calero@nasa.gov, for launch load factors and environments.
Posted 02/07/20121
Question40:
The CSR Guidelines are very clear that the E/PO 6 page allocation and 5 page SC allocation are in addition to the 98 page allocation for full missions. What is the allocation for the SDB portion of that same appendix? Is it any number of pages? Are the SDB pages part of the 98 page allocation or in addition to it?
The CSR Guidelines are very clear that the E/PO 6 page allocation and 5 page SC allocation are in addition to the 98 page allocation for full missions. What is the allocation for the SDB portion of that same appendix? Is it any number of pages? Are the SDB pages part of the 98 page allocation or in addition to it?
Answer:
There is no specific allocation for SDB subcontracting within the page limits (98+ for full missions or 75+ for missions of opportunity) for Sections F thru J.
As listed in Requirement CS-54, the bulk of any SDB subcontracting will be addressed in Appendix M.15, which has no page limit. It is expected that Section I.
will have a brief summary of the subject and a pointer to Appendix M.15.
Posted 02/07/20121
Question39:
Given that the target decision month is February 2013, for the purpose of the detailed schedules to be provided in the CSR, what is the preferred start date of the Phase B Bridge Phase? March 1, 2013?
Given that the target decision month is February 2013, for the purpose of the detailed schedules to be provided in the CSR, what is the preferred start date of the Phase B Bridge Phase? March 1, 2013?
Answer:
Teams should work with the Explorer Program Office at GSFC on details of the Bridge Phase proposal. The planned start date should be 15-Mar-2013.
Posted 02/07/20121
Question38:
Is there a preferred work breakdown structure (WBS) for the E/PO costing?
Is there a preferred work breakdown structure (WBS) for the E/PO costing?
Answer:
E/PO budgets should follow the E/PO templates 1-3 as described in Requirements CS-77, 78, and 79. The E/PO plan presented in Section I should
have a description of how the plan fits within the following subgroups (as applicable): (1) E/PO Management; (2) Higher Education; (3) Formal
Education (K-12, students, teachers); (4) Informal Education (exhibits, shows, training, citizen science); (5) Outreach (Social Media, Events, Profiles);
and (6) E/PO Website.
Posted 02/07/20121
Question37:
Please provide information on the NPR 7120.5 Revision E rollout.
Please provide information on the NPR 7120.5 Revision E rollout.
Answer:
A briefing on the 7120.5E rollout will be uploaded to the EX Program Library.
Posted 02/07/20121
Question36:
What is the allowed level of involvement of the JPL Exoplanet Exploration Program Office E/PO team in the current Astrophysics EX mission concept studies?
What is the allowed level of involvement of the JPL Exoplanet Exploration Program Office E/PO team in the current Astrophysics EX mission concept studies?
Answer:
After the Phase A downselect, the selected project will be expected to coordinate its E/PO program with the
JPL Exoplanet Exploration Program Office, since both of the proposed Astrophysics EX projects are Exoplanet
Exploration projects. This includes, at a minimum, ensuring that the Project and the Program Office have coordinated
messaging and that resources are appropriately leveraged rather than duplicated. The coordination may be negotiated
during phase A and included in the CSR, but there is no requirement to do so. It will be sufficient to negotiate coordination
after downselection. The Exoplanet Exploration Program Office is permitted to coordinate with either or both of the two
phase A projects in the area of E/PO. Whether a project wishes to do so is completely at the discretion of the PI.
Please note that any such coordination must be consistent with the rule in the Explorer 2011 AO (Section 5.6.7) that prohibits any contributions to the competing projects from SMD programs other than the Explorer Program. Posted 02/07/20121
Please note that any such coordination must be consistent with the rule in the Explorer 2011 AO (Section 5.6.7) that prohibits any contributions to the competing projects from SMD programs other than the Explorer Program. Posted 02/07/20121
Question35:
Is the reference to M.19 (Acronyms and Abbreviations) at the end of the following excerpt from page 3 of the Guidelines incorrect? Should it instead be M.4 (Phase B Contract Implementation Data)?
Upon a continuation decision, NASA will execute the Bridge Phase option and begin to provide Phase B funding for the project that is continued beyond the Phase A concept study. During the Bridge Phase, NASA and the continued project will negotiate and sign contract modification necessary for the remaining portion of Phase B. Deliverables for Phase B will be negotiated during the Bridge Phase, on the basis of information provided in the CSR (e.g., Sections J, K, and M.19).
