Draft as of December 3, 2002

To: CIT/ E. Stone, Voyager Project Scientist and ACE PI

GSFC/ B. Dennis, RHESSI Project Scientist

GSFC/ R. Goldberg, TIMED Project Scientist

GSFC/ M. Goldstein, Cluster Project Scientist

GSFC/ J. Gurman, SoHO and TRACE Project Scientist

GSFC/ R. Hoffman, Polar Project Scientist

GSFC/ T. Moore, IMAGE Project Scientist

GSFC/ K. Ogilvie, Wind Project Scientist

GSFC/ R. Pfaff, FAST Project Scientist

GSFC/ T. von Rosenvinge, ACE and SAMPEX Project Scientist

JHU/APL/ J-H. Yee, APL TIMED Project Scientist

JPL/ E. Smith, Ulysses Project Scientist

LMSAL/ A. Title, TRACE PI

SWRI/ J. Burch, IMAGE PI

UCB/ C. Carlson, FAST PI

UCB/ R. Lin, RHESSI PI

UMD/ G. Mason, SAMPEX PI

From: NASA HQ/SS/ C. Holmes/Program Executive for Science Operations

Subject: Call for Proposals - Senior Review 2003 of the Mission
Operations and Data Analysis Program for the Sun-Earth Connection
operating missions

### Background:

As a matter of policy, NASA's Office of Space Science (OSS) periodically
conducts comparative reviews of Mission Operations and Data Analysis
(MO&DA) programs to maximize the scientific return from these programs
within finite resources. The acronym "MO&DA" encompasses operating
missions, data analysis from current and past missions, and supporting
science and data archive centers. At the present time, more than 30
missions are returning science data for three space science divisions
and one space science office: Astronomy and Physics (A&P) Division, The
Sun-Earth Connection (SEC) Division, Solar System Exploration (SSE)
Division, and Mars Exploration Program (MEP) Office.

NASA will host the next MO&DA "Senior Review" \-- a comparative science
review of SEC MO&DA projects \-- during the summer of 2003. This will be
the twelfth review of its type for the Office of Space Science. It is
the highest level of peer review within the Space Science program. This
letter describes the objectives and process for the review, and contains
instructions for the submission of proposals and in-person presentations
to the review panel.

### Relevance to the Space Science Enterprise Strategic Plan:

The Space Science Enterprise Strategic Plan, published in November 2000
and available through the Office of Space Science website
(<http://spacescience.nasa.gov/>) represents the results of extensive
discussions by the space science community, crystallized into enterprise
goals, science objectives, and research focus areas. The goals,
objectives, and focus areas contained in the Space Science Enterprise
Strategic Plan will be used as science context for the Senior Review
2003. The OSS Strategic Plan is currently undergoing an update. Inputs
to this process can be found in the report of the 2002 Sun-Earth
Connection (SEC) Roadmapping Committee: *Sun-Earth Connection Roadmap
2003-2028* (<http://sec.gsfc.nasa.gov/sec_roadmap.htm>). Particular
attention should be paid to Section II of the Roadmap which is a
discussion of the SEC objectives and research focus areas (RFAs).

### Purpose of the Senior Review:

The purpose of this comparative review is to assist NASA in maximizing
the scientific productivity of the SEC MO&DA Program. NASA will use
recommendations from the Senior Review to

-   define an implementation strategy;

-   give programmatic direction to the missions and projects concerned
    for 2004 and 2005; and

-   issue preliminary, tentative guidelines for 2006 and 2007 (to be
    reviewed in 2005).

### The SEC Senior Review:

To maximize the scientific return from its missions, NASA routinely
seeks the advice and counsel of the scientific community. Working groups
and user groups deal with NASA's Space Science program by focusing on
discipline- or theme-wide, sub-discipline, or mission-specific issues.
All proposals for use of missions or data are thoroughly peer-reviewed.
The Senior Review, held every two years by an ad hoc panel, complements
the standing working groups and other peer reviews by conducting an
independent, comparative evaluation of mission research programs. The
Senior Review evaluates proposals for continued funding for many
missions and projects. The execution of the FY 2002 and 2003 SEC MO&DA
program closely follows many of the recommendations from the 2001 SEC
Senior Review (see
<http://spacescience.nasa.gov/admin/divisions/ss/index.htm>.)

