Possibility of early start for Phase A
Q. Is there still a possibility of receiving funding earlier than would be the case for a 12 month delay, or is it looking like we will probably have the full 12 month delay before funding starts?
A. While I am loath to ever say there is no possibility, the chances that we will be able to start before next fiscal year are even lower than they were at the time of selection. I can not imagine a scenario that allows us to start earlier. I am as pessimistic as it is possible to be. Please plan your activities under the assumption that we will not be able to start earlier than next October.
Shared Delta launch opportunities
Q: We are interested in a shared Delta launch. (i) Who do we contact to find a partner? (ii) What information is required in order to determine whether there is a partner available? (iii) Is it too late to identify shared Delta launch opportunities?
A: (i) Darrell R. Foster, NASA/KSC/ELV Launch Services, Mission Management Office/VB-C, KSC, FL 32899, Phone: (321) 476-3622, Pager #: 1-877-508-5116, Cell: 321-431-9357, e-mail: darrell.foster-1@ksc.nasa.gov. (ii) Launch date, orbit description (inclination, altitude, other constraints), payload mass. (iii) From Darrell Foster: "It's definitely not too late; however, it is somewhat early and a lot of things will likely change. I wouldn't get your hopes too high, because dual missions are difficult to get together (it's very coincidental in nature) and we're finding are very difficult to implement as well. I would definitely suggest you formulate a back-up plan as a single payload on a Taurus-class LV."
Adding a new partner
Q: We have had many interesting requests since being selected. We would like to add a collaborative partner to our team who can contribute significantly to our proposed mission and who have their own funding. Are there any fundamental problems to pursuing extenal funding with a new partner?
A: You are allowed to change your proposed mission implementation during the concept study as long as you do not change the science which you proposed. This includes adding partners. If the partner has their own funding, that would be considered a contribution to your proposal, and it will need to be included in your budget as such.
Concern about Joule/Astro-E2
Q: An item of great concern is the transfer of JOULE to a mission of opportunity. SMEX teams would greatly appreciate reassurance that the upcoming Phase A will still result in a downselect to two missions (at least as a baseline plan).
A: NASA expects to select two SMEX missions for flight whether or not NASA chooses to participate in Astro-E2.
Rate of Inflation
Q: What is the inflation adjustment for funding? Do we still assume a 3% annual rate for all costs?
A: Section J of the SMEX Guidelines and Criteria for the Phase A Concept Study includes this paragraph:
An inflation rate of 3.3% per year, beginning in 2001, should be used to calculate all real-year dollar amounts, unless an industry forward pricing rate is used. If something other than the provided inflation index is used, the rates used should be documented.
Duration of Bridge Phase
Q: What is the anticipated duration of the bridge phase between end of SMEX Phase A and the start of the first Phase B?
A: After Phase A studies are submitted, it will take NASA about 4 months to evaluate them and downselect. Then the bridge phase kicks in -- it lasts as long as it takes to get the Phase B/C/D contract in place and start the Phase B money flowing. 2 months is a typical estimate, but sometimes it takes up to 4 months.
Adding Co-Investigators
Q: Is there a disadvantage to adding additional investigators as Co-I's to our mission?
A: You are allowed to add co-investigators during Phase A.
I would like to point out that co-investigator is not an honorary position. In a proposal for a flight investigation, the co-investigators are those individuals who are responsible for delivering the proposed science investigation. Co-investigator is defined in Section 3.4.1 of the AO: "A Co-Investigator is defined to be an investigator who plays a necessary role in the proposed investigation and whose services are either funded by NASA or are contributed." Whether all of your co-investigators play necessary roles will be evaluated as part of the technical feasibility of the proposals (Section 7.2.2 of the AO): "The role of each Co-Investigator will be evaluated for necessary contributions to the proposed investigation." These definitions and evaluation criteria from the AO are still valid during the downselect.
The Guidelines for the Concept Study Report give instructions on reporting the Co-investigators as part of both the management plan (Section G) and the cost plan (Section K). Note also that the plans for collaborating with any non-U.S. co-investigators must be described in Appendices 10 and 11 of the Concept Study Report.
Minimum Font Size
Q: In the SMEX Guidelines it is stated that the text font in figures will not be
smaller than 10pt. Our graphic people find it is difficult to comply, but we do
not wish to break the rules. What if some texts end up with smaller than 10 pt?
A: The reviewers are not required to read any text smaller than 10 pt. Thus you run the risk of not conveying important information to the reviewers. It is my observation that people have a hard time responding positively to text which is difficult to read. I suggest that you decide how important the information is. If it is important, make it legible. If it is not important, leave it off. The requirement stands.