Is the reference to M.19 (Acronyms and Abbreviations) at the end of the following excerpt from page 3 of the Guidelines incorrect? Should it instead be M.4 (Phase B Contract Implementation Data)?
Upon a continuation decision, NASA will execute the Bridge Phase option and begin to provide Phase B funding for the project that is continued beyond the Phase A concept study. During the Bridge Phase, NASA and the continued project will negotiate and sign contract modification necessary for the remaining portion of Phase B. Deliverables for Phase B will be negotiated during the Bridge Phase, on the basis of information provided in the CSR (e.g., Sections J, K, and M.19).
Answer:
Yes, the M.19 reference should be to M.4. There is currently no plan to update the Guidelines to reflect this.
Posted 02/07/20121
Question34:
Can you clarify the E/PO requirements for Missions of Opportunity as they were not required in SALMON? If this is a new requirement, will additional funds be added above the proposal Cap? Is it required to be a minimum of 1% of the cap? Are there any penalties if no E/PO program is proposed? If no
Can you clarify the E/PO requirements for Missions of Opportunity as they were not required in SALMON? If this is a new requirement, will additional funds be added above the proposal Cap? Is it required to be a minimum of 1% of the cap? Are there any penalties if no E/PO program is proposed? If no
Answer:
E/PO programs are optional for MOs. Questions related to the cost of an optional E/PO for a MO is addressed in the updated
Explorer 2011 Guidelines and Criteria for the Concept Study on page 11
Posted 12/22/2011
Question33:
There is a concern about the level of support by the ISS Program office needed to successfully complete the Phase A CSR to the level required by the TMC evaluators. Specifically, TMC evaluates accommodations and access including view factors, volume, fields of view, etc. There is a concern that in order to develop these sufficiently, including any possible waivers, that the instrument may require an ISS Payload Integration Manager (PIM). Is the planned level of support sufficient, what will be the products of this support (e.g. waiver?), and how will this level of knowledge be transmitted to the TMC evaluators?
There is a concern about the level of support by the ISS Program office needed to successfully complete the Phase A CSR to the level required by the TMC evaluators. Specifically, TMC evaluates accommodations and access including view factors, volume, fields of view, etc. There is a concern that in order to develop these sufficiently, including any possible waivers, that the instrument may require an ISS Payload Integration Manager (PIM). Is the planned level of support sufficient, what will be the products of this support (e.g. waiver?), and how will this level of knowledge be transmitted to the TMC evaluators?
Answer:
NASA will ensure the level of support provided by the ISS Program Office is commensurate with that required by the Step 2 TMC review. A signed waiver will not be required
by the completion of the CSR, however the rationale for the waiver must be fully developed and reviewed by the ISS Program office. Note however; that the CSR should
describe any mitigation necessary should the waiver not be approved, and where appropriate, allocate resources to implement.
Posted 12/22/2011
Question32:
Is there any further guidance on tailoring the MAR for the MOs?
Is there any further guidance on tailoring the MAR for the MOs?
Answer:
No. This is addressed on page 1 of the updated Explorer 2011 Guidelines and Criteria for the Concept Study.
Posted 12/22/2011
Question31:
Both the Explorer 2011 AO (Section 5.2.2) and the SALMON AO (Section 4.5.1) speak of waivers from NPR 7120.5D NID. Please expand on the subject.
Both the Explorer 2011 AO (Section 5.2.2) and the SALMON AO (Section 4.5.1) speak of waivers from NPR 7120.5D NID. Please expand on the subject.
Answer:
Any such waivers contemplated as necessary for development of the proposed investigation would be approved in Phase B and must be explicitly described in the CSR.
The evaluation of the appropriateness of the management approach (assuming the waiver is approved) is evaluated under Factor C-4, Adequacy and robustness of the
management approach and schedule, and Factor C-6, Adequacy of the risk management plan.
The CSR should describe any mitigation necessary should the waiver not be approved, and where appropriate, allocate resources to implement.
