National Aeronautics September 3, 2008

and Space Administration NNH08ZDA009O 

Announcement of 

Opportunity

NASA’s 

Stand Alone Missions of 

Opportunity Notice 

(SALMON) 

Notice of Intent to Propose Due Dates: See program appendices 

Proposal Due Dates: Through September 2, 2013; 

See program appendices

OMB Approval Number 2700-0085 
SALMON AO 

STAND ALONE MISSIONS OF OPPORTUNITY NOTICE (SALMON) 

ANNOUNCEMENT OF OPPORTUNITY

FOREWORD

This National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Announcement of Opportunity 

(AO), entitled Stand Alone Missions of Opportunity Notice (SALMON), is intended to provide 

more frequent opportunities for science and technology investigations on space flight missions 

that advance the high priority science, technology, and exploration objectives of NASA’s 

Mission Directorates. 

Traditionally, Mission of Opportunity (MO) investigations have been solicited in conjunction 

with NASA’s Science Mission Directorate’s (SMD) Announcements of Opportunity (AO) for 

Principal Investigator (PI) led missions [e.g., Discovery, Explorer, Earth System Science 

Pathfinder (ESSP), Mars Scout, and New Frontiers]. This five-year omnibus AO will incorporate 

regular Program Element Appendices (PEAs) for general MO proposal opportunities, as well as 

focused proposal opportunities for specific flight opportunities. This AO includes U.S. and nonU.S.-led mission opportunities. 

PEAs will solicit proposals addressing specific topics of interest from one or more of the NASA 

Mission Directorates. PEAs are added to this AO throughout the five years by amending the AO. 

Proposals will typically be solicited in one or more of five MO categories: Partner Missions of 

Opportunity, U.S. Participating Investigators, New Science Missions using Existing Spacecraft, 

Small Complete Missions, and Focused Opportunities. 

Selection announcements are anticipated to occur within nine months of the release of the 

respective PEA. This approach will better enable NASA and the science and technology 

communities to maximize their participation in U.S. and non-U.S. space flight missions of 

opportunity. 

i
SALMON AO 

STAND ALONE MISSIONS OF OPPORTUNITY NOTICE (SALMON) 

ANNOUNCEMENT OF OPPORTUNITY

NOTICE

Proposers should be aware of the following significant changes in this AO from the Draft 

SALMON AO released for community comment on March 14, 2008. 

• SALMON proposals will be submitted as paper proposals rather than as electronic proposals. 

• For the Science Mission Directorate (SMD) only, U.S. Participating Investigators (USPI) 

proposals will be solicited with an amendment to the Research Opportunities in Space and 

Earth Sciences (ROSES) NASA Research Announcement (NRA). All SMD USPI proposals 

will be submitted following the requirements of ROSES. 

• The way Co-Investigators indicate their commitment to the proposed investigation has 

changed (Section 4.6.9). 

• The requirement for minimum cost reserves has been changed (Section 4.7.5). 

• The spending cap on E/PO programs has been removed (Section 4.10.1). 

• The requirement to submit a compliance checklist has been deleted (Appendix B). 

• Two Program Element Appendices (PEAs) contained in the Draft SALMON AO are not 

included in this release of the SALMON AO while another PEA has been added. 

In addition to the listed changes, this AO incorporates a large number of additional changes 

relative to the Draft SALMON AO including both policy changes and changes to proposal 

submission requirements. All proposers must read this AO carefully, and all proposals must 

comply with the requirements, constraints, and guidelines contained within this AO.

ii
SALMON AO 

STAND ALONE MISSIONS OF OPPORTUNITY NOTICE (SALMON) 

ANNOUNCEMENT OF OPPORTUNITY

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE OPPORTUNITY..............................................................................1

1.1 Introduction...................................................................................................................... 1 

1.2 Overview of the SALMON Proposal Opportunity............................................................ 2 

1.3 Terms Used in NASA’s Mission Management Process.................................................... 3 

1.4 Overview of Proposal Evaluation and Selection Process............................................... 4 

2.0 NASA’S SAFETY PRIORITY.....................................................................................................4

3.0 PROPOSAL OPPORTUNITY PERIOD...................................................................................4

4.0 CONSTRAINTS, GUIDELINES, AND REQUIREMENTS ..................................................5

4.1 Participation..................................................................................................................... 5 

4.2 General Constraints and Guidelines.................................................................................. 5 

4.3 Proposal Commitment...................................................................................................... 6 

4.4 Science and Technology Requirements............................................................................ 6 

4.4.1 Scope of Proposed Investigations............................................................................. 6 

4.4.2 Flow-down of Objectives.......................................................................................... 7 

4.4.3 Data Policies............................................................................................................ 7 

4.4.4 Data Analysis Requirements..................................................................................... 7 

4.4.5 Science/Technology Enhancement Options for Enlarging Impact............................. 8 

4.5 Technical Approach Requirements................................................................................... 8 

4.5.1 General Policies....................................................................................................... 8 

4.5.2 Space Operations, Navigation, and Communication................................................. 9 

4.5.3 Launch Services....................................................................................................... 9 

4.5.4 Government Furnished Equipment (GFE)................................................................ 9 

4.6 Management Requirements.............................................................................................. 9 

4.6.1 General Management Requirements......................................................................... 9 

4.6.2 Single Principal Investigator.................................................................................. 10 

4.6.3 Management Plan and Structure for Flight Investigation ....................................... 10 

4.6.4 Risk Management................................................................................................... 11 

4.6.5 Co-Investigator Roles and Requirements................................................................ 11 

4.6.6 Contributions of Critical Goods and Services......................................................... 11 

4.6.7 Letters of Commitment for Contributions................................................................ 11 

4.6.8 Letters of Commitment for Major or Critical Participants...................................... 12 

4.6.9 Statements of Personal Commitment for Co-Investigators...................................... 13 

4.7 Cost and Schedule Requirements.................................................................................... 13 

4.7.1 Full Cost Accounting.............................................................................................. 13 

4.7.2 Goods and/or Services Offered on a No Exchange of Funds Basis.......................... 13 

4.7.3 Schedule Requirements and Constraints................................................................. 14 

4.7.4 Mission Cost Requirements and Constraints........................................................... 14 

4.7.5 Cost Risk Management........................................................................................... 14 

4.7.6 Earned Value Management.................................................................................... 15 

4.7.7 Subcontracting Plans............................................................................................. 15 

iii
SALMON AO 

4.8 Overview of Non-U.S. Participation............................................................................... 15 

4.8.1 General Guidelines Applicable to Non-U.S. Proposals and Proposals Including NonU.S. Participation .............................................................................................................. 15 

4.8.2 Proposal Preparation and Submission ................................................................... 16 

4.8.3 Letters of Commitment for Non-U.S. Participation ................................................. 16 

4.8.4 U.S. Export Laws and Regulations......................................................................... 16 

4.8.5 Agreements with Selected Non-U.S. Participants.................................................... 17 

4.8.6 Requirements for Proposals Containing Non-U.S. Contributions............................ 17 

4.9 Requirements for Export Controlled and Classified Material in Proposals ...................... 18 

4.9.1 Export Controlled Material .............................................................................. 18 

4.9.2 Restriction on the use of Classified Material.................................................... 18 

4.10 Education and Public Outreach (E/PO) Requirements.................................................... 18 

4.10.1 Overview............................................................................................................ 18 

4.10.2 Student Collaboration (SC)................................................................................ 19 

5.0 MISSIONS OF OPPORTUNITY CATEGORIES .................................................................20

5.1 Introduction.................................................................................................................... 20 

5.2 Partner Missions of Opportunity..................................................................................... 20 

5.3 U.S. Participating Investigator........................................................................................ 21 

5.4 New Science Missions using Existing Spacecraft ........................................................... 22 

5.5 Small Complete Missions............................................................................................... 22 

5.6 Focused Missions of Opportunity................................................................................... 23 

6.0 PROPOSAL PREPARATION AND SUBMISSION INFORMATION..............................23

6.1 Preproposal Activities.................................................................................................... 23 

6.1.1 Technical and Scientific Inquiries........................................................................... 23 

6.1.2 SALMON Acquisition Homepage ........................................................................... 23 

6.1.3 Preproposal Conference......................................................................................... 23 

6.1.4 Notice of Intent to Propose..................................................................................... 24 

6.1.5 Teaming Interest .................................................................................................... 25 

6.2 Format and Content of Proposals.................................................................................... 25 

6.2.1 Structure of Proposals............................................................................................ 25 

6.2.2 Requirements for Electronic Cover Page................................................................ 25 

6.2.3 Signature Authorization and Certifications and Commitments................................ 25 

6.3 Proposal Submission ...................................................................................................... 26 

6.3.1 Submittal Address .................................................................................................. 26 

6.3.2 Deadline ................................................................................................................ 26 

6.3.3 Notification of Receipt............................................................................................ 26 

7.0 PROPOSAL EVALUATION, SELECTION, AND IMPLEMENTATION.......................26

7.1 Evaluation and Selection Process ................................................................................... 26 

7.1.1 Evaluation Process ................................................................................................ 26 

7.1.2 Categorization Process.......................................................................................... 27 

7.1.3 Steering Process and Selection............................................................................... 27 

7.2 Evaluation Criteria ......................................................................................................... 28 

7.2.1 Overview................................................................................................................ 28 

7.2.2 Scientific or Technical Merit of the Proposed Investigation .................................... 28 

7.2.3 Implementation Merit and the Feasibility of the Proposed Investigation................. 29 

iv
SALMON AO 

v

7.2.4 Technical, Management, and Cost Feasibility, including Cost Risk, of the Proposed 

Investigation ...................................................................................................................... 29 

7.2.5 Overall Merit of the E/PO and Student Collaboration ............................................ 30 

7.3 Selection Factors............................................................................................................ 31 

7.4 Implementation Activities.............................................................................................. 31 

7.4.1 Notification of Selection ......................................................................................... 31 

7.4.2 Award Administration and Funding of Investigations............................................. 32 

7.4.3 Confirmation of Investigations ............................................................................... 32 

7.5 Selection of Previously Submitted but Unfunded Proposals............................................ 32 

7.6 Opportunity for Debriefing of Nonselected Proposers .................................................... 32 

7.7 Agency Procurement Ombudsman................................................................................. 32 

7.8 Protests.......................................................................................................................... 33 

8.0 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................34

APPENDIX A: GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS AND PROVISIONS .........................................A-1 

APPENDIX B: GUIDELINES FOR PROPOSAL PREPARATION.........................................B-1 

APPENDIX C: SALMON REFERENCE LIBRARY ..................................................................C-1 

APPENDIX D: CERTIFICATIONS...............................................................................................D-1 

APPENDIX E: COST ELEMENT DEFINITIONS......................................................................E-1 

APPENDIX F: COMPLIANCE CHECKLIST.............................................................................F-1 

APPENDIX G: ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS............................................................ G-1 

APPENDIX H: PROGRAM ELEMENT APPENDICES................................................................1 

PEA H1: LUNAR AND PLANETARY SCIENCE U.S. PARTICIPATING 

INVESTIGATOR............................................... HERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

PEA H2: LUNAR AND PLANETARY SCIENCE PARTNER MISSIONS OF 

OPPORTUNITY................................................. HERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

PEA H3: SMALL COMPLETE MISSIONS OF OPPORTUNITY IN 

ASTROBIOLOGY AND FUNDAMENTAL SPACE BIOLOGYHERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFIN

PEA H4: EARTH SCIENCE U.S. PARTICIPATING INVESTIGATORHERROR! BOOKMARK NOT

PEA H5: LADEE DUST INSTRUMENT....... HERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
SALMON AO 

STAND ALONE MISSIONS OF OPPORTUNITY NOTICE (SALMON) 

ANNOUNCEMENT OF OPPORTUNITY

SUMMARY OF SOLICITATION

1.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE OPPORTUNITY 

1.1 Introduction 

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) announces the opportunity to 

conduct science investigations and technology demonstrations of modest cost and scope as 

Missions of Opportunity (MO). Proposed investigations must address one or more of the goals 

established in the 2006 NASA Strategic Plan, which establishes six major Strategic Goals over 

the next 10 years to achieve the national vision of extending the human presence across the Solar 

System, developing innovative technologies, and promoting international and commercial 

participation in exploration to further U.S. scientific, security, and economic interests. The 2006 

NASA Strategic Plan may be found at http://www.nasa.gov/about/reports/ or as NASA Policy 

Directive (NPD) 1001.0 in the NASA Online Directives Information Service (NODIS) at 

http://nodis.hq.nasa.gov/. 

Working to meet these strategic goals are NASA’s four Mission Directorates: 

The Science Mission Directorate (SMD) engages the Nation’s science community, 

sponsors scientific research, and develops and deploys satellites and probes in 

collaboration with NASA’s partners around the world to answer fundamental questions 

requiring the view from and into space. SMD carries out the scientific exploration of 

Earth and space to expand the frontiers of Earth science, heliophysics, planetary science, 

and astrophysics. See http://nasascience.nasa.gov/ for additional information. 

The Exploration Systems Mission Directorate (ESMD) develops capabilities and 

supporting research and technology that will make human and robotic exploration 

possible: develop a sustained human presence on the Moon; promote exploration, 

commerce, and U.S. preeminence in space; and serve as a stepping stone for the future 

exploration of Mars and other destinations. ESMD technologies ensure that astronauts are 

safe, healthy, and can perform their work during long-duration space exploration. ESMD 

does this by developing robotic precursor missions, human transportation elements, and 

life-support systems. See http://www.nasa.gov/directorates/esmd/ for additional 

information. 

The Space Operations Mission Directorate (SOMD) provides the Agency with leadership 

and management of NASA space operations related to human exploration in and beyond 

low-Earth orbit. SOMD also oversees low-level requirements development, policy, and 

programmatic oversight. Current exploration activities in low-Earth orbit are the Space 

Shuttle and International Space Station (ISS) programs. The directorate is similarly 

responsible for Agency leadership and management of NASA space operations related to 

Launch Services, Space Transportation, and Space Communications in support of both 

human and robotic exploration programs. See http://spaceoperations.nasa.gov/ for 

additional information. 

The Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate (ARMD) works to enhance the state of 

aeronautics for our nation. ARMD conducts cutting-edge, fundamental research in 

1
SALMON AO 

traditional aeronautical disciplines and emerging fields to help transform the nation's air 

transportation system and to support future air and space vehicles. ARMD addresses the 

significant research challenges that must be overcome to create the Next Generation Air 

Transportation System and, as NASA looks to future challenges in space exploration, 

ARMD works to advance the fundamental understanding of key aeronautics disciplines 

to make it possible to safely fly through any atmosphere, whether our own or that of 

another planet. See http://www.aeronautics.nasa.gov/ for additional information. 

NASA requires the flexibility to respond to and participate in flight missions of opportunity that 

advance high priority science, technology, and exploration objectives. The dynamic nature in 

which most national and international flight missions evolve from design concepts into funded 

missions requires solicitations for collaborative investigations to be reviewed, and awarded in a 

standard and expedient manner. The entire process – from the release of this Announcement of 

Opportunity (AO) or a solicitation amendment to proposal negotiation and award – is anticipated 

to take no more than twelve months. This short duration solicitation process allows NASA to 

tailor program requirements to meet national priorities for science, technology, and exploration, 

and it provides a standard mechanism for rapidly responding to flight opportunities on non-U.S. 

as well as U.S. Government and non-government spacecraft. 

1.2 Overview of the SALMON Proposal Opportunity 

NASA pursues its strategic goals using a wide variety of space flight programs that enable 

remote sensing, in situ investigations, and exploration. These investigations are carried out 

through flight of space missions in Earth orbit, to the Moon, and to or beyond objects in the Solar 

System, as well as through ground-based research activities that directly support these space 

missions. 

This Stand Alone Mission of Opportunity Notice (SALMON) AO invites proposals for Missions 

of Opportunity. A Mission of Opportunity is a focused space flight investigation that offers high 

scientific or technical value for a modest cost to NASA. 

For this SALMON AO, there are five categories of MO: Partner Missions of Opportunity 

(PMOs), U.S. Participating Investigators (USPIs), New Science Missions using Existing 

Spacecraft, Small Complete Missions (SCMs), and Focused Missions of Opportunity (FMOs). 

• PMOs are investigations that provide a critical component of a non-NASA or non-US 

mission – such as a complete science instrument, hardware or software components, 

technology demonstrations, or microgravity research experiments. 

• USPIs are complete science investigations that are realized through the participation of 

U.S. investigators on non-NASA missions and do not involve the development of 

hardware or software components or complete instruments or subsystems. 

• New Science Missions using Existing Spacecraft are investigations that propose a 

scientific new use of existing NASA spacecraft. 

• SCMs are scientifically or technically valuable investigations that can be realized within 

the specified cost cap, including the cost of their access to space if not provided by 

NASA. 

• FMOs are investigations that address a specific, NASA-identified flight opportunity. 

Further information on the five categories of MOs is provided in Section 5. 

2
SALMON AO 

MO investigations may be proposed in response to specific Program Elements. Program 

Elements may provide a general proposal opportunity within a specific division of a NASA 

Mission Directorate for conducting science or technology investigations in space. Program 

Elements may also provide a focused solicitation directed at a specific opportunity identified by 

NASA for conducting science or technology investigations in space; an example of a focused 

opportunity would be NASA-provided instruments, hardware components, or microgravity 

experiments for a mission sponsored by another space agency with which NASA has established 

a strategic partnership. Each Program Element will specify a proposal due date as well as the 

constraints for that specific solicitation, including the sponsoring NASA Headquarters (HQ) 

division, the type of MO, the cost cap, and any launch-by or commitment-by dates. Program 

Elements will be added as appendices by amending the SALMON AO as needed. Program 

Element Appendices (PEAs) may contain sections that provide exceptions to the general 

SALMON requirements. Any such exceptions in the PEA take precedence over the requirements 

found in the main SALMON AO. 

1.3 Terms Used in NASA’s Mission Management Process 

Proposals submitted in response to this AO must be for investigations encompassing all 

appropriate mission management processes. The NASA mission management process, as defined 

by NASA Procedural Requirements (NPR) 7120.5D, NASA Space Flight Program and Project 

Management Requirements, are: 1) Formulation, 2) Approval, 3) Implementation, and 

4) Evaluation. Formulation is divided into: Phase A – Concept and Technology Development; 

and Phase B – Preliminary Design and Technology Completion. Approval is the process for 

transitioning into Implementation, which for Missions of Opportunity is the step leading to a 

Confirmation Review with the appropriate Mission Directorate Associate Administrator. 

Implementation is divided into: Phase C – Final Design and Fabrication; Phase D – System 

Assembly, Integration and Test, and Launch (extending through in-orbit checkout); Phase E – 

Operations and Sustainment; and Phase F – Closeout. Phase E includes analysis and publication 

of data in the peer reviewed scientific and technical literature and delivery of the data to an 

appropriate NASA data archive. The Evaluation process is the ongoing independent review and 

assessment of the project’s status during both Formulation and Implementation. The document 

NPR 7120.5D may be found in NODIS. 

The following terms are used throughout the AO to differentiate among the various methods of 

accounting for the cost of an investigation. 

3
SALMON AO 

Principal Investigator (PI) Mission Cost 

The cost to NASA of the portion of the mission 

that is under PI management responsibility. This 

is the cost that is subject to any cost cap. 

(Section 4.7.4) 

Value of any Contributions The value of non-NASA contributions to the 

mission. (Section 4.7.2) 

Total Mission Cost PI Mission Cost + Value of any Contributions 

Science/Technology Enhancement Option 

(STEO) Cost 

The cost of any proposed STEO outside the cost 

cap. (Section 4.4.5) 

Enhanced NASA Cost PI Mission Cost + STEO Cost 

Total Enhanced Mission Cost Total Mission Cost + STEO Cost 

The PI Mission Cost for all phases of the investigation will be an important factor in selection 

through this AO and in final confirmation for flight of selected investigation(s). 

The Proposals submitted will constitute the investigation’s Mission Concept (Pre-Phase A) as 

outlined in NPR 7120.5D. The evaluation of the proposals will constitute the Mission Concept 

Review toward the Key Decision Point (KDP) A, which is the gate into Phase A. The selection 

of proposals serves as KDP A. 

1.4 Overview of Proposal Evaluation and Selection Process 

Proposals will be assessed against criteria given in Section 7.2 by panels of individuals who are 

peers of the proposers in the relevant scientific and technical areas. Proposals will be categorized 

in accordance with the NASA Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Supplement (NFS) Part 

1872.403-1. The results of the proposal evaluations and categorizations will be reviewed by the 

NASA AO Steering Committee that will conduct an independent assessment of the evaluation 

and categorization processes. After this review, the final evaluation and categorization results 

and the proposed PI Mission Cost will be presented to the appropriate Mission Directorate 

Associate Administrator and Management Council. The appropriate Mission Directorate 

Associate Administrator is the Selection Official, who will make the selections. Sections 7.1, 7.2, 

and 7.3 provide additional details on these activities. 

2.0 NASA’S SAFETY PRIORITY 

Safety is the freedom from those conditions that can cause death, injury, occupational illness, 

damage to or loss of equipment or property, or damage to the environment. NASA’s safety 

priority is to protect: 

(1) the public, 

(2) astronauts and pilots, 

(3) the NASA workforce (including employees working under NASA award instruments), and 

(4) high-value equipment and property. 

3.0 PROPOSAL OPPORTUNITY PERIOD 

Traditionally, Missions of Opportunity have been solicited in conjunction with SMD AOs for 

PI-led missions (e.g., Discovery, Explorer, Earth System Science Pathfinder (ESSP), Mars Scout, 

New Frontiers). To provide more frequent instrument development and flight opportunities, 

4
SALMON AO 

NASA has developed this five-year omnibus SALMON AO. This SALMON AO incorporates 

PEAs for general MO proposal opportunities, as well as for focused proposal opportunities for 

specific flight opportunities. 

Each PEA in this SALMON AO is a separate and independent solicitation. Each PEA has its 

own solicitation number in NSPIRES, its own proposal due date, and its own funding available 

for selected investigations. 

In addition to the PEA opportunities released with this AO (Appendices H1- H5), additional 

Program Elements with corresponding proposal due dates will be released as amendments to this 

AO to meet general or specific mission opportunities. Selection announcements are anticipated 

to occur within nine months of the release of each respective PEA. This approach will better 

enable NASA and the research community to maximize their participation in U.S. and non-U.S. 

space flight missions of opportunity. 

Specific schedules and due dates will be included in each Program Element Appendix. 

4.0 CONSTRAINTS, GUIDELINES, AND REQUIREMENTS 

4.1 Participation 

Participation in this AO is open to all categories of organizations (U.S. and non-U.S.), including 

educational institutions, University Affiliated Research Centers (UARCs), industry, not-forprofit organizations, Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs), NASA 

Centers, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), and other Government agencies. Non-U.S. 

participation is subject to the requirements in Section 4.8. 

The NASA contract with Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) for evaluation 

support under this AO creates an unmitigatable organizational conflict of interest for SAIC in the 

event that any business unit of SAIC has a proposed role as prime contractor, subcontractor, or 

participating organization. Because of this organizational conflict of interest, SAIC is precluded 

from participating in proposal preparation and submission in any capacity under this AO. 

4.2 General Constraints and Guidelines 

This AO solicits investigations that address the NASA strategic science goals and research 

objectives outlined in the 2006 NASA Strategic Plan and can be executed within the scope of the 

SALMON AO cost cap (specific cost caps are listed in each PEA). Proposals must encompass all 

aspects of the investigation, from initial studies to delivery of the data to the appropriate NASA 

data archive, including a complete analysis of the data sufficient to accomplish the 

investigation’s science or technical objectives. 

With appropriate NASA oversight, the responsibility for implementing a selected investigation 

rests with the PI and the investigation team, which will have a large degree of freedom to 

accomplish its proposed objectives and ensure mission success while keeping the cost within the 

proposed cost. 

Each Program Element Appendix will identify the Program Office and associated NASA Center 

(or HQ) that has been assigned management responsibility for that Program Element of the 

SALMON AO. In this role, which is separate from the Center’s role as a possible partner in the 

investigation, the respective Program Office is responsible for NASA's fiduciary responsibility to 

ensure that SALMON investigations are achieved in compliance with the cost, schedule, 

5
SALMON AO 

performance, reliability, and safety requirements committed to by the PI. In addition, the 

designated Program Office will be responsible for monitoring the PI’s progress, and will 

maintain sufficient insight into the development activities to ensure that cost, schedule, and 

technical performance of the investigation remains within established boundaries. The level of 

each Program Office’s involvement in this role may vary depending on the implementing 

organization and other programmatic considerations. NASA HQ will designate specific NASA 

Center teams that will work with the selected PIs and implementing organizations to define roles 

and responsibilities to fulfill this responsibility in the most effective manner. 

If selected, mission teams shall abide by all applicable NASA and other Federal, state, and local 

laws and regulations. 

Once an investigation has been selected, failure to maintain reasonable progress on an agreed 

upon schedule, or failure to operate within the cost and other constraints outlined below, or 

failure to be able to meet the investigation’s technical objectives may be cause for its termination 

by NASA. Every aspect of a selected investigation must reflect a commitment to overall mission 

success while controlling total costs. Consequently, investigations should be designed and 

planned to emphasize mission success within cost and schedule constraints by incorporating 

sufficient margins, reserves, and resiliency. Only those investigations whose proposed cost, 

schedule, and technical requirements do not exceed the constraints and guidelines identified in 

this AO and the PEAs will be considered as candidates for selection for flight. 

4.3 Proposal Commitment 

Proposals shall include a commitment by the PI and the proposing institution for the cost, 

schedule, and scientific performance of the investigation. If, at any time, this commitment 

appears to be in peril, the investigation will be subject to cancellation; where applicable, such 

cancellation will be taken by NASA regardless of the impact of this cancellation on any host 

mission. NASA funding for a selected investigation is subject to cancellation if there is a cost 

overrun charged to NASA for any reason, including a launch delay caused by any non-NASA 

partner. Any cancellation of the investigation will be consistent with the terms of the awarded 

contract, grant, or cooperative agreement. 

4.4 Science and Technology Requirements 

4.4.1 Scope of Proposed Investigations 

The SALMON AO is intended to provide frequent opportunities for focused science and 

technology investigations that conclude with published articles in the peer-reviewed literature, as 

well as deposition of appropriately reduced and calibrated data in designated data archives. The 

relationship between the scientific or technical objectives, the data to be returned, and the 

payload to be used in obtaining the desired data shall be unambiguously and clearly stated by the 

proposer. SALMON investigation teams shall be responsible for initial analysis of the data, 

subsequent delivery of the data to NASA data archives, the publication of findings, and 

communication of results to the public. 

Options for extended missions and other mission enhancements, if applicable, may be included 

in proposals to this AO as STEOs. Costs for such options will not count against the PI Mission 

Cost cap; however, selected proposers must understand that inclusion of such options in a 

selected proposal does not imply a commitment from NASA to also select these options (see 

Section II of Appendix A of this AO concerning partial selections).

6
SALMON AO 

4.4.2 Flow-down of Objectives 

The science or technology goals, objectives, and necessary measurements that constitute the 

baseline mission shall be explicitly stated in the proposal. 

The flow-down from investigation goals to measurement objectives and payload performance 

shall be stated clearly and supported by quantitative analysis where possible. 

The scientific or technology validation requirements for the investigation shall be explicitly 

described and, where appropriate, these must be linked to the objectives of the host mission. The 

requirements that these objectives and observations impose on the mission design elements shall 

be discussed. An “objectives-to-measurements-to-mission traceability” discussion shall be 

included in the proposal in either narrative or tabular form. 

Examples of a Science Traceability Matrix and a Mission Traceability Matrix are given in Tables 

B.3 and B.4, along with examples for elements in such matrixes. 

4.4.3 Data Policies 

In accordance with NASA policy, data is to be released as soon as possible after a brief 

validation period appropriate for the mission. SALMON investigators will be responsible for 

collecting the necessary scientific, engineering, and ancillary information prior to depositing it in 

the appropriate NASA data archive. The time required to complete this process should be the 

minimum necessary to provide appropriate data to the scientific and technical community and to 

the general public and must be described in the proposal. 

As a condition for confirmation of an investigation that is part of a non-NASA space mission, the 

organization sponsoring the full mission must make a commitment to enter into an appropriate 

agreement with NASA HQ that shall include provisions for sharing of flight data necessary for 

the completion of the selected SALMON investigation. 