Excutive Summary
Q: As the school year begins, I thought that I would ask you about the essay assignment that you have given us last May. In our original proposal, we included an Executive Summary and three foldouts in the 20-page section called Science Investigation. Since the Concept Study Report allows 5 pages
of Executive Summary and 25 pages of Science Investigation, we were wondering if
a) We could replace our original Executive Summary with the new one?
b) If the answer to (a) is yes, do we need to include the old one for reference?
c) As a result of Phase A study, we will make some changes to our Technical Approach. Some of this material is in half of one of the foldouts. Could we convert that fold out into a single page and include it in the Science Investigation section? This will save us a foldout page that we could use elsewhere.
A: a) Yes. The Executive Summary should be a summary of the entire Concept Study Report, which is why it has been allocated 5 pages (as stated in the Guidelines). The original Executive Summary only summarized the contents of the original proposal.
b) No. What needs to be included is the old science proposal with changes marked (as required in the Guidelines).
c) Yes, as long as you clearly mark the changes (as required in the Guidelines).
Foreign Partners/ITAR
Q: Are the following statements correct? Please comment.
Q1: NASA allows foreign contributions added after the original proposal, as they
save NASA money. [We should avoid making paperwork a rate-limiting step, however.]
A1: You are allowed to change your proposed mission implementation during the concept study as long as you do not change the science objectives which you proposed. This includes adding partners. If the partner has its own funding, that would be considered a contribution to your proposal, and it would need to be included in your budget as such.
Q2: Adding a Co-I for the purpose of enabling such a contribution would not be
considered a change of science, and therefore would not subject the proposal to
a science re-review. Since you control the science review, this will not be an issue.
A2: You are allowed to change your proposed mission implementation during the concept study as long as you do not change the science objectives which you proposed. This includes adding Co-I's. All Co-I's must be necessary and their role explained.
Q3: Interface documents are not prohibited 'exports'; we may work them out with
our foreign partners without obtaining ITAR approval.
A3: Interface documents could very well be export controlled. They are required for assembly, and information that is required for the "assembly ... of a defense article [e.g., spacecraft or space-qualified instrument]" is subject to export control (in the case of spacecraft, under the ITAR). They would only be exempt from export control if they are already in the public domain (e.g., through publication in an RFP, etc.). This does not mean that such documents, even if not publicly available, cannot be exchanged with most nations or most foreign nationals; it simply means that an export license or license exemption/exception is required for the transfer. Any use of a license, license exemption or license exception virtually always requires some form of non-disclosure agreement, to protect against further transfer or diversion of the information. It is your responsibility to ensure that you are not violating export control regulations of any kind (EAR or ITAR). Your industrial partner should be able to help you with this requirement. Also you may check John Hall's SMEX Kickoff presentation material on the web.
Q4: Importing of completed hardware is not covered by ITAR.
A4: Imports of dual-use hardware are generally not subject to the EAR. Imports of defense articles (including satellites and components) are subject to the ITAR. There are certain ITAR import license exemptions available, but -- as with export license exemptions -- the fact that a license exemption exists does not mean that the import (or export) is not subject to control. The use of import or export license exemptions requires careful attention to the terms of the exemptions. Exemptions are not available for transfer to/from all countries, nor under all circumstances -- including in government programs.
Q5: On approval of our mission, NASA would declare our project's data as an approved export, such that our project would not need to obtain an export license from the State Department.
A5: Export control laws (EAR and ITAR) identify items which can not be exported and items which require a license to export. The EAR and ITAR generally only identify "items which are not controlled" by omission. The question suggests NASA can approve the export of the project's "data". That all depends upon what project "data" means. If it means the scientific data that is sent to Earth from the instrument, then the answer is that such data is not subject to export control (since it is not technical data required for the design, development, production, or use of conrolled hardware). If project "data" means the technical data required to design, develop, produce, or use the instrument/spacecraft, then the answer is that such technical data is subject to export control (unless it's publicly available), and NASA would only be authorized (or even interested) to permit its license free transfer as part of an international agreement with the receiving foreign entity. NASA can grant you an exemption from the need to obtain a license from the State Department or the Commerce Department as part of such an international agreement. NASA can not declare anything an approved export. An export controlled item is still an export controlled item.
Q6: The CSR must include our plan for dealing with ITAR, but would not be
expected to include any actual ITAR clearances or other documentation from the
State Department.
A6: Correct. You are required to provide Appendices 10 and 11 to the Concept Study Report (see the SMEX Phase A Guidelines). However, if you require a licence or an exemption/exception sooner than NASA can execute an international agreement, then you should show how you will obtain the necessary licenses or technical assistance agreements.
Q7: Our team remains responsible for understanding and complying with ITAR.
A7: Absolutely.
Fiscal Year Costs
Q1: At the SMEX kickoff meeting, it was stated that the funding available for
SMEX-9 in FY-02 is $2.6M in real year dollars, which corresponds to $2.46M
in FY-2000 dollars. Is this FY-02 cost limit still valid?
A1: Yes. For the purpose of the Concept Study Report, your proposed cost profile(s) should meet the funding profile(s) presented at the SMEX kickoff meeting.