The 2003 SEC Senior Review will assess the science merits of thirteen
SEC missions (in alphabetical order): ACE, Cluster[^1], FAST, IMAGE,
Polar, RHESSI, SAMPEX, SOHO^∗^, TIMED, TRACE, Ulysses^∗^, Voyager, Wind.
We have decided to review multi-mission data archives less frequently
than mission projects; the SEC data centers were reviewed in 2001 and
will not be reviewed in 2003.

An emphasis for the 2003 SEC senior review will be the performance of
the instruments on the multi-instrument flight missions. Performance
factors are to include scientific productivity, technical status, data
dissemination, and budget.

### Charter for this Senior Review:

In the following descriptions, "project" may denote a full mission or
MO&DA project in the traditional sense or U.S. participation on a
mission led by an international partner. NASA charters the Senior Review
panel to:

(1) In the context of the science goals, objectives and research focus
    areas described in the Space Science Enterprise Strategic Plan, rank
    the scientific merits - on a "science per dollar" basis - of the
    expected returns from the projects reviewed during 2004 and 2005.

(2) Assess the cost efficiency, technology development and
    dissemination, data collection, archiving and distribution, and
    education/outreach as secondary evaluation criteria, after science
    merit.

(3) Based on (1) and (2), recommend an implementation strategy for SEC
    MO&DA for 2004 and 2005, and include a mix of

-   continuation of projects "as currently baselined";

-   continuation of projects with either enhancements or reductions to
    the current baseline;

-   mission extensions beyond the prime mission phase, subject to the
    "Mission Extension Paradigm" described below; or

-   project terminations.

(4), (5) and (6): Make preliminary assessments equivalent to (1), (2),
and (3) for the period 2006 and 2007.

### Funding Environment:

At the time of this writing, the FY04-07 budget plans for the thirteen
MO&DA missions remains unchanged, pending Congressional approval or
changes. We will notify the 13 missions if we obtain further
information, positive or negative, about the outlook for the available
budget. *{ Note: the final release of this call for proposals will occur
after announcement of the FY-04 President's budget. The budget guidance
to each mission will be updated if necessary. }*

### Schedule for the Senior Review

The schedule for this review is as follows.

Draft Call for Proposals issued: December 3, 2002

Call for Proposals issued: February 28, 2003

Proposals due: April 30, 2003

Senior Review: June 10 - 13, 2003 (Presentations on June 10 and 11)

Publication of recommendations

and instructions to projects: July-August 2003

### Further Information Required for the Senior Review Deliberations:

After submission of proposals, members of the Senior Review panel may
have further questions or requests for clarification. If that is the
case, then identical requests for further information will be sent to
all missions/projects prior to the in-person panel review.

An area of emphasis for this Senior Review is the
availability/accessibility of the mission's processed science data and
associated software tools. The panel will be asked to consult summaries
of mission data availability posted at {*to be supplied.*} Mission
staffs and instrument teams are requested to ensure that the summaries
are accurate and up to date. A feature of interest will be the steps
that your mission may be taking towards supporting a distributed
environment for accessing and integrating SEC data. In other words what
plans/activities/studies has your mission/instrument team been
considering/undertaking for building data schemata and web data
services.

### Mission Extension Paradigm:

The Office of Space Science published guidance on the conditions for
mission extensions in January 1994. This document can be found at
<http://explorer.larc.nasa.gov/explorer/OSS_mission_extension.pdf>.
According to these instructions, budgets for mission extensions beyond
the prime mission lifetime will support:

> [Bare-bones mission operation and science operations]{.underline}:
> Compared to the prime mission phase, a significantly higher risk and
> lower data collection efficiency will be accepted during any mission
> extension, and this portion of the MO&DA budget for the extended phase
> shall have a funding level of roughly one-half of the equivalent
> portion during the prime mission phase.
>
> [Bare-bones data handling, including low-level processing and basic
> archiving]{.underline}: Compared to the prime mission phase, fewer
> services will be offered to Guest Observers and Guest Investigators
> who are assumed to have become more knowledgeable during the mission's
> prime phase, and this portion of the MO&DA budget for the extended
> phase shall also have a funding level of roughly one-half of the
> equivalent portion during the prime mission phase.
>
> [Minimal science data analysis]{.underline}: Priority is given to
> maintain understanding of the instrument performance, to monitor
> progress toward accomplishing the objectives of science observations,
> and to involve the science community in formulating the mission
> observing program to make the best scientific use of NASA's SEC
> missions; however, no funds will be available in this "minimal-science
> analysis mode" for detailed analysis, data fitting, modeling, and
> interpretation.
>
> [Guest investigator and other SEC research programs]{.underline}: The
> Sun-Earth Connection theme sponsors several competitive research
> programs that support theory, data analysis and "guest
> investigations". We have found that these programs can provide an
> alternative source of support to those investigators who encounter
> reduced mission-funding support as a result of general reductions to
> mission budgets.