4.4.4 Data Analysis Requirements 

The measurements to be taken in the course of the investigation, the data to be returned, and the 

approach that will be taken in analyzing the data to achieve the scientific objectives of the 

investigation shall be discussed in the proposal. This description shall identify the investigation 

to be performed, the quality of the data to be returned (e.g., resolution, coverage, pointing 

accuracy, measurement precision), and the quantity of data to be returned (e.g., bits, images). 

The relationship between the data products generated and the scientific/technical objectives, as 

well as the expected results, shall be explicitly described. A discussion of the scientific or 

engineering products (e.g., flight data, ancillary or calibration data, theoretical calculations, 

higher order analytical or data products, sample returns, witness samples, laboratory data) and 

how the science or engineering products and data obtained will be used to fulfill the objectives 

shall be included in the proposal. A discussion of how the data will be obtained, including a plan 

for delivery of the products, and the individuals responsible for the data delivery, shall also be 

provided. 

As part of their funded Phase E activities, investigation teams shall include an appropriate period 

and funding resources for data analysis independent of archiving activities. The proposal shall 

explicitly demonstrate, analytically or otherwise, that sufficient resources have been allocated to 

ensure that data will be calibrated, analyzed, published, and archived within the proposed cost of 

the investigation. 

7
SALMON AO 

4.4.5 Science/Technology Enhancement Options for Enlarging Impact 

The baseline science or technology investigation proposed for this AO must be complete through 

Phase F – Closeout (see Section 1.3). This baseline investigation must contain, within the PI 

Mission Cost, all mission activities required to accomplish the proposed goals and objectives. 

STEOs for enlarging the science and technology impact beyond the baseline mission may be 

included in proposals to this AO. STEOs include, but are not limited to, activities such as 

extended missions, guest investigator programs, guest observer programs, participating scientist 

programs, interdisciplinary scientist programs, technology transfer, or archival data analysis 

programs. The proposal must define and describe any proposed STEO activities. As these 

proposed activities are options and are not included within the cost capped baseline investigation, 

the science and technology enabled by STEO activities are not considered as part of the 

scientific/technical merit of the proposed investigation. 

Costs for STEO activities must be included in the estimate of Enhanced Mission Cost, but will 

not count against the PI Mission Cost (Section 4.7.4) and shall be listed separately in cost 

summary tables. Note that funding for STEO activities prior to Phase E should be minimized, 

and that NASA reserves the right to solicit and select all participants (e.g., guest investigators, 

archival data analysts, and participating scientists) in such programs. 

NASA considers any proposed STEO activities as options. Selection of a proposal which 

includes such options does not imply a commitment from NASA to fund them. NASA reserves 

the right to accept or decline proposed STEO activities at any time during the mission; in 

particular, the decision may not be made at the time the baseline investigation is selected for 

flight. The process for deciding on STEO activities may involve further reviews (e.g., a “Senior 

Review”). Proposals for extended SMD missions should be consistent with guidelines provided 

in the SMD Mission Extension Paradigm document; this document is included in the SALMON 

Reference Library (see Appendix C). 

4.5 Technical Approach Requirements 

4.5.1 General Policies 

Proposals must encompass all aspects of the investigation, from initial studies to delivery of the 

data to the appropriate NASA data archive, including a complete analysis of the data sufficient to 

accomplish the investigation’s science objectives. NASA document NPR 7120.5D, NASA Space 

Flight Program and Project Management Requirements, defines the activities, milestones, and 

products typically associated with each mission phase, and shall be used as a guideline when 

defining a mission approach. Note that NPR 7120.5D levies requirements on missions, not 

proposals. Per NPR 7120.5D, investigations to be selected from this AO have been classified as 

Category 3 payloads. Investigations must be proposed at an appropriate risk classification per 

NPR 8705.4, Risk Classification for NASA Payloads, and may include a proposed payload 

designation of Class C or Class D as appropriate. Documents NPR 7120.5D and NPR 8705.4 

may be found in NODIS. Investigations that intend to propose cost savings by defining PI roles 

or responsibilities that differ from the standard program requirements may require waivers; any 

such elements must be explicitly identified in the proposal and will require approval. The 

designated Program Office will be responsible for monitoring the PI’s progress and will maintain 

sufficient insight into the development activities to ensure that cost, schedule, and technical 

performance of the investigation remains within established boundaries. Mission teams shall 

abide by all applicable NASA and other Federal, state, and local laws and regulations. 

8
SALMON AO 

4.5.2 Space Operations, Navigation, and Communication 

As appropriate, mission operation requirements for SALMON investigations may include 

spacecraft command uplink and data downlink, radiometric tracking, mission control centers, 

orbit and attitude determination, and level-0 data processing. NASA Centers offer many services 

which may be available and cost-effective to proposers. Proposers are free to propose the use of 

services from sources other than those offered through NASA. 

The NASA Space Communication and Navigation (SCaN) Program provides spacecraft tracking 

and radiometric data services through its three networks: the Near-Earth Network (NEN), the 

Deep Space Network (DSN), and the Space Network (SN). In addition, the NASA Integrated 

Services Network (NISN) can provide secure circuits from NASA Centers to mission and 

science operations centers located at universities and other non-NASA locations. Information on 

SCaN may be found at https://www.spacecomm.nasa.gov/spacecomm/. 

Traditional spacecraft operations services such as command generation, telemetry processing, 

mission scheduling, orbit and attitude determination, spacecraft engineering data evaluation, and 

trending are also available through capabilities existing at Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) 

and JPL. 

If required, costs for such services, whether obtained from NASA or other sources, shall be 

included in the mission cost estimate. Investigations shall conduct trade studies on the use of 

NASA-provided services versus any proposed alternatives after selection. SALMON 

investigations may optionally conduct such studies in Phase A, but shall conduct such studies no 

later than Phase B. NASA-provided services shall be employed whenever they meet objectives at 

a life-cycle cost to NASA that is less than or equal to any proposed alternatives. 

As appropriate, SCaN will assist SALMON proposers in identifying SCaN services, prices, and 

cost trades. If the sponsoring NASA Mission Directorate and SCaN agree that the proposed 

approach does not result in the lowest life-cycle cost, the sponsoring NASA Mission Directorate 

may direct the SALMON investigation to modify its approach. Information on NASA-provided 

mission operation capabilities, including SCaN space communications services and costing, is 

given in the NASA's Mission Operations and Communications Services document, available in 

the SALMON Reference Library (Appendix C). 

4.5.3 Launch Services 

No launch vehicle will be provided by NASA through this solicitation unless otherwise 

described in a PEA. 

4.5.4 Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) 

No provision for GFE is anticipated or offered as part of this AO unless otherwise described in a 

PEA. 

4.6 Management Requirements 

4.6.1 General Management Requirements 

For large or complex efforts involving interactions among numerous individuals or other 

organizations, plans for distribution of responsibilities and arrangements for ensuring a 

coordinated effort shall be described in the proposal. 

9
SALMON AO 

4.6.2 Single Principal Investigator 

SALMON investigation teams must be led by a single PI who may be from any category of U.S. 

or non-U.S. organization, including educational institutions; UARCs; industry or not-for-profit 

institutions; or from one of the NASA Centers, JPL, other FFRDCs, or other U. S. Government 

agencies. Teams may be formed from any combination of these institutions. Note that the level 

of detail required in the proposal is the same regardless of what organizations are partners in the 

investigation team, even a NASA Center. 

A single PI shall be designated in each proposal and is the central person in charge of each 

investigation, with full responsibility for its scientific/technical integrity, for integrating with all 

of the other aspects of the mission, and for the execution of the investigation within the 

committed cost and schedule. The PI is accountable to NASA for the scientific/technical success 

of the investigation and must be prepared to recommend termination of the investigation when, 

in his or her judgment, the successful achievement of established minimum science/technical 

objectives, as defined in the proposal as the Minimum Investigation, is not likely to be 

achievable within the committed cost and schedule. 

The PI is held responsible to NASA for all portions of the proposed project, including the 

publication of scientific or technical results, and must ensure that the project is completed within 

the committed cost and schedule, and that the proposed technical requirements of the mission are 

met. 

For Partner Missions of Opportunity, it is important for proposers to this AO to understand that 

the PI assumes all risk for any delays in the implementation of the parent mission and shall, 

therefore, propose appropriate reserves for such schedule contingencies. Following the 

completion of any Concept Study, but prior to final selection by the parent mission's sponsoring 

organization, NASA funding for additional work will be limited to $100K/year (in real year 

dollars). In any case, NASA funding for all studies prior to the initiation of the mission’s detailed 

design (Phase C) will be limited to 25 percent of the total NASA commitment for the proposed 

investigation. 

The PI shall demonstrate within the proposal that his or her qualifications and experience are 

commensurate with the technical and managerial needs of the proposed investigation. 

4.6.3 Management Plan and Structure for Flight Investigation 

NASA intends to allow the PI and his or her team to use their own management processes, 

procedures, and methods to the fullest extent possible. Investigation teams shall define the 

management approach best suited for their particular teaming arrangement. This approach shall 

be commensurate with the investigation's implementation approach, while retaining a simple and 

effective management structure necessary to assure the adequate control of development within 

the cost and schedule constraints. 

With the exception of USPI proposals, all PI-led investigations must have a qualified Project 

Manager (PM) named in the proposal. The PM must work closely under the PI in order to ensure 

that the mission meets its objectives within the resources proposed. The respective roles of the PI 

and PM shall be clearly defined. After selection for formulation, the proposed PM will oversee 

the Formulation Phase of the project. As part of the approval process that allows the project to 

move into the next Phase, NASA HQ, in coordination with the PI and the implementing 

organization, will approve a PM for that new phase. The role, availability, qualifications, and 

10
SALMON AO 

experience of the PM must be adequate to ensure that the technical and managerial needs of the 

investigation will be met during each phase of the project. Furthermore, it is the PM and the 

implementing institution’s responsibility to provide the quality personnel and resources 

necessary to meet the technical and managerial needs of the mission. Any replacement of key 

personnel (including, but not limited to, the PI, PM, deputy PI, deputy PM, and/or appropriate 

leads) during the performance of large or complex investigations may require concurrence by 

NASA; specific guidelines regarding NASA concurrence will be listed in the applicable PEAs. 

Commitment and past performance of the PM and his or her implementing institution will be 

important factors in the evaluation and selection of an investigation. 

4.6.4 Risk Management 

Each investigation shall define the risk management approach it intends to use to ensure 

successful achievement of the proposed objectives within established resource and schedule 

constraints. Included in this discussion of risk management shall be risk mitigation plans for any 

new technologies and plans for any long-lead items that need to be placed on a contract before 

the start of the development phase, to ensure timely delivery. In addition, any manufacturing, 

test, or other facilities needed to ensure successful completion of the proposed investigation shall 

be identified. The proposer shall describe the approach for managing risk which will mitigate 

loss or serious degradation of the mission due to errors by human operators or errors or 

malfunctions in the mission data systems during the flight phase. 

4.6.5 Co-Investigator Roles and Requirements 

A Co-Investigator (Co-I) 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. If 

funded by NASA, costs must be accounted for in the PI Mission Cost. If contributed, the costs 

must be accounted for in the Total Mission Cost. The role of each Co-I shall be described in the 

proposal. Other unfunded members of the proposal team may be included in the proposal as 

collaborators. PIs shall ensure that all individuals included in the proposal in any category have a 

specific and significant role in the proposed investigation, and that they have the appropriate 

skills and qualifications to successfully discharge their responsibilities. Individuals with a minor 

or honorary role in the proposed investigation should not be included in the proposal. See 

Appendix B for details. 

4.6.6 Contributions of Critical Goods and Services 

The proposal shall describe all contributions of critical goods and services, the risks of these 

contributions, and adequate contingency plans for coping with the failure of a proposed 

cooperative arrangement. The commitment of every partner, U.S. or non-U.S., offering a 

contribution shall be documented in letters of commitment (Section 4.6.7). For proposals 

offering contributions that are critical to the success of the proposed investigation, the evaluated 

risk will increase if the proposals: 1) do not have clear and simple technical and management 

interfaces in the proposed cooperative arrangements, 2) do not provide evidence in the proposal 

that the contribution is within the scientific and technical capability of the partner, or 3) do not 

have the required endorsement or a firm commitment to provide the offered contribution. 

4.6.7 Letters of Commitment for Contributions 

Letters of commitment signed by an institutional official must be provided from all organizations 

offering contributions of goods and/or services (both U.S. and non-U.S. but excluding Co-I 

11
SALMON AO 

services) on a no-exchange-of-funds basis. This includes all non-U.S. organizations providing 

hardware or software to the investigation. Further details on the contents of proposed non-U.S. 

contribution letters of commitment are given in Section 4.8.3. 

An institutional letter of commitment for a contribution shall contain a statement of financial 

commitment from each responsible organization contributing to the investigation to assure 

NASA that all contributions will be provided as proposed. Any proposal failing to provide letters 

of commitment from both U.S. and non-U.S. partners providing contributions may be judged 

noncompliant and may be rejected without review. 

The required elements in a letter of commitment for a contribution are: 

1. A precise description of what is being contributed by the partner and what assumptions 

are being made about NASA's role, 

2. The strongest possible statement of whether the contribution will be funded and/or what 

further decisions must be made before the funding is committed by the partner, and 

3. A signature by an official authorized to commit the partner (if it is not clear from the 

signer’s title that the signer has the necessary authority, then it should be explicitly stated 

in the letter). 

For all U.S. organizations offering contributions, letters of commitment must be submitted from 

both the organization providing any contributed property or service and from the organization 

providing any required funding. Letters of commitment must provide evidence that the 

institution and/or appropriate Government officials are aware and supportive of the proposed 

investigation and will provide funding for the investigation if selected by NASA. Letters shall be 

signed by institutional or Government officials authorized to commit their organizations to 

participation in the proposed investigation. 

For non-U.S. individuals or institutions participating as team members or as contributors, 

requirements for letters of commitment may be found in Section 4.8.3. 

4.6.8 Letters of Commitment for Major or Critical Participants 

Letters of commitment are also required from all major or critical participants in the proposal, 

regardless of the source of funding. Critical participants are those participants who are assigned 

tasks considered by the PI to be critical to the success of the mission, including those who 

provide unique required services. All other participants are non-critical. 

A letter of commitment for a major or critical participant must contain a statement of 

commitment for the effort that is assigned to that participant in the proposal. The required 

elements in a letter of commitment are: 

1. A description of what is being provided, 

2. The level of effort, and 

3. A signature by someone authorized to commit the organization. 

For organizations providing critical or major contributions, only a single letter of commitment is 

required. 

Where the use of NASA's network services is within the capabilities described in the NASA’s 

Mission Operations and Communications Services document, no Letter of Commitment is 

required from the NASA network provider. 

12
SALMON AO 

4.6.9 Statements of Personal Commitment for Co-Investigators 

No personal or institutional letters of commitment are required for Co-Is in the Step 1 proposal. 

Co-Is indicate their commitment to the proposed investigation through NSPIRES (see 

Appendix B, Section IV for instructions). Personal and institutional letters of commitment for 

Co-Is will be required for Step 2 Concept Study Reports. 

4.7 Cost and Schedule Requirements 

4.7.1 Full Cost Accounting 

NASA Civil Service direct labor, travel, and other direct costs must be included within the cost 

cap, consistent with current Agency full cost practice. Each of these elements must be separately 

identified. Demand service pools are to be included in the proposed cost within the cost cap to 

the extent that NASA Program funds are required to pay the costs. In general, proposal budgets 

from NASA Centers must include all costs that will be paid out of the resulting award. Corporate 

General and Administrative (G&A) estimates, Center Management and Operations (CM&O) 

estimates, and allocated service pools, which are not paid with the sponsoring NASA Mission 

Directorate Program funds, are not to be included in the cost proposal. 

If any NASA costs are to be considered as contributed costs, the contributed item(s) or service 

must be separately funded by an effort complementary to the proposed investigation and the 

funding sources shall be identified. 

Any non-NASA Federal Government elements of proposals must follow their organization’s cost 

accounting standards for full cost. If no standards are in effect, the proposers must then follow 

the Managerial Cost Accounting Standards for the Federal Government as recommended by the 

Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board. There is a link to those standards in the 

SALMON Reference Library (Appendix C). In general, proposal budgets must include all costs 

that will be paid out of the resulting award. 

4.7.2 Goods and/or Services Offered on a No Exchange of Funds Basis 

Contributions of any kind, whether cash or non-cash (property and services), to SALMON 

investigations by organizations other than NASA are welcome. Values for all contributions of 

property and services shall be established in accordance with applicable cost principles. The 

value of non-U.S. contributions shall be converted to U.S. dollars using the official exchange 

rate. The official exchange rate can be obtained at http://fms.treas.gov/intn.html. Such 

contributions may be applied to any part or parts of a mission. 

The cost of contributed hardware or software shall be estimated as either: (1) the cost associated 

with the development and production of the item, if this is the first time the item has been 

developed and if the mission represents the primary application for which the item was 

developed; or (2) the total of any recurring and mission-unique costs associated with 

reproduction or modification of the item if this is not a first-time development. If an item is being 

developed primarily for an application other than the one in which it will be used in the proposed 

investigation, then it shall be considered as falling into the second category (with the estimated 

cost calculated as that associated with the reproduction and modification alone). 

The cost of contributed labor and services must be consistent with rates paid for similar work in 

the offeror's organization. The cost of contributions shall not include funding spent before the 

start of the investigation (before completing a contract, grant, or other funding mechanism with 

13
SALMON AO 

NASA). The value of contributed materials and supplies shall be reasonable and shall not exceed 

the fair market value of the property at the time of the contribution. 

4.7.3 Schedule Requirements and Constraints 

For PMOs, it is incumbent on the proposing investigator to provide evidence in his or her 

proposal that the sponsoring organization (1) intends to fund the parent mission, and (2) that the 

endorsement of NASA for U.S. MO participation is required by the sponsoring organization 

prior to the endorsement date listed in the appropriate PEA. If NASA endorsement is not 

required by the sponsoring organization by the date listed in the respective Program Element, the 

proposal should be submitted in response to a future PEA solicitation.

4.7.4 Mission Cost Requirements and Constraints 

The PI Mission Cost is the funding that NASA would be expected to provide to the investigation 

team over the course of the investigation, beginning with selection and ending with the 

conclusion of Phase F – closeout. Examples of costs to be included are education and public 

outreach activities; new technology; subcontracting costs (including fees); science teams; all 

personnel required to conduct the investigation, analyze and publish results, and deliver data in 

archival format; insurance; mission-unique launch services; ground data system including 

mission and data services provided by NASA's SCaN program, if required; labor (contractor); 

non-contributed NASA civil servant costs; reserves; contract fees, and other direct/indirect costs 

as applicable. Total funding limits are specified in each PEA. The PI Mission Cost is a 

consideration in the selection of investigations and in the continuing assessment of ongoing 

missions. 

A selected investigation may result in a contract or a grant, depending on the nature of the 

proposal. Further information on grants is contained in NPR 5800.1E, Grant and Cooperative 

Agreement Handbook, available in NODIS and included in the SALMON Reference Library (see 

Appendix C). 

4.7.5 Cost Risk Management 

The proposal shall discuss the methods and rationale (cost models, cost estimating relationships 

of analogous missions, etc.) used to develop the estimated cost, and shall include a discussion of 

cost risks. Innovative cost effective features, processes, or approaches will be considered a 

strength if proven sound. However, even with innovative cost features, mission proposals that are 

unable to show an adequate unencumbered reserve are likely to be judged a high cost risk and 

not selected. 

For the purpose of this AO, an adequate unencumbered reserve on the PI Mission Cost shall be 

measured against the cost to complete all Phases (A-F) of the mission. A minimum 25% 

unencumbered cost reserve shall be required for Phase A through Phase D. Minimum 

unencumbered cost reserves are not specified in this AO for Phases E and F; the PI shall 

establish and identify adequate reserves for these phases of the mission. The PI Mission Cost 

shall not increase from that offered in the proposal. The cost reserves shall not include funded 

schedule reserves. Minimum funded schedule reserves are not specified in this AO for any 

phase; the PI shall establish and identify adequate funded schedule reserves for all phases of the 

mission. 

14
SALMON AO 

4.7.6 Earned Value Management 

It is not anticipated that the funding level for individual SALMON AO awards will require 

Earned Value Management (EVM) reporting. However, if an EVM requirement is specified in 

the Program Element, the requirements in NPR 7120.5D, Appendix F, Section 3.1.6(c) apply. 

4.7.7 Subcontracting Plans 

The PI and team members shall agree to use their best efforts to assist NASA in achieving its 

statutory goals for the participation of Small Disadvantaged Businesses (SDBs), Women-Owned 

Small Businesses (WOSBs), Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), and Other 

Minority Educational Institutions (OMI) in NASA procurements. Investment in these 

organizations reflects NASA's commitment to increase the participation of minority concerns in 

the aerospace community and is to be viewed as an investment in our future. Offerors, other than 

small business concerns, are advised that contracts resulting from this AO may be required to 

contain small business subcontracting plans that include an overall goal for subcontracting with 

small business concerns and subgoals for subcontracting with various categories of small 

business concerns and minority institutions (FAR 52.219-9). See Appendix A, Section XIII for 

information on goals and subcontracting plan requirements. Subcontracting plans and proposed 

SDB participation targets, including the proposed goals and targets and the quality and level of 

work that will be performed by various categories of small business concerns, including SDBs, 

and minority institutions will be evaluated during contract negotiation. 

4.8 Overview of Non-U.S. Participation 

NASA solicits research proposals from both foreign and domestic sources (see NASA FAR 

Supplement 1835.016-70). Owing to NASA's policy to conduct research with non-U.S. entities 

on a cooperative, no-exchange-of-funds basis, NASA does not normally fund non-U.S. research 

proposals or non-U.S. research efforts that are part of U.S. research proposals. Rather, 

cooperative research efforts are normally implemented via Agreements between NASA and the 

non-U.S. entity involved. Thus, non-U.S. proposers, whether as primary proposers or as 

participants in U.S. research efforts, are expected to arrange for non-U.S. financing for their 

portion of the research. 

4.8.1 General Guidelines Applicable to Non-U.S. Proposals and Proposals 

Including Non-U.S. Participation 

All non-U.S. proposals will undergo the same evaluation and selection process as those 

originating in the U.S. All proposals, foreign and domestic, shall be typewritten in English and 

must comply with all submission requirements stated in this AO and in Appendix B of this AO. 

Contributions offer benefits but also represent complexity and risk to a project. Therefore, U.S. 

proposers must discuss mitigation plans, where possible, for the failure of funding or 

contributions to materialize when they are outside the control of the PI. Mitigation may include, 

but is not limited to, descoping the contributed items and/or holding reserves to develop the 

contribution directly. Note that reserves held for this purpose will be considered by NASA to be 

encumbered. When no mitigation is possible, this must be explicitly acknowledged. In addition 

to budget and technical risk, non-U.S. contributions introduce schedule risk for implementing 

international agreements, as well as for obtaining any necessary licenses for exchanges of goods 

and technical data. An adequate and realistic schedule must be allocated for having international 

agreements executed. 

15
SALMON AO 

Any proposed non-U.S. participation must be described at the same level of detail as that of U.S. 

partners, including the provision of cost, schedule, and management data. Failure to document 

cost and schedule data, management approaches, or failure to document the commitment of team 

members or funding agencies, may cause a proposal to be found unacceptable. 

Proposals with non-U.S. participation shall include a table listing: (i) non-U.S. participants 

(individuals, institutions), (ii) roles and responsibilities, (iii) funding organization, (iv) 

approximate value of contribution and method for estimating value, and (v) cross-reference to 

letters of commitment in the proposal appendix. Proposals with non-U.S. participation must 

clearly describe the flow of design requirements (potentially controlled information) and 

hardware between U.S. and non-U.S. participants. This description shall take the form of the 

flowchart specified in Section XII.4 of Appendix B. 

4.8.2 Proposal Preparation and Submission 

All proposals, including non-U.S. proposals, must be submitted in English and comply with all other 

submission requirements stated in the AO (including the PEAs). All non-U.S. proposals will undergo 

the same evaluation and selection process as those originating in the U.S. and must be received by 

the established closing date. All proposals received after the closing date will be treated in 

accordance with NASA's provisions for late proposals (Appendix A, Section VII). 

4.8.3 Letters of Commitment for Non-U.S. Participation 

For participation by non-U.S. individuals and/or institutions as team members or as contributors 

to SALMON investigations endorsement by the institutions and governments involved is 

expected. If government funding or support is required, then a government commitment is also 

expected. The letter of commitment should provide evidence that the non-U.S. institution and/or 

government officials will commit the appropriate technical, personnel, and funding resources to 

the proposed investigation if selected by NASA. Such commitments should be submitted with 

the proposal. Proposals without the required letters of commitment can be deemed noncompliant 

and returned to the proposer without review. 

The expected elements in a letter of commitment are: a precise description of what is being 

contributed by the partner and what assumptions are being made about NASA's role; the 

strongest possible statement of whether the contribution will be funded, or what further decisions 

must be made before the funding is committed by the partner. The letter of commitment should 

be signed by an authorized officer or representative of the partner institution. 

4.8.4 U.S. Export Laws and Regulations 

Proposals that include international participation, either through involvement of non-U.S. 

nationals and/or involvement of non-U.S. entities shall contain a section discussing compliance 

with U.S. export laws and regulations; e.g., 22 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 120-130, et 

seq. and 15 CFR 730-774, et seq., as applicable to the scenario surrounding the particular 

international participation. Proposers must also comply with NFS clause 1852.225-70 entitled 

“Export Licenses.” The proposal shall describe in detail the proposed international participation 

and is to include, but not be limited to, whether or not the international participation would 

require exporting or importing of hardware technical data or the provision of defense services 

and whether the prospective proposer will obtain prior approval of the Department of State or the 

Department of Commerce via a technical assistance agreement or an export license, or whether a 

license exemption/exception may apply. If prior approvals via licenses are necessary, the Phase 

16
SALMON AO 

A Concept Study Report must discuss whether the license has been applied for or, if not, the 

projected timing of the application and any implications for the schedule. Information regarding 

U.S. export regulations is available at http://www.pmddtc.state.gov/ and 

http://www.bis.doc.gov/. Prospective proposers are advised that under U.S. law and regulation, 

spacecraft and their specifically designed, modified, or configured systems; components; parts; 

etc., such as the instrumentation being sought under this AO, are generally considered “Defense 

Articles” on the United States Munitions List and subject to the provisions of the International 

Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), 22 CFR 120- 130, et seq. 

4.8.5 Agreements with Selected Non-U.S. Participants 

Should a non-U.S. proposal or a U.S. proposal with non-U.S. participation be selected, NASA's 

Office of External Relations will arrange with the non-U.S. sponsor for the proposed 

participation on a no-exchange-of-funds basis, in which NASA and the non-U.S. sponsor will 

each bear the cost of discharging their respective responsibilities. 

It is NASA’s policy to establish formal international agreements for cooperative activities with 

non-U.S. partners. Owing to the short duration of the Phase A concept study, it may not be 

possible for NASA to conclude an international agreement prior to the conclusion of Phase A. 

Additionally, in some cases, interim agreements may be put in place until a more permanent 

arrangement is reached. 

If applicable, proposals shall demonstrate how the Phase A concept study can be completed in 

the absence of an international agreement. 

4.8.6 Requirements for Proposals Containing Non-U.S. Contributions 

Contributions, particularly non-U.S. contributions, offer benefits but also represent complexity 

and risk to an investigation. Therefore, proposals shall discuss mitigation plans, where possible, 

for the failure of funding or contributions to materialize when they are outside the control of the 

PI. Mitigation may include, but is not limited to, descoping the contributed items or holding 

reserves to develop the contribution directly. Reserves held for this purpose will be considered 

by NASA to be encumbered. When no mitigation is possible, this shall be explicitly 

acknowledged. In addition to budget and technical risk, non-U.S. contributions introduce 

schedule risk for implementing technical assistance agreements and international agreements. An 

adequate and realistic schedule shall be allocated for the execution of international agreements. 

Any proposed international participation shall be described at the same level of detail as that of 

U.S. partners, including the provision of cost, schedule, and management data. Failure to 

document cost and schedule data, management approaches, or failure to document the 

commitment of team members or funding agencies, may cause a proposal to be found 

unselectable. 