Note that downselection in Phase B is no guarantee that the waiver will be approved. The TMC evaluators and the SMD selection official do not have the authority to grant waivers. The waiver must be submitted to OCE (it is possible other offices such as OSMA may need to approve as well) during Phase B, and the NASA Chief Engineer will decide whether to grant the waiver. Posted 12/22/2011
The CSR should describe any mitigation necessary should the waiver not be approved, and where appropriate, allocate resources to implement.
Note that downselection in Phase B is no guarantee that the waiver will be approved. The TMC evaluators and the SMD selection official do not have the authority to grant waivers. The waiver must be submitted to OCE (it is possible other offices such as OSMA may need to approve as well) during Phase B, and the NASA Chief Engineer will decide whether to grant the waiver. Posted 12/22/2011
Question30:
Cost Tables: The treatment of SEO costs is different among the six tables. For example, Table 6 includes the SEO costs explicitly, whereas Table 1 only has PI-managed costs and Contributions (no SEO costs). Yet the note at the bottom of Table 6 says the total should be same as that shown on Table 1. Are SEO and/or STEO costs to be included in tables 1, 2, 4, and 5? If so, on what line? Tables 2 and 5 have a line for "other", but there appears to be no appropriate place for SEO costs in Tables 1 and 4.
Cost Tables: The treatment of SEO costs is different among the six tables. For example, Table 6 includes the SEO costs explicitly, whereas Table 1 only has PI-managed costs and Contributions (no SEO costs). Yet the note at the bottom of Table 6 says the total should be same as that shown on Table 1. Are SEO and/or STEO costs to be included in tables 1, 2, 4, and 5? If so, on what line? Tables 2 and 5 have a line for "other", but there appears to be no appropriate place for SEO costs in Tables 1 and 4.
Answer:
In addition to looking at the Cost Templates 1 – 6, proposers must carefully read the instructions on SEOs in section L and the instructions for each
Cost Template in section K and apply the instruction as is appropriate for their SEO.
Background: Some examples of instructions related to SEO
Section L states “Funding for SEO or STEO activities are outside the AO and the PEA cost caps” and the instructions for each Cost Template. For instance and the instructions for Template 1 in Requirement CS-62 addresses SEO costs. “The top portion of the table shall contain cost data relevant to the PI-managed Mission Cost. The lower portion shall contain cost data for contributions and enhanced mission costs.”
There are several requirements that refer to Template 2, CS-65, CS-70, CS-71, CS-72, CS-73. Proposers need to read these requirements and fill out Template 2 as applicable to your SEO.
There are instructions on Cost Template 3 in Requirement CS-80 “In completing the Cost section, the guidelines for Phases B through D apply. Complete a one page summary of costs using the format shown using the format of Cost Table Template 7. Also, include the total amount in the SEO or STEO line item at the bottom of the table in (Cost Table Template 3).
Template 6 has a line item called out for SEO. This SEO cost in Template 6 should be consistent with the cost shown for your SEO in other cost table Templates. For instance, it should match and other cost Template that shows the total cost for an SEO, such as Template 1, 2, 3, and 7
The instructions for Template 4 and 5 do not call out enhanced mission costs, so SEO costs do not need to be included in Template 4 and 5.
Template 4 Requirement CS-66 “Show costs (NASA SMD and contributed) associated with each Co-I using the template of Cost Table Template 4 in one page”
Template 5 (Requirement CS-67) “NASA SMD cost but are not funded out of the Explorer program, and 2) to determine civil service contributions that are not included in the NASA SMD cost” Posted 12/22/2011
Section L states “Funding for SEO or STEO activities are outside the AO and the PEA cost caps” and the instructions for each Cost Template. For instance and the instructions for Template 1 in Requirement CS-62 addresses SEO costs. “The top portion of the table shall contain cost data relevant to the PI-managed Mission Cost. The lower portion shall contain cost data for contributions and enhanced mission costs.”
There are several requirements that refer to Template 2, CS-65, CS-70, CS-71, CS-72, CS-73. Proposers need to read these requirements and fill out Template 2 as applicable to your SEO.
There are instructions on Cost Template 3 in Requirement CS-80 “In completing the Cost section, the guidelines for Phases B through D apply. Complete a one page summary of costs using the format shown using the format of Cost Table Template 7. Also, include the total amount in the SEO or STEO line item at the bottom of the table in (Cost Table Template 3).