### Instructions to Proposers:

The written proposal shall contain a science section, a technical/budget
section, and an education/public outreach (E/PO) section. The addition
of an explicit E/PO section represents a change from the previous Senior
Review. Proposers are requested to provide twenty copies of their
proposals, [printed double-sided]{.underline} on 8.5 inch x 11 inch
paper, with character size not less than 10 points. The science and
technical/budget sections together are limited to 15 pages; the E/PO
section is limited to two pages. These page limits represent a change
from the previous Senior Review. Approximately 10 sheets should be
devoted to the science section, and approximately 5 pages should be
devoted to the technical/budget section. The page limits [do not
include]{.underline} the required appendices but do include all other
auxiliary information. The panel reviewers will receive only the first
15+2 sheets of any proposal and will be asked to base their
recommendations on that material. If your institution requires
signatures, please place them onto one separate submittal letter; copies
of this submittal letter will not be used in the peer review but will be
retained in the SEC Division. The project name and names of key writers
or presenters at the top of the first page will suffice for review
purposes.

### Instructions for the Science Section:

In the science section of a proposal, please describe the science merits
of your full program, and (where applicable) the specific contributions
of the various instruments within your mission. The emphasis of the
science section should be how the proposed science program will discover
and communicate new scientific knowledge in line with the SEC strategic
goals, objectives, and research focus areas. The science proposal should
list the original science objectives for the mission and (where
appropriate) a summary of what has been accomplished so far. The
scientific merit of the program is the chief criterion used to determine
ranking.

### Instructions for the Technical/Budget Section:

This section should begin with a discussion of the overall technical
status of the components of the mission. These should include the
spacecraft, instruments, ground system including spacecraft control
center and science center(s). The discussion should summarize the health
of the components and point out limitations as a result of degradation,
aging, use of consumables, obsolescence, etc.

The second part of this second should discuss the proposed budgets. NASA
intends to transition towards full-cost accounting, including accounting
for civil servant salaries. However, the Senior Review has noted that an
evaluation in terms of science per dollar is very difficult without also
exhibiting funding received from other sources. You are therefore
instructed to show, in an appropriate summary manner, anticipated
funding in kind from [NASA]{.underline} sources other than the project's
MO&DA budget. Representations of direct or in-kind funding from the
international partners or other US Government agencies [should
not]{.underline} be provided.

Labor, major equipment, and other expenses for both the in-guideline
scenario and the requested/optimal scenario must be explained in
sufficient detail to determine the incremental cost of each proposed
task. The budget must include any project specific costs including
mission services rendered by the SSMO at GSFC or by the DSMS at JPL; the
guidelines should already include these costs.

Attachment B contains instructions and the mandatory form for the
staffing/budget portion of each proposal. {*Note: The budget formats are
under development and will be supplied at a later date. The budget
submissions will include breakouts by instrument.*} This form will serve
as a standard budget summary for all proposals; it is assumed that each
proposal will contain further details in a format as determined by each
project. For the period under consideration in this Senior Review, FY04
-- FY07, two scenarios should be summarized in the mandatory form and
described in the technical/budget proposal: an "In-Guideline" Scenario
and a "Requested/Optimal" Scenario. In a change from the previous Senior
Review, no "Bare Bones" Scenario is requested.

For the "In-Guideline" Scenario: If the current budget guideline for
your project (part of the current NASA operating plan) for any of the
fiscal years is larger than zero, then describe a plan which meets that
guideline. If the current budget guideline for your project for any of
the fiscal years is zero, and you propose operations during that year,
then describe a minimal program at an acceptable risk level. This
minimal scenario should indicate the minimum viable funding level for
your project to the Senior Review and to NASA. By identifying the
minimum acceptable funding level, you are indicating that any lower
funding level is untenable, and that the project should be terminated
rather than funded at a sub-minimal level. If the project believes that
the current budget guideline is sub-minimal, it follows that the project
believes that termination is preferable to being funded at the guideline
amount. In that case, the project should identify the impact of the
current in-guideline budget on the science return for the mission and
discuss why the project should be terminated if no budget increase is
given.