Proposals with non-U.S. participation are required to include a table listing (see Appendix B, 

Section XII.4): 

1. Non-U.S. participants (individuals, institutions), 

2. Roles and responsibilities, 

3. Approximate value of contribution and method for estimating value, 

4. Funding organization, and 

5. Cross-reference to letters of commitment in the Appendix. 

17
SALMON AO 

Proposals with non-U.S. participation shall clearly describe the flow of design requirements 

(potentially controlled information) and hardware between U.S. and non-U.S. participants. This 

description may take the form of a flowchart. 

4.9 Requirements for Export Controlled and Classified Material in Proposals 

4.9.1 Export Controlled Material 

While explicit inclusion of export controlled material in proposals is not prohibited, NASA is 

advising proposers that, under U.S. law and regulations, spacecraft and their specifically 

designed, modified, or configured systems, components, and parts are generally considered 

"Defense Articles" on the United States Munitions List and subject to the provisions of the 

ITAR, 22 CFR Parts 120-130. In some circumstances this may complicate NASA’s ability to 

evaluate the proposal, since occasionally NASA may use the services of non-U.S. nationals who 

are not lawful permanent residents of the U.S. to review proposals submitted in response to this 

AO. In order to enable proper evaluation of proposals, any export-controlled information subject 

to ITAR in a proposal must be marked with a notice to that effect and prominently displayed on 

the title page of the proposal that shall state: 

“The information (data) contained in [insert page numbers or other identification] 

of this proposal is (are) subject to U.S. export laws and regulations. It is furnished 

to the Government with the understanding that it will not be exported without the 

prior approval of the proposer under the terms of an applicable export license or 

technical assistance agreement.” 

Note that it is the responsibility of the proposer to determine whether any proposal information is 

subject to the provisions of ITAR. Information regarding U.S. export regulations is available at 

http://www.pmddtc.state.gov and at http://www.bis.doc.gov. 

4.9.2 Restriction on the use of Classified Material 

It is NASA policy that proposals shall not contain security-classified material. However, should 

the project proposed require access to classified information, or should the result of the project 

generate such material, the proposer shall comply with all Government security regulations. 

4.10 Education and Public Outreach (E/PO) Requirements 

4.10.1 Overview 

NASA invests in E/PO to augment the scientific and technical workforce needed to achieve 

NASA's mission, to attract and retain students in scientific and technical disciplines, and to 

contribute to public literacy in science and technology and awareness of NASA's mission. 

NASA's E/PO portfolio includes higher education programs that provide research support and 

training to outstanding students pursuing degrees in all disciplines engaged in space science and 

technology development; elementary/secondary education activities primarily to contribute to 

continued improvement in formal education; and informal education and public outreach 

activities to inspire and engage learners of all ages through partnerships with community-based 

groups like museums and planetariums, the Girl Scouts, and amateur astronomers or other citizen 

scientists. NASA's past investments in E/PO have resulted in a continued supply of a competent 

workforce, and the development of new leaders in space exploration. In addition, many award 

winning programs have engaged educators in and informed the citizenry about recent advances 

in NASA programs, as well as touched millions of learners of all ages. 

18
SALMON AO 

While recognizing the benefits of a robust E/PO program, due to the rapid response and limited 

funding envisioned for these unique mission opportunities, the SALMON AO does not require 

an E/PO element to the primary investigation. If an optional E/PO is proposed, a brief overview 

of the planned E/PO activities and their relationship to the proposed mission shall be provided in 

accord with the instructions provided in Section XI of Appendix B. 

4.10.2 Student Collaboration (SC) 

NASA recognizes the value of directly involving undergraduate and/or graduate students in a 

spaceflight experience. PI's are encouraged, but are not required, to propose innovative SCs that 

inspire the students, engage them directly in the prospective missions, contribute to their learning 

and appreciation of scientific exploration of space, and provide the opportunity for development 

of their work skills relevant to NASA missions. The SC may involve development of an 

instrument, investigation of scientific questions, data analysis or modeling, development of 

supporting hardware or software, and/or other aspects of the mission. The activities may involve 

flight or ground systems. For example, the Student Dust Counter aboard the New Horizons 

spacecraft was provided by a student team and included the students in the full spaceflight 

instrument experience while creating a real-world vehicle for teaching other students. SC 

elements involving only analysis of archival data disconnected from the flight mission activities 

are not allowed. 

The proposal shall clearly identify any proposed SC as an E/PO element. If a SC is proposed, the 

proposal must provide details of the development schedule of the SC, including decision points 

for determining SC readiness for flight. An SC may, but is not required to, have the potential to 

add value to the science or engineering of the mission. The proposal shall describe how the SC 

can be incorporated into the mission on a non-impact basis; that is, the SC may not increase the 

mission development risk or impact the development or performance of the baseline science 

investigation in any way that would cause the baseline mission to be compromised in the event 

that the SC element is not funded, encounters technical, schedule, or cost problems, or fails in 

flight. The proposal shall demonstrate that the SC is to be clearly separable from the rest of the 

proposed effort. The proposal shall also include a plan for the mentoring and oversight of 

students to maximize the opportunity for teaching, learning, and success in contributing to the 

mission. 

Any proposed SC will be evaluated as described in Section 7.2.5 and in the Explanatory Guide to 

the NASA Science Mission Directorate Educational Merit Evaluation Factors for Student 

Collaboration Elements in the SALMON Reference Library (Appendix C). Although the cost of 

the SC must be included within the PI Mission Cost cap, the cost of the SC must be identified 

separately from the proposed investigation. If NASA selects the proposed mission, NASA may 

or may not fund the SC. 

Student collaborations must involve higher education students (undergraduate and graduate 

students). Direct involvement of students at the elementary/secondary levels (e.g., data analysis 

or display) is within the scope of a mission E/PO plan, but will not be considered as part of the 

SC. 

19
SALMON AO 

5.0 MISSIONS OF OPPORTUNITY CATEGORIES 

5.1 Introduction 

SALMON MO investigations fall into five categories – Partner Missions of Opportunity (PMOs) 

(Section 5.2), U.S. Participating Investigators (USPIs) (Section 5.3), New Science Missions 

using Existing Spacecraft (Section 5.4), Small Complete Missions (SCMs) (Section 5.5), and 

Focused Missions of Opportunity (FMOs) (Section 5.6). 

By supporting U.S. participation in PMO investigations, NASA seeks to allow the 

scientific/technical community the opportunity to conduct a science investigation of interest to 

NASA by providing a critical part of a U.S. or non-U.S. space mission. USPIs participate in the 

science investigation of a non-NASA space mission without contributing to the mission 

implementation itself. The New Science Mission using Existing Spacecraft opportunity solicits 

proposals for new science investigations that utilize existing in-flight spacecraft that have 

completed their prime flight missions. The SCM opportunity permits targeted, compelling 

science investigations to be proposed at a much lower cost than Small Explorer (SMEX) 

missions. FMO investigations will address a specific, NASA-identified flight opportunity. 

Although non-U.S. participation is allowed in SALMON investigations, none is required. 

5.2 Partner Missions of Opportunity 

For the purpose of this AO, a PMO is one in which the proposer offers to participate in a non-NASA 

space mission that is planned or that has been approved by its sponsoring organization. By funding 

U.S. participation in a non-NASA space mission, NASA seeks to allow the scientific community to 

conduct a science or technology investigation of interest to NASA as part of a non-NASA space 

mission. Such missions may be sponsored by non-U.S. governments, by other U.S. agencies, or by 

private sector organizations. PMO investigations on a military satellite are allowed as long as the 

satellite is not planned for weapons testing. 

Participation in a non-NASA space mission could take many forms, such as providing a complete 

science instrument, hardware components, technology demonstrations, microgravity research 

experiments, or expertise in mission critical areas. Non-hardware mission critical areas include 

ground systems, pipeline data processing and archiving systems, space navigation and 

communication capabilities, etc. Contributions to a non-NASA space mission by individual 

Co-Is, such as participation in instrument design, modeling and simulation of the instrument’s 

operation and measurement performance, calibration of the instrument, scientific analysis and/or 

research of the data returned, and/or development of innovative data analysis techniques, should be 

proposed as USPI investigations (Section 5.3). 

NASA will evaluate the proposed investigation content and feasibility, and not the sponsor's entire 

mission. While the investigator is not required to document the entire mission of the sponsor, the 

U.S. investigator must fully document in the proposal their complete investigation and how it is 

accomplished in the sponsor’s mission. This documentation must be sufficient to allow an evaluation 

of the adequacy of the sponsor’s mission to provide all resources required for a successful 

investigation. 

Note that selection by NASA through this AO does not constitute selection of a PMO investigation 

as part of the non-NASA mission, which is necessarily a decision made by the sponsor of the 

mission. Instead, selection is a commitment by NASA to fund the NASA portion of the MO 

investigation, with funding beyond basic studies not starting until detailed design of the mission itself 

20
SALMON AO 

is underway. If a PMO investigation is selected both by NASA and by the mission sponsor, the PI is 

fully responsible to NASA for the scientific integrity, as well as the leadership and management, of 

the NASA contribution to the mission. 

Any date constraints, including the timetable for the proposing PI to provide evidence that the 

sponsoring organization intends to fund the primary host mission and when the NASA commitment 

for U.S. participation is required by the sponsoring organization, will be listed in the individual PEA. 

Unless specified otherwise in the PEA, the launch date itself is not constrained. 

As a matter of NASA policy, its sponsorship of an PMO investigation is always conducted on a noexchange-of-funds basis with a non-U.S. mission sponsor, although depending on circumstances, 

NASA may agree to pay for some level of the integration costs for NASA sponsored experiment 

hardware. For an MO investigation on a U.S. commercial mission or on a U.S. Government mission 

not sponsored by NASA, the PI may receive NASA funding for costs that include integration as well 

as launch support services, and will be responsible for payment of these costs. Federal law prohibits 

NASA from paying for any non-U.S. launch costs. 

NASA scientific investigations are initiated primarily for the conduct and publication of scientific 

research and disseminating those results for the benefit of the U.S. science community. As such, 

NASA expects that the mission sponsor will enter into an agreement with NASA to assure that data 

returned from at least those aspects of the mission in which NASA support is involved, if not the 

entire mission, will be made available to the U.S. scientific community in a timely way and deposited 

in an appropriate NASA data archive. NASA will seek to conclude an international agreement with 

the mission sponsor in advance of launch to ensure that this activity will be done. NASA recognizes 

that PMO investigation teams may justifiably incur additional data analysis responsibilities defined 

by the policies of the sponsor of the parent mission. 

5.3 U.S. Participating Investigator 

A proposed investigation as a U.S. Participating Investigator on a non-NASA space mission may be 

as a Co-I for an instrument, experiment, or technology demonstration that is being built and flown by 

a sponsor agency other than NASA. The Co-I role can include, but is not limited to, instrument 

design, modeling and simulation of the instrument’s operation and measurement performance, 

calibration of the instrument, scientific analysis and/or research of the data returned, and/or 

development of innovative data analysis techniques. A U.S. Participating Investigator may also 

serve as a member of a non-NASA space mission science or engineering team and participate in 

science team activities such as mission planning, mission operations, data processing, data 

analysis, and data archiving. No matter what the nature of the U.S. Participating Investigator role, 

an investigation proposed under this category must be for a science or technology investigation and 

must include some meaningful data analysis component, archiving of the complete data set, and the 

publication of science results in the peer reviewed literature. All aspects of the investigation through 

publication must be within the proposed cost. 

Investigations requiring the provision of flight hardware should be proposed as a PMO investigation 

(Section 5.2). 

SMD intends to solicit USPI investigations through its ROSES NRA. At the same time as the release 

of a USPI PEA in SALMON, NASA will release an amendment to ROSES. The USPI PEA will 

refer proposers to the ROSES amendment. USPI Notices of Intent (NOIs) to propose and proposals 

will be submitted in response to the ROSES amendment, will be subject to the proposal guidelines 

21
SALMON AO 

specified in ROSES, and will be reviewed and selected using the proposal criteria specified in 

ROSES. 

5.4 New Science Missions using Existing Spacecraft 

Under this AO, a mission using an existing NASA space asset to conduct a new science investigation 

may be proposed as a MO if it meets several specific criteria: 

• The proposal must make use of a NASA spacecraft or other working space asset once it has 

completed its prime (and extended) mission(s). 

• The proposed mission must constitute a new science investigation and may not be an 

extension, supplement, redirection, or follow-up of the spacecraft's original science mission 

or any previously approved mission extensions. 

• The new science mission must constitute a science investigation addressing the objectives of 

the research programs identified in the NASA Strategic Plan and in the respective PEA. 

• The proposal must be solely for mission operations, data analysis, and/or ground hardware 

and not propose any hardware or other modifications to the spacecraft or its prime mission 

except when new onboard software is required to effect the investigation. In addition, the 

proposed investigation must not impose any changes on the requirements of the prime 

mission. 

New investigations using science instruments or other technology currently aboard the ISS will be 

considered under this proposal category. 

In addition to meeting other proposal requirements, a proposal for a new science mission must 

describe how the proposers will transition all aspects of mission operations and data analysis from 

the current spacecraft mission operations team to the proposed new science mission operations team. 

It is not required that the current mission operations team be a part of the new science mission 

proposal. However, in the case where the current mission operations team is not a part of the new 

science mission proposal, the proposer must show that operations can be transferred to the new 

science mission operations team with acceptable risk and with adequate capture of engineering and 

operations knowledge and lessons learned. 

The proposing investigator must provide evidence that a decision by NASA on whether or not to 

conduct the proposed new science mission extension is required by the date listed in the respective 

PEA. 

5.5 Small Complete Missions 

Under this AO, complete but small science, research, or technology investigations may be solicited 

by a specific Program Element. In such a case, scientifically or technically valuable proposals at any 

cost within the budget allocation listed in the PEA are permitted. The launch date timetable for 

proposed SCMs will be listed in the PEA. 

The complete but small science, research, or technology investigation must include its own access to 

space, all phases of development, mission operations and data analysis, archiving of data, and the 

publication of science results within the proposed cost. Launch services, if provided, will be 

described in the appropriate PEA. Proposals for the delivery and use of science instruments or other 

technology to the ISS will be considered under the Small Complete Mission category. 

22
SALMON AO 

5.6 Focused Missions of Opportunity 

NASA may enter into strategic arrangements with other space agencies to collaborate on a mission. 

NASA’s contribution may be a science, research, or technology investigation that requires the 

provision of an instrument, experiment, hardware components, or software for the other agency’s 

mission. There may be other circumstances as well, where NASA identifies an opportunity for a 

space flight investigation and wants to solicit investigations. Such opportunities are called Focused 

Missions of Opportunity and may be solicited by a specific Program Element. 

Focused Mission of Opportunity program elements will fully describe the nature of the opportunity 

including any schedule, cost, and technical constraints. 

6.0 PROPOSAL PREPARATION AND SUBMISSION INFORMATION 

6.1 Preproposal Activities 

6.1.1 Technical and Scientific Inquiries 

All inquiries of a general nature should be directed to the SALMON AO Program Executive as 

designated in this section, while inquiries specific to a Program Element should be addressed to the 

Program Element Point of Contact (POC) identified in each PEA to this AO. Inquiries are preferred 

in writing and may be sent by E-mail; the character string “SALMON AO” (without quotes) should 

be included in the subject line of all transmissions. 

General inquiries may be addressed to: 

Dr. Carlos A. Liceaga 

SALMON AO Program Executive 

NASA Headquarters 

Washington, DC 20546-0001 

Tel: 757-846-5880 

Email: salmonao@nasa.gov

Questions, concerns, or requests for information or clarification regarding this AO shall be directed 

only to formal points of contact designated here or in the appropriate PEA. No communications 

concerning this AO may be made to any other NASA official. 

6.1.2 SALMON Acquisition Homepage 

The SALMON Acquisition Homepage available at http://salmon.larc.nasa.gov/, will provide updates 

and information on any AO addendum during the SALMON AO solicitation process. It will provide 

the SALMON Reference Library with links to NASA and Mission Directorate documentation, 

information about the preproposal conference, responses to frequently asked questions, and other 

items related to the SALMON AO. 

6.1.3 Preproposal Conference 

The respective PEAs will state whether or not a preproposal conference will be held and identify the 

conference location approximately 3 to 6 weeks after the PEA release. Preproposal conference 

information, including date, location, and logistics, will be made available on the SALMON 

Acquisition Homepage at the address given in Section 6.1.2 above, prior to the preproposal 

conference. 

23
SALMON AO 

Participants are to attend at their own expense and to make their own travel arrangements. The 

purpose of this conference will be to address questions about the proposal process for this AO, 

including a discussion of the evaluation criteria, procurement approach, and NASA areas of interest. 

The preproposal conference also will address questions that are received by NASA at least one week 

prior to the preproposal conference. Questions should be addressed to the SALMON AO Program 

Executive at the address in Section 6.1.1 or to the appropriate Program Element POC at the address 

given in the PEA. Additional questions submitted after this date, including those provided in writing 

at the conference, may be addressed at the conference only as time permits. Anonymity of the 

authors of all questions will be honored. All answers will be made accessible to the public. Material 

presented at the preproposal conference, including answers to questions submitted in advance, will be 

posted on the SALMON Acquisition Homepage at the address given in Section 6.1.2. 

6.1.4 Notice of Intent to Propose 

To assist the planning of the proposal evaluation process, NASA encourages the submission of a 

NOI to propose by all prospective proposers in accordance with the schedule listed in the appropriate 

PEA. Material in an NOI is confidential, nonbinding on the proposer, and will be used for NASA 

planning purposes only. Those submitting an NOI will receive any SALMON AO updates as may 

occur, up to the time of the proposal due date. All updates will also be posted at the SALMON 

Acquisition Homepage at the address given in Section 6.1.2. 

An NOI is submitted electronically by entering the requested information into the NASA Solicitation 

and Proposal Integrated Review and Evaluation System (NSPIRES) at http://nspires.nasaprs.com/. 

Proposers who experience difficulty in using this site should contact the NSPIRES Help Desk by 

E-mail at nspires-help@nasaprs.com for assistance. The following information (to the extent that it is 

known by the NOI due date) is requested for the NOI: 

(a) Name, address, telephone number, fax number, E-mail address, and institutional 

affiliation of the PI. 

(b) Full names and institutional affiliations of each known Co-I and collaborator. Whether an 

investigator is a Co-I or a collaborator should be clearly identified. If any Co-Is or other 

team members are from non-U.S. institutions, the mechanism by which these people 

expect to be funded should be identified in the description box for the Foreign 

Participation question in the "Business Data" section of the NOI. 

(c) Proposal Category and Program Element (see Section 5 and the appropriate PEAs). Each 

NOI and proposal can only be submitted to one PEA. 

(d) The "Summary" section of the NOI should be used to provide a brief statement (150 

words or less) for the following items: 

(i) the scientific objectives of the proposed investigation; and 

(ii) identification of any new technologies that may be employed as part of the 

investigation. 

(e) The name of the Lead Representative from each organization (industrial, academic, notfor-profit, and/or Federal) included in the proposing team as may be known by the NOI 

due date. Lead Representatives can be identified by selecting that role for an individual 

within the "Team Member" section of the NOI. Any Lead Representatives (e.g., 

industrial leads) not yet registered in NSPIRES can be listed in the appropriate "Program 

24
SALMON AO 

Specific Data" question. Such individuals should ensure that they are registered in 

NSPIRES in time for proposal submission.

6.1.5 Teaming Interest 

As a result of recent AOs similar to this one, commercial aerospace and technology 

organizations have requested a forum to inform potential proposers of their services and/or 

products. NASA is willing to offer this service with the understanding that the Agency does not 

endorse any information thus transmitted and does not accept responsibility for the capabilities 

or actions of these organizations. The organizations listed on the SALMON AO Teaming Interest 

page accessible from the SALMON AO Acquisition Homepage (see address given in 

Section 6.1.2) have expressed an interest in teaming with other organizations on SALMON AO 

proposals. This is not a comprehensive list of organizations that are capable of teaming but is 

simply a list of those organizations that have asked to be included. Proposers are not required to 

team with any organization on this list. 

6.2 Format and Content of Proposals 

6.2.1 Structure of Proposals 

A uniform proposal format is required from all proposers to aid in proposal evaluation. General 

NASA guidance for proposals is given in Appendix A of this AO, which is considered binding 

unless specifically amended in this AO. The required proposal format and contents are summarized 

in Appendix B. Proposers are also required to respond to the specific proposal criteria included in 

each relevant PEA included in this AO. Failure to follow the applicable instructions and the required 

Program Element proposal formats may result in reduced ratings during the evaluation process or, in 

extreme cases, could lead to rejection of the proposal without review. 

6.2.2 Requirements for Electronic Cover Page 

This AO requires that the proposer register key data concerning his or her intended submission with 

NASA’s master proposal database system, NSPIRES, located at http://nspires.nasaprs.com/. 

Potential proposers are urged to access this site well in advance of the proposal due date to 

familiarize themselves with its structure and enter the requested identifier information. It is especially 

important to note that every individual named on the proposal’s Cover Page must be registered in this 

NASA proposal data system and that such individuals must perform this registration themselves; that 

is, no one may register a second party, even the PI of a proposal in which that person is committed to 

participate. This data site is secure and all information entered is strictly for NASA’s use. 

The proposal’s Cover Page must be submitted electronically by one of the officials at the PI’s 

organization who is authorized to make such a submission. Every organization that intends to submit 

a proposal to NASA in response to this AO must be registered in this NASA proposal data system. 

Such registration must be performed by an organization’s Electronic Business Point-Of-Contact 

(EBPOC) in the Central Contractor Registry (CCR). For additional information, see Appendix B, 

Section III. 

6.2.3 Signature Authorization and Certifications and Commitments 

Proposals must have a Cover Page that includes a Proposal Summary that is to be submitted 

electronically through the NSPIRES website, following the instructions given in Appendix B. 

25
SALMON AO 

The authorizing institutional signature on the electronically submitted cover certifies that the 

proposing institution has read and is in compliance with the three required certifications printed in 

full in Appendix D. 

6.3 Proposal Submission 

6.3.1 Submittal Address 

The original signed proposal; 55 hard copies of the proposal; and 56 clearly labeled, attached, 

Compact Discs that each contain: a single, searchable Portable Data Format (PDF) version of the 

proposal, a PDF version of the Fact Sheet, and Microsoft Excel versions of the required cost 

tables (in either separate files or a single file with multiple worksheets) shall be delivered to the 

following address by the proposal deadline. 

SALMON AO 

NASA Research and Education Support Services 

Suite 200 

500 E Street, SW 

Washington, DC 20024-2760 

Tel: (202) 479-9030 

6.3.2 Deadline 

The proposal must be received no later than the time deadline on the proposal due date given in 

the relevant PEA. Unless stated otherwise in the relevant PEA, the deadline is 4:30 p.m. Eastern 

Time. 

Proposals submitted later than the proposal due date and deadline and will be considered late. 

Proposers should be aware that neither NASA personnel nor the employees of the support 

contractor that receives and handles proposals for NASA are empowered to authorize the 

submission of a late proposal and, therefore, such permission should not be requested. The 

decision to submit a late proposal is solely that of the proposer. Proposals that are late will be 

handled in accordance with NASA's provisions for late proposals (Appendix A, Section VII). 

Proposals received after the due date may be rejected without review. If a late proposal is 

rejected, it is entirely at the discretion of the proposer whether or not to resubmit it in response to 

a subsequent appropriate solicitation. 

6.3.3 Notification of Receipt 

NASA will notify the proposers in writing or E-mail that their proposals have been received. 

Proposers not receiving this confirmation within two weeks after submittal of their proposals should 

contact the POC listed in the appropriate PEA. 

7.0 PROPOSAL EVALUATION, SELECTION, AND IMPLEMENTATION 

7.1 Evaluation and Selection Process 

7.1.1 Evaluation Process 

All proposals will be initially screened to determine their compliance to requirements and 

constraints of this AO. Additional compliance checks occur during the evaluation process. 

Proposals that do not comply may be declared noncompliant and rejected without further review. 

A submission compliance checklist is provided in Appendix F. This checklist provides proposers 

26
SALMON AO 

a list of the items that NASA will check for compliance before releasing a proposal for 

evaluation. This checklist is for the convenience of proposers; it is not required to be submitted 

as part of a proposal. 

Proposals for each type of MO listed in Section 5, solicited in the applicable PEA, and deemed in 

compliance with this AO will be assessed against the evaluation criteria outlined in Section 7.2 by 

panels of individuals who are peers of the proposers. Reviewers will be instructed to evaluate all 

proposals independently and not to compare investigations. These panels may be augmented through 

the solicitation of non-panel (mail-in) reviews as well, which the panels have the right to accept, in 

whole or in part, or reject. 

Proposers should be aware that during the evaluation and selection process, NASA may request 

clarification of a specific point or points in a proposal. Such a request and the proposer's response 

shall be in writing. 

7.1.2 Categorization Process 

An ad hoc Categorization Subcommittee of the AO Steering Committee (Section 7.1.3), composed 

wholly of civil servants, will convene to consider the peer review results. This Subcommittee will 

categorize the proposals in accordance with procedures required by NFS Part 1872.403-1. These 

categories are defined as follows: 

Category I. Well conceived and scientifically and technically sound investigations 

pertinent to the goals of the program and the AO's objectives and offered by a 

competent investigator from an institution capable of supplying the necessary support 

to ensure that any essential flight hardware or other support can be delivered on time 

and that data can be properly reduced, analyzed, interpreted, and published in a 

reasonable time. Investigations in Category I are recommended for acceptance and 

normally will be displaced only by other Category I investigations. 

Category II. Well conceived and scientifically or technically sound investigations 

which are recommended for acceptance, but at a lower priority than Category I. 

Category III. Scientifically or technically sound investigations which require further 

development of an instrument or a spacecraft subsystem. Category III investigations 

may be funded for development and may be reconsidered at a later time for the same 

or other opportunities. 

Category IV. Proposed investigations which are recommended for rejection for the 

particular opportunity under consideration, whatever the reason. 

7.1.3 Steering Process and Selection 

The results of the evaluations and categorizations will be reviewed by the AO Steering Committee, 

which is composed wholly of NASA civil servants and appointed by the Associate Administrator for 

the sponsoring NASA Mission Directorate. The AO Steering Committee will conduct an 

independent assessment of the evaluation and categorization processes regarding their compliance to 

established policies and practices as well as the completeness, self-consistency, and adequacy of all 

materials related thereto. After this review, the final evaluation results will be forwarded to the 

Associate Administrator for the sponsoring NASA Mission Directorate, who will make the final 

selection(s). As the Selection Official, the Mission Directorate Associate Administrator may consult 

appropriate management councils concerning the selections. 

27
SALMON AO 

Category III investigations, as described in Section 7.1.2, may be considered for development 

funding. Any Category III investigation selected for funding will be invited to submit a revised 

statement of work and a revised budget for a technology development program that addresses 

developmental shortcomings identified during evaluation of the proposal. The revised statement of 

work will be reviewed by NASA. 

7.2 Evaluation Criteria 

7.2.1 Overview 

The evaluation criteria below will be used to evaluate and categorize proposals as described in 

Section 7.1. For a PMO, U.S. Participating Investigator, or some Focused Opportunities, the 

proposed investigation will encompass only the proposed contribution to the mission, not the entire 

mission. The evaluation criteria (which are defined more fully in the sections below) are as follows: 

• Scientific or technical merit of the proposed investigation; 

• Implementation merit and the feasibility of the proposed investigation; and 

• Technical, management, and cost feasibility, including cost risk, of the proposed 

investigation. 

Standard evaluation factors for each of these criteria are described below. PEAs may specify 

additional evaluation factors for these three criteria, as may be appropriate. 

The proposal categorizations discussed in Section 7.1.2 will be based on these criteria, which are 

discussed in more detail below. For categorization, scientific or technical merit is weighted 40%, 

implementation merit and feasibility of the proposed investigation is weighted 30%, and 

technical, management, and cost feasibility is weighted 30%. 

7.2.2 Scientific or Technical Merit of the Proposed Investigation 

Each proposed investigation will be evaluated for its scientific or technical merit as expressed in 

terms of specific major and minor strengths and weaknesses. To evaluate intrinsic merit, the goals 

and objectives of the proposed investigation will be assessed to determine the impact of the 

investigation on one or more of the science, research, or technology programs identified in the NASA 

Strategic Plan (see Section 1). For science investigations, this evaluation will include how well the 

investigation fills gaps in the understanding of science and thereby provides for progress in one of the 

NASA science research programs, and/or how well the proposed investigation synergistically 

supports other ongoing science missions related to these research programs sponsored by NASA or a 

non-U.S. space agency, and whether or not it provides ancillary benefits to the U.S. science program. 