Template 6 has a line item called out for SEO. This SEO cost in Template 6 should be consistent with the cost shown for your SEO in other cost table Templates. For instance, it should match and other cost Template that shows the total cost for an SEO, such as Template 1, 2, 3, and 7
The instructions for Template 4 and 5 do not call out enhanced mission costs, so SEO costs do not need to be included in Template 4 and 5.
Template 4 Requirement CS-66 “Show costs (NASA SMD and contributed) associated with each Co-I using the template of Cost Table Template 4 in one page”
Template 5 (Requirement CS-67) “NASA SMD cost but are not funded out of the Explorer program, and 2) to determine civil service contributions that are not included in the NASA SMD cost” Posted 12/22/2011
Question29:
Requirement CS-12, page 16: Are the items in the bulleted list to be included on the “graphic cover page” of the CSR (a page which was optional for proposals responding to the SALMON AO) or on a “proposal cover page” at the beginning of the CSR (which was a required page under the SALMON AO)?
Requirement CS-12, page 16: Are the items in the bulleted list to be included on the “graphic cover page” of the CSR (a page which was optional for proposals responding to the SALMON AO) or on a “proposal cover page” at the beginning of the CSR (which was a required page under the SALMON AO)?
Answer:
The page limit table on page 14 of the guidelines defines section A to be the “Cover Page and Investigation Summary”. The page limit for this section
is “No page limit, but be brief”. Requirement CS-11 and CS-12 define what should be in section A. Note that Requirement CS-11 states “A Graphic
Cover Page and Summary Information, prepared as directed below, shall preface every CSR. These pages will not be counted against the page limits.” You may use
Section A to address the requirements of CS-11 and CS-12. While CS-12 addresses the Graphic Cover page, no specific direction is provided on the content of the Summary
Information that is part of section A. There is no NSPIRES submission for the CSR, so NSPIRES will not be creating the Summary Information for you like it did for the Step 1
proposal. You need to do it yourself. Any bulleted items listed under CS-12 that you cannot or do not wish to include on your Graphic Cover Page may be included in
section A as part of the Summary Information that is also allowed in section A
Posted 12/22/2011
Question28:
There is a concern about the level of support by the ISS Program office needed to successfully complete the Phase A CSR to the level required by the TMC evaluators. Specifically, TMC evaluates accommodations and access including view factors, volume, fields of view, etc. There is a concern that in order to develop these sufficiently, including any possible waivers, that the instrument may require an ISS Payload Integration Manager (PIM). Is the planned level of support sufficient, what will be the products of this support (e.g. waiver?), and how will this level of knowledge be transmitted to the TMC evaluators?
There is a concern about the level of support by the ISS Program office needed to successfully complete the Phase A CSR to the level required by the TMC evaluators. Specifically, TMC evaluates accommodations and access including view factors, volume, fields of view, etc. There is a concern that in order to develop these sufficiently, including any possible waivers, that the instrument may require an ISS Payload Integration Manager (PIM). Is the planned level of support sufficient, what will be the products of this support (e.g. waiver?), and how will this level of knowledge be transmitted to the TMC evaluators?
Answer:
NASA will ensure the level of support provided by the ISS Program Office is commensurate with that required by
the Step 2 TMC review. A signed waiver will not be required by the completion of the CSR, however the rationale
for the waiver must be fully developed and reviewed by the ISS Program office. Also, the CSR should describe
any mitigation necessary should the waiver not be approved, and where appropriate allocate resources to
implement.
Posted 12/12/2011 Updated - superseeded by Question33 - 2/6/2012
Question27:
Requirement CS-65: The first sentence starts with "For Phase B only,...", but the last sentence of the paragraph ends with "...during each Phase of work". Please clarify which is correct.
Requirement CS-65: The first sentence starts with "For Phase B only,...", but the last sentence of the paragraph ends with "...during each Phase of work". Please clarify which is correct.
Answer:
Requirement CS-65 is only applicable to Phase B. However, the referenced Cost Table Template 2 is applicable
all subsequent Phases, as specified in requirements CS-71 to CS-73.
Posted 12/12/2011
Question26:
Pg 33-34: "Elements of Cost Breakdown" In the discussion of the cost elements, there is no mention of 'employee benefits'. Should the cost of benefits be included under "Direct Labor", "Other Direct Costs", or "Indirect Costs"?
