Questions Submitted in Writing at the SMEX Kickoff Meeting

1. Will any cost increase for ELV’s count against the $5M NIAT allowance?
   No. As described in the SMEX Guidelines and Criteria for Phase A Concept Study, cost increases in ELV’s do not count against the cap (see Guidelines and Cindy Daniels' kickoff presentation for conditions). ELV cost increases do not count against the NIAT allowance either.
2. We understand that Pegasus XL is undergoing some review and the fleet is currently "grounded". Would the resolution of the "problem" result in a loss of lift capability? Since we have baselined Pegasus XL in our mission, what would our recourse be if the updated lift capability is less than what was known at the time of original AO?
   This has not been determined yet, however no impacts to Pegasus capability are expected. We will inform SMEX teams if there is a major impact. Contact Darrell Foster at KSC for further information.
3. The CSR Guidelines state that NAIT report calls for 20% cost margin. Are there similar guidelines for mass, power and other resource margins? If so, please indicate where?
   The NIAT report calls for adequate margins for all resources. The Explorer Program requires a 20% cost reserve at Confirmation. There are no explicit guidelines or requirements for resource margins.
4. What is the expected start date for Phase B/C/D/E? We need this for our budget preparation.
   Downselect will be in April or May 2002 (see downselect flowchart). It will take 1-3 months to negotiate and execute the Phase B/C/D/E contract for the missions selected for flight. SMEX teams are free to propose any Phase B start date which is consistent with these constraints.
5. Page 2 of the CSR guideline mentions budgetary constraints in FY 02. Would we be penalized, if we opted to choose a 2005 launch date to meet the FY 02 costing profile? Conversely, would a program be rewarded if it chooses to select 2004 launch?
   No and no. The only launch date requirement is that it be no later than December 31, 2005. SMEX teams should propose the launch date which makes most sense for their mission. NASA will select two missions for flight. NASA may delay the launch date of one mission in order to fit the required funding profiles within the available Explorer Program budget (see Section L of the Guidelines).
6. Figure 2 in the guideline puts E/PO twice in two different places. Is this deliberate or is this a typographical error? How strict is the requirement of following the formats presented in these cost templates?
   Yes, this is a typographical error. Keep the first instance of E/PO, drop the second instance. The cost figures ask for certain information which is we require in order to evaluate your cost plan. This information is required; you may organize it differently if you wish.
7. The page limit calls for 25 pages for science investigation, while the original proposal had 20. If we do not require all 25 pages to describe the changes, could we use those pages for the rest of the material (without exceeding the 132 page limit)?
   No. The page limits apply section-by-section.
8. Page 3 states that the "One-day review of the concept study results approximately two thirds of the way through the Phase A study, mentioned in section 7.4.3 of the AO will not occur". I am trying to make sure that I understand what is said. Would there ever be any site visit whether it is in the D. C. area or at the proposers' institution?
   There will be site visits during the evaluation of the Phase A Concept Studies. The outline for site visits is given in Cindy Daniels’ kickoff presentation. The approximate dates are given in the downselect flowchart.
9. From the Guidelines: Page 4, Parag last: says if there are no substantive changes in the science objectives and implementation from the proposal, then the science and technical merit will not be evaluated. The following two parags. on page 5 say that the science and technical merit will be re-evaluated. In the case of no substantive changes, is the re-evaluation only to verify that there are no changes from the proposal ?
   The concept study report will be evaluated to determine whether the science objectives and implementation have changed enough to trigger a reevaluation of those factors. For completeness of the Guidelines, the paragraphs on page 5 give the criteria for the reevaluation of those factors.
10. SRQA Draft 1.2 says that for MO’s, the document requirements apply only to work under the direct control of the P.I. Our MO is a UNEX scale program. Substantial and costly differences in exist between the UNEX and SMEX SRQA requirements, including workmanship, assurance audits, reviews, design assurance and verification. How and when can the Explorer Office establish an appropriate level of SRQA for our scale of mission ?
    The SMEX SRQA document applies to MO’s. The scope of the SRQA requirements is over what you deliver, whether it is a complete SMEX mission or a single instrument MO. NASA’s requirements for SRQA have changed substantially since the UNEX SRQA was written, and that document is no longer valid.
11. What sort of risk management planning/tools are applicable to MO’s?
    The requirements for mission assurance are set bythe agency and are the same for SMEX and MO projects. See the NIAT report and the SMEX SRQA document in the SMEX Explorer Program Library.