For technology investigations, this evaluation will include how well the investigation advances the 

current technology readiness level of the proposed technology, and how well the technology 

advancement addresses the needs of NASA missions. A major element in the assessment of scientific 

or technical merit will be whether the data that are proposed to be gathered will be sufficient to 

complete the proposed investigation. Merit will be evaluated for the baseline proposed investigation; 

science or technical enhancements beyond the baseline investigation will not contribute to the 

assessment of the merit of the proposed investigation. 

This evaluation will result in narrative text, as well as an appropriate adjectival rating. 

28
SALMON AO 

7.2.3 Implementation Merit and the Feasibility of the Proposed Investigation 

Each proposed investigation will be evaluated for its scientific or technical implementation merit, 

including feasibility, resiliency, and the probability of success as expressed in terms of specific major 

and minor strengths and weaknesses. Implementation merit and feasibility will be evaluated by 

assessing the degree to which the investigation will address the proposed scientific or technical goals 

and objectives, the degree to which the proposed instrument(s) or technology can be built using the 

proposed methods, the degree to which the proposed instrument(s) or technology can provide the 

necessary data, and the degree to which the mission will support the accomplishment of acquisition 

of the required data. Areas requiring critical technology development of the instrument for flight 

readiness will be identified and the plan for completing technology development will be assessed. 

Considerations in the evaluation of the data analysis (i.e., calibration/validation) and archiving plan 

will include an assessment of planning and budget adequacy and evidence of plans for well 

documented, high level products and software usable to the entire community, an assessment for 

adequacy of resources for physical interpretation of data and reporting scientific or technical results 

in refereed journals, and the proposed plan for the timely release of the data to the public domain. 

Any science or technology enhancement options (such as an extended mission, a guest investigator 

program, a technology transfer program, or an archival data analysis program) will be evaluated as 

part of this criterion; the enhancement options will be evaluated for the potential of the selected 

activities to enlarge the impact of the mission, and the appropriate costing of the selected activities. 

Should a new technology that represents an untested advance in the state of the art be proposed for 

use, an assessment will be made of the likelihood of its success. The probability of success will be 

evaluated by assessing science team roles, experience, expertise, and the organizational structure of 

the science team and the technical risk associated with the overall mission design and/or instrument 

set. The role of each Co-I will be evaluated for necessary contributions to the proposed investigation; 

the inclusion of Co-Is who do not have a well-defined and necessary role will be considered a 

weakness of the proposal. 

This evaluation will result in narrative text, as well as an appropriate adjectival rating. 

7.2.4 Technical, Management, and Cost Feasibility, including Cost Risk, of the 

Proposed Investigation 

Each proposed investigation will be evaluated for its technical, management, and cost feasibility, 

including cost risk, as expressed in terms of specific major and minor strengths and weaknesses. The 

technical and management approaches will be evaluated to assess the likelihood that the investigation 

can be implemented as proposed. This includes an assessment of risk of completing the investigation 

within the proposed schedule and cost. The evaluation will consider, as appropriate, implementation 

factors such as the overall mission design (i.e., “mission architecture”); spacecraft design and design 

margins; communication and navigation/tracking; and the proposers' understanding of the processes, 

products, and activities required to accomplish development and integration of all elements (flight 

systems, ground and data systems, etc.). This assessment will also consider the adequacy of the 

proposed organizational structure, the roles and experience of the known partners, the management 

approach, the commitments of partners and contributors, and the team’s understanding of the scope 

of work (covering all elements of the mission, including contributions). The relationship of the work 

to the schedule, the mission’s interdependencies, and associated schedule margins will also be 

evaluated. When appropriate, the likelihood of launching by the proposed launch date will be 

assessed. Since it is recognized that teaming arrangements for implementing the mission may not be 

complete before the proposal closing date, proposers will not be penalized if the proposal indicates 

29
SALMON AO 

only candidate (but credible) implementation approaches for the spacecraft, launch vehicle, 

communications, and ground systems that should reasonably allow successful implementation of the 

mission. Mission resiliency (the flexibility to recover from problems) will also be evaluated. This 

will include an assessment of the approach to descope the Baseline Investigation in the event that 

development problems force reductions in scope. Investigations proposing new technology, i.e., 

technologies having a Technology Readiness Level (TRL) less than 6 (a TRL Definitions document 

may be found in the SALMON Reference Library), will be penalized for risk if adequate backup 

plans to ensure success of the investigations are not described. 

The methods and rationale used to develop the estimated cost, and the discussion of cost risks, will 

be assessed. Proposals will be evaluated for the adequacy of the cost reserves; proposals with 

inadequate cost reserves, and those that do not demonstrate a thorough understanding of the cost 

risks, will be penalized. The single biggest item that reduces cost risk is a complete and detailed basis 

of estimate, including complete cost model input data, vendor quotes, comparisons to similar 

analogous investigations, etc. 

The risk management approach the science investigation team intends to use will be assessed, as will 

any risk mitigation plans for new technologies, any long-lead items, and the adequacy and 

availability of any required manufacturing, test, or other facilities. 

The role, qualifications, and experience of the PI will be assessed, as will the commitment, 

spaceflight experience, and past performance of the PI and his or her implementing institution, 

against the needs of the investigation. 

The role, qualifications, and experience of the PM (if assigned separately from the PI) will be 

assessed, as will the commitment and past performance of the PM and his or her implementing 

institution, against the needs of the investigation. 

The plans for managing the risk of contributed critical goods and services will be assessed including 

the commitment of every partner as documented in letters of commitment and the adequacy of 

contingency plans for coping with the failure of a proposed cooperative arrangement. 

For PMO investigations that fly on non-NASA missions, factors involving spacecraft and launch 

vehicle capabilities will be considered in the evaluation to assess the adequacy of mission resources 

in support of a successful PMO investigation (Section 5.2). 

USPI missions do not require the provision of flight hardware (Section 5.3), and only those factors 

relevant to a proposed USPI activity will be evaluated. 

This evaluation will result in narrative text, as well as an appropriate adjectival rating. 

7.2.5 Overall Merit of the E/PO and Student Collaboration 

E/PO and SC activities are optional under this SALMON AO. If proposed, the overall merit of the 

E/PO and SC activity will be judged separately from the proposed primary investigation. SC 

proposals, if any, will be evaluated for overall merit and will not be penalized for any inherent higher 

cost, schedule or technical risk, as long as the SC is shown to be clearly separable from the primary 

objectives per Section 4.10.2. The necessary quality indicators that are used in all evaluations of 

SMD E/PO proposals are contained in the Explanatory Guide to the NASA Science Mission 

Directorate Education and Public Outreach Evaluation Factors, available on the web at: 

http://nasascience.nasa.gov/researchers/education-public-outreach/explanatory-guide-to-smd-e-poevaluation-factors. The necessary quality indicators that are used in all evaluations of SMD SC 

30
SALMON AO 

proposals are contained in the Explanatory Guide to the NASA Science Mission Directorate 

Educational Merit Evaluation Factors for Student Collaboration Elements, available in the 

SALMON Reference Library (Appendix C). 

7.3 Selection Factors 

As described in Section 7.1, the results of the proposal evaluations based on the criteria above and 

the subsequent proposal categorizations will be considered in the selection process. In addition, the 

proposed cost to the sponsoring NASA Mission Directorate will also be considered in the final 

selections. 

The Selection Official may take into account a variety of programmatic factors in deciding whether 

or not to select any proposals, including, but not limited to, available funding and maintaining a 

programmatic and scientific balance across the sponsoring NASA Mission Directorate. Although 

each NASA Mission Directorate develops and evaluates its program strategy in close consultation 

with the scientific community, each program is an evolving activity that ultimately depends upon the 

most current Administration policies and budgets, as well as the strategic priorities identified by the 

community. In any event, this exercise of discretion by the Selection Official will be consistent with 

the categorization of the proposals. 

The overriding consideration for the final selection of proposals submitted in response to each 

Program Element of this AO will be to maximize scientific or technical return and minimize 

implementation risk within the available budget for this program. Consistent with applicable 

Program Element funding availability, one or more investigations may be selected. Depending on the 

availability of proposals of appropriate merit, this objective may be achieved by the selection of a 

single investigation at the cost ceiling for specific Program Element investigations, one or more 

investigations significantly below the cost ceiling, or a combination of investigations of various costs. 

A proposal may be selected for development without first completing a Phase A concept study, or it 

may be required by NASA to conduct a Phase A concept study before being considered. Any request 

for selection without a Phase A concept study must be fully justified in the proposal. For such a 

selection, the proposal must (1) conform to the SALMON guidelines for the appropriate category of 

investigation, and (2) contain a commitment by the PI for the cost, schedule, and scientific and 

technical performance of the investigation with the resolution equivalent to that expected at the end 

of a Concept Study. If required, a selected investigation not proposing Phase A activities will submit 

a concept study report to NASA for detailed review. This concept study report is expected to address 

plans for all programmatic objectives listed in this AO. 

7.4 Implementation Activities 

7.4.1 Notification of Selection 

Following initial selection, the PIs of the selected investigations will be notified by telephone, 

followed by formal written notification. The formal notification may include special instructions or 

conditions for the selection and the implementation of the proposed investigation. The appropriate 

NASA Program Office will contact each selected PI as soon as possible after selection to clarify 

requirements and responsibilities of all parties having roles in each selected investigation. Proposers 

of investigations that were not selected will be notified in writing and offered a debriefing as 

described in Section 7.6. 

31
SALMON AO 

7.4.2 Award Administration and Funding of Investigations 

It is anticipated that grants or cooperative agreements will be awarded for any investigations selected 

under this AO that do not deliver flight hardware or software. 

It is anticipated that contracts will be awarded for any investigations selected under this AO that 

deliver flight hardware or software. If the contract exceeds $650K, the contractor will have to certify 

the proposed costs for the contract, in accordance with FAR 15.406-2. 

Should a non-U.S. proposal or a U.S. proposal with non-U.S. participation be selected, NASA's 

Office of External Relations will arrange with the non-U.S. sponsoring agency for the proposed 

participation on a no-exchange-of-funds basis, in which NASA and the non-U.S. sponsoring agency 

will each bear the cost of discharging their respective responsibilities. Depending on the nature and 

extent of the proposed cooperation, these arrangements may entail a letter of notification by NASA 

with a subsequent exchange of letters between NASA and the sponsoring governmental agency or a 

formal Agency-to-Agency MOU. 

7.4.3 Confirmation of Investigations 

At the end of Phase B, NASA will conduct an independent review of the investigation's readiness to 

proceed before being authorized to spend more than 25 percent of the total NASA commitment for 

Phases A/B/C/D. Results of this Confirmation Review is a decision to proceed or not. This decision 

will be based upon review of all aspects of the Phase B results, and evidence of satisfactory technical, 

cost, and schedule performance including demonstration of the required minimum unencumbered 

cost reserve. In addition, for any PMO, a commitment from the organization sponsoring the full 

mission to enter into an appropriate agreement with NASA is required by Confirmation Review. 

Failure to provide such an agreement may lead to a decision by NASA to terminate additional 

funding beyond Phase B. Once a mission is confirmed, no rephasing of Phase E costs to Phase C/D 

will be permitted. 

7.5 Selection of Previously Submitted but Unfunded Proposals 

If an investigation selected and awarded under this SALMON AO does not pass its Confirmation 

Review, or if additional sources of funding for this AO become available, NASA reserves the right to 

select for award another highly rated proposal that was previously submitted to this AO but not 

initially selected for funding. 

7.6 Opportunity for Debriefing of Nonselected Proposers 

Proposers of investigations that are not selected will be notified in writing and offered oral 

debriefings for themselves and a representative from each of their main partners (if any). Written 

debriefing materials will be provided at the time of the oral debriefing. Such debriefings may be in 

person at NASA HQ or by telephone if the investigation team prefers. In the former case, please note 

that all expenses and arrangements for attending a debriefing are the responsibility of the attendee. 

Travel and associated costs of attendance are not allowable as a direct cost under another Federal 

Government award, i.e., contract, grant, or cooperative agreement. Government employees may 

attend and be authorized travel and associated costs as a matter of official business. 

7.7 Agency Procurement Ombudsman 

The Agency Procurement Ombudsman, designated in NPD 5101.32D, Procurement, will take action 

to resolve concerns, disagreements, and recommendations submitted by interested parties that cannot 

be resolved at the Center level, or those having Agency wide implications, refer Center-specific 

32
SALMON AO 

issues to the appropriate Center Procurement Ombudsman for action, and periodically communicate 

with Center Procurement Ombudsmen on common Agency wide issues and refer those issues to the 

appropriate office for action. The clause at NFS 1852.215-84 (“Ombudsman”) is incorporated into 

this AO. The Agency Procurement Ombudsman is 

Director, Contract Management Division 

Office of Procurement 

NASA Headquarters 

Washington, DC 20546 

 Telephone: 202-358-0445 

7.8 Protests 

Only prospective offerors seeking contract awards under this AO have the right to file a protest, 

either at the Government Accountability Office (GAO) or with the Agency, as defined in FAR 

33.101. The provisions at FAR 52.233-2 (“Service of Protest”) and NFS 1852.233-70 (“Protests to 

NASA”) are incorporated into this AO. Under both of these provisions, the designated official for 

receipt of protests to the Agency and copies of protests filed with the GAO is: 

Assistant Administrator for Procurement 

Office of Procurement 

NASA Headquarters 

Washington, DC 20546 

 Telephone: 202-358-2090 

33
SALMON AO 

34

8.0 CONCLUSION 

This SALMON AO offers the US scientific community a new avenue to participate with NASA in 

accomplishing national science exploration goals, while generating opportunities to enhance 

education and engage the public in the excitement of science discoveries. NASA invites both the 

U.S. and non-U.S. science communities to participate in proposals for investigations to be carried out 

as a result of this Announcement. 
SALMON AO 

APPENDIX A: GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS AND PROVISIONS 

I. INSTRUMENTATION AND/OR GROUND EQUIPMENT

By submitting a proposal, the investigator and institution agree that NASA has the option to 

accept all or part of the offeror's plan to provide the instrumentation or ground support 

equipment required for the investigation, or NASA may furnish or obtain such instrumentation or 

equipment from any other source as determined by the selecting official. In addition, NASA 

reserves the right to require use of Government instrumentation or property that subsequently 

becomes available, with or without modification, that meets the investigative objectives. 

II. TENTATIVE SELECTIONS, PHASED DEVELOPMENT, PARTIAL 

SELECTIONS, AND PARTICIPATION WITH OTHERS

By submitting a proposal, the investigator and the organization agree that NASA has the option 

to make a tentative selection pending a successful feasibility or definition effort. NASA has the 

option to contract in phases for a proposed experiment and to discontinue the investigative effort 

at the completion of any phase. NASA may desire to select only a portion of the proposed 

investigation and/or that the individual participates with other investigators in a joint 

investigation. In this case, the investigator will be given the opportunity to accept or decline such 

partial acceptance or participation with other investigators prior to a NASA selection. Where 

participation with other investigators as a team is agreed to, one of the team members will 

normally be designated as its leader or contact point. NASA reserves the right not to make an 

award or cancel this AO at any time. 

III. SELECTION WITHOUT DISCUSSION

The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award contracts without discussions with 

offerors. Therefore, each initial offer should contain the offeror's best terms from a cost or price 

and technical standpoint. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions, if 

later determined by the Contracting Officer to be necessary. 

IV. NONDOMESTIC PROPOSALS

The guidelines for proposals originating outside of the United States are the same as those for 

proposals originating within the United States, except that the additional conditions described in 

Section 4.8 shall also apply. 

V. TREATMENT OF PROPOSAL DATA

It is NASA policy to use information contained in proposals and quotations for evaluation 

purposes only. While this policy does not require that the proposal or quotation bear a restrictive 

notice, offerors or quoters should, in order to maximize protection of trade secrets or other 

information that is commercial or financial and confidential or privileged, place the following 

notice on the title page of the proposal or quotation and specify the information, subject to the 

A-1
SALMON AO 

notice by inserting appropriate identification, such as page numbers, in the notice. In any event, 

information (data) contained in proposals and quotations will be protected to the extent permitted 

by law, but NASA assumes no liability for use and disclosure of information not made subject to 

the notice. 

RESTRICTION ON USE AND DISCLOSURE OF 

PROPOSAL AND QUOTATION INFORMATION (DATA) 

The information (data) contained in (insert page numbers or other identification) of this 

proposal or quotation constitutes a trade secret and/or information that is commercial or 

financial and confidential or privileged. It is furnished to the Government in confidence 

with the understanding that it will not, without permission of the offeror, be used or 

disclosed for other than evaluation purposes; provided, however, that in the event a 

contract is awarded on the basis of this proposal or quotation, the Government shall have 

the right to use and disclose this information (data) to the extent provided in the contract. 

This restriction does not limit the Government's right to use or disclose this information 

(data), if obtained from another source without restriction. 

VI. STATUS OF COST PROPOSALS

Submission of cost or pricing data, as defined in FAR 15.401, is required if the combined Phase 

A and Bridge Phase costs exceed $650,000. Cost or pricing data will also be required for 

proposals for subsequent mission phases. The investigator's institution agrees that the cost 

proposal submitted in response to the Announcement is for proposal evaluation and selection 

purposes, and that, following selection and during negotiations leading to a definitive contract, 

the institution may be required to resubmit or execute all certifications and representations 

required by law and regulation. 

VII. LATE PROPOSALS

The Government reserves the right to consider proposals or modifications thereof received after 

the date indicated for such purpose, if the selecting official deems it to offer NASA a significant 

technical advantage or cost reduction. (See NFS 18-15.208.) 

VIII. SOURCE OF SPACE INVESTIGATIONS

Investigators are advised that candidate investigations for space missions can come from many 

sources. These sources include those selected through this AO, those generated by NASA inhouse research and development, and those derived from contracts and other agreements 

between NASA and external entities. 

IX. DISCLOSURE OF PROPOSALS OUTSIDE THE GOVERNMENT

NASA may find it necessary to obtain proposal evaluation assistance outside the Government. 

Where NASA determines it is necessary to disclose a proposal outside the Government for 

evaluation purposes, arrangements will be made with the evaluator for appropriate handling of 

the proposal information. Therefore, by submitting a proposal, the investigator and institution 

agree that NASA may have the proposal evaluated outside the Government. If the investigator or 

A-2
SALMON AO 

institution desires to preclude NASA from using an outside evaluation, the investigator or 

institution should so indicate on the cover. However, notice is given that if NASA is precluded 

from using outside evaluation, it may be unable to consider the proposal. 

X. EQUAL OPPORTUNITY

For any NASA contract resulting from this solicitation, the clause at FAR 52.222-26, “Equal 

Opportunity,” shall apply. 

XI. PATENT RIGHTS

A. For any NASA contract resulting from this solicitation awarded to other than a small 

business firm or nonprofit organization, the clause at NFS 18-52.227-70, New 

Technology, shall apply. Such contractors may, in advance of a contract, request 

waiver of rights as set forth in the provision at NFS 18-52.227-71, Requests for 

Waiver of Rights to Inventions. 

B. For any NASA contract resulting from this solicitation awarded to a small business 

firm or nonprofit organization, the clause at FAR 52.227-11, Patent Rights -- 

Retention by the Contractor (Short Form), (as modified by NFS 18-52.227-11) shall 

apply. 

XII. RIGHTS IN DATA

Any contract resulting from this solicitation will contain the Rights in Data – General clause: 

FAR 52.227-14. 

XIII. SMALL AND SMALL DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING

A. Offerors are advised that NASA is subject to statutory goals to allocate a fair portion 

of its contract dollars to SDB concerns, HBCUs, and OMIs, as these entities are 

defined in 52.219-8 and 52.226-2 of the FAR. Offerors are encouraged to assist 

NASA in achieving these goals by using best efforts to involve these entities as 

subcontractors to the fullest extent consistent with efficient performance of their 

investigations. 

B. Offerors are advised that, by law, NASA prime contracts resulting from this 

solicitation which offer subcontracting possibilities, exceed $500,000, and are with 

organizations other than small business concerns, the clause at FAR 52.219-9 shall 

apply. Accordingly, offerors awarded contracts for Phase A concept studies that 

exceed $500,000 are required to submit small business subcontracting plans 

consistent with the FAR, covering the study phase only, unless they adequately 

demonstrate that subcontracting opportunities are not reasonably available in the 

performance of these concept studies. Failure to do so will make the offeror ineligible 

for award. These plans should be submitted for negotiation after selection in 

conjunction with contract execution. 

A-3
SALMON AO 

A-4

C. As part of the down selection of investigations, offerors, other than small business 

concerns, are required to submit small business subcontracting plans, covering 

implementation and operation phases B/C/D/E/F, at the time the Phase A concept 

study reports are delivered. Failure to submit a subcontracting plan will make the 

offeror ineligible for award. As part of the down select decision, these subcontracting 

plans will be evaluated on the participation goals and quality and level of work 

performed by small business concerns overall, as well as that performed by the 

various categories of small business concerns listed in FAR 52.219-9, except for 

SDBs. Offerors shall separately identify and will be evaluated on participation targets 

of SDBs in North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes 

determined by the Department of commerce to be underrepresented industry sectors. 

XIV. WITHDRAWAL OF PROPOSALS

Proposals may be withdrawn by the proposer at any time before award. Proposers are requested 

to notify NASA if the proposal is funded by another organization or of other changed 

circumstances that dictate termination of evaluation. 

END OF APPENDIX A 
SALMON AO 

APPENDIX B: GUIDELINES FOR PROPOSAL PREPARATION 

I. INTRODUCTION

The following guidelines apply to the preparation of proposals in response to this AO. The 

material presented is a guide for the prospective proposer and is not intended to be all 

encompassing. The proposer must, however, provide information relative to those items 

applicable to the PEA being responded to, as well as other items required by this AO. 

In the event of an apparent conflict between the guidelines in the SALMON AO, Appendix A, 

Appendix B, and a PEA, the order of precedence is: the PEA, then the SALMON AO, then 

Appendix B, then Appendix A. 

II. GENERAL GUIDELINES

Note carefully the following requirements for submission of a proposal: 

• Every organization that intends to submit a proposal to NASA in response to this AO, including 

educational institutions, industry, not-for-profit institutions, JPL, NASA Centers, and other U.S. 

Government agencies, must be registered in NSPIRES. Registration must be performed by an 

organization’s Electronic Business Point-Of-Contact (EBPOC) in the Central Contractor 

Registry (CCR). 

• The top level of any organization requesting NASA funds through the proposed investigation 

must be listed on the Proposal Cover Page (Section 6.2.2). NASA will not fund organizations 

that do not appear on the Proposal Cover Page. 

• Each individual team member (e.g., PI, Co-Is, etc.), including all personnel named on the 

proposal’s electronic cover page, must be individually registered in NSPIRES. 

• Each individual team member (e.g., PI, Co-Is, etc.), including all personnel named on the 

proposal’s electronic cover page, must specify an organizational association. The organizational 

association specified must be the organization through which the team member is participating in 

the proposed investigation. If the individual has multiple associations, then this organization may 

be different from the individual’s primary employer or preferred mailing address. 

• Proposers must comply with any format requirements specified in this AO. Only appendices 

that are specifically requested in this AO will be permitted; proposals containing unsolicited 

appendices may be declared noncompliant. 

• All documents must be written in English, use metric and standard astronomical units, and be 

clearly legible. Proposals must contain no more pages than given in the table below. In 

complying with the page limit, no page may contain more than 55 lines of text and the type font 

must not be smaller than 12 point (i.e., less than or equal to 15 characters per inch). Figure 

captions must not be smaller than 12 point. Within figures and tables the font must not be smaller 

than 10 point. Fold out pages are permitted; each “n-page” foldout counts as “n” pages. Each 

side of a sheet containing text or an illustration counts as a page. Margins at the top, both sides, 

B-1 
SALMON AO 

and bottom of each page shall be no less than 1 inch if printed on 8.5 x 11 inch paper; no less 

than 2.5 cm at the top and both sides, and 4 cm at the bottom if printed on A4 paper. 

Table B.1 provides restrictions and guidance on page count within the proposal. Note that some 

of the PEAs may specify different page limits for the main body of the proposal; if so, these page 

limits will be prominently given in the Summary of Key Information section that concludes each 

Program Element description. 

General guidelines and requirements for each proposal section are described in the following 

subsections. Program Element proposals solicited under this AO may specify solicitation topics 

and additional specific requirements for proposal submission. 

III. COVER PAGE AND PROPOSAL SUMMARY

A Cover Page and Proposal Summary must be a part of the proposal, but will not be counted 

against the page limit. It must be electronically submitted by an official of the proposing 

organization who is authorized to commit the organization. This electronic authorizing signature 

also certifies that the proposing institution has read and is in compliance with the three required 

certifications printed in full in Appendix D of this AO; therefore, certifications do not need to be 

submitted separately. If the certifications need to be amended, they may be submitted as an 

additional proposal appendix. 

The form for the Cover Page and Proposal Summary is found at http://nspires.nasaprs.com/; it 

must be completed and submitted online. The full names of the PI and the authorizing official, 

their addresses with zip code, telephone and fax numbers, and electronic mail addresses, are 

required on the specified form, as well as the names, institutions, and E-mail addresses of all 

participants, the type of investigation proposed, the PI Mission Cost, and a Summary not to 

exceed 200 words. Categories of participants (e.g., collaborator, technical representative) must 

match the choices available in the electronic submittal system. 

Every individual named on the proposal’s electronic Cover Page form as a proposing team 

member in any role, including Co-Is and collaborators, must be individually registered in 

NSPIRES and that such individuals must perform this registration themselves; no one may 

register a second party, even the PI of a proposal in which that person is committed to 

participate. Every named individual must be identified with the organization through which they 

are participating in the proposal, regardless of their place of permanent employment or preferred 

mailing address. Proposers and their team members are strongly advised to visit this Web site 

well in advance to ensure that they are properly registered. This data site is secure, and all 

information entered is strictly for NASA’s use only. 

The cover page form is comprised of several distinct sections: a Cover Page that contains the 

identifier information for the proposing institution and personnel; a Proposal Summary that 

provides an overview of the proposed investigation that is suitable for release through a publicly 

accessible archive should the proposal be selected; a Team Member section; and the Program 

B-2 
SALMON AO 

TABLE B.1 

RESTRICTIONS AND GUIDANCE ON PAGE COUNT 

Section Reference Page Limits 

Cover Page and Proposal Summary App. B (III) Electronic 

submission 

Fact Sheet App. B (V) 2 

Table of Contents App. B (VI) No page limit 

Scientific/Technical Investigation App. B (VII) 20 

Investigation Implementation 

Management and Schedule 

Cost and Cost Estimating Methodology 

App. B (VIII) 

App. B (IX) 

App. B (X) 

20 

Cost Tables B.5 and B.6; 

Optional: Master Equipment List (MEL); Work 

Breakdown Structure (WBS); WBS Dictionary; WBS 

Cost Table; and Basis of Estimate Details 

App. B (X) No page limit 

Optional: Plan for E/PO and SC App. B (XI) Up to 7 (2 for 

E/PO + 5 for SC) 

Appendices - no others permitted: 

1. Letter(s) of Commitment 

2. Statement(s) of Work (SOW) 

3. Resumes 

4. Summary of Proposed Program Cooperative 

Contributions 

5. Draft International Participation Plan - 

Discussion on Compliance with U.S. Export 

Laws and Regulations 

6. Draft Outline of Technical Responsibilities 

between U.S. and International Participation 

7. Orbital Debris Generation Acknowledgement 

8. Compliance with Procurement Regulations by 

NASA PI Proposals 

9. Heritage 

10. Abbreviations and Acronyms List 

11. Reference List (optional) 

App. B (XII) 

No page limit, 

but small size 

encouraged 

Specific Questions, where questions about the type of proposal and top level budget information 

should be entered. The Budget portion has four blocks for two types of cost, so each can be given 

in FY 2008 dollars and real year dollars: PI Mission Cost, that is, the cost paid by the sponsoring 

NASA Mission Directorate which is limited to the funding amount specified in the respective 

program element; and Total Mission Cost, which is the PI Mission Cost plus any contributions. 