Pg 33-34: "Elements of Cost Breakdown" In the discussion of the cost elements, there is no mention of 'employee benefits'. Should the cost of benefits be included under "Direct Labor", "Other Direct Costs", or "Indirect Costs"?
Answer:
Include employee benefits with direct labor.
Posted 12/12/2011
Question25:
Appendix M.4 requires a SDB plan for Phases B-F. However, if selected, NASA intends to immediately issue a Phase B contract based on the data in Appendix M.4. Is a separate SDB Plan for just Phase B required to be submitted as part of Appendix M.4?
Appendix M.4 requires a SDB plan for Phases B-F. However, if selected, NASA intends to immediately issue a Phase B contract based on the data in Appendix M.4. Is a separate SDB Plan for just Phase B required to be submitted as part of Appendix M.4?
Answer:
The instructions for Appendix M.4 do not mention or require a SDB plan to be part of Appendix M.4. The SDB plan
for Phases B/C/D/E/F is required in Appendix M.15. No separate SDB plan is required as part of Appendix M.4, but
the plan for getting the work done in Phase B - including the work done by SDBs - is required in Appendix M.4. As
stated in the instructions for Appendix M.15, the SDB plan will be negotiated before award of the Phase B contract.
Posted 12/12/2011. Updated - first and last sentences added - 2/6/2012
Question24:
Appendix M.10 – Cartography (p.14) or Curation Plan (p.54)?
Appendix M.10 – Cartography (p.14) or Curation Plan (p.54)?
Answer:
Neither. Appendix M.10 has been redefined to Draft Mission Definition Requirements Agreement, which is
required for Explorer 2011.
Posted 12/12/2011
Question23:
CSR Structure and Page Limits on page 14: Heritage Appendix M.14 is designated with an asterisk as being electronic only, yet under the Page Limit column, the list of electronic only appendices do not include Heritage Appendix M.14. Please clarify that the Heritage Appendix M.14 is electronic only.
CSR Structure and Page Limits on page 14: Heritage Appendix M.14 is designated with an asterisk as being electronic only, yet under the Page Limit column, the list of electronic only appendices do not include Heritage Appendix M.14. Please clarify that the Heritage Appendix M.14 is electronic only.
Answer:
The asterisk was an error. Appendix M.14 must be provided in hardcopy form.
Posted 12/12/2011
Question22:
Can the Explorer missions obtain supplemental propulsion through LSP via the NLS II contract?
Can the Explorer missions obtain supplemental propulsion through LSP via the NLS II contract?
Answer:
Since all of the launch vehicle providers on the NLS II contract don’t currently offer this, Explorer full
missions must propose the accommodation of any supplemental propulsion required as part of their concept
study.
Posted 12/12/2011
Question21:
Can a specific launch vehicle be assumed and is the Delta II available for the Explorer missions?
Can a specific launch vehicle be assumed and is the Delta II available for the Explorer missions?
Answer:
Since the launch service provider will be competitively selected, a specific launch vehicle configuration can not
be guaranteed. Explorer missions must use the vehicle class performance outlined in the Explorers 2011 AO
ELV Launch Services Program Information Summary. A new revision (dated 11/4/11) has just been released
based on updates of all the available launch vehicle providers, for that vehicle performance class, to the NLS II
contract. Key changes from the previous revision (dated 10/15/2010) are 1) the elimination of Falcon 1e and
Falcon 1 that caused the removal of the RTS as a launch site from option A and the change in inclinations
from RTS in option B, 2) clarification of the inclinations for option A WFF launches, and 3) an update of the
LSP POC to Diana Manent Calero.
Posted 12/12/2011
Question20:
Requirement CS-4, page 13: The requirement states “In Sections E and F of the CSR, two extra pages each are allotted for each separate science instrument”. Are there two extra pages for every science instrument, including the first instrument? Or is it two extra pages for every science instrument in addition to the first instrument?
Requirement CS-4, page 13: The requirement states “In Sections E and F of the CSR, two extra pages each are allotted for each separate science instrument”. Are there two extra pages for every science instrument, including the first instrument? Or is it two extra pages for every science instrument in addition to the first instrument?
Answer:
Each instrument, including the first, is allowed an additional 2 pages.
