Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope
This webpage is kept for archival purposes only and is no longer updated or maintained.

Questions and Answers Regarding the AO for GLAST

Q1. What guidelines should a proposer use in developing a Mission Operations and Development (MO&DA) budget?

A1. The MO&DA budget numbers given in the GLAST Announcement of Opportunity (AO) are the total budget available for all instruments during this phase.  A proposer should base his budget on a proportional share of the MO&DA funds; a secondary instrument proposer should not exceed ten percent of the total in any given fiscal year, a primary instrument proposer should not exceed 90 percent of the total in any given fiscal year. Should no secondary instrument be selected or a lower allocation be awarded, the budget will be adjusted.

Q2. How firm is the schedule requirement for the balloon flight or other means of demonstrating the ability of the instrument to reject background in orbit?

A2. The intent is that the proposer must adequately describe a plan to demonstrate that the design is able to reject background in orbit adequately. The plan must show how this will be accomplished in time to effect the instrument design and development. This should be done prior to the PDR, but the proposer may describe an alternative schedule that achieves this objective. One possibility might be a delta-PDR.

Q3. Is the secondary instrument held to the same programmatic requirements as the primary instrument?

A3. The concern is that the cost and schedule of the secondary instrument not negatively impact those of the total mission. This leads to a requirement for programmatics that is more stringent than would normally be the case for an investigation of the magnitude of the secondary instrument. Proposers of secondary instruments may, however, propose a plan for a reduced level of programmatics if there is significant cost savings. Any reduced plan will be judged on the basis of its ability to achieve the same objective without compromising the overall mission, and must show how the plan adequately addresses project management and interaction with the GLAST Project and the spacecraft developer.

Q4. In the drawing of the Glast Instrument modules in Figure 3-1 in the GLAST SI-SC IRD, four small units are depicted at the bottom corners of the two Instrument Modules. Are these meant to represent possible placement of the GRB Monitor?

A4. These four items are an artifact of an earlier design, where a GRB-like instrument was mounted on each of the four corners. However, this was very conceptual, with little if any analysis to verify accommodation, so it should not be construed as anything but a conceptual possibility.

Q5. In Figure 3-4 of the GLAST SI-SC IRD, the 1.8 m x 1.8 m SI footprint is shown. Does the GRB Monitor have to live within that footprint, or are we free to propose positions outside the footprint, such as on the sides that are not set-aside for the solar panels?

A5. The 1.8m x 1.8m constraint is meant to keep the instrument within the 2.743m diameter, as shown in the figure. A secondary instrument is not constrained to stay within the 1.8m x 1.8m box, but must be within the 2.743m diameter.

Q6. What are the mounting constraints for the GRB Monitor as per location and structure to which they mount?

A6. As of this date, little design work has gone into mounting concepts for the secondary instrument. Detailed design will be done after selection. Some general guidelines for proposals are: assume the mounting surface will be the spacecraft bus, or the instrument interface structure (supplied by the spacecraft provider) - not the primary instrument. As mentioned earlier, it is best to assume you will not be mounted on the solar panel sides of the spacecraft. Keep in mind the interface requirements as specified in the SI-SC IRD.

Q7. The Science Requirements Document (SRD) gives a requirement on angular resolution for energies greater E > 10 GeV.  Table 1 of the AO gives the same numbers for E >1 GeV. Which number is correct?

A7. This is a typographical error in the original Announcement of Opportunity, subsequently revised. The SRD prevails and the values apply to E >10 GeV for both the baseline and the goal, rather than E > 1 GeV. Later versions of the posted AO reflect this change.

Q8. Can you provide more information on the E&PO requirements for proposals in response to this Announcement of Opportunity?

A8. A statement expanding on the E&PO requirements may be found at http://spacescience.nasa.gov/ao/99-oss-03/apendixe.html.

Q9. Does the statement on page 10, "All proposed science investigations should specify a discrete number of objects or sources", also apply to a proposed burst monitor?

A9. The requirement for specifying at most a discrete number of objects for study does not apply to non-repeating gamma-ray bursts.  However, it should be noted that this is somewhat of a moot point because of the policy on transients given on page 13 of the Announcement of Opportunity. It states that "the data from transient sources discovered by GLAST will immediately be made publicly available." This policy is for GLAST as a whole, not just for the LAT. If a proposer chooses to deviate from this policy for special circumstances, such as a comprehensive catalog, the deviations will be subject to careful review and possibly to modification during negotiations.

Q10. Do the page limits given in the AO also apply to secondary instrument proposals?

A10. Yes.

Q11. Can we assume that the spacecraft will provide mounting hardware for a secondary instrument?

A11. Yes.

Q12. Is the following assumption correct? We are assuming for cost and schedule purposes that the spacecraft will provide to the instrument developer the software and EGSE required to simulate the Spacecraft interface. If we have to write the software to simulate the spacecraft, our costs will go up considerably.

A12. Yes, you should assume that the spacecraft provider will provide the instrument developer with a spacecraft interface simulator.

Q13. The method of "scanning" is very important for proposers of GRB monitors. Continuous scanning will pose very different challenges than a series of pointings throughout a day. Since scanning at 1 revolution per orbit equals 4 arcminutes per second and since the GLAST Science Requirements Document states that it would be beneficial to have few arcminute position accuracy, a significantly higher level of processing will be required in a scanning mode than in a series of pointings. Will NASA please specify the details of the scanning to be assumed for the proposal evaluations?