The short title requested in this form is the science investigation or mission acronym. The nonB-3 
SALMON AO 

U.S. participation block requests a statement of contributions to development or operations (but 

not science) including the non-U.S. partner, the non-U.S. funding agency, and the approximate 

value of the non-U.S. contributions. 

It is NASA's intent to enter the Summaries of all selected investigations for its various programs 

into a publicly accessible database. Therefore, the Summary should not contain any proprietary 

or confidential information that the submitter wishes to protect from public disclosure. 

It is permitted but optional to submit a graphic cover page (color or otherwise). It may be placed 

in front of the hard copy of the electronically submitted cover page and proposal summary. It 

will not count against the page limit so long as it does not contain any technical information not 

found within the body of the proposal. 

Proposers are encouraged to begin their submission process early. Tutorials and other NSPIRES 

help topics may be accessed through the NSPIRES online help site at 

http://nspires.nasaprs.com/external/help.do. For any questions that cannot be resolved with the 

available online help menus, requests for assistance may be directed by E-mail to nspireshelp@nasaprs.com or by telephone to 202-479-9376, Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. – 6:00 

p.m. Eastern Time. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) may be accessed through the Proposal 

Online Help site at http://nspires.nasaprs.com/external/help.do.

IV. INSTRUCTIONS FOR CO-I APPROVAL IN NSPIRES

October 26, 2009. The NSPIRES system has been upgraded. The 

NSPIRES system now requires all proposal team members to commit to 

the proposal within NSPIRES. The instructions in Appendix B, Section IV, 

have been revised to reflect this change in the NSPIRES system. 

Every individual identified on the NSPIRES proposal cover page as a Co-I must indicate their 

commitment to the proposed investigation through NSPIRES prior to proposal cover page 

submission. Team members must additionally confirm the organization through which they are 

participating on this proposal. A Co-I will receive an email from NSPIRES indicating that he/she 

has been added to the proposal as a Co-I and should log in to NSPIRES. 

Once logged in, the Co-I should follow the link in the "Reminders and Notifications" section of 

his NSPIRES homepage, titled “Need <role> confirmation for proposal <title> for Solicitation 

<<solicitation number>>.” On the "Team Member Participation Confirmation" page, the 

proposal team member should read language about the Organizational Relationship, then click 

the “Continue” button. 

If the contact information then displayed on the “Team Member Profile” screen is out of date, 

the proposal team member should update this information later using the “Account Mgmt” link 

in the NSPIRES navigation bar across the top. Prior to making that update, however, the team 

member should follow the on-screen prompts to identify the organization through which he/she 

is participating on this proposal. Click the “Link Relationship” button to the right side of the 

“Organizational Relationship” banner. Select the organization from the “Link Proposal to an 

Association” part of the page. If the correct organization is not displayed here, try using the “Add 

B-4 
SALMON AO 

Association” button to add the organization to this list. Then click the “Save” button at the 

bottom of the page. If the team member cannot find the organization when searching in the 

“Add Association” area (i.e., the organization is not registered), type in the formal name in the 

space provided (or select “Self” if appropriate). Once the organization is selected and the “Save” 

button is clicked, there is a confirmation page that allows the team member to edit that 

relationship if it was chosen incorrectly. Click “Continue”. 

Note that the organization through which the proposal team member is participating in the 

proposal might not be the proposal team member’s primary employer or primary mailing 

address. If the address information is accurate (or once it has been edited to be accurate), the 

proposal team member may log out of NSPIRES. 

NSPIRES will send an email to both the team member and the PI confirming that the 

commitment was made and the organization was identified. The PI may additionally monitor the 

status of proposal team member commitments by examining the “Relationship Confirmed” 

column on the Team Member page of the NSPIRES proposal cover page record. Note that the 

proposal cover page cannot be submitted until all identified team members have confirmed their 

participating organization. 

V. FACT SHEET

A Fact Sheet that provides a brief summary of the proposed investigation must be included in the 

proposal. The information conveyed on the Fact Sheet must include the following, as applicable: 

science/technical objectives (including the importance of the science to the NASA science 

research programs and/or technology to the NASA goals and objectives), investigation overview 

(including investigation objectives and major instrument or mission characteristics), science 

payload, key spacecraft characteristics, anticipated launch vehicle, management structure 

(including teaming arrangement as known, PI, and PM if assigned), schedule, and cost estimate. 

Other relevant information, including figures or drawings, may be included at the proposer's 

discretion. The Fact Sheet is restricted to two pages. 

VI. TABLE OF CONTENTS

The proposal shall contain a table of contents that parallels the outlines provided below in 

Sections VII through XII as applicable. 

VII. SCIENTIFIC/TECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

A. Overview. The science/technical section must describe the scientific or technology 

development objectives of the proposed investigation, including the value of the 

investigation to one or more of NASA’s science and technology goals and objectives. 

B. Scientific or Technical Goals and Objectives. This section must discuss the goals and 

objectives of the investigation, their value to NASA’s scientific or technical objectives, 

and their relationships to past, current, and future investigations and missions. It should 

describe the history and basis for the proposal. This section must discuss the need for 

B-5 
SALMON AO 

such an investigation and must directly address the evaluation criteria for scientific or 

technical merit described in the AO. 

C. Investigation Requirements. This section must describe the observations and/or data 

required to meet the proposed scientific or technical objectives. The requirements for the 

investigation must be explicitly described and these must be linked to the scientific or 

technical objectives of the mission. The requirements that these objectives and 

observations impose on the mission design elements must be discussed. 

A Traceability Matrix describing the required “objectives-to-measurements-to-mission 

traceability” must be provided in tabular form. For the case of instrument and instrument 

suite proposals, this Traceability Matrix is also meant to clearly indicate which 

Measurement Parameters are to be supplied through the investigation and how it fits with 

data from the host mission and/or other available data or modeling sources. 

When applicable, a Mission Traceability Matrix describing the mission requirements 

traceability must also be provided. Examples of a Science Traceability Matrix and a 

Mission Traceability Matrix are given in Tables B.3 and B.4 along with examples for 

elements in such matrixes. Technology Demonstration proposals must provide a 

Technology Verification Traceability Matrix in place of the Science Traceability Matrix. 

D. Measurement Data and Other Investigation Products. The measurements to be taken in 

the course of the investigation, the data to be returned, and the approach that will be taken 

in analyzing the data to achieve the scientific or technical objectives of the investigation 

must be discussed. This description should identify the investigation to be performed, the 

quality of the data to be returned (e.g., resolution, coverage, pointing accuracy, 

measurement precision, etc.), and the quantity of data to be returned (bits, images, etc.). 

The relationship between the data products generated and the scientific or technical 

objectives must be explicitly described, as should the expected results. A discussion of 

the investigation products (e.g., flight data, ancillary or calibration data, theoretical 

calculations, higher order analytical or data products, sample returns, witness samples, 

laboratory data, etc.) and how the investigation products and data obtained will be used to 

fulfill the stated scientific or technical objectives must be provided. A discussion of how 

the investigation data will be obtained, including a plan for delivery of the products, and 

the individuals responsible for the data delivery, must also be provided. For instrument or 

instrument suite investigations, proposers should describe how they will coordinate their 

investigations with other host spacecraft investigations and how their data will 

collectively contribute to the achievement of the broader host mission and NASA goals. 

It is assumed that the above information will constitute the Baseline Investigation. 

E. Descope Options. A description of potential descope options available to the Baseline 

Investigation, their phasing, their effect on meeting the scientific or technical objectives 

of the investigation, and their value during development (e.g., savings in cost, schedule, 

or risk), is encouraged. The proposer should consider all aspects of the investigation as 

applicable (e.g., launch vehicle, instrument, spacecraft, ground system) and not focus 

entirely on possible instrument descopes or mission length reductions. 

B-6 
SALMON AO 

F. Science/Technology Implementation: Instrumentation. This section must describe the 

instrumentation and the rationale used for its selection. It must identify the individual 

instruments and instrument systems, including their characteristics and requirements, and 

indicate items that are proposed to be developed, as well as any existing instrumentation 

or design/flight heritage. The quality and quantity of data generated by each instrument, 

as they relate to the proposed investigation goals and objectives, must be discussed. The 

flow-down from investigation goals to measurement objectives and instrument 

performance must be stated clearly and supported by quantitative analysis where 

possible. 

Investigations that require instrumentation in order to meet the investigation objectives 

must have proposals that describe all parameters of the instrument(s) that are pertinent to 

the accommodation of the instrument within the host spacecraft resources and 

configuration, plus any special requirements necessary for successful implementation. 

This information must be given in sufficient detail to permit an evaluation of both the 

concept and the practical feasibility of the hardware. These resources include, but are not 

limited to: volumetric envelope, mass, power, and thermal requirements (including 

preferred thermal limits); telemetry and command requirements; environmental 

sensitivities (e.g., to electrical cleanliness, magnetic fields, and contamination); any 

special spacecraft or launch vehicle integration requirements or constraints; field-of-view 

clearances; pointing requirements; and on-board data processing. Mass, power, and data 

processing preliminary budgets must be provided. The preliminary power discussion 

must outline average, cruise, and peak power use and a time profile of power needs. All 

enabling technologies must be identified and the NASA TRL level defined and justified. 

All enabling technologies are required to be at TRL 5 or higher before a project enters 

Phase B, and at TRL 6 or higher by the end of Phase B. A plan to meet the required TRLs 

for each phase must be discussed. 

A preliminary description of each instrument design with a block diagram showing the 

instrument systems and their interfaces must be included, along with a description of the 

estimated performance of the instrument. Performance characteristics must be related to 

the measurement and investigation objectives as stated in the proposal. These 

performance characteristics (which shall be considered as requirements on the flight 

system) must include mass, power, volume, data rate(s), pointing, and pointing accuracy, 

as well as resolution, precision/sensitivity, and calibration requirements. 

1. Mission Concept. The science/technology payload observing profile must 

be discussed, including all mission-relevant parameters, such as orbit, pointing 

requirements, operational time lines (including observing periods, data 

transmission periods and techniques, and time-critical events), etc. The manner in 

which the proposed investigation objectives and selected instruments drive the 

proposed mission design and operations plan should be apparent from this 

discussion. 

2. Data Analysis and Archiving. The data reduction and analysis plan must 

be discussed, including the method and format of the data reduction, data 

validation, and preliminary analysis. The process by which data will be prepared 

B-7 
SALMON AO 

for archiving must be discussed, including a list of the specific data products and 

the individual team members responsible for the data products. The plan must 

include a schedule for the submission of raw and reduced data to the appropriate 

NASA data archive in the proper formats, media, etc. The proposal must 

demonstrate that delivery of the data to the data archive takes place in the shortest 

time possible. 

3. Science/Technology Team. This section must identify each necessary 

individual of the investigation science or technology development team and their 

roles and responsibilities. The capabilities and experience of all members of the 

proposed science/technology team must be described (the resumes in 

Section XII.3 may be used). The role of each Co-I must be explicitly defined and 

justified, and the funding source (NASA or contributed) for the PI and each Co-I 

noted. 

G. Plan for Science/Technology Enhancement Options (STEO). NASA policy encourages 

the addition of extended missions, guest investigator programs, general observer 

programs, participating scientist programs, interdisciplinary scientist programs, or 

archival data analysis programs. The proposal must define and describe any proposed 

STEO activities, where appropriate, to broaden the scientific impact of missions. These 

programs are usually initiated no earlier than Phase E. NASA will independently solicit 

and administer these programs using competitive peer review (Section 7.1). 

VIII. INVESTIGATION IMPLEMENTATION

This section must provide, as applicable and to the extent known at the time of the proposal, a 

description of the space flight mission through which the investigation is to be executed, 

including mission design, instrument accommodation, spacecraft, required launch vehicle, 

ground systems, communications approach, and mission operations plan. Specific information 

should be included that describes the unique requirements placed on these mission elements by 

the science investigation. In some areas (e.g., instruments), the data requested may already be 

needed and presented in another section of the proposal (e.g., the Science Implementation 

section). In such cases, proposers may provide a reference to that (those) section(s) and need not 

repeat the data in this section.

In areas of mission implementation where the required depth of information is not available, for 

whatever reason, at this stage of mission design, the proposal must (i) describe the current design 

concept, (ii) justify that the development of that aspect of the design is not required at this stage 

and that it is acceptable to develop details later, and (iii) explain why the lack of information at 

this stage should not translate into a risk to the proposer's ability to implement the investigation 

as proposed. The schedule and process for developing the required depth of information must be 

explicitly included among the plans for future activity. In the case where depth of technical detail 

is deferred, the proposal must justify the adequacy of the proposed cost reserves given that the 

proposed cost is not allowed during Phase A (or at any later time) to increase beyond the cost in 

the proposal. 

B-8 
SALMON AO 

If the proposed spacecraft bus is in the Rapid Spacecraft Development Office catalog 

(http://rsdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/Rapidii/catalog2.cfm), explain how any changes to the technical 

specifications given in the catalog are going to be achieved and how those changes affect other 

subsystems. 

As part of this section, the development approach which will assure mission success must be 

described. The following items must be included in the discussion as applicable for the proposed 

mission: 

• Heritage and maturity of mission elements (instruments, spacecraft, ground systems, and 

mission design, etc.); 

• Approach to use or nonuse of redundancy and other reliability measures (requirements for 

burn-in of parts, total operating time required without failure prior to flight, etc.); 

• Assembly, integration, and test flows and integration and test approach; 

• Environmental test philosophy (test flow and sequence, test margins, and test durations); 

• Product assurance activities; 

• Systems engineering plan and philosophy, and trade studies to be conducted; 

• Potential risks to the proposed investigation and plans for mitigating those risks; 

• Technology development plans and back-up plans, if technologies do not meet development 

needs (new technology may be penalized for risk if adequate backup plans are not described 

to ensure success of the investigation); 

• Identification of instrument to spacecraft interfaces, including integration and test approach; 

• Subsystem descriptions including telecommunications, thermal, power, propulsion, attitude 

determination and control, command and data handling, flight software (including fault 

protection and safing), and ground software; and 

• At a high level, discussion of operations team training, availability of spacecraft experts for 

operations, operations center development, and planned ground station network. 

Instrument assembly, testing, and calibration (both pre- and during flight) must be described. The 

proposal shall include a flow diagram indicating the order of assembly, tests, and calibration. In 

addition, the proposer shall submit a verification matrix that describes the tests and calibrations 

that are to be performed on components, development units, and subassemblies.

In the case of proposals for instrument suites, both individual instruments and package 

parameters must be detailed to the extent possible. Proposals for multiple instruments are 

expected to justify each instrument. The instrument suite component level reserves and margin 

for resources such as mass, telemetry, and power must be identified. The mass, telemetry, and 

power and reserves and margins must be identified separately for all the necessary components 

of each instrument in case only an individual instrument is selected from the proposed suite (see 

below for definitions of reserve and margin). Discuss the allocation of reserves and margin to the 

instrument and/or suite. 

This section must also address how the instrument design and planned instrument operations 

accounts for the expected environment (e.g., radiation, thermal cycle). The proposal must 

address planned mitigation of the potential environmental effects and describe how the science 

goals will be achieved in the expected environment. 

B-9 
SALMON AO 

It is recognized that teaming arrangements to implement the investigation may not be complete 

at the time of the proposal. Proposers will not be penalized for this if it is demonstrated that there 

are candidate implementation approaches for the spacecraft, launch vehicle, communications, 

and ground systems that will allow the successful implementation of the investigation. 

Although the maturity of the proposed design may require the results of later trades during the 

Phase A Concept and Technology Development, in addition to the information above, the 

specific data identified below must be provided (in tables) to the extent known at the time of the 

proposal due date and as applicable to the proposed mission configuration. For example, 

Section VIII.9 below does not apply to technology demonstrations. 

1. General Information 

Launch date (including launch date flexibility), mission duration, orbit type (Earth orbit, 

heliocentric, etc.), and orbit information (semi-major axis, eccentricity, inclination, node time 

of day, argument of perigee, altitude), ground station(s) usage (e.g., location(s), transmitting 

and receiving communication parameters). 

2. Downlink Information 

Data volume (Mbytes/day), bit error rate, onboard storage (Mbytes), transmit frequency, 

power available for communications (Watts), downlink data rate, effective isotropic radiated 

power (dBW), transmitting antenna type and gain (dBi), modulation and coding [e.g., Binary 

Phase Shift Keying (BPSK), Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems (CCSDS), 

Reed-Solomon], number of data dumps per day, spacecraft data destination (e.g., mission 

operations center), science data destination (e.g., science operations center), and maximum 

time lag between data dump and data arrival at destination, if relevant to science needs. 

3. Uplink Information 

Number of uplinks per day, number of bytes per uplink, bit error rate, receive frequency, 

uplink data rate, receiving antenna type and gain (dBi), modulation and coding (e.g., BPSK, 

CCSDS, Reed-Solomon), and approach and schedule for obtaining license(s) for use of 

proposed frequency bands. 

4. Provision of Critical Event Data 

Critical events are defined as events that could result in the loss of the mission if anomalies 

occur (i.e., spacecraft separation, orbit insertion, etc.), and spacecraft telemetry is required 

for mission critical events to allow the cause of loss of mission to be determined. The 

approach and plans for how such data are to be measured and returned must be addressed. 

5. Reserves and Margins 

For a satellite (instrument package and spacecraft), provide estimates for mass, power, and 

reserves at the subsystem level (including propellant), and margins at the system level. For 

instrument package requirements on the spacecraft, provide pointing, stability, attitude, and 

B-10 
SALMON AO 

maneuvering requirements necessary for science operations (include design margins, when 

known). 

Definitions: 

Reserve (or contingency) when added to a resource, results in the maximum expected value for 

that resource. Percent reserve is the value of the reserve divided by the value of the resource 

less the reserve. 

Margin is the difference between the maximum possible value of a resource (the 

physical limit or the agreed-to limit) and the maximum expected value for a resource. Percent 

margin for a resource is the available margin divided by its maximum expected value. 

Example: A payload in the design phase has an estimated mass of 115 kg including a mass 

reserve of 15 kg. There is no other payload on the Expendable Launch Vehicle (ELV) and the 

ELV provider plans to allot the payload the full capability of the vehicle, if needed. The ELV 

capability is 200 kg. The mass reserve is 15/100 = 15% and the mass margin is 85 kg or 

85/115 = 74%. 

Example: The end-of-mission life capability of a spacecraft power system is 200 Watts. The 

instrument is expected to use 50 Watts, including 25% reserve. It is allotted 75 Watts by the 

satellite provider. The reserve is 10 Watts and the margin is 25 Watts, or 25/50 = 50%.

6. Attitude and Control Requirements

• Attitude control requirements for the spacecraft pointing control, pointing knowledge (at 

the instrument interface), pointing stability or jitter (each axis, 3-sigma); 

• Attitude control requirements for bias, drift, stability or jitter, rate for scanning (each 

axis); 

• Spacecraft attitude knowledge requirements at the instrument interface for bias, drift, 

jitter, rate for scanning (each axis); 

• Agility (maneuvers, scanning, etc.); 

• Deployments (solar panel, antennas, etc.); 

• Articulation (1, 2 -axis solar arrays, antennas, gimbals, etc.); 

• On-orbit calibration (alignment, line-of-sight, thermal deformation); and 

• Attitude knowledge processing (real-time versus post-processing, spaceborne versus 

ground). 

7. Instrument Characteristics

For each science instrument provide the following information: 

• Mass (include breakouts of electronics and optics if known); 

• Viewing direction in body coordinates; 

• Operational modes; 

• Operational mode timeline; 

• Data demand for each instrument operational mode; 

• Onboard recording required from spacecraft; 

• Power demand for each instrument operational mode including peak, average, and standby power; 

B-11 
SALMON AO 

• Supplemental power supplied by primary batteries; 

• Statement of whether instrument is active or passive; 

• Instrument thermal control capability; 

• Bias, drift, and noise of instrument data used in pointing control and knowledge 

determination; and 

• Character of significant instrument-generated jitter and momentum. 

8. Spacecraft Characteristics 

To the extent known at the time of proposal submission, and as applicable to the proposed 

investigation, provide the following information (Note: provide the information below that is 

related to the proposed investigation’s requirements on, and interfaces with, the sponsor’s 

instrument/spacecraft): 

• Spacecraft Parameters: 

− Figure of the complete spacecraft/instrument system, on the launch vehicle and inflight, with major components labeled and approximate overall dimensions; 

− Block diagram of the spacecraft subsystems and their components; and 

− Attitude and control subsystem sensors and actuators information (number, type, 

redundancy, precision/errors, torque, and momentum storage capabilities, etc.). 

• Propulsion: 

- Estimated delta-V budget; 

- Propulsion type(s) (monoprop, bi-prop, dual-mode, solar electric, etc.) and associated 

propellant(s)/oxidizer(s); 

- Propellant mixture ratio (if bi-prop); and 

- Specific impulse of each propulsion mode. 

• Modes of Communications Operations: 

- For transmit-only mode: Mode timeline, data rate(s), and duration; 

- For receive-only mode: Mode timeline, data rate(s), and duration; 

- Antenna Tx and Rx patterns (if available); and 

- For Rx and Tx modes simultaneously: Mode timeline, data rate(s), and duration. 

• Command and Data Handling: 

- Spacecraft housekeeping data demand. If known, time-lined data demands shall be 

provided for each subsystem operational mode (i.e., for Guidance, Navigation, and 

Communications: standby, fine pointing, and reaction wheel momentum 

management; and for Communications: transmit, and receive); 

- Data storage unit size (Mbits); 

- Maximum storage record rate; and 

- Maximum storage playback rate. 

• Power: 

- Definition of each spacecraft subsystem operational mode over all science phases 

(Note: provide power demand as well as operational schedule (timeline) for each 

operational mode); 

- Type of array structure (rigid, flexible, body mounted); 

- Solar array axes of rotation (vector projected in spacecraft coordinates); 

- Array size; 

- Solar cell type and efficiency; 

B-12 
SALMON AO 

- Expected power generation at Beginning of Life and End of Life; 

- Worst case Sun incidence angle to solar panels during science mission; 

- Battery type and storage capacity; 

- Worst case battery Depth of Discharge; and 

- Spacecraft bus voltage. 

9. Technology Development and New Technology: 

Due to the limited funding and time-constrained schedules associated with SALMON AO 

flight opportunities, it is strongly encouraged that instruments proposed for this SALMON 

AO be at or above NASA TRL-6. TRL claims must be substantiated. If any instrument or 

spacecraft components are proposed below this readiness level, then a portion of the Mission 

Implementation section must include a discussion and justification of the proposed new 

technologies/advanced developments and the approach that will be taken to reduce their 

associated risks to MO cost, schedule, and science objectives. Within this section, specific 

topics to be addressed should include: 

• Identification and justification of the TRL for each proposed new development and/or 

advanced development at the time the proposal is submitted; 

• Description of the proposed plan for bringing each of the identified items to a minimum 

of TRL 6, defined as “system/subsystem model or prototype demonstration in a relevant 

environment, space, or ground” by Confirmation Review at the end of Phase B (include 

discussion of simulations, prototyping, systems testing, life testing, etc., as appropriate); 

• An estimation of the manpower, cost resources, and the schedule required to complete the 

above plans; and 

• Identification of alternatives to any proposed new technology or advanced development 

that may be implemented to retain mission schedule, cost, and baseline scientific 

objectives, and the decision milestones for their implementation. 

Investigations proposing new technology, i.e., technologies having a TRL less than 6, will be 

assessed a higher risk rating if adequate backup plans to ensure success of the investigation 

are not described. 

IX. MANAGEMENT AND SCHEDULE

This section must summarize the investigator's proposed management approach. The 

management organization (including an organization chart) and decision-making process 

must be described and the teaming arrangement (as known) must be discussed. The 

responsibilities of the PI, the team members, including contributors, and institutional 

commitments must be discussed. Unique capabilities that each team member organization 

brings to the team, as well as previous experience (including cost and schedule performance) 

with similar systems and equipment must be addressed. The specific roles and 

responsibilities of the PI and PM must be clearly stated. Risk management and risk 

mitigation plans must be described. This discussion must include the top risks considered 

significant by the PI and the PM, descoping strategies, and management strategies for 

control, allocation and release of technical, cost and schedule reserves and margins. When 

contracts are required, the acquisition strategy including any incentive strategy must be 

described. 

B-13 
SALMON AO 

Proposals should specifically address how the investigation team will interrelate with the 

sponsor of the parent mission, if applicable, organizationally and managerially. Proposals 

should also address: 

• The status of the commitment from the spacecraft builder/owner or sponsoring 

organization to fly the proposed instrument or conduct the proposed investigation; 

• If and how the proposed investigation relates to the spacecraft sponsor’s overall mission 

objectives; 

• The investigation development plan and how it fits in the development plan for the 

sponsor’s parent mission; 

• How the operations plan for the proposed investigation fits within the parent mission of 

the sponsoring organization; and 

• The investigation’s organizational interfaces and plans for reporting to NASA. 

A mission schedule to meet the proposed launch date and covering all phases of the 

investigation must be proposed. The schedule must include, as a minimum, proposed major 

review dates, instrument development, spacecraft development (if applicable); instrument-tospacecraft/host integration and test, launch vehicle integration and launch, and Mission 

Operations and Data Analysis (MO&DA). Schedule critical path and reserve (funded and 

unfunded) must be clearly identified. The Mission Operations schedule shall also include the 

major milestones of the mission sponsor/host and show how the investigation fits in the 

development plan for the sponsor's mission. 

In areas of management and schedule where the required depth of information is not 

available at this stage, for whatever reason, the proposal must (i) describe the current 

management approach and schedule, (ii) justify that the development of that aspect of the 

investigation is not required at this stage and that it is acceptable to develop details later, and 

(iii) explain why the lack of information at this stage should not translate into a risk to the 

proposer's ability to implement the investigation as proposed. The schedule and process for 

developing the required depth of information must be explicitly included among the plans for 

future activity. In the case where depth of detail is deferred, the proposal must justify the 

adequacy of the proposed cost reserves given that the proposed cost is not allowed during 

Phase A (or at any later time) to increase beyond the cost in the proposal.

X. COST AND COST ESTIMATING METHODOLOGY

This section shall include an estimated cost of the investigation that encompasses all 

proposed activities, including all applicable mission phases, mission unique or special launch 

services, development of the ground data system, fee, and contributions. These costs shall be 

consistent with the program requirements described in the Program Element, as applicable, of 

the AO. In the event an offeror is proposing profit or fee as part of their cost proposal, FAR 

17.207(f)(3) requires options to include a fixed fee amount, a maximum fee amount, or a 

formula for determining the fixed or maximum fee amount in order for the options to be 

legally exercisable. 

In particular, where NASA-provided services are used, the proposed cost must include all 

costs that will be paid out of the resulting award including direct civil service labor, travel, 

and other direct charges (including procurements and contractor labor). Costs which will not 

B-14 
SALMON AO 

be paid out of the resulting award, but are paid from a separate NASA budget (e.g., CM&O) 

should not be included in the proposal budget. 

The amount required in each fiscal year must be identified by providing the data in Table 

B.5, which will not be counted against the page limit. The top portion of Table B.5 requests 

cost data relative to the sponsoring NASA Mission Directorate Cost. The lower portion 

addresses contributions. The rows in Table B.5 may be modified as appropriate for the 

proposal. The cost elements in Table B.5 are defined in Appendix E. Provide the data 

requested in Table B.6, which will not be counted against the page limit, for the sponsoring 

NASA Mission Directorate Cost by mission phase. The columns in Tables B.5 and B.6 must 

be labeled with the appropriate fiscal years. Table B.7 gives the NASA inflation index to be 

used to calculate real year dollars. 

The proposers are highly encouraged to provide the following items, which will not be 

counted against the page limit, to enable the validation of their costs. 

• MEL 

• WBS 

• WBS Dictionary 

• WBS Cost Table 

• Basis of Estimate Details 

A fully developed MEL or WBS is encouraged but not required at this stage. However, since 

a preliminary top-level version of them will probably be used to generate the budget in the 

proposal, their inclusion in the proposal would be of value to the reviewers in the same way it 

was to the proposers. The rows in the WBS Cost Table would be the WBS elements whereas 

the columns would be the real year costs for each fiscal year. As in Tables B.5, the last two 

columns in the WBS Cost Table would be the Total in real year dollars and the Total in 

FY2008 dollars. Basis of estimate details include complete cost model input data, vendor 

quotes, and comparisons to analogous investigations. 