Posted 12/12/2011
Question19:
Requirement CS-9, page 15: Is this document (the CSR requirements checklist) included with the CSR or is it ONLY emailed to the Explorer Program Scientist?
Requirement CS-9, page 15: Is this document (the CSR requirements checklist) included with the CSR or is it ONLY emailed to the Explorer Program Scientist?
Answer:
The CSR requirements checklist must be emailed to the Explorer Program Scientist.
Posted 12/12/2011
Question18:
Requirement CS-16, page 17 and CSR structure and page limits, page 14: The requirement states “This section shall describe the science investigation as specified by requirements B-15 through B-18 in Appendix B of the AO or Section VII in Appendix B of the SALMON AO plus section 6.2 of the PEA. If there are no changes from the Step 1 proposal, this section shall be reproduced identically from the Step 1 proposal”. While requirements B-15 through B-18 in Appendix B of the AO for the full missions are specifically related to the Science Investigation, Section VII in Appendix B of the SALMON AO for the MOs includes elements of both the Science Investigation and Science Implementation. Which elements of Section VII in Appendix B should be included in section E of CSR, and which elements should be moved to section F?
Requirement CS-16, page 17 and CSR structure and page limits, page 14: The requirement states “This section shall describe the science investigation as specified by requirements B-15 through B-18 in Appendix B of the AO or Section VII in Appendix B of the SALMON AO plus section 6.2 of the PEA. If there are no changes from the Step 1 proposal, this section shall be reproduced identically from the Step 1 proposal”. While requirements B-15 through B-18 in Appendix B of the AO for the full missions are specifically related to the Science Investigation, Section VII in Appendix B of the SALMON AO for the MOs includes elements of both the Science Investigation and Science Implementation. Which elements of Section VII in Appendix B should be included in section E of CSR, and which elements should be moved to section F?
Answer:
Items in Section VII in Appendix B of the SALMON AO that address the Scientific Merit as defined in section
7.2.1 of the PEA should be included in section E of the CSR. The balance should go in section F of the CSR.
Requirements B-15 through B-18 in Appendix B of the AO should be consulted for additional guidance. There
are no restrictions concerning the duplication of material between sections E and F.
Posted 12/12/2011
Question17:
Science Implementation, page 17 and CSR structure and page limits, page 14: In the Step 1 proposals, the Science Investigation and Science Implementation sections had a combined page limit of 25 pages (20 for the MOs). In the CSR guidelines, the Science Investigation page limit has increased to 30 pages, and the Science Implementation page limit is now included with Mission Implementation, Management, etc. For the MOs, will the page limit be 30 increased to pages? This limit is surprisingly large if the Science Implementation is no longer included in the Science Investigation section.
Science Implementation, page 17 and CSR structure and page limits, page 14: In the Step 1 proposals, the Science Investigation and Science Implementation sections had a combined page limit of 25 pages (20 for the MOs). In the CSR guidelines, the Science Investigation page limit has increased to 30 pages, and the Science Implementation page limit is now included with Mission Implementation, Management, etc. For the MOs, will the page limit be 30 increased to pages? This limit is surprisingly large if the Science Implementation is no longer included in the Science Investigation section.
Answer:
The increased page count allows for changes, if necessary.
Posted 12/12/2011
Question16:
Requirement CS-23, page 20: It seems that there would be substantial overlap between this section and the Data Management Plan included as Appendix M.5. Can the text in this section refer to items in Appendix M.5?
Requirement CS-23, page 20: It seems that there would be substantial overlap between this section and the Data Management Plan included as Appendix M.5. Can the text in this section refer to items in Appendix M.5?
Answer:
Yes.
Posted 12/12/2011
Question15:
Requirement CS-25, page 20, section L, page 49: May a SEO/STEO be added during the Phase A Concept Study? Assuming such an addition is acceptable, would it have any impact on the Science evaluation or lead to a reevaluation of the Science, or would it only affect the Science Implementation evaluation?
Requirement CS-25, page 20, section L, page 49: May a SEO/STEO be added during the Phase A Concept Study? Assuming such an addition is acceptable, would it have any impact on the Science evaluation or lead to a reevaluation of the Science, or would it only affect the Science Implementation evaluation?