For the Requested/Optimal Scenario you may describe a staffing/funding
level that leads to a higher science return from the project, but still
recognizes the very tight fiscal constraints that NASA faces. In other
words, the requested/optimal scenario should be a carefully considered
request, not a maximal request. The technical/science description of
this scenario should address the added scope and expected benefits
compared to the in-guideline scenario. The added science return from the
requested/optimal scenario over the in-guideline scenario should be
clearly identified. The added science return should be clearly connected
to the additional budget required (over the current budget guideline) so
that the Senior Review can recommend none, some, or all of the added
science return and estimate the budget required for partially funding
the proposed increases.

### Instructions for the Education/Public Outreach Section:

In the E/PO section of a proposal, please summarize your E/PO
accomplishments over the past two years. Where possible, characterize
your accomplishments against the criteria used for evaluating E/PO
programs within the Office of Space Science (select "Education" on the
OSS website at [http://spacescience.nasa,gov/]()). Describe your plans
for the period covered by this proposal. Tie your E/PO budget request to
those plans.

### Required Appendices

Two appendices are required and do not count against the page limit:

-   Standard budget in the mandatory format. Attachment A {*to be
    supplied at a later date*} describes the four-way breakdown for
    Space Science MO&DA programs. Attachment B {*to be supplied at a
    later date*} describes the mandatory format for your budget request.
    A spreadsheet template {*to be supplied at a later date*}
    accompanies this call for proposals; use it. Budget spreadsheets
    must also be e-mailed to <cholmes@hq.nasa.gov>. Labor, major
    equipment, and other expenses for both the in-guideline scenario and
    the requested/optimal scenario must be explained in sufficient
    detail to determine the incremental cost of each proposed task. The
    budget must include any project specific NASA costs including
    mission services rendered by the SSMO at GSFC; the guidelines should
    already include these costs. Funding received from other sources
    should also be shown.

-   Acronym list. Include a full list of all acronyms with their
    designations spelled out.

### Proposal Submission:

Fifteen sets of copies of the proposal must be received by 4:00 PM EDT
on the due date listed above at:

SEC MO&DA Senior Review

NASA Peer Review Services

500 E Street SW, Suite 200

Washington DC 20024

Telephone: 202-479-9030

FAX: 202-479-0511

The spreadsheet containing the budget submissions in the mandatory
format must be e-mailed to <cholmes@hq.nasa.gov> prior to 4:00 p.m. EDT
on the proposal due date. Do not send the proposal via email.

### Panel Review Process:

The Senior Review panel will meet for four days:

Day 1:

Morning: Charter; discussion of conflicts of interest and procedures to
minimize their impacts; logistics (writing

assignments, etc.), background, comparisons.

Rest of day: Project presentations plus questions and answers (time
assignments TBD)

Day 2:

Morning: complete project presentations;

Rest of day: Senior Review Panel begins Charter Tasks (1) through (6)

Days 3 and 4:

Senior Review Panel completes Charter Tasks (1) through (6)

### Presentations to the Review Panel:

Each proposing project will be allotted 30 minutes {*to be confirmed*}
for an oral presentation to the senior review panel. To minimize the
burden on projects, no more than a total of three persons may represent
any one of the projects. During each project presentation, the project
representatives should plan on using one-half of the allocated time for
their prepared presentation, and reserving one-half for questions and
answers.

-   The primary purpose of the oral presentations is to provide a forum
    for questions from panelists and answers from the projects.

-   Secondarily, this is an opportunity for projects to provide any
    significant updates, e.g. science results obtained since proposal
    submission.

-   Lastly, and with lowest priority, it is an opportunity to repeat
    highlights of the proposals, which have, of course, been read by all
    panelists.

The Program Scientists should work with their respective Project
Scientists/Principal Investigators to determine the best participation
of Project, science center (where appropriate), and user community
(where appropriate), in both the written proposal and oral presentation
to the Senior Review Panel.

### Further Information

For further information, you may contact me via e-mail at
[cholmes@hq.nasa.gov](mailto:griegler@hq.nasa.gov).

Charles P. Holmes

Office of Space Science/Sun-Earth Connection Division

NASA Headquarters / Code SS

300 E St. S.W.

Washington, DC 20546-0001

Phone: (202) 358-2224

FAX: (202) 358-3987

### 

{*Note: Attachments A and B: Instructions and formats for the budget
submissions, and the budget template will be supplied at a later date.*}

[^1]: ^^ These mission are operated jointly with the European Space
    Agency (ESA).