XI. PLAN FOR EDUCATION AND PUBLIC OUTREACH, AND STUDENT 

COLLABORATION

E/PO activities are optional for SALMON AO proposals. If an E/PO component is proposed, 

the proposer must provide a 2-page overview of the planned E/PO activities and their 

relationship to the proposed science investigation. This overview must include a brief 

discussion of any unique characteristics of the investigation which might provide unusual 

opportunities for E/PO. The proposer must declare any intention to include any SC as defined 

in Section 4.10.2 The SC must be fully described in its impact to educational opportunities as 

well as technical, maturity, processes, and mission risks. The SC must require a space flight. 

The proposer must discuss how the SC can be incorporated into the mission on a non-impact 

basis. Per Table B.1, the SC may allocate a separate 5 pages to discuss its approach and 

implementation. 

B-15 
SALMON AO 

XII. APPENDICES

The following additional information is required to be supplied with the proposal as 

Appendices and, as such, will not be counted within the specified page limit. No other 

appendices are permitted except if the certifications need to be amended in which case they 

may be submitted as an additional proposal appendix. 

1. Letters of Commitment.

Letters of commitment must be provided from all organizations (i) offering critical goods 

and/or services (excluding Co-I services) on a no-exchange-of-funds basis, (ii) non-U.S. 

organizations providing hardware or software to the investigation and their funding 

agencies, and (iii) the major or critical participants in the proposal. Critical participants 

are those participants who are assigned to tasks considered by the PI to be critical to the 

success of the mission, including those who provide unique required services. All other 

participants are non-critical. Requirements for letters of commitment may be found in 

Section 4.6.7 and Section 4.8.3. 

2. Statement of Work (SOW) and Funding Information

For investigations managed from non-Government institutions, provide a SOW. For 

investigations managed from Government institutions, provide a SOW as if the institution 

were non-Government. The SOW must include general tasks statements for Phases 

A/B/C/D and for Phases E/F. All SOWs must include Scope of Work and Government 

Responsibilities (as applicable). SOWs need not be more than a page or two in length. If 

more than one contractual arrangement between NASA and the proposing team is 

required, information must be provided which identifies how funds are to be allocated 

among the organizations. 

3. Resumes

Provide resumes or curriculum vitae for the PI and all Co-Is identified in the science 

section and for any key personnel. The resume must clearly show experience related to 

the job the individual will perform on the proposed investigation. If the PI (and PM, if 

assigned) has project management experience, it must be included in their resume. 

Resumes should be organized alphabetically after that of the PI. 

4. Summary of Proposed Program Cooperative Contributions.

The following requirement for additional information does not apply to investigations 

proposed in response to this AO unless there are cooperative contributions to the MO 

investigation (the host mission is not considered a contribution to the MO investigation). 

In order to aid NASA in conducting an equitable assessment of risks from cooperative 

contributions, each proposer must provide, in addition to the commitment letter from 

funding sponsors of all cooperative contributions, two additional items: 

a. An “exploded diagram” of the investigation (see Figure B.1) that provides a clear 

visual representation of cooperative contributions incorporated in the proposed 

B-16 
SALMON AO 

implementation approach. All cooperative contributions, including those that will 

require an international agreement, or interagency MOU, must be shown in this 

diagram. Each contribution shown must display a unique name for the contribution 

as well as the identity of the contributing entity. However, the following should not 

be shown: 

i. If there are no cooperative contributions of spacecraft, launch vehicle or services, 

or ground operations or facilities, these boxes need not be shown on the diagram 

at all. 

ii. Scientific collaborations such as joint data analysis that do not involve 

contribution of flight hardware or other critical items should not be shown. 

iii. Non-U.S. or U.S. goods and services obtained by contract using NASA funds are 

not cooperative contributions and are also not to be shown. 

FIGURE B.1 

SAMPLE “EXPLODED DIAGRAM” 

b. A supporting table with more information that elaborates each cooperative 

contribution shown in the exploded diagram. The table must include, for each 

contribution, the following information: 

i. Unique name identifying the contribution (matching the name on the exploded 

diagram); 

ii. The identity of the providing entity, whether non-U.S. or U.S.; 

B-17 
SALMON AO 

iii. The roles and responsibilities of the providing entity; 

iv. For non-U.S. contributions, the identification of the funding sponsor if different 

from the entity identified in item (ii) above; 

v. The approximate value of the contribution, in U.S. dollars (i.e., what would be 

the cost to NASA to replace the contribution if it were not provided as planned); 

and 

vi. Cross reference to letters of commitment. 

5. Draft International Participation Plan - Discussion on Compliance with U.S. Export Laws 

and Regulations.

Investigations that include international participation, either through involvement of nonU.S. nationals and/or involvement of non-U.S. entities must include a section discussing 

compliance with U.S. export laws and regulations; e.g., 22 CFR 120-130, et seq. and 15 

CFR 730-774, et seq., as applicable to the scenario surrounding the particular 

international participation. The discussion must describe in detail the proposed 

international participation and is to include, but not be limited to, the following items: (i) 

complexity and risk, (ii) management of non-U.S. contributions (including flowchart 

showing flow of hardware, information, and management authority), (iii) risk mitigation 

should contributions not materialize, and (iv) whether or not the international 

participation may require the proposer to obtain the prior approval of the Department of 

State or the Department of Commerce via a technical assistance agreement or an export 

license, or whether a license exemption/exception may apply. If prior approvals via 

licenses are necessary, discuss whether the license has been applied for or if not, the 

projected timing of the application and any implications for the schedule. 

6. Draft Outline of Assignment of Technical Responsibilities between U.S. and

International Partners.

These outlines will be used by NASA at selection as the starting point for formalizing the 

agency-to-agency agreements that will be required if the investigation is implemented. 

There is a Letter of Agreement (LOA) Template in the SALMON Reference Library. 

7. Orbital Debris Generation Acknowledgement.

NASA policy requires all objects launched into space to have a formal Orbital Debris 

assessment done to limit the amount of orbital debris generated. Orbital Debris is defined 

as any object placed in space by humans that remains in orbit and no longer serves any 

useful function or purpose. Objects range from spacecraft to spent launch vehicle stages 

to instruments and also include materials, trash, refuse, fragments, or other objects which 

are overtly or inadvertently cast off or generated. This policy applies to SALMON 

missions. 

All missions shall conduct orbital debris assessments prior to PDR to ensure compliance 

with the requirements in NASA-STD-8719.14, NASA Process for Limiting Orbital 

Debris. Complete missions, including SALMON missions and SCMs, will be required to 

submit an assessment following Appendix A.1 of NASA-STD-8719.14. MOs which are 

B-18 
SALMON AO 

not complete missions, including PMOs, will be required to submit an assessment 

following Appendix A.3 of NASA-STD-8719.14. 

This appendix to the proposal must briefly discuss what actions are necessary to meet 

orbital debris requirements including any design changes or any spacecraft disposal at 

mission termination. If there are any actions required, the appendix must briefly 

demonstrate that the proposed mission contains sufficient resources (mass, budget, fuel, 

etc.) to accommodate the anticipated actions necessary to meet orbital debris 

requirements. 

NPR 8715.6, NASA Procedural Requirements for Limiting Orbital Debris, is available in 

NODIS and NASA-STD-8719.14, NASA Process for Limiting Orbital Debris, is 

available through the NASA Standards and Technical Assistance Resource Tool at 

http://standards.nasa.gov/. 

8. Compliance with Procurement Regulations by NASA PI Proposals.

NFS 1872.308 - Proposals submitted by NASA investigators.

This appendix is required only for proposals submitted by NASA PIs or NASA Centers 

(excluding JPL). Proposals submitted by NASA Centers must comply with regulations 

governing proposals submitted by NASA PIs (NASA FAR Supplement 1872.308). 

Additional instructions may be found in Procurement Information Circular (PIC) 05-15 at 

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/procurement/regs/pic.html. 

(a) NASA solicits, accepts, and evaluates proposals submitted by NASA Centers in 

response to an AO. A NASA investigator may team with one or more non-Government 

Co-Is. A NASA investigator may also need to acquire supplies, including instruments 

and other hardware, and non-research services in support of the proposed investigation. If

a proposal submitted by a NASA Center is selected, formal assembly of the team and 

acquisition of hardware and support services must be accomplished through the award of 

new Government contracts, unless existing Government contracts are available. The 

award of new Government contracts must comply with procurement laws and 

regulations. 

(b) In addition to complying with proposal preparation instructions contained in the AO, 

proposals submitted by NASA Centers should address the following matters.

(1) Non-Government Co-Is.

(i) The proposal should describe the open and competitive process that was used 

for selecting proposed team members. While a formal solicitation is not 

required, the process should include the following competitive aspects: notice 

of the opportunity to participate to potential sources, submissions from and/or 

discussions with potential sources, and objective criteria for selecting team

members among interested sources. If proposed team members are selected

without using an open and competitive process, the proposal should contain a 

full justification consistent with the requirements of FAR Subpart 6.3. 

B-19 
SALMON AO 

(ii) The proposal should also include a representation that the NASA investigator 

has examined his or her financial interests and has determined that no 

personal conflict of interest exists.

(2) Supplies and support services.

(i) The proposal should indicate that the supplies or services are available under 

an existing Government contract; or

(ii) The proposal should state that the supplies or services will be acquired under 

a full and open competition; or 

(iii) The proposal should explain the basis of a justification for acquiring the 

supplies or services noncompetitively (see FAR Subpart 6.3).

(c) A selection decision approving the non-Government team members as selected Co-Is 

satisfies legal and regulatory requirements without further competition or justification 

(see 1872.702).

(d) For the acquisition of supplies, including hardware, and support services by nonGovernment Co-Is, see 1872.502(a)(4). 

9. Heritage.

Describe heritage for each instrument, each spacecraft subsystem, each ground system, 

and each major module of flight or ground software. The description should address: 

• The design basis: 

- Describe the closest heritage system, including recent application(s), dates of use, 

developer institution, and cost. 

- Is the developer (institution) on the proposing team? 

- Will the individuals who participated in the heritage basis be available to the 

proposing team? 

- State whether spaceflight-proven, ground or aircraft application, or other status. 

- Indicate the highest assembly level at which full heritage is claimed. 

• Difference between the basis and the proposed design: 

- Describe differences in the environment and/or application. 

- Why is the design modification required? 

- Specify exactly what will be modified. 

- Characterize the difference in relevant terms: mass reduction, reduced power 

draw, cost saved, etc. 

• Development challenges: 

- Describe any circumstances that might adversely impact the proposer’s ability to 

achieve the planned design heritage or to deliver the new technology item. 

- Describe the steps planned to ensure that claimed design heritage is captured. 

- Describe remedial action plan should the expected design prove undeliverable 

within resources. 

B-20 
SALMON AO 

Provide substantiation of all heritage claims including descriptions of changes required 

to accommodate project-unique applications and needs. Where enhancements to heritage 

elements are proposed or heritage is from a different application, sufficient descriptions 

should be provided to independently assess the current level of maturity. Generally, 

systems with significant levels of claimed heritage are expected to provide sufficient 

mass details to allow independent validation. For systems with minimal or partial 

heritage, provide sufficient explanation to validate readiness of: a) proposed 

enhancements/modifications, and b) the maturation plan. The maturation plan should 

include: a) decision criteria for determining if technology efforts should be ended; and b) 

backup options. This description of heritage will be used by the evaluation team to 

assign levels of heritage for the applicable seven areas in Table B.2. The evaluation team 

will use a scale with at least three levels (full, partial, or none) as illustrated in 

Table B.2. 

10. List of Abbreviations and Acronyms

11. List of References

In addition to the above items, a References List may be provided that identifies 

reference documents and materials that were fundamentally important in generating the 

proposal. Proposers are allowed to include a Uniform Resource Locator (URL) for those 

documents available through the Internet. Note that the proposal must be self-contained: 

any information intended as part of the proposal must be included in the proposal. If 

documents and materials themselves are submitted as a part of the proposal, they must be 

included within the prescribed page count. 

B-21 
SALMON AO 

TABLE B.2 

INSTRUMENT HERITAGE

Full Heritage Partial Heritage No Heritage 

Design Identical Minimal modifications Major modifications 

Manufacture Identical 

Limited update of 

parts and processes 

necessary 

Many updates of parts 

or processes necessary 

Software Identical 

Identical functionality 

with limited update of 

software modules 

(<50%) 

Major modifications 

(>=50%) 

Provider 

Identical 

provider and 

development 

team 

Different however 

with substantial 

involvement of 

original team 

Different and minimal 

or no involvement of 

original team 

Use Identical 

Same interfaces and 

similar use within a 

novel overall context 

Significantly different 

from original 

Operating Environment Identical Within margins of 

original 

Significantly different 

from original 

Referenced Mission In operation Built and successfully 

ground tested 

Not yet successfully 

ground tested 

TABLE B.3 

SCIENCE TRACEABILITY MATRIX 

Science 

Objectives 

Scientific 

Measurement 

Requirements 

Instrument 

Functional 

Requirements 

Mission 

Functional 

Requirements 

(Top-Level) 

B-22 
SALMON AO 

TABLE B.4 

MISSION TRACEABILITY MATRIX 

Mission 

Requirement 

Spacecraft 

Requirement 

Ground System 

Requirement 

Operations 

Requirement 

Kinds of information (as applicable) to be addressed in Tables B.3 and B.4 (not all inclusive): 

Instrument Functional Requirements

Parameter range and resolution 

Accuracy 

Sensitivity 

Data rate 

Number of sensors 

Field of view 

Mission Functional Requirements

Orbit information (type, altitude range, inclination range) 

Launch date and launch date flexibility 

Launch vehicle and any upper stages 

Mission duration 

Number of satellites 

Requirements on Spacecraft/Host

Control method (3-axis stabilized, spinner, etc.) 

Mounting requirements (ram facing, nadir facing, clearances, etc.) 

Accommodation of investigation-supplied booms, plates, armatures, etc. 

Pointing control, knowledge, and jitter 

Data storage 

Thermal requirements 

Power required by instruments 

Slew rates 

Radiation sensitivity 

Electrostatic and magnetic cleanliness (indicate spatial range required) 

Requirements on Communications and Ground Data System

Data volume (Mbytes per day) 

Number of data dumps per day 

Real time requirements 

Requirements on Mission Operations

Commanding and monitoring 

Special calibration operations 

Maneuvering, including constraints on maneuvering 

Impact of thruster firings on instrument operation

B-23 
SALMON AO 

TABLE B.5 

NASA COST FUNDING PROFILE TEMPLATE 

FOR MISSIONS OF OPPORTUNITY 

(FY costs1

 in Real Year Dollars, Totals in Real Year and 2008 Dollars)

Cost Element FY1 FY2 FY3 FY4 FY5 ... FYn

Total 

(Real 

Yr.)

Total 

(FY 

2008)

Phase A

Phase B

Reserves

Phase C/D PM/MA/SE2

Instruments*

Instrument IAT3

Science Team

Pre-Launch GDS/MOS4

E/PO5

Other*

Instrument Reserves

Other Reserves

Phase E PM2

Science Team

MO&DA6

E/PO5

Other*

Reserves

Phase F

PI Mission Cost $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

4-Month Bridge Phase8

Contributions

For Each Element Above*

Total Contributions $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

Total Mission Cost $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

SEO Activities7

 (specify)

Total Enhanced Mission Cost $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

Notes for Table B.5 

Rows should be modified to suit the proposal 

* Specify each one in separate row 

1 Costs must include all costs including any fee 

B-24 
SALMON AO 

B-25 

2 PM/MA/SE - Project Management/Mission Assurance/Systems Engineering 

3 IAT - Integration, Assembly and Test 

4 GDS/MOS - Ground Data System/Mission Operations Services 

5 E/PO - Education /Public Outreach (Optional) 

6 MO&DA - Mission Operations and Data Analysis 

7 Optional. See Appendix E 

8 Also include within Phase B and within PI Mission Cost 

TABLE B.6 

MISSION PHASE SUMMARY FOR COST 

(FY costs1

 in Real Year Dollars, Totals in Real Year and 2008 Dollars)

Cost Element FY1 FY2 FY3 FY4 FY5 ... FYn

Total 

(Real 

Yr.)

Total 

(FY 

2008)

Phase A/B

Phase C/D

Phase E

Phase F

PI Mission Cost $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

Contributions

Total Mission Cost

SEO Activities

Total Enhanced Mission Cost

1 Costs must include all costs including any fee 

TABLE B.7 

NASA NEW START INFLATION INDEX

Fiscal Year 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Inflation Rate 0.0% 2.7% 2.7% 2.9% 3.0% 2.8% 2.7% 2.7%

Cumulative Inflation Index 1.000 1.027 1.055 1.085 1.117 1.149 1.181 1.212

Use an inflation rate of 2.7% for years beyond 2015.

END OF APPENDIX B
SALMON AO 

APPENDIX C: SALMON REFERENCE LIBRARY 

Science

The Vision for Space Exploration (February 2004) 

The fundamental goal of this vision is to advance U.S. scientific, security, and economic 

interests through a robust space exploration program. 

NPD 1001.0 - 2006 NASA Strategic Plan (February 7, 2006) 

This NASA Policy Directive (NPD) describes NASA’s strategy to extend the frontiers of human 

exploration. 

Science Plan for NASA’s Science Mission Directorate 2007- 2016 (January 2007) 

This document describes the goals and objectives of NASA’s SMD, and of the major ideas 

described in the context of the overall NASA Strategic Plan. 

New Frontiers in the Solar System: An Integrated Exploration Strategy (2002) 

This National Research Council (NRC) survey was requested by NASA to determine the 

contemporary nature of solar system exploration and why it remains a compelling activity 

today. A broad survey of the state of knowledge was requested. In addition NASA asked for 

the identification of the top-level scientific questions to guide its ongoing program and a 

prioritized list of the most promising avenues for flight investigations and supporting groundbased activities. 

SMD Mission Extension Paradigm

This document describes the guidelines used by SMD Senior Reviews when reviewing 

extended mission proposals 

NASA Astrobiology Roadmap (April 2008) 

This NASA Astrobiology Roadmap outlines multiple pathways for research and exploration 

and indicates how they might be prioritized and coordinated. 

NASA/CP-2007-214565 Astrobiology Small Payloads (June 2007) 

This report summarizes the activities and recommendations of the Astrobiology Small 

Payloads Workshop. 

Earth Observations from Space: The First 50 Years of Scientific Achievements (2007) 

This report describes how the ability to view the entire globe at once, uniquely available from 

satellite observations, has revolutionized Earth studies and ushered in a new era of 

multidisciplinary Earth sciences. 

Earth Science and Applications from Space: National Imperatives for the Next Decade And 

Beyond (2007) 

This report presents a vision for the Earth science program; an analysis of the existing Earth 

Observing System and recommendations to help restore its capabilities; an assessment of and 

C-1 
SALMON AO 

recommendations for new observations and missions for the next decade; an examination of 

and recommendations for effective application of those observations; and an analysis of how 

best to sustain that observation and applications system. 

Committee on Earth Observation Satellites (CEOS)

This is the homepage for CEOS and its members. CEOS membership encompasses the 

world's government agencies responsible for civil Earth observation satellite programs, along 

with agencies that receive and process data acquired remotely from space. 

Coordinating Group on Meteorological Satellites (CGMS)

This is the homepage for CGMS which is part of the World Meteorological Organization and 

provides a forum for the exchange of technical information on geostationary and polar 

orbiting meteorological satellite systems, such as reporting on current satellite status and 

future plans, telecommunications matters, operations, intercalibration of sensors, data 

processing algorithms, satellite products and their validation and data transmission standards 

and formats. 

Management

NPR 7120.5D – Space Flight Program and Project Management Requirements (March 6, 2007) 

This NASA Procedural Requirements (NPR) document provides a reference for typical 

activities, milestones, and products in the development and execution of NASA missions. 

NPR 7123.1A – Systems Engineering Processes and Requirements (March 26, 2007) 

This document articulates and establishes the requirements on the implementing organization 

for performing, supporting, and evaluating systems engineering. 

NPR-8000.4 – Risk Management Procedural Requirements (April 25, 2002) 

This document provides the requirements and information for applying risk management to 

programs and projects. 

NPR 8705.4 – Risk Classification for NASA Payloads (June 14, 2004) 

This document establishes baseline criteria that enables a user to define the risk classification 

level for NASA payloads on human- or nonhuman-rated launch systems or carrier vehicles 

and the design and test philosophy and the common assurance practices applicable to each 

level. 

NASA's Mission Operations and Communications Services

This document provides information and points of contact on the functions and costs of 

NASA-provided ground data systems, mission operations capabilities, and the access to 

NASA's space communications networks. 

C-2 
SALMON AO 

Technology Readiness Level (TRL) Definitions

Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs) are a systematic metric/measurement system that supports 

assessments of the maturity of a particular technology and the consistent comparison of maturity 

between different types of technology. 

GPR 7120.3B – Management of Principal Investigator Mode Missions (December 15, 2004) 

This Goddard Procedural Requirements (GPR) document describes the roles and 

responsibilities of the PI, the program office (including the Mission Manager), the 

implementing organization, and NASA HQ with respect to the overall management of PImode missions at the GSFC. 

2008 NASA Guidebook for Proposers (January 2008) 

Detailed instructions for the preparation and submission of proposals to the Research 

Opportunities in Space and Earth Sciences 2008 (ROSES-08) NASA Research Announcement 

(NRA). SMD USPI proposals will be submitted through ROSES. 

Astrobiology Small Payloads Proposer’s Information Package (February 21, 2008) 

This Proposal Information Package is a resource for information regarding mission 

architectures, payload/instrument development and management, platform constraints and 

capabilities, launch opportunities, and other information on relevant topics.

Fundamental Space Biology Proposer’s Information Package

This website contains information on fundamental space biology and past, current, and 

related missions and activities. 

International

Directorate of Defense Trade Controls, U .S. Department of State

Includes links to the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR). 

Bureau of Industry and Security, U. S. Department of Commerce

Includes links to the Export Administration Regulations (EAR). 

Letter of Agreement (LOA) Template

Example of such an agreement for the Interstellar Boundary Explorer (IBEX). 

Financial Management Service

Website which includes the Treasury Department official exchange rate. 

Education and Public Outreach

Explanatory Guide to the NASA Science Mission Directorate Education and Public 

Outreach Evaluation Factors (April 2008) 

Provides descriptions and elaborates on each of the SMD Education and Public Outreach 

evaluation factors. Provides answers to frequently asked questions. 

C-3 
SALMON AO 

Explanatory Guide to the NASA Science Mission Directorate Educational Merit Evaluation 

Factors for Student Collaboration Elements (September 2007) 

Provides descriptions and elaborates on each of the SMD Student Collaboration educational 

merit evaluation factors. Provides answers to frequently asked questions. 

Orbital Debris

NPR 8715.6 - Procedural Requirements for Limiting Orbital Debris (August 17, 2007)

This document provides requirements to implement NASA's policy for limiting orbital debris 

generation per the U.S. National Space Policy of 2006, Section 11, the U.S. Government 

Orbital Debris Mitigation Standard Practices, and as a part of NASA's policy for safety and 

mission assurance programs as defined in NPD 8700.1, paragraph 1a. Any noncompliances 

to orbital debris requirements, including those for reasons of mission requirements and cost 

effectiveness, require a variance to this NPR. 

NASA-STD-8719.14 – NASA Process for Limiting Orbital Debris (August 28, 2007) 

This document serves as a companion to NPR 8715.6 and provides specific requirements and 

methods to comply with the NASA requirements for limiting orbital debris generation. 

NASA-Standard (NASA-STD) 8719.14 updates NASA Safety Standard (NSS) 1740.14, 

which went into effect in August 1995. This NASA-STD helps ensure that spacecraft and 

launch vehicles meet acceptable standards for limiting orbital debris generation. 

Procurement

Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) General Services Administration

NASA FAR Supplement Regulations

NPD 5101.32D – Procurement (April 13, 2003) 

This document provides policy direction of procurement and financial assistance activities 

(excluding Space Act Agreements). 

NPR 5800.1E -- Grant and Cooperative Agreement Handbook (May 7, 2002) 

This handbook prescribes policies and procedures relating to the award and administration of 

NASA grants and cooperative agreements. 

Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB)

This website provides access to all publications issued by FASAB including exposure drafts, 

the volumes presenting Original Pronouncements and current text, newsletters, minutes and 

meeting agendas. 

Procurement Information Circular (PIC) 05-15 (December 29, 2005) 

Provides guidance on the competitive procedures that apply to NASA Centers in forming 

teams and preparing proposals in response to NASA Broad Agency Announcements. 

C-4 
SALMON AO 

Focused Opportunity for Lunar Atmosphere and Dust Environment Explorer (LADEE) 

Mission

The Scientific Context for Exploration of the Moon (2007)

This final NRC report presents a review of the current understanding of the early earth and 

moon; the identification of key science concepts and goals for moon exploration; an 

assessment of implementation options; and a set of prioritized lunar science concepts, goals, 

and recommendations.

LADEE Science Definition Team (SDT) Report (May 21, 2008) 

This report summarizes the activities and recommendations of the SDT. 

Level 2 Functional Requirements Document (March 7, 2008) 

Template for the instrument Functional Requirements Document (FRD) which will provide 

an accurate functional description of the investigation hardware and software at the 

instrument level, as well as at the instrument subsystem level. 

Interface Requirements Document (March 7, 2008) 

Template for the instrument Interface Requirements Document (IRD) which will define the 

interface requirements to the LADEE spacecraft.

Science Instrument Experiment Implementation Plan (EIP) (March 7, 2008) 

Template for the EIP which will describe the PI's technical and management approach to 

completing the instrument design, fabrication and verification of the flight unit, supporting 

integration with LADEE, supporting LADEE acceptance testing, and subsequent launch 

operations and post-launch checkout. 

GSFC-STD-1001 Criteria for Flight Project Critical Milestone Reviews (February 2005) 

This document provides standard criteria for the flight project critical milestone reviews that 

comprise the Integrated Independent Reviews.

GSFC-STD-7000 General Environmental Verification Standard (GEVS) (April 2005) 

This document provides requirements and guidelines for environmental verification 

programs for GSFC payloads, subsystems and components and describes methods for 

implementing those requirements. 

430-HDBK-000007 Generic Instrument Product Assurance Implementation User’s Guide

(May 30, 2005) 

User’s Guide to the development of a Performance Assurance Implementation Plan (PAIP) 

for the Robotic Lunar Exploration Program. 

C-5 
SALMON AO 

C-6 

410-RQMT-0036 Small Explorer (SMEX) Program Low Priority, High Risk Payload 

(Class D) Mission Assurance Requirements (September 24, 2007) 

The LADEE Project has adopted the SMEX Mission Assurance Requirements (MAR). This 

document describes the responsibilities of the Instrument PI with regard to Safety, 

Reliability, and Quality Assurance. The PI’s approach to meeting or tailoring the SMEX 

MAR are captured in each of the instrument’s PAIP.

END OF APPENDIX C 
SALMON AO 

APPENDIX D: CERTIFICATIONS 

Included for reference only. Submission of the signed printout of web page as directed for 

the Cover Page/Proposal Summary certifies compliance with these certifications. 

Assurance of Compliance with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

Regulations Pursuant to Nondiscrimination in Federally Assisted Programs 

The (Institution or organization on whose behalf this assurance is signed, hereinafter called 

“Applicant.”) 

HEREBY AGREES THAT it will comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (P.L. 88-

352), Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (20 U.S.C. 1680 et seq.), Section 504 of 

the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (29 U.S.C. 794), and the Age Discrimination Act of 

1975 (42 U.S.C. 16101 et seq.), and all requirements imposed by or pursuant to the Regulation of 

the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (14 CFR Part 1250) (hereinafter called 

“NASA”) issued pursuant to these laws, to the end that in accordance with these laws and 

regulations, no person in the United States shall, on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, 

handicapped condition, or age be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be 

otherwise subjected to discrimination under any program or activity for which the Applicant 

receives Federal financial assistance from NASA; and HEREBY GIVES ASSURANCE THAT 

it will immediately take any measure necessary to effectuate this agreement. 

If any real property or structure thereon is provided or improved with the aid of Federal financial 

assistance extended to the Applicant by NASA, this assurance shall obligate the Applicant, or in 

the case of any transfer of which the Federal financial assistance is extended or for another 

purpose involving the provision of similar services or benefits. If any personal property is so 

provided, this assurance shall obligate the Applicant for the period during which it retains 

ownership or possession of the property. In all other cases, this assurance shall obligate the 

Applicant for the period during which the Federal financial assistance is extended to it by NASA. 