Answer:
Yes, SEO/STEOs may be added during Phase A. Since the evaluation of SEO/STEOs was/is governed by
factor B-6, they will continue to only impact Scientific Implementation Merit.
Posted 12/12/2011
Question14:
Requirement CS-85, page 53: The final sentence of this requirement says “Also see Section J of Part II above for additional guidance.” It should be “Section K of Part II”.
Requirement CS-85, page 53: The final sentence of this requirement says “Also see Section J of Part II above for additional guidance.” It should be “Section K of Part II”.
Answer:
This will be fixed in the upcoming update to the Guidelines.
Posted 12/12/2011
Question13:
There is no defined place to list the L2 requirements specified in factor B-8.
There is no defined place to list the L2 requirements specified in factor B-8.
Answer:
Appendix M.10 Draft Mission Definition Requirements Agreement, has been added to facilitate specification of
L2 requirements. Examples of previous MDRAs will be provided in the EX Program Library.
Posted 12/12/2011
Question12:
The revised version of NPR 7120.5D NID (NM 7120-97) has been released. Does it apply?
The revised version of NPR 7120.5D NID (NM 7120-97) has been released. Does it apply?
Answer:
The Explorer Phase A is being conducted under the first version of NPR 7120.5D NID (NM 7120-81), which is the
version that was used for the AO/PEA. Explorer CSRs will be evaluated within the context of NM 7120-81. No
change is being made in NPR 7120.5D versions between the AO/PEA and the CSR. Any missions approved to
continue into Phase B will need to use whatever version of NPR 7120.5 is valid at that time. That might be NM
7120-97, it might be a further version of NPR 7120.5D NID, it might be NPR 7120.5E. Once entering Phase B,
Explorer projects will be subject to the same requirements as all other NASA missions.
Posted 12/12/2011
Question11:
Please clarify which appendices are not applicable. We believe that appendices 9, 10, 21, 22, 23 are not applicable.
Please clarify which appendices are not applicable. We believe that appendices 9, 10, 21, 22, 23 are not applicable.
Answer:
The appendix list will be updated in the upcoming update to the Guidelines. Posted 11/18/2011
Question10:
Requirement CS-23: There appears to something left out of the text since the last bullet ends with the word "and".
Requirement CS-23: There appears to something left out of the text since the last bullet ends with the word "and".
Answer:
This will be fixed in the upcoming update to the Guidelines. The word "and" will be deleted. Posted 11/18/2011
Question9:
You added the following factor: “Factor C-8. Approach and feasibility for completing Phase B. The completeness of Phase B plans and the adequacy of the Phase B approach will be assessed. This assessment will include evaluation of the activities/products, the organizations responsible for those activities/products, and the schedule to accomplish the activities/products.” Can you provide any background regarding why this was called out, or any specific information about what you are looking for beyond what is normally provided in a Phase B plan? What has changed?
You added the following factor: “Factor C-8. Approach and feasibility for completing Phase B. The completeness of Phase B plans and the adequacy of the Phase B approach will be assessed. This assessment will include evaluation of the activities/products, the organizations responsible for those activities/products, and the schedule to accomplish the activities/products.” Can you provide any background regarding why this was called out, or any specific information about what you are looking for beyond what is normally provided in a Phase B plan? What has changed?
Answer:
A required gateway product for approval to enter Phase B is a detailed work plan for Phase B. The information contained within this factor has therefore always been part of the CSR evaluation. The new aspect is that we are being more explicit about what the CSR will be evaluated for in order to ensure the PI teams have the full knowledge.
Posted 11/18/2011
Question8:
Please clarify the guidance for provision of reference documents such as those in the Explorer library and institution-specific documents such as the GSFC Gold Rules.
Please clarify the guidance for provision of reference documents such as those in the Explorer library and institution-specific documents such as the GSFC Gold Rules.
- The Step 1 AO as well as the CSR Guidelines indicate that this is not permitted: “It shall contain all data and other information that will be necessary for scientific and technical evaluations; provision by reference to external sources, such as Internet websites, of additional material that is required for evaluation of the proposal/CSR is prohibited.”
- This seems to contradict the direction for the optional list of references: “CSRs may provide, as an appendix, a list of reference documents and materials used in the concept study. The documents and materials themselves cannot be submitted, unless they are within the CSR's page limit. Investigation teams are encouraged to include an active URL for those documents available through the Internet.”