12. No limited applicability of SRQA requirements is permitted for safety. How will this be modified for a MO Sponsor provided non-US launcher, since the documents cited by the SMEX SRQA don’t apply?
    The safety requirements which the host mission imposes on their program will apply. If the sponsoring agency does not have safety requirements, then minimal NASA safety requirements must be met. Please contact Rick Claffy at GSFC for further details.
13. Do Mo's have different resource margins than SmEx's?
    No.
14. RE cost table Fig 1:, is this contributed cost breakdown required for a MO Non-US sponsor?
    Any contributions to the NASA sponsored MO must be included. The costs of the host mission do not need to be included.
15. Is the cost and schedule reserve allocations by mission phase different for an MO?
    There are no cost and schedule allocations by mission phase. The only requirement is the cost reserve at Confirmation requirement. Also see Section 5.5 of the SMEX AO.
16. Do the rules for Small Disadvantaged Business plans apply to MO's?
    Yes.
17. Do MO's need to show cost savings measures?
    There are no requirements for showing cost savings measures. However, if you use cost savings measures to support your cost estimate, then you must show why these cost savings are justified.
18. Does computer security requirements for SOCC / POCC / MOCC apply to MO’s?
    The requirements for any NASA sponsored operation centers apply. Note that federal export controls apply to all U.S. operation centers whether NASA sponsors them or not.
19. Is Debris analyses required for a MO sponsor’s foreign built, foreign launched satellite?
    No. However the NASA requirements for debris analysis are international standards to which the sponsor may be committed.
20. Which if any of the evaluation criteria (e.g. scientific, technical merit, cost) will receive evaluation between SMEX and MO proposals during the selection process?
    During evaluation, concept study reports are never compared. Each mission plan is evaluated on its own merits against all applicable evaluation criteria.
21. Please provide an Explorer Office Point of Contact for spacecraft and instrument engineering questions.
    The Explorer Program Office can not provide engineering advice to any study team. Organizations at GSFC are available for engineering consultations as specified in the SMEX Available GSFC Services document in the SMEX Explorer Program Library.
22. The AO says that for any PI selected for Phase A who requests, NASA can provide the support needed to complete formulation and implementation of the investigation. How can NASA/GSFC support mission activities during Phase A whose outcomes can affect our implementation plans: e.g., how can NASA provide support for any of our technical Peer, Concept, or Preliminary Design Reviews that will likely occur during the Phase A period? How can NASA provide support for our Critical Design Reviews that will likely be conducted during the Phase A evaluation period?
    Contact STAAC or Code 300 at GSFC, or contact the POC in the SMEX Available GSFC Services document in the SMEX Explorer Program Library. If peer reviews are held with the supervision and concurrence of these GSFC organizations, then the Explorer Program Office will accept those peer reviews as valid.
23. Will the addition of new, entirely supplemental, science goals to the goals proposed in the AO be cause for re-evaluation of the scientific merit? This presumes that the science implementation of the original goals is not changed from the AO proposal.
    No.
24. What rules or guidelines will be applied for full cost accounting of center provided support? Are the rules identical for all programs within one center (e.g. GSFC) and between centers (e.g. GSFC, MSFC, etc.)?
    Section 3.5.1 of the SMEX AO is still applicable.
25. If funding starts in July 2002, how far into FY03 can the $7.2M be carried over?
    You should only ask for funding in FY02 which you will spend in FY02. With the exception of a reasonable amount of planned carryover (say 1 month), you should not plan on carryover. It is not necessary to request the entire $7.2M in FY02. The guideline is a maximum, not a requirement.
26. It was noted in the morning discussion that there is no compelling reason for the first launch to occur before the end of CY04. This implies that there conceivably can be two SMEX launches in CY05. Please verify that this is correct.
    This is correct (if the funding profiles for the two missions allow this). The December 2004 and December 2005 launch dates assume that a canonical SMEX requires a 6 month Phase B and a 24 month Phase C/D. Development can take longer, and each mission should propose the appropriate development schedule.
27. Can the $5M NIAT funding be used to increase the reserve to greater than 20%?
    Yes.
28. If no bridge period, can the Phase A funding be increased from $450K to $500K?
    No.
29. The Phase B/C/D of the first launch will be only about 2.5 years, which seems short by SMEX experience (i.e. previous AO).
    This is the canonical SMEX development schedule which is used for planning the Explorer Program budget. Some previous SMEX missions have been developed in 30 months. Each SMEX mission should propose the appropriate development schedule.

NASA Headquarters Responsible Office: Code SR
Last Updated: 10 May 2001
Author: Paul Hertz (Code SR)