THIS ASSURANCE is given in consideration of and for the purpose of obtaining any and all 

Federal grants, loans, contract, property, discounts or other Federal financial assistance extended 

after the date hereof to the Applicant by NASA, including installment payments after such date 

on account of applications for Federal financial assistance which were approved before such 

date. The Applicant recognizes and agrees that such Federal financial assistance will be extended 

in reliance on the representations and agreements made in this assurance, and that the United 

States shall have the right to seek judicial enforcement of this assurance. This assurance is 

binding on the Applicant, its successors, transferees, and assignees, and the person or persons 

whose signatures appear below are authorized to sign on behalf of the Applicant. 

D-1 
SALMON AO 

Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, and Other Responsibility Matters 

Primary Covered Transactions 

This certification is required by the regulations implementing Executive Order 12549, 

Debarment and Suspension, 14 CFR Part 1265. 

A. The applicant certifies that it and its principals: 

1. Are not presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declare ineligible, or 

voluntarily excluded from covered transactions by any Federal department or agency; 

2. Have not within a three-year period preceding this application been convicted or had 

a civil judgment rendered against them for commission of fraud or a criminal offense 

in connection with obtaining, attempting to obtain, or performing a public (Federal, 

State, or Local) transaction or contract under a public transaction; violation of Federal 

or State antitrust statutes or commission of embezzlement, theft, forgery, bribery, 

falsification or destruction of records, making false statements, or receiving stolen 

property; 

3. Are not presently indicted for or otherwise criminally or civilly charged by a 

government entity (Federal, State, or Local) with commission of any of the offenses 

enumerated in paragraph A.(b) of this certification; 

4. Have not within a three-year period preceding this application/proposal had one or 

more public transactions (Federal, State, or Local) terminated for cause or default; 

and 

B. Where the applicant is unable to certify to any of the statements in this certification, he or she 

shall attach an explanation to this application. 

C. Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion -- 

Lowered Tier Covered Transactions (Subgrants or Subcontracts) 

1. The prospective lower tier participant certifies, by submission of this proposal, that 

neither it nor its principles is presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, 

declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation in this transaction by 

any Federal department of agency. 

2. Where the prospective lower tier participant is unable to certify to any of the 

statements in this certification, such prospective participant shall attach an 

explanation to this proposal. 

D-2 
SALMON AO 

D-3 

Certification Regarding Lobbying 

As required by S 1352 Title 31 of the U.S. Code for persons entering into a grant over $100,000, 

the applicant certifies that: 

1. No Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid by or on behalf of the 

undersigned, to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or 

employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, in connection with making of any 

Federal grant, the entering into of any cooperative, and the extension, continuation, 

renewal, amendment, or modification of any Federal grant; 

2. If any funds other than Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to 

any person for influencing or attempting an officer or employee of any agency, 

Member of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with 

this Federal grant, the undersigned shall complete Standard Form -- LLL, “Disclosure 

Form to Report Lobbying,” in accordance with its instructions. 

3. The undersigned shall require that the language of this certification be included in the 

award documents for all subawards at all tiers (including subgrants, contracts under 

grants, and subcontracts), and that all subrecipients shall certify and disclose 

accordingly. 

This certification is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when this 

transaction was made or entered into. Submission of this certification is a prerequisite for making 

or entering into this transaction imposed by S1352, Title 31, U.S. Code. Any person who fails to 

file the required certification shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than $10,000 and not 

more than $100,000 for each such failure. 

END OF APPENDIX D 
SALMON AO 

APPENDIX E: COST ELEMENT DEFINITIONS 

This is a short dictionary of definitions for the cost elements shown in the tables and discussed in 

the body of this AO. 

Reserves 

In that NASA maintains no reserves for science investigations or missions, reserves must include 

those funds that are not allocated specifically to estimated resources, but are held against 

contingencies or underestimation of resources to mitigate the investigation risk. Reserves must 

be reported according to the proposed reserve management strategy. For example, if the reserve 

is divided into funds to be pre-allocated to the flight system and instrument payload, with another 

portion held at the science investigation level, specific dollar amounts to fund each must be 

identified. 

Project Management/Mission Assurance/Systems Engineering 

Project management costs include all efforts associated with project level planning and directing 

of prime and subcontractor efforts and interactions, as well as project-level functions such as 

quality control and product assurance. Mission Assurance is an engineering process performed 

over the life cycle of a project to identify and mitigate deficiencies to establish a reasonable 

degree of confidence in mission success. Systems engineering is the project-level engineering 

required to ensure that all satellite subsystems and payloads function properly to achieve system 

goals and requirements. This cost element also includes the data/report generation activities 

required to produce internal and deliverable documentation. 

Instruments 

Instrument costs include costs incurred to design, develop, and fabricate the individual scientific 

instruments or instrument systems through delivery of the instruments to the spacecraft for 

integration. Costs for instrument integration, assembly, and test are to be shown separately from 

instrument development. Costs incurred for integration of the instruments to the spacecraft are 

included in the Spacecraft Integration, Assembly and Test cost element (see below). 

Spacecraft Bus 

Spacecraft bus costs include costs incurred to design, develop, and fabricate (or procure) the 

spacecraft subsystems. Costs for integration and assembly are not included in this element. 

Component level test and burn-in is included in this cost element. System tests are included in 

Spacecraft IAT (see below). 

Instrument Integration, Assembly, and Test (IAT) 

Instrument integration, assembly and test is the process of integrating all instrument subsystems 

into a fully tested, operational instrument. The total cost of IAT for an instrument includes 

research/requirements specification, design and scheduling analysis of IAT procedures, ground 

support equipment, instrument test and evaluation, and test data analyses. Typical instrument 

tests include thermal vacuum, thermal cycle, electrical and mechanical functional, acoustic, 

vibration, electromagnetic compatibility/interference, and pyroshock. 

E-1 
SALMON AO 

Launch Checkout and Orbital Operations 

Launch checkout and orbital operations support costs are those involving prelaunch planning, 

launch site support, launch-vehicle integration (spacecraft portion), and the first 30 days of flight 

operations. 

Prelaunch Science Team Support 

Includes all Phase B/C/D (prelaunch) support costs for the science team. (See MO&DA below 

for post-launch component.) 

Prelaunch GDS/Mission Operations Services (MOS) Development 

Includes costs associated with development and acquisition of the ground infrastructure used to 

transport and deliver the telemetry and other data to/from the Mission Operations Center and the 

Science Operations Center. (For more information, refer to NASA’s Mission Operations and 

Communications Services document in the SALMON Reference Library.) Includes development 

of science data processing and analysis capability. Also includes prelaunch training of the 

command team, development and execution of operations simulations, sequence development, 

and flight control software. This element includes any mission-unique tracking network 

development costs. 

Education and Public Outreach 

Includes all costs associated with developing and implementing the proposed investigation’s 

programs for education and public outreach. 

Tracking Services including DSN 

This line item includes all costs associated with this service for the specific proposed mission 

profile. (Refer to NASA’ s Mission Operations and Communications Services document, in the 

SALMON Reference Library.) 

Mission Operations and Data Analysis (MO&DA) 

This cost element refers only to Phase E (postlaunch) and has two major components: Mission 

Operations and Data Analysis. Mission operations comprises all activities required to plan and 

execute the science objectives, including spacecraft and instrument navigation, control, pointing, 

health monitoring, and calibration. Data analysis activities include collecting, processing, 

distributing and archiving the scientific data. MO&DA costs include postlaunch all costs for 

people, procedures, services, hardware and software to carry out these activities. It includes postlaunch science team support costs. It does not include costs of any STEO activities. 

STEO Activities 

Options for enlarging the science/technology impact beyond the baseline investigation, such as 

extended missions, guest investigator programs, general observer programs, or archival data 

analysis programs are termed STEO activities. These costs do not count against the funding cap. 

Project-Unique Facilities 

If the proposed science investigation requires construction or lease of any ground facilities, 

include here only the portion of costs to be borne by the proposed investigation, with description 

of the nature and extent of any cost-sharing arrangements assumed. 

E-2 
SALMON AO 

E-3 

Launch Services 

Launch vehicles and services are either procured and provided by NASA to launch spacecraft 

under fixed price contracts, or provided by the proposer. The launch service price includes 

procurement of the ELV, spacecraft-to-launch vehicle integration, placement of spacecraft into 

designated orbit, analysis, post-flight mission data evaluation, oversight of the launch service and 

coordination of mission-specific integration activities. 

NASA Center Costs (all categories) 

Additional costs born by the science investigation for NASA Center participation. For example, 

there may be additional project management/systems engineering costs, above those incurred by 

the spacecraft prime contractor, which are due to NASA employee participation. These costs 

must be reported on a full-cost accounting basis.

END OF APPENDIX E
SALMON AO 

APPENDIX F: COMPLIANCE CHECKLIST 

Administrative 

1. Proposal arrived on time PEA 

2. Meets page limits Appendix B 

3. Meets general guidelines Appendix B 

4. Required appendices included Appendix B 

5. No additional appendices included Appendix B 

6. Budgets are submitted in required formats Appendix B 

Scientific 

7. Addresses solicited NASA Mission Directorate programs PEA 

8. Requirements traceable from science to hardware to mission Appendix B 

9. Appropriate data archiving plan §4.4.3 

10. Defines both a baseline investigation and potential descope options Appendix B 

11. Allocation of sufficient resources for data analysis has been demonstrated §4.4.4 

Technical 

12. Proposed complete investigation (Phases A-F) for MO category §1.3, §5.1, 

13. Description of E/PO outline and commitment, if any (E/PO is optional) Appendix B 

14. Includes subcontracting and SDB commitments (if applicable) §4.7.7 

15. Team led by a single PI §4.6.2 

16. Proposed budget within cost cap PEA 

17. Phase A costs within cost limit PEA 

18. Co-I cost in budget §4.6.5 

19. Commitment date prior to cutoff PEA 

20. Co-Is indicate their commitment to the proposed investigation through 

NSPIRES 

§4.6.9 

21. U.S. letters of commitment from all organizations contributing critical 

goods and services, from all major participants, and from any required funding 

organizations 

§4.6.7, §4.6.8, 

Appendix B 

22. Table describing non-U.S. participation §4.8.6 

23. Non-U.S. letters of commitment from participating institution §4.8.3 

24. Non-U.S. letters of commitment from funding agencies including binding 

law statement 

§4.8.3, §4.8.5 

END OF APPENDIX F

F-1 
SALMON AO 

APPENDIX G: ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 

ARMD Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate 

ASI Italian Space Agency 

AO Announcement of Opportunity 

BPSK Binary Phase Shift Keying 

CCSDS Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems 

CCR Central Contractor Registry 

CEOS Committee on Earth Observation Satellites 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CGMS Coordinating Group on Meteorological Satellites 

CM&O Center Management and Operations 

Co-I Co-Investigator 

DSN Deep Space Network 

EAR Export Administration Regulations 

E/PO Education and Public Outreach 

EBPOC Electronic Business Point of Contact 

EIP Experiment Implementation Plan 

ELV Expendable Launch Vehicle 

ESMD Exploration Systems Mission Directorate 

ESSP Earth System Science Pathfinder 

EVM Earned Value Management 

FAQ Frequently Asked Questions 

FAR Federal Acquisition Regulations 

FASAB Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board 

FFRDC Federally Funded Research and Development Center 

FMO Focused Mission of Opportunity 

FRD Functional Requirements Document 

FY Fiscal Year 

G&A General and Administrative 

GAO Government Accountability Office 

GCOM Global Change Observation Mission 

GDS Ground Data System 

GEVS General Environmental Verification Standard 

GFE Government Furnished Equipment 

GPR Goddard Procedural Requirements 

GSFC Goddard Space Flight Center 

HBCU Historically Black Colleges and Universities 

HQ Headquarters 

IAT Integration, Assembly, and Test 

IBEX Interstellar Boundary Explorer 

G-1
SALMON AO 

ICD Interface Control Document 

IRD Interface Requirements Document 

ISRO Indian Space Research Organization 

ISS International Space Station 

ITAR International Traffic in Arms Regulations 

JAXA Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency 

JPL Jet Propulsion Laboratory 

KDP Key Decision Point 

LADEE Lunar Atmosphere and Dust Environment Explorer 

LAGEOS Laser Geodynamics Satellites 

LEAM Lunar Ejecta and Meteorites 

LOA Letter of Agreement 

MA Mission Analysis 

MAR Mission Assurance Requirements 

MEL Master Equipment List 

MO Mission of Opportunity 

MO&DA Mission Operations and Data Analysis 

MOS Mission Operations Services 

MOU Memorandum of Understanding 

NAICS North American Industry Classification System 

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

NASA-STD NASA-Standard 

NEN Near-Earth Network 

NFS NASA FAR Supplement 

NISN NASA Integrated Services Network 

NODIS NASA Online Directives Information System 

NOI Notice of Intent 

NPD NASA Policy Directive 

NPR NASA Procedural Requirements 

NRA NASA Research Announcement 

NRC National Research Council 

NSPIRES NASA Solicitation and Proposal Integrated Review and Evaluation System 

NSS NASA Safety Standard 

OMI Other Minority Educational Institution 

PAIP Performance Assurance Implementation Plan 

PDF Portable Data Format 

PDR Preliminary Design Review 

PEA Program Element Appendix 

PI Principal Investigator 

PIC Procurement Information Circular 

P.L. Public Law 

G-2
SALMON AO 

G-3

PM Project Manager 

PMO Partner Missions of Opportunity 

POC Point of Contact 

ROSES Research Opportunities in Space and Earth Sciences 

SAIC Science Applications International Corporation 

SALMON Stand Alone Missions of Opportunity Notice 

SC Student Collaboration 

SCaN Space Communication and Navigation 

SCM Small Complete Mission 

SDB Small Disadvantaged Business 

SDT Science Definition Team 

SE System Engineer(ing) 

STEO Science/Technology Enhancement Option 

SMD Science Mission Directorate 

SMEX Small Explorer 

SN Space Network 

SOMD Space Operations Mission Directorate 

SOW Statement of Work 

TRL Technical Readiness Level 

UARC University Affiliated Research Center 

URL Uniform Resource Locator 

U.S. United States 

U.S.C. United States Code 

USPI United States Participating Investigator 

WBS Work Breakdown Structure 

WOSB Women Owned Small Business 

END OF APPENDIX G
SALMON AO 

APPENDIX H: PROGRAM ELEMENT APPENDICES 

H-1
SALMON AO 

PEA H1: LUNAR AND PLANETARY SCIENCE U.S. PARTICIPATING 

INVESTIGATOR 

NASA solicits proposals for USPI investigations that address the Planetary Science Research 

Program objectives listed in the Science Plan for NASA’s Science Mission Directorate 2007 – 

2016 (found in the SALMON Reference Library). Proposed investigations that address the lunar 

science priorities listed in the 2007 NASA Science Plan are highly encouraged. 

The Science Mission Directorate is soliciting Lunar and Planetary Science USPI investigations 

through its Research Opportunities in Space and Earth Sciences 2008 (ROSES-08) NASA Research 

Announcement (NRA). 

This proposal opportunity may be found in Appendix C.25 of the ROSES-08 NRA. Lunar and 

Planetary Science USPI proposals submitted in response to the ROSES solicitation are subject to the 

proposal guidelines specified in ROSES and will be reviewed and selected using the proposal criteria 

specified in ROSES. 

ROSES-08 may be found at http://nspires.nasaprs.com/ (select “Solicitations” then “Open 

Solicitations” then “NNH08ZDA001N”). 

Date for Pre-proposal conference September 26, 2008 

Due date for Notices of Intent (NOIs) to propose October 15, 2008 

Due date for proposals December 2, 2008 

END OF PEA H1

H1-1
SALMON AO 

PEA H2: LUNAR AND PLANETARY SCIENCE PARTNER MISSIONS OF 

OPPORTUNITY 

I. BACKGROUND

Advancements in Planetary Science are achieved through the exploration of the Solar System. It 

is through this grand human enterprise that NASA seeks to discover the nature and origin of the 

celestial bodies among which we live and to explore whether life exists beyond Earth. The 

scientific foundation for the Planetary Science Division is described in the National Research 

Council (NRC) Decadal Survey in Planetary Science, New Frontiers in the Solar System: An 

Integrated Exploration Strategy (NRC 2002, available through SALMON Reference Library). 

The quest to understand our origins is universal. How did we get here? Are we alone? What does 

the future hold? Modern science, and especially space science, provides extraordinary 

opportunities to pursue these questions. Current tools and those that will become available in the 

coming years will enable us to develop a vast range of mission opportunities. We are at the 

leading edge of a journey of exploration that will yield a profound new understanding of our 

home planet, and of ourselves. 

These grand themes are captured in five fundamental science questions which form the basis for 

NASA’s approach to the exploration of the Solar System: 

• How did the Sun’s family of planets and minor bodies originate? 

• How did the Solar System evolve to its current diverse state? 

• What are the characteristics of the Solar System that led to the origin of life? 

• How did life begin and evolve on Earth and has it evolved elsewhere in the Solar System? 

• What are the hazards and resources in the Solar System environment that will affect the 

extension of human presence in space? 

These fundamental science questions transcend the traditional boundaries of astronomy, physics, 

chemistry, biology, and geology. To address them requires the same multidisciplinary approach 

that NASA has championed from the early Lunar science missions of the Apollo Era, a tradition 

which continues today through this SALMON PEA solicitation of Lunar and Planetary Science 

Partner Missions of Opportunity (PMO) investigations. 

II. SCIENCE AND PROGRAM OBJECTIVES

NASA solicits proposals for Lunar and Planetary Science PMO investigations that address the 

Planetary Science Research Program objectives listed in the Science Plan for NASA’s Science 

Mission Directorate 2007 – 2016 (found in the SALMON Reference Library and hereafter 

referenced as the 2007 NASA Science Plan). Proposed investigations that address the lunar 

science priorities listed in the 2007 NASA Science Plan are highly encouraged. 

III. PROPOSAL OPPORTUNITY PERIOD AND SCHEDULE

The following schedule applies to this Partner Mission of Opportunity program element. 

• A Preproposal Conference will be held. Further information about the Preproposal 

Conference will be posted on the SALMON Acquisition Homepage (see Section 6.1.3 of this 

SALMON AO). 

H2-1
SALMON AO 

• A Notice of Intent (NOI) to propose is encouraged, and is due no later than 11:59 p.m. 

Eastern time on the date given in Section VII of this PEA. Section 6.1.4 of this SALMON 

AO provides information on electronic NOI submission through NSPIRES. 

• Proposals are due no later than 4:30 p.m. Eastern time on the date given in Section VII of this 

PEA. Proposal submission requirements are outlined in Section V of this PEA. 

Selection announcements are targeted for 5 months after receipt of proposals. Funding for 

selected proposals will begin as soon as appropriate funding vehicles can be put in place; 

commonly this is 4-8 weeks following selection. 

IV. REQUIREMENTS AND CONSTRAINTS

A. Type of Mission of Opportunity 

Partner Mission of Opportunity: For the purpose of this AO, a PMO is one in which the proposer 

offers to participate in a non-NASA space mission that is planned or that has been approved by its 

sponsoring organization. By funding U.S. participation in a non-NASA space mission, NASA seeks 

to allow the scientific community to conduct a science or technology investigation of interest to 

NASA as part of a non-NASA space mission. Such missions may be sponsored by non-U.S. 

governments, by other U.S. agencies, or by private sector organizations. PMO investigations on a 

military satellite are allowed as long as the satellite is not planned for weapons testing. This 

participation can take many forms including the provision of flight hardware, but the NASAfunded element of the partnership must represent a necessary and enabling component of the 

mission. See Section 5.2 of this SALMON AO for additional details. 

B. Cost and Schedule Constraints

One or more PMO investigations may be selected depending on the availability of proposals of 

appropriate merit, provided they can be accommodated within the $35M total budget allocated 

for this Program Element. Single investigations may not be proposed in which the PI Mission 

Cost exceeds $35M (FY2008 dollars) for all phases of the investigation. Multiple proposals may 

be selected for award if the aggregate cost falls within the total budget allocated for this Program 

Element. The level of funding available for each selected proposal will be decided on a case-bycase basis and will be capped at that level. A single PMO investigation costing $35M may be 

selected if it is scientifically and technically compelling enough to justify using the entire 

Program Element budget. Further specifications on the PMO implementation can be found in 

Section 7.4 of this SALMON AO. 

The latest sponsoring organization’s required date for NASA commitment for U.S. participation 

is given in Section VII of this PEA. The due date for proposals is given in Section VII of this 

PEA . 

NASA reserves the right to make no selection if there are no proposals of appropriate merit. 

C. Technical Requirements and Constraints

In addition to the requirements given in the SALMON AO, all proposed investigations must also 

demonstrate: (1) their formal relationship with the sponsoring agency’s mission (e.g., already 

selected contribution, invited contribution, or proposed contribution); (2) the status of the 

mission within the sponsoring agency (i.e., Pre-Phase A, Phase A, or Phase B) including the 

level of commitment that the sponsoring agency has made to complete the mission; (3) a detailed 

H2-2
SALMON AO 

description of the proposed provisions for sharing of necessary flight data, and plans that 

scientific data returned from at least those aspects of the mission in which NASA is involved 

shall be made available to the U.S. scientific community in a timely way and deposited in the 

Planetary Data System (http://pds.nasa.gov), and the status of the sponsoring agency’s 

commitment to enter into an appropriate agreement with NASA for data sharing; and (4) a 

detailed explanation of how the U.S. planetary science community benefits from this 

participation. 

D. Launch Vehicle Services and Funding

No launch vehicle will be provided by NASA through this solicitation. In addition, 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. 

V. PROPOSAL PREPARATION AND SUBMISSION

A. Proposal Content Requirements

Proposal content must conform to the guidelines set forth in Section 6.2 and Appendix B of this 

SALMON AO. 

B. Exceptions to General SALMON Requirements

This PEA contains no exceptions to the proposal preparation and submission requirements 

outlined in this SALMON AO. 

C. Proposal Submission Requirements

Proposals must be submitted according to the guidelines set forth in Section 6.3 of this 

SALMON AO and in Section III of this PEA. 

VI. PROPOSAL EVALUATION, SELECTION, AND IMPLEMENTATION

A. Scientific Evaluation Factors

Proposals will be evaluated per the evaluation criteria set forth in Section 7.2 of this SALMON 

AO. In addition to the factors for implementation merit given in Section 7.2.3 of this SALMON 

AO, the implementation merit of a proposal will also include: 

• The demonstrated scientific merit that this investigation’s archived data adds to the 

Planetary Science community. 

B. Specific Selection Factors

Proposals will be selected according to the guidelines set forth in Section 7.3 of this SALMON 

AO. 

The Selection Official for this PEA is the Associate Administrator for Science Mission 

Directorate. 

C. Implementation Activities

Proposal selection and award will be implemented according to the guidelines set forth in 

Section 7.4 of this AO and Section IV.B of this PEA. Awards for investigations related to Mars 

will be implemented by the Mars Exploration Program Office at Jet Propulsion Laboratory. All 

H2-3
SALMON AO 

H2-4

other proposal selections and awards for this PEA will be implemented by the Discovery and 

New Frontiers Program Office at the Marshall Space Flight Center. 

VII. SUMMARY OF KEY INFORMATION

Partnering Mission of Opportunity Cost Cap $35M (FY08$)

Latest sponsoring organization’s required date 

for NASA commitment for U.S. participation December 31, 2010 

AO release date September 3, 2008 

Date for Preproposal conference September 26, 2008 

Due date for NOI to propose October 15, 2008 

Due date for proposals December 2, 2008 

Submission medium Hard and electronic copies; see 

Section 6.3.1 of this SALMON AO

Web site for submission of electronic cover 

page via NSPIRES 

http://nspires.nasaprs.com/

(help desk available at 202-479-9376 or 

nspires-help@nasaprs.com)

NASA POC concerning this Program Element

Dr. Carlos Liceaga 

SALMON AO Program Executive 

NASA Headquarters 

Washington, DC 20546-0001 

 Tel: 757-846-5880 

 Email: Carlos.A.Liceaga@nasa.gov

END OF PEA H2
H3-1 

PEA H3: SMALL COMPLETE MISSIONS OF OPPORTUNITY IN 

ASTROBIOLOGY AND FUNDAMENTAL SPACE BIOLOGY

This reissued Program Element Appendix (PEA) supersedes all information 

provided in the H3 PEA originally issued on September 3, 2008, and amended on 

October 16, 2008, and November 24, 2008. The previous version of the PEA, as 

amended, is deleted in its entirety and it is replaced in its entirety by this text. 

1.0 BACKGROUND

1.1 Astrobiology

Astrobiology is the study of the origins, evolution, distribution, and future of life in the 

Universe. It requires fundamental knowledge of life and habitable environments that will 

help us to recognize biospheres that might be quite different from our own. Astrobiology 

embraces the search for potentially inhabited planets beyond our Solar System, the 

exploration of Mars and the outer planets, laboratory and field investigations of the 

origins and early evolution of life, and studies of the potential of life to adapt to future 

challenges, both on Earth and in space. Interdisciplinary research is needed that combines 

molecular biology, ecology, planetary science, astronomy, information science, space 

exploration technologies, and related disciplines. The broad interdisciplinary character of 

astrobiology compels us to strive for the most comprehensive and inclusive 

understanding of biological, planetary, and cosmic phenomena. 

1.2 Fundamental Space Biology

Fundamental Space Biology (FSB) is the study of how living systems from cells to 

complex organisms respond and adapt to gravity and space environments. The force of 

gravity plays a major role in shaping life forms and determines many aspects of their 

behavior. Space flight offers the only opportunity to systematically determine the 

response of living systems to gravity levels less than that of Earth. In addition, the 

radiation environment on Earth differs from radiation environments in space, because 

Earth’s magnetic field and atmosphere shield life on Earth from some components of 

space radiation. Rapid advances in biological technology and the increasingly rapid pace 

of new knowledge provide opportunities to examine the foundations of life. Fundamental 

Space Biology flight experiments use the space environment to probe the fundamental 

nature of life to enhance our understanding of fundamental biological phenomena. 

2.0 SCIENCE, TECHNICAL, AND PROGRAM OBJECTIVES

2.1 Astrobiology Small Payloads

Life is a central theme that unifies NASA's vision and mission. The NASA Astrobiology 

Roadmap, found at http://astrobiology.arc.nasa.gov/roadmap, outlines the multiple 

pathways for research and exploration that are components of Astrobiology and indicates 
H3-2 

how they might be prioritized and coordinated. The Astrobiology Roadmap is formulated 

in terms of seven science goals that outline key domains of investigation: 

 Understand the nature and distribution of habitable environments in the Universe; 

 Explore for past or present habitable environments, prebiotic chemistry, and signs 

of life elsewhere in our Solar System; 

 Understand how life emerges from cosmic and planetary precursors; 

 Understand how past life on Earth interacted with its changing planetary and 

Solar System environment; 

 Understand the evolutionary mechanisms and environmental limits of life; 

 Understand the principles that will shape the future of life, both on Earth and 

beyond; and 

 Determine how to recognize signatures of life on other worlds and on early Earth. 

Spaceflight offers a unique opportunity to address these questions in ways that are not 

otherwise tractable. It is not possible to simulate microgravity, Lunar, or Martian gravity 

environments on Earth, except for very short time periods on parabolic aircraft flights. 

Spaceflight also provides access to the space radiation environment, including cosmic 

rays and solar particle events. Ground based accelerators can simulate certain 

components of this environment, but not the entire spectrum of multidirectional particles. 

Research relevant to each of the astrobiology goals can be performed using small 

satellites. This research will be conducted in the context of NASA’s ongoing exploration 

of our stellar neighborhood and the identification of biosignatures for in situ and remote 

sensing applications. It is envisioned that appropriate research in the near term will be 

largely focused on payloads that perform experiments along with demonstration of some 

remote sensing concepts. Emerging capabilities with small satellites and payloads may 

later enable the incorporation of additional remote sensing and instrument concepts, 

including suitcase-science payloads to support human exploration needs. 

For additional background on the use of small satellites and payloads to address science 

questions in astrobiology, consult the Astrobiology Small Payloads (ASP) workshop 

report at http://nai.arc.nasa.gov/asp/asp_report.pdf. This report may also be found in the 

Proposer Information Package (PIP) provided at http://salmon-h3-pip.arc.nasa.gov/. 