Answer:
These two statements refer to different aspects. Specifically, there is a difference between documents that are required to be read so one can understand your CSR, and documents that were used in developing your CSR. If there is something that you want the reviewers to read, include it in your CSR. If there is something you used to develop your CSR and you want to ensure that information is available to reviewers if they need it, then reference it. If the reviewers need to validate something in a reference, they will do so by referring to the referenced document.
Posted 11/18/2011
Question7:
Can you clarify the apparent mismatch between the SALMON AO guidelines on handling NASA CM&O funds for Center projects (not to be included) and the CS Guidelines (to be included)?
Answer:
The full cost rules for the Explorer CSR are the same as the rules for the SMD Standard AO, which includes the Explorer 2011 AO and the Draft SALMON-2 AO. The SALMON AO, under which the Explorer MO proposals were submitted, has the 2008 definitions of Full Cost. In order for us to properly cost the mission, please provide the cost requirements as listed in the SALMON AO plus the additional CM&O requirements as a separate cost item. Posted 11/18/2011
Question6:
Are changes allowed between Step 1 and Step 2 in the Student Collaborations or science or science/technology enhancement options? Can new ones be added or better defined?
Answer:
Yes.
Posted 11/18/2011
Question5:
How long is NASA HQ briefing?
Answer:
This will be determined closer in time to the briefings. In the past, when there were only three briefings (e.g. New Frontiers), the briefing was 45 minutes including questions. The time allotted will be determined by the Selection Official (the AA at that time) and it will be impacted by the number of days over which the 10 briefings take place. Posted 11/18/2011
Question4:
Please provide more details on the site visit, how long will it be, approximately how many people will be attending?
Answer:
These details will be provided when NASA begins planning the site visits. For sizing purposes, we can use the recent New Frontiers site visits. The site visits were 7 hours of presentations + 1 hour of tours + breaks (lunch, coffee). The NASA travel team was about 30 people in size. Owing to the less complex nature of Explorer missions compared to New Frontiers missions, the travel team might be smaller. Additionally, NASA is exploring the possibility of holding site visits in Washington, DC. Further details will be provided closer to the time of the site visits. Posted 11/18/2011
Question3:
Please clarify the process of changing team members during the Phase A Concept Study period, for example what is the notification process for adding a Co-Investigator?
Answer:
Additional co-investigators may be added to the investigation team during Phase A. They should be listed in the Concept Study Report and their role should be clearly identified and justified, just as was true for all investigation team members during Step 1. The downselection decision by the Selection Official will constitute selection of all team members. At some point prior to the submission of your Concept Study Report, NASA will ask you if you have added any new team members or involved any new organizations in the conduct of Phase A or in planned work for Phases B-E. This will be necessary so that NASA can update its conflict-of-interest list as it assembles the team for the downselect evaluation. Posted 11/18/2011
Question2:
Can you provide more detail on the Step 2 evaluation of Scientific Merit if there are no significant changes from Step 1? Specifically what is meant by the rating will be the same? Is this the adjectival rating, the full findings, overall evaluation, etc.?
Answer:
If there are no significant changes that trigger a reevaluation of Scientific Merit, then Scientific Merit will not be reevaluated at all. The only evaluation of Scientific Merit for the proposed investigation will be the one that was conducted in Step 1. Posted 11/18/2011
Question1:
Can you provide more detail on the magnitude of changes that would trigger a reevaluation of the Scientific Merit? For example, does adding new science objectives or augmenting current ones trigger science merit review? Does adding threshold in step 2 if not specifically defined in step 1, trigger science merit review?
Answer:
NASA will make a subjective determination as to whether any changes are of a sufficient scope or magnitude to call into question the basis of the Step 1 Scientific Merit evaluation, and therefore the basis of the selection decision. The current thinking is that the basis for selection would only be called into question by changes that threaten the mission's potential for meeting the Step 1 science objectives, not changes that may cause the mission to exceed the Step 1 science objectives. Although NASA is not ruling out a reevaluation of Scientific Merit if the scope of the science investigation is increased, that is not NASA's current plan. Posted 11/18/2011
- NASA Official: Washito Sasamoto
- WebsiteCurator: SOMA Web Support
- Last Modified: 04.23.2013