SSO Small Explorer Acquistion.

Response to Question 1:
The sum of all the flight components of a Principal Investigator’s proposal is a “suite.” A suite may contain one or more instruments. The “suite” is equivalent to an instrument package; that is, each row of Table 10-4 is an instrument suite.
 
Response to Question 2:
“Joint design” refers to a situation where there is not a clean interface, and an identifiable U.S. deliverable depends upon design information from a non-U.S. partner. An example of a joint design is a U.S. investigator providing flight software to a non-U.S. hardware provider; the software provider requires significant interaction and exchange of design details with the non-U.S. provider to complete the U.S. deliverable. In the example, the “what” that is being provided requires more than interface definition and control documentation; it also requires the definition and exchange of “how” the design is executed on both sides of the interface. The lack of a clean interface (or “joint design”) involves the exchange of design details that may not be allowed by International Traffic in Arms Regulations or Export Administration Regulations.
 
An instrument design that includes contributions of flight hardware subsystems from U.S. and European co-Investigators where clean interfaces exist is permitted.
 
Response to Question 3:
The “sensor” is defined in section 10.3 as an instrument suite that has a non-U.S. Principal Investigator and has a U.S. flight contribution with a clean interface. The “sensor” term is exclusively associated with a non-U.S. Principal Investigator. A U.S. telescope with a clean interface to a European detector array where the Principal Investigator is from Europe is a “sensor.” If the U.S. telescope has a European detector array and the Principal Investigator is from the U.S., the combined telescope and detector array are termed an “instrument” in the solicitation.
 
Response to Question 4:
In the case where NASA is the lead agency, it is correct and acceptable to interpret Table 10-1 as “NASA provides instruments; ESA member states may provide components or subsystems for NASA-led instruments provided that a clean interface is maintained between the contributions from NASA and the ESA member states.”
 
Response to Question 5:
Costs for FOSO investigations should be stated in real year dollars. The FOSO amendment provides exceptions to the SMEX AO for the FOSO proposals.
 
Response to Question 6:
“Joint design” refers to a situation where there is not a clean interface, and an identifiable U.S. deliverable depends upon design information from a non-U.S. partner. An example of a joint design is a U.S. investigator providing flight software to a non-U.S. hardware provider; the software provider requires significant interaction and exchange of design details with the non-U.S. provider to complete the U.S. deliverable. In the example, the “what” that is being provided requires more than interface definition and control documentation; it also requires the definition and exchange of “how” the design is executed on both sides of the interface. The lack of a clean interface (or “joint design”) involves the exchange of design details that may not be allowed by International Traffic in Arms Regulations or Export Administration Regulations.
 
An instrument design that includes contributions of flight hardware subsystems from U.S. and European co-Investigators where clean interfaces exist is permitted. For example, a European telescope with a U.S. detector array is permitted, because the no knowledge of “how” the detectors or telescopes are developed or manufactured is required to interface the telescope and detectors; only knowledge of the interface is required. Integration and test are only allowed when knowledge of the design details of all the contributed components is not needed to perform the integration.
 
The U.S.-provided items on European-led instruments as well as the U.S.-led instruments will deliver a data acceptance package when the item is delivered; therefore, items should not plan to be shipped to Europe several times prior to final delivery. Calibration on U.S.-provided items should occur prior to final delivery and should not require shipment to Europe several times prior to final delivery.
 
All instruments/instrument suites will be integrated with the spacecraft in Europe, and comprehensive performance testing of the observatory is expected to be performed in Europe after integration of the instruments with the spacecraft bus. The Principal Investigator for a U.S.-led instrument/instrument suite should plan to support integration and comprehensive performance testing in Europe. ESA will perform mission operations for the observatory. The Principal Investigator of each instrument/instrument suite is expected to lead the science operations; science operations support from non-U.S. participants is permitted.
 
Response to Question 7:
The HELEX STDT report is incorrect. The correct statement is, “the reference trajectory will bring the observatory as close as about 0.22 AU by the end of the transfer phase.”
 