Q2: The phase-A funding of $450,000 was provided as grant funding instead of
contracts. In light of that, does the cost cap of $75M+$5M apply only to
Phases B-E or does it apply to Phases A-E? If it applies to A-E should the
$450,000 be reduced by x0.973 for purposes of comparison to the cost cap so
that it is in FY-2000 dollars?
A2: The cost cap applies to the complete mission (Phases A-E). The Phase A funding is in RY$. For cost cap purposes, it may be deinflated back to FY00$.
Independence Mission Operations Requirements
Q: I imagine that Section 7 of the SR&QA requirements document really refers to US operations that do not involve NASA. However the wording is such that it could be interpreted that it also applies to foreign mission operations for missions of oportunity. Can you please give us your reading on this?
A: The intent of that requirement is to ensure that knowledge capture still happens for all of our missions after we launch them and turn them over to the science community. The primary focus is complete free flyer missions that were developed and tracked under close program office insight until launch. When these missions are operated outside of GSFC, say like FUSE at JHU, or HESSI at UCB, the concern is that GSFC can totally lose track of in flight anomaly info on missions we funded and watched, unless we put it in the contractual requirements. The requirements language on in orbit configuration control, periodic status reports, etc. are far less important for non-NASA, foreign, or MO instruments because they are subject to the requirements style of the host mission. However, an on-orbit failure reporting feedback on instruments funded for development by NASA should still be provided by some agreeable management reporting mechanism. We need that feedback to help us be smarter when similar constructs appear for future missions.
The words in the SR&QA give us the capability to tailor requirements for any mission selected. The tailoring takes place when the phase B,C,D contract is implemented. Should SPEAR (or any other mission of this type) be selected, NASA would install in the contract as a deliverable this reporting requirement in case of any on-orbit malfunctions of the NASA funded items.
Appendices 10 and 11: International Agreements
Q: I have drafted a letter for the "Technical Content of International
Agreement" (Appendix 10 in the CSR) for our foreign Co-I's, which is based on the sample agreement letter in the SMEX Explorer Program Library. My question is what else needs to be done on this. Should I forward this to our foreign Co-I's to make sure they agree with it?
A: Most importantly, you should make sure that the draft agreement includes all of the appropriate NASA and foreign partner responsibilities for Phases B/C/D/E. The draft you prepared for Phase A probably only included study tasks, and not the development tasks that would be appropriate in the implementation phase of the mission.
It would be a good idea to make sure that your foreign collaborators agree that the list of responsibilities is complete and appropriate. Getting those responsibilities spelled out is one of the most important parts of the plan for international collaboration.
Don't forget Appendix 11. You should describe whether there are export control issues, what you will do about them, why you believe that you don't have any issues, when any agreements need to be in place in order not to impact your development schedule, etc.
Appendix 6: Orbital Debris
Q: The orbital debris analysis requirement/guideline (p.36) is ambiguous. Are we
required to report on the analysis, or for the results of those analysis to be
compliant with the regulations?
A: The requirement in the Guidelines is that you conduct an assessment of the situation you will be in at mission termination ("conduct a formal assessment of the orbital debris the spacecraft will create upon mission termination"). Report the results of the assessment in Appendix 6 of your Concept Study Report. If the assessment indicates that mitigation will be required to be in compliance with NSS 1740.14, then you should report what your mitigation plan is and show that sufficient resources (cost & schedule) are available in your proposed project plan to implement the plan ("a proper disposal of the spacecraft upon mission termination needs to be specified"). The details at which you report the mitigation plan should be at a Phase A level which is commensurate with the rest of your concept study report.
The concern here is that, if you defer all consideration of this issue until Phase B, you might not be able to mitigate your orbital debris situation within the SMEX cost cap. You don't actually have to "become compliant" in your concept study report, but you do have to report sufficient detail, and provide sufficient resources in your project plan, to convince the evaluation team that you can mitigate your orbital debris situation within the cost cap.
The reviewers are not required to read any text smaller than 10 pt. Thus you run the risk of not conveying important information to the reviewers. It is my observation that people have a hard time responding positively to text which is difficult to read. I suggest that you decide how important the information is. If it is important, make it legible. If it is not important, leave it off. The requirement stands.
Foldouts in Cost Section
A: The limit of seven foldouts applies only to the 132 pages in sections B-J of the Concept Study Report. You may include foldouts in the cost section and they do not count against the seven foldout limit.
Binding and Format for Cost Sections<
A: 1) Although we prefer a single bound volume for the CSR, you may bind the cost volume separately. 2) We definitely want the cost information electronically. In fact, you would save our cost analysts some trouble if you provide the cost tables in their "natural" spreadsheet format as well as PDF. This is not a requirement, just a favor you can do for us.
NASA Headquarters Responsible Office: Code SZ
Last Updated: 4 Dec 2001
Author: Paul Hertz (Code SZ)