2.2 Small Missions in Fundamental Space Biology

To elucidate the effects of space environments on life and provide an understanding of 

life’s foundations on Earth and beyond, Fundamental Space Biology strives to expand 

our knowledge in the following four broad areas: 

2.2.1. Life at Molecular and Cellular Levels 

Alterations in gravity and the space environment may affect cells in many ways, 

including cell proliferation, chromosomal aberrations, gene expression, and processes of 

reproductive cell formation. The research targets include: analyzing unique genetic, 
H3-3 

protein, and metabolic responses to gravity and space radiation; determining the gravitydetection mechanisms in cells and their relationship to cellular metabolism; determining 

the gravity-detection and gravity response mechanisms in small organisms; determining 

the signaling pathways involved in gravity sensing, transduction, and response; 

determining mutation rates; and testing cellular responses to space environments using 

model systems. 

2.2.2. Organisms throughout their lives 

The developmental, physiological, and maturation processes of life at many levels, 

including tissues, organs, organ systems, and whole organisms can change over the 

course of an organism’s life cycle. Research targets for this goal include: characterizing 

and modeling the processes by which organisms detect and respond to gravity; 

determining gravity-induced changes and their underlying mechanisms at critical life 

stages; and identifying radiation-induced changes and other mechanisms of change in 

organisms in spaceflight. 

2.2.3. Interactions between organisms 

Research is needed to determine the effect of space environments on interrelationships 

between the organisms that populate constructed ecosystems. Research targets include: 

examining how differences in species affect ecological processes in space environments; 

studies to determine the sensitivity of ecological processes to the environmental 

conditions in space; and identifying and testing key biological characteristics of 

ecological systems, including microbial virulence. 

2.2.4. Life across generations 

Long term exposure to the space environment provides opportunities to determine how 

living systems adapt and evolve to this unique environment over many generations. 

Research targets to address this goal include: identifying effects of altered gravity on 

patterns of reproduction and phenotype/genotype over multiple generations in organisms 

with short life cycles and assessing changes in reproductive capacity induced by space 

environments and the consequences to development. 

Spaceflight is critical to addressing these subject areas. Small satellite free flyer missions 

of opportunity that perform hypothesis-driven research as secondary payloads have the 

capability of providing an avenue to conducting relevant Fundamental Space Biology 

flight research. 

3.0 PROPOSAL OPPORTUNITY PERIOD AND SCHEDULE

The following schedule applies to this Small Complete Mission (SCM) of Opportunity 

program element. 
H3-4 

 A Preproposal Conference is not planned as part of this PEA. Please address 

questions concerning any portion of this PEA to individuals listed in Section 7.0 

of this PEA, as appropriate. 

 A Notice of Intent (NOI) to propose to this PEA is extremely valuable to NASA, 

and, therefore, is encouraged. NOIs are due no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern time 

on the date given in Section 7 of this PEA. Section 6.1.4 of this SALMON AO 

provides information on electronic NOI submission through NSPIRES. 

 Proposals are due no later than 4:30 p.m. Eastern time on the date given in 

Section 7 of this PEA. Proposal submission requirements are outlined in Section 5 

of this PEA. Funding for selected proposals will begin as soon as appropriate 

funding vehicles can be put in place; commonly this is 4-8 weeks following 

selection. 

4.0 REQUIREMENTS AND CONSTRAINTS

4.1 Types of Missions of Opportunity

A proposal for a SCM is one in which the proposer describes a complete and selfcontained investigation (e.g., spacecraft, payload, launch, mission operation, spacecraft 

communications and navigation, data analysis and data archiving, etc.) that fulfills the 

solicited objectives and includes all of the elements specified in this PEA and 

Appendix B of this SALMON Announcement of Opportunity (AO). 

The FSB component of this PEA refers to two individual investigations, the first called 

Mission of Opportunity-1 (MoO-1) and the second is Mission of Opportunity-2 (MoO-2). 

The ASP component of this PEA refers to one SCM investigation, called ASP. 

Three different mission formats may be used by proposers to this solicitation, each of 

which requires the proposer to describe and account for all aspects of the proposed 

investigation. The different mission formats allow for the incorporation of a range of 

Government contributions offered by the Ames Research Center Small Spacecraft 

Division (ARC SSD), to best ensure the execution of PI-proposed science investigations: 

 Mission Format 1) PI Science Only: Investigators may propose to utilize existing 

hardware in which to perform the desired experiment(s), as well as launch and 

communications services, all of which would be provided by the ARC SSD. It is 

likely that proposals to FSB MoO-1 will adopt this format. This format may be 

chosen by proposers to ASP whose experiments can be accommodated within 

existing hardware. 

 Mission Format 2) Teaming: Investigators may propose to work cooperatively 

with the ARC SSD, during a short Phase A study, to modify and further develop 

ARC SSD hardware to meet the needs of the PI's proposed investigation. It is 
H3-5 

likely that proposals to FSB MoO-2 will adopt this format. This format may be 

chosen by proposers to ASP when modifications to SSD-provided hardware are 

anticipated to be sufficient to accomplish the science goals of the PI. 

 Mission Format 3) PI-supplied Hardware: Investigators may propose to provide a 

completed satellite for launch by the ARC SSD – such proposals would utilize 

only integration, launch, and communications services provided by ARC. This 

format may be chosen by proposers to ASP who wish to construct their own 

hardware. Proposals to FSB must not adopt this format. 

4.2 Technical Requirements and Cost and Schedule Constraints

All opportunities outlined in this PEA are soliciting investigations that follow the 

schedule given in Section 7. 

Proposers to the opportunities described in this PEA should refer to the PIP available at 

http://salmon-h3-pip.arc.nasa.gov/. Information on available nanosatellite hardware, 

related past and current nanosatellite mission information, and an estimated mission 

budget breakdown including the costs for hardware and services provided by ARC SSD, 

are included in the PIP. 

Proposals must provide information regarding all components of the mission, including 

appropriate budget allocations to fund ARC-provided hardware and services within the 

capped total mission cost. 

Mission Format 1: Proposals to use existing ARC-provided hardware should allocate no 

more than $400K (not including reserve) for science experiment development, which 

may include up to $150K for costs associated with very minor mission-specific science 

instrument/payload development. Proposals must include the cost of the ARC-provided 

hardware and services within the total mission cost. For these proposals, the minimum 

unencumbered cost reserve required for Phase A through Phase D is reduced to 15%. 

Mission Format 2: Proposers wishing to make modifications to ARC-provided hardware 

will develop detailed engineering implementations after selection for a Phase A study. 

Proposals intending to perform experiments in modified ARC-provided hardware, in 

cooperation with the ARC SSD, should allow up to $700K for the science investigations. 

The engineering implementation component of such an effort is anticipated to cost 

between $500-750K and must be described briefly in the proposal. Proposals must 

include the cost of the ARC-provided hardware and services within the total mission cost. 

Mission Format 3: Proposers wishing to utilize only ARC-provided integration, launch 

services, and postlaunch communications support should refer to the PIP for information 

on how to budget for those components of the SCM, which are likely to require between 

$500-750K. Proposers should allocate the budget remaining within the cost cap as 

necessary to accomplish the proposed work in accordance with NASA policies and 

requirements. 
H3-6 

For the FSB component of in this PEA, it is expected that up to two individual 

investigations may be selected, depending on the availability of compliant proposals of 

appropriate merit and provided they can be accommodated within the total cost caps of 

$1.5M allocated for MoO-1 and $2M allocated for MoO-2. 

For the ASP component of this PEA, it is expected that one or more SCM investigations 

may be selected, depending on the availability of compliant proposals of appropriate 

merit and provided they can be accommodated within the total cost cap of $2M allocated 

for ASP. Proposals requesting $1M or less for all phases of the investigation are at a high 

priority for selection by ASP, and multiple proposals may be selected for award if the 

aggregate cost falls within the total budget of $2M allocated for this ASP opportunity. 

For missions that propose to achieve a rendezvous with the Earth’s Moon or another 

Solar System body, it is required that proposers include a plan to make formally archived 

data available to the planetary science community through the Planetary Data System 

(http://pds.nasa.gov/). 

Proposals with budgets that exceed the stated overall budget guidelines or caps will be 

returned without review or consideration. 

 Cap on Science 

Experiment 

Development 

ARC-provided 

hardware and 

services 

Total Mission 

Cap 

Mission Format 1 MOO-1 $400K See PIP $1.5M 

Mission Format 1 ASP $400K See PIP $2M 

Mission Format 2 MOO-2 $700K See PIP $2M 

Mission Format 2 ASP $700K See PIP $2M 

Mission Format 3 ASP None $550-700K $2M 

4.3 Launch Vehicle Services and Funding

Launch vehicle accommodations and provisions for mission operations must be clearly 

identified in the proposal, and launch-accommodation flexibility will be a consideration 

during the selection process. 

Estimated costs for launch accommodations and integration provisions are provided in 

the PIP and must be included in total proposed costs for the mission. Actual flight 

accommodations will be provided and managed by ARC-SSD. For selected FSB 

missions, these will be similar to accommodations utilized for the first two FSB 

microsatellite missions, GeneSat-1 and Pharmasat, as described in the PIP. 

Other options for launching selected ASP missions will be considered on a case-by-case 

basis, if these may be accomplished within cost and schedule constraints. These could 

include secondary payload opportunities that are in development for launch over the next 

several years, such as existing and planned free flying spacecraft (e.g., the Russian Bion 
H3-7 

platform, Super Strypi, SpaceX Falcon, EELV, etc.). However, use of existing platforms 

and launch vehicles will be favored over development of new platforms and launch 

accommodations. 

5.0 PROPOSAL PREPARATION AND SUBMISSION

5.1 Proposal Content Requirements 

Proposal content must conform to the guidelines set forth in Section 6.2 and Appendix B 

of this SALMON AO. 

Investigators should identify which opportunity (MoO-1, MoO-2, or ASP) they feel is 

most suitable for their proposal and should choose the desired mission format. 

Proposers to the FSB opportunities should demonstrate, using statistics, that the proposed 

experiment will, if the hardware performs within the predicted variability, have the power 

to resolve the stated hypothesis within the given N or sample size. Proposers should also 

describe how the proposed hardware will support the experimental conditions necessary 

to provide statistical confidence in the results and what specific analyses will be 

performed to test the hypothesis. If the PI determines that no statistical analysis is needed, 

then that conclusion must be clearly supported in the proposal. 

Questions concerning the content provided in this PEA, or in the PIP, may be directed to 

the NASA points of contact listed in Section 7.0 of this PEA. 

5.2 Exceptions to General SALMON Requirements 

This Program Element Appendix contains the following exceptions to the SALMON 

proposal preparation and submission requirements outlined in this SALMON AO. 

Table H3-1, Cost Funding Profile Template, should be used in lieu of the format 

provided for Table B.5 in Appendix B of this SALMON AO. 
H3-8 

Table H3-1 SALMON-H3 Cost Funding Profile Template 

Table H3-2, Mission Phase Summary for Cost, should be used in lieu of the format 

provided for Table B.6 in Appendix B of this SALMON AO. 

Table H3-2 Mission Phase Summary for Cost 

5.3 Proposal Submission Requirements

Proposals must be submitted according to the guidelines set forth in Section 6.3 of this 

SALMON AO and in Section 3.0 of this PEA. 

6.0 PROPOSAL EVALUATION, SELECTION, AND IMPLEMENTATION

6.1 Scientific/Technical Evaluation Factors

Proposals will be evaluated per the evaluation criteria set forth in Section 7.2 of this 

SALMON AO except that an accommodation review performed at NASA Ames 

Research Center will take the place of the technical, management, and cost feasibility, 
H3-9 

including cost risk, evaluation set forth in Section 7.2.4 of this SALMON AO. Proposals 

will be reviewed to evaluate whether the proposed investigations can be accommodated 

by the proposed spacecraft platform and payload subsystem. The review will also 

evaluate whether any proposed instrument modifications can be accommodated within 

cost and schedule constraints. 

For missions proposed to achieve a rendezvous with the Earth’s Moon or another Solar 

System body, in addition to the factors for implementation merit given in Section 7.2.3 of 

this SALMON AO, the implementation merit of a proposal will also include the 

demonstrated scientific merit that this investigation’s archived data adds to the Planetary 

Science community. 

6.2 Specific Selection Factors

Proposals will be selected according to the guidelines set forth in Section 7.3 of this 

SALMON AO. 

The Selection Official for Astrobiology Small Payloads missions is the Director of the 

Planetary Science Division within the Science Mission Directorate. The Selection 

Official for Fundamental Space Biology missions is the Director for the Advanced 

Capabilities Division within the Exploration Systems Mission Directorate. 

6.3 Implementation Activities

Proposal selection and award will be implemented according to the guidelines set forth in 

Section 7.4 of this SALMON AO and Section 6.0 of this PEA with the following 

amendments: 

i) Notification of Selection 

Following initial selection, the PIs of the selected investigations will be notified by 

telephone, followed by formal written notification. The formal notification may include 

special instructions or conditions for the selection and the implementation of the 

proposed investigation. The appropriate NASA Program Office (SMD for the 

Astrobiology Small Payloads opportunity, ESMD for the Fundamental Space Biology 

opportunity) will contact each selected PI as soon as possible after selection to clarify 

requirements and responsibilities of all parties having roles in each selected investigation. 

Proposers of investigations that were not selected will be notified in writing and offered a 

debriefing as described in Section 7.6 of this SALMON AO. 

ii) Award Administration and Funding of Investigations 

To accommodate the opportunities provided in this PEA, it is anticipated that a variety of 

funding vehicles through the NASA Ames Research Center may be appropriate for any 

non-NASA investigations selected under this AO. Generally, proposals intending to use 

the existing ARC SSD-provided hardware and services will be funded through a grant or 

cooperative agreement (as appropriate), proposals which require further development of 
H3-10 

the SSD hardware will be funded through a cooperative agreement and funded 

incrementally to accommodate required reviews; and proposals providing a complete 

satellite for launch will be funded by a contract funded incrementally to accommodate 

required reviews. 

 Selected proposals intending to use existing ARC SSD-provided hardware will be 

issued awards through applicable funding vehicles (provide intra-agency funding 

to NASA Centers and JPL, award grants to non-NASA institutions). 

 Proposers intending to team with ARC SSD personnel to further develop SSD 

hardware must establish a cooperative agreement with ARC SSD to perform this 

work. Funding will be provided to support a short Phase A study that must pass 

review prior to approval of funding for Phases B/C/D and E/F. 

The funding vehicles to support further formulation and implementation will conform to 

all applicable Federal and NASA procurement requirements. Grants and cooperative 

agreements will be subject to the provisions of the NASA Grants and Cooperative 

Agreement Handbook (http://prod.nais.nasa.gov/pub/pub_library/grcover.htm). For 

contracts, if the contract exceeds $650K, the contractor will have to certify the proposed 

costs for the contract. 

Should a non-U.S. proposal or a U.S. proposal with non-U.S. participation be selected, 

NASA's Office of External Relations, Science Division, will arrange with the non-U.S. 

sponsoring agency for the proposed participation on a no-exchange-of-funds basis, in 

which NASA and the non-U.S. sponsoring agency will each bear the cost of discharging 

their respective responsibilities. Depending on the nature and extent of the proposed 

cooperation, these arrangements may entail a letter of notification by NASA with a 

subsequent exchange of letters between NASA and the sponsoring governmental agency 

or a formal Agency-to-Agency MOU. 

iii) Confirmation of Investigations 

Proposals that have been selected for further development during a short competitive 

Phase A will be reviewed at the end of Phase A, and a downselect will be made by the 

Selection Official. At the end of Phase B, each selected project will be reviewed and the 

Selection Official will take a decision whether to proceed with the mission, based upon 

the Phase B results and evidence of satisfactory technical, cost, and schedule 

performance. Once a mission proceeds to Phase C, no rephasing of Phase E costs to 

Phase C/D will be permitted. 

ASP missions that exceed their proposed budget will be cancelled without further 

consideration. 
H3-11 

7.0 SUMMARY OF KEY INFORMATION

PI Mission Cost Cap Astrobiology Small Payloads: $2M; see 

Section 4.2 of this PEA. 

Small Complete Missions in Fundamental Space 

Biology: not to exceed cap (incl reserves) of 

$1.5M for MoO1, and $2.0M for MoO2; see 

Section 4.2 of this PEA 

Award Type Mission Format 1: Grant or Cooperative 

Agreement; Mission Format 2: Cooperative 

Agreement; Mission Format 3: Contract; see 

Section 6.3(ii) of this PEA 

Latest Launch Date June 30, 2012 

AO Reissue Date September 30, 2009 

Date for Preproposal Conference Not applicable 

Due Date for NOI October 28, 2009 

Due Date for Proposals December 18, 2009 

End of Phase A (when applicable) Summer 2010 

Submission Medium Hard and electronic copies; see Section 6.3 of 

the SALMON AO 

Web site for submission of 

electronic cover page via NSPIRES 

http://nspires.nasaprs.com/ (help desk available 

at 202-479-9376 or nspires-help@nasaprs.com) 
H3-12 

NASA points of contact concerning 

this Program Element 

For science questions associated 

with Astrobiology Small Payloads: 

For science questions associated 

with Small Missions in 

Fundamental Space Biology: 

For technical information 

regarding both small satellite / 

small payload opportunities 

(TPOC) 

Dr. Catharine A. Conley 

Planetary Science Division 

Science Mission Directorate 

NASA Headquarters 

Washington, DC 20546-0001 

 Tel: 202-358-3912 

 E-mail: Cassie.Conley@nasa.gov 

Dr. David L. Tomko 

Advanced Capabilities Division 

Exploration Systems Mission Directorate 

NASA Headquarters 

Washington, DC 20546-0001 

 Tel: 202-358-2211 

 E-mail: dtomko@nasa.gov 

Mr. John W. Hines 

Chief Technologist 

Engineering Directorate 

NASA Ames Research Center 

Moffett Field, CA 94035 

 Tel: 650-604-5538 

E-mail: ARC-DL-SCM-INFO@MAIL.NASA.GOV

END OF PEA H3 
SALMON AO 

PEA H4: EARTH SCIENCE U.S. PARTICIPATING INVESTIGATOR 

NASA solicits proposals for USPI investigations that address the Earth Science Research 

Program objectives listed in the Science Plan for NASA’s Science Mission Directorate 2007 – 

2016 (found in the SALMON Reference Library). Proposed investigations that address the 

science questions listed in the 2007 NASA Science Plan are highly encouraged. Examples 

include, but are not limited to, Earth science investigators responding to the Japan Aerospace 

Exploration Agency (JAXA) Global Change Observation Mission (GCOM-W) AO, Indian 

Space Research Organization (ISRO) Oceansat-2 call for proposals, and those interested in 

utilizing the upcoming Laser Geodynamics Satellites (LAGEOS) mission to be launched by the 

Italian Space Agency (ASI). 

The Science Mission Directorate is soliciting Earth Science USPI investigations through its Research 

Opportunities in Space and Earth Sciences 2008 (ROSES-08) NASA Research Announcement 

(NRA). 

This proposal opportunity may be found in Appendix A.29 of the ROSES-08 NRA. Earth 

Science USPI proposals submitted in response to the ROSES solicitation are subject to the proposal 

guidelines specified in ROSES and will be reviewed and selected using the proposal criteria specified 

in ROSES. 

ROSES-08 may be found at http://nspires.nasaprs.com/ (select “Solicitations” then “Open 

Solicitations” then “NNH08ZDA001N”). 

Date for Pre-proposal conference September 26, 2008 

Due date for Notices of Intent (NOIs) to propose October 15, 2008 

Due date for proposals December 2, 2008 

END OF PEA H4

H4-1
SALMON AO 

PEA H5: LADEE DUST INSTRUMENT 

I. BACKGROUND

NASA is committed to launching a lunar orbiter in the 2011 timeframe. The Lunar Atmosphere 

and Dust Environment Explorer (LADEE) will seek new information about the tenuous lunar 

atmosphere and dust environment before that environment is altered by extended human activity 

on the Moon, as recommended by the recent National Research Council report The Scientific 

Context for Exploration of the Moon (science goals 8a and 8b) included in the SALMON 

Reference Library (Appendix C). 

The LADEE mission is a small focused mission intended to address the following objectives: 

• Objective 1: Determine the composition of the lunar atmosphere and investigate the 

processes that control its distribution and variability, including sources, sinks, and surface 

interactions. 

• Objective 2: Characterize the lunar exospheric dust environment and measure any spatial 

and temporal variability and impacts on the lunar atmosphere. 

To address these objectives, the LADEE Science Definition Team (SDT) has recommended a 

three instrument payload consisting of a neutral mass spectrometer, a UV/Vis spectrometer, and 

an in-situ dust detector. The SDT report is included in the SALMON Reference Library 

(Appendix C). This SALMON PEA seeks proposals for the in-situ dust detector instrument. 

II. SCIENCE AND PROGRAM OBJECTIVES

While there is ample evidence from Surveyor images and the Apollo Lunar Ejecta and 

Meteorites (LEAM) experiment for significant dust transport near the lunar surface, the inference 

of high altitude lofted dust is more controversial, relying on Apollo astronaut sketches and 

limited analysis of Apollo photographs. LADEE seeks to definitively answer those questions. 

NASA solicits proposals for an instrument to address the lunar dust environment at the roughly 

50 km expected LADEE orbit. We are seeking proposals for an in-situ instrument that directly 

counts dust grains. It is expected that the lunar surface-lofted dust component will consist of submicron grains traveling at relatively slow speeds. The densities at 50 km are expected to be on 

the order of 10-4/cc. 

LADEE anticipates a nominal four month mission with a circular retrograde orbit at an altitude 

below 50 km and an inclination of 180° ± 20°. The spacecraft is 3-axis stabilized using reaction 

wheels during science data acquisition, but may do slow spins for thermal control when not 

doing active science data acquisition. 

NASA is seeking an existing instrument (such as flight spares and engineering models) that 

could be quickly flight qualified, accommodated, and flown on LADEE in order to address 

science objective #2. NASA is also interested in potential “build to print” possibilities from 

existing flight instruments. 

III. PROPOSAL OPPORTUNITY PERIOD AND SCHEDULE

The following schedule applies to this Focused Mission of Opportunity program element: 

H5-1
SALMON AO 

• There will be no pre-proposal conference for this opportunity. 

• A Notice of Intent to propose (NOI) is encouraged, and is due no later than 11:59 p.m. 

Eastern time on the date given in Section VII of this PEA. Section 6.1.4 of this SALMON 

AO provides information on electronic NOI submission through NSPIRES. 

• Proposals are due no later than 4:30 p.m. Eastern time on the proposal due date given in 

Section VII of this PEA. Proposal submission requirements are outlined in Section V of 

this PEA. 

• Selection announcement is targeted for 2 months after receipt of proposals. Funding for 

the selected instrument will be available as soon as appropriate funding vehicles can be 

put in place; commonly this is 4-8 weeks following selection. 

IV. REQUIREMENTS AND CONSTRAINTS

A. Type of Mission of Opportunity 

This PEA is a Focused Mission of Opportunity (FMO); the solicitation is for a complete science 

investigation that requires delivery of an instrument to be placed on the LADEE mission. The 

instrument team will be responsible for delivering the instrument, operating the instrument 

through Phase E, preparing and archiving the data products, analyzing the data, and reporting the 

results of the science investigation in the science literature. The instrument team should only be 

large enough to accomplish the tasks listed in the previous sentence. NASA will solicit 

participating scientists for this instrument and the other LADEE instruments before launch. 

B. Cost and Schedule Constraints

It is expected that one proposal will be selected through this PEA. LADEE anticipates a 2011 

launch, which provides a compressed timeline for instrument acquisition. The selected 

instrument will be expected to be prepared for final delivery no later than October 2010. NASA 

is allocating approximately $5M for this investigation. 

C. Technical Requirements and Constraints

In addition to the requirements given in the SALMON AO, all proposed investigations must 

meet the following spacecraft limitations: 

• Total Instrument Mass: 3 kg; 

• Power provided: 28 Volts unregulated; 

• Continuous Power: 5 W (higher peak power may be available at times); 

• Continuous science data rate: 1 kbps (on-board data storage available); 

• Pointing capability of spacecraft: 5 deg; and 

• Pointing knowledge provided by spacecraft: 1 degree. 

V. PROPOSAL PREPARATION AND SUBMISSION

A. Proposal Content Requirements

Proposal content must conform to the guidelines set forth in Section 6.2 and Appendix B of this 

SALMON AO, with the exceptions noted in Section V.B of this PEA. 

B. Exceptions to General SALMON Requirements

Referring to Table B.1 of this SALMON AO, the page limit for “Scientific/Technical 

Investigation” is reduced from 20 pages to 10 pages. 

H5-2
SALMON AO 

Soon after instrument selection, the LADEE Mission has its Preliminary Design Review (PDR). 

If any of the following documents are available (e.g. prepared for past instruments), proposers 

may include them as an appendix, with or without updating them for LADEE: 

• Instrument Functional Requirements Document (FRD), 

• Instrument Interface Requirements Document (IRD), and 

• Experiment Implementation Plan (EIP). 

The inclusion of any of these documents will not be deducted from the proposal page limits. 

Templates and guidelines for these documents are available in the SALMON Reference Library 

(Appendix C). 

This PEA contains no other exceptions to the proposal preparation and submission requirements 

outlined in this SALMON AO. 

C. Proposal Submission Requirements

Proposals must be submitted according to the guidelines set forth in Section 6.3 of this 

SALMON AO and Section III of this PEA. 

VI. PROPOSAL EVALUATION, SELECTION, AND IMPLEMENTATION

A. Scientific Evaluation Factors

Proposals will be evaluated per the evaluation criteria set forth in Section 7.2 of this SALMON 

AO. 

B. Specific Selection Factors

A proposal will be selected according to the guidelines set forth in Section 7.3 of this SALMON 

AO. 

The Selection Official for this PEA is the Director of the Planetary Sciences Division of the 

Science Mission Directorate. 

C. Implementation Activities

Proposal selection and award will be implemented according to the guidelines set forth in 

Section 7.4 of this AO and Section IV.B of this PEA. It is anticipated that contracts will be 

awarded for any non-NASA investigations selected under this AO through NASA Goddard Space 

Flight Center. If required, a contract will be awarded for short Phase A concept study with an option 

for a Bridge Phase to continue on to Phases B/C/D and E/F while these phases are added to the 

contract. The contract for further formulation and implementation will conform to all applicable 

Federal and NASA procurement requirements. 

Should a non-U.S. proposal or a U.S. proposal with non-U.S. participation be selected, NASA's 

Office of External Relations, Science Division, will arrange with the non-U.S. sponsoring agency for 

the proposed participation on a no-exchange-of-funds basis, in which NASA and the non-U.S. 

sponsoring agency will each bear the cost of discharging their respective responsibilities. Depending 

on the nature and extent of the proposed cooperation, these arrangements may entail a letter of 

notification by NASA with a subsequent exchange of letters between NASA and the sponsoring 

governmental agency or a formal Agency-to-Agency MOU. 

H5-3
SALMON AO 

H5-4

D. Exceptions to General SALMON Requirements

Each proposal will be evaluated for its technical, management, and cost feasibility, including 

cost risk. The technical and management approaches will be evaluated to assess the likelihood 

that the investigation can be implemented as proposed. This includes an assessment of risk of 

completing the instrument within the proposed schedule and cost. The methods and rationale 

used to develop the estimated cost, and the discussion of cost risks, will be assessed. 

VII. SUMMARY OF KEY INFORMATION

Focused Mission of Opportunity Cost 

Target $5M 

Latest instrument delivery date October 2010 

AO release date September 3, 2008 

Due date for Notice of Intent (NOI) to 

propose September 24, 2008 

Due date for proposals November 4, 2008 

Submission medium Hard and electronic copies; see Section 6.3.1 of 

SALMON AO 

Web site for submission of electronic 

cover page via NSPIRES 

http://nspires.nasaprs.com/

(help desk available at 202-479-9376 or nspireshelp@nasaprs.com)

NASA point of contact concerning this 

Program Element 

Dr. Tom Morgan 

Science Mission Directorate 

NASA Headquarters 

Washington, DC 20546-0001 

 Tel: 202-358-0828 

 Email: Thomas.H.Morgan@nasa.gov 

END OF PEA H5