Response to Question 8:
International contributions are permitted under a “no exchange of funds” provision. It should be assumed that the international contribution carries its own adequate reserves. Unencumbered reserves apply only to the portion of the mission funded by this AO.
 
Response to Question 9:
The Risk Category for instruments and sensors proposed to the FOSO is Risk Category C as defined in NASA Procedural Requirements (NPR) 8705.4 due to the lifetime of the Solar Orbiter mission. NPR 8705.4 is available at http://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/.
 
Response to Question 10:
The Solar Orbiter MAR has not been baselined, but its content will be very similar to the Geospace-Radiation Belt Storm Probes (G-RBSP) Program Mission Assurance Requirements (MAR). The G-RBSP MAR should be used in place of the Solar Orbiter MAR. Note that the G-RBSP mission is a Risk Category C mission as defined in NPR 8705.4.
 
Response to Question 11:
The FOSO Amendment to the SMEX AO takes precedence over the ESA PDD.
 
Response to Question 12:
Changes to the dimensions or projected footprint may be proposed, but the proposer should be mindful of the limited resources available on the Solar Orbiter.
 
Response to Question 13:
Moving the solar panels may be considered during an accommodation study.
 
Response to Question 14:
Reconsideration of the constraints may be considered during an accommodation study.
 
Response to Question 15:
A full proposal that includes the cost tables is required.
 
Response to Question 16:
It is true that a Solar Orbiter proposal can only be submitted to the FOSO instead of having the option to submit the proposal to either the SMEX or FOSO opportunities.  The science prioritization in the HELEX report takes precedence over the prioritization in the ESA Payload Definition Document; however, all FOSO proposals will be judged on scientific merit in addition to the other evaluation factors specified in paragraph 10.6.1.
 
Response to Question 17:
Solar Orbiter proposals must be submitted to the FOSO instead of to the SMEX MO.  The Risk Category C was established for Solar Orbiter due to the five-year prime mission life and 4.5 year extended lifetime.
 
Response to Question 18:
ESA has not requested that any specific content be in the FOSO proposals, but we have coordinated the dates in the FOSO Amendment with ESA before releasing the FOSO Amendment. It is not appropriate for U.S. PIs to submit proposals directly to ESA, and NASA will not forward proposals to ESA. Instead, NASA will use the evaluation criteria defined in the FOSO to determine the best science; after categorization of the U.S. proposals, NASA will coordinate proposed selections with ESA. U.S. investigators who want to collaborate on investigations that are led by a PI from an ESA member state should coordinate the content of their U.S. proposals informally with the PI from the ESA member state before submitting their proposals to the FOSO, and the FOSO proposal should be for U.S. funding only. U.S. PIs who want to include contributions from non-U.S. investigators should informally coordinate the collaboration before submitting the PI proposal for U.S. funding to the FOSO, and the non-U.S. investigators should propose to either the ESA AO or to their governments.

 
Response to Question 19:
We have attached the orbit files for 4 Sentinels spacecraft to be launched on March 29, 2017. Please keep in mind that this date necessarily is not the final launch date. These are plain ASCII files with simple headers. The multiple Venus encounter orbits are provided as examples only. While they are valid flight dynamics solutions, modifications of the orbit parameters are possible. Please note that the orbit data are presented in a Sun MOJ2000 heliocentric solar equatorial inertial coordinate system, therefore Earth is moving in this representation. To facilitate planning efforts, Earth and Venus orbit files are also included in the same coordinate system.

• Sentinel 1 Orbit File
• Sentinel 2 Orbit File
• Sentinel 3 Orbit File
• Sentinel 4 Orbit File
• Venus Orbit File
• Earth Orbit File

Response to Question 20:
U.S. investigators should only submit their proposals to the FOSO. NASA will coordinate the results of the evaluations of the selectable U.S. proposals with ESA prior to NASA selection. The ESA proposal should briefly describe the NASA contribution, and the proposal to NASA should describe the complete NASA contribution. NASA will manage the development of the U.S. contributions to avoid ITAR problems.