A13. The types of scanning motions which have been discussed with the GLAST Facility Science Team are as follows: the instrument is pointed in the general direction of anti-Earth, and continuously scans during the orbit, at one scan revolution per orbit. In the "general direction of anti-Earth" means it could be pointed exactly anti-Earth (i.e., opposite the spacecraft to Earth center line), or could be pointed somewhere between this direction and the orbit normal (either looking at the upper hemisphere of the sky, or the lower hemisphere, or rocking between the two on alternating orbits). Note that the closer it gets to orbit normal, the slower the scan rate. As the AO states, the actual scanning pattern will be selected later, "to cover the entire sky in a manner that is scientifically optimized". For purposes of the proposal, the proposed instruments should be able to handle the maximum scan rate continuously, which is, as stated, on the order of 4 arcminutes per second.

Q14. Phase E is defined in the main body of the AO as having a duration of 5 years, but section 5.2 of Appendix D specifies certain IPI responsibilities as lasting only for a period of 30 months. Which IPI duties and responsibilities should be costed for the 30 month period, and which should be costed for the full phase E?

A14. The Announcement of Opportunity states "...the IPI will have an ongoing responsibility for a period of 30 months after post launch checkout to assist in the operation, calibration, and data processing associated with the instrument; to prepare user documentation; to assist other observers in its use; and to assist in the preparation of data for deposit in a specified archive in a form that is usable by other investigators." It is envisioned that the 30 months after checkout will be the period in which the effort in many of these activities, such as on-orbit checkout and calibration, the refinement and documentation of software and the development of procedures, is most intense. After 30 months it is assumed the emphasis will increasingly shift to instrument operations and science analysis, with a low level of maintenance activity on instrument response, software and documentation.

Q15. Must the science investigations proposed in response to this AO be completed during the first 12 months of phase E?

A15. Except for a very limited number of key projects which extend beyond the first year, the proposed science should fit within the first year period. After that time, except for the approved key projects, all investigations will be subject to the peer review process for all investigators. While science from later phases can be included in the proposal as examples, it will be evaluated in consideration of the possibility that the IPI team will not be selected for the GO investigation.

Q16. Should the cost plan include funding for the IPI Team's science investigations beyond the first twelve months of phase ?

A16. The cost plan should match the budget profile given in the AO, though the only accepted science will be mostly in the first year. The budget profile provides for stable funding for the science team's investigations, anticipating they will successfully compete in the Guest Observer program.

Q17. Will IPI Teams be allowed to propose in the Guest Observer program for additional science investigations (not listed in the proposal), and, if so, will they have access to additional funding for those investigations through the GO program?

A17. The IPI teams will compete just as any other potential GO, except that they will be supported through the continuing IPI science budget rather than that of the GO program. In other words, IPI team members compete for science, outside GOs for funding and science.

Q18. Section 4.2.3 states that Key Projects will be selected through the Guest Observer program. Does this mean that Key Projects cannot be proposed as science investigations in response to this AO?

A18. Key Projects may be proposed in response to this AO, however, they are subject to critical review before negotiations. Those that are rejected may be re-proposed through the Guest Observer program. The emphasis should be on key projects that are best accomplished by the instrument team such as comprehensive source catalogs and other objectives requiring amounts of data so extensive that it is impractical for a GO investigation which, outside of key projects, is expected to be limited in scope.

Q19. The instrument center of gravity (c.g.) is directly dependent on the spacecraft c.g. Figure 3-6 in the Spacecraft Interface Requirements document implys that the instument c.g. limit could be as low as 10 cm from the interface plane. Can you be more specific as to what the instrument interface plane is and what spacecraft c.g. range should be used?

A19. The spacecraft CG range shown in the Figure 3-6 is meant to show a possible range which the spacecraft could provide. Therefore, the instrument developer can assume that the spacecraft can be anywhere in this range, and hence that the requirement on the instrument is also the limits shown in the graph, i.e., the instrument c.g. can be anywhere from approximately 10 to 25 cm above the Instrument Interface Plane.

Conceptually, the Instrument Interface Plane is where the instrument meets the Interface structure. Since the Interface Structure is not designed yet, there are details about the instrument mounting which will be worked out later (after selection). For example, it may be possible to have some instrument hardware (e.g., electronic boxes) fit below the Instrument Interface Plane, if it can be accommodated within the Interface Structure. For purposes of the proposal, the proposer should determine where their Instrument Interface Plane is assumed to be. If there is instrument hardware below this plane, the rationale for why it is assumed that it will fit within a reasonable Interface Structure should be explained.

Q20. In Appendix B, general guidelines are given for preparation of proposals. On page B-3, a Cover Page/Proposal Summary is discussed that is required, with the required forms available on the Web. Usually, such proposals to NASA also include a cover in color that gives the proposal title, etc... Is such a color cover permitted in response to this AO in addition to the required Cover page from the Web?

A20. Instructions for the allowed format of the proposal are given on page B-1. While there may be a secondary title page, it should also be in black and white to facilitate recycling unless important information is conveyed by adding color to the title page. A few color figures and photographs on plain white recyclable paper may be included, but these should be used to enhance the presentation of information, not simply for cosmetics.

Q21. The proposal guidelines state that up to 4 fold out pages (11 x 17 inches) are permitted in the proposal. Does this apply to both Volumes 1 and 2? Or only to Volume 1 since the Management and Cost Volume 2 is otherwise not page constrained?

A21. The total number of fold out pages should be limited to 4. Because of the page restrictions, it is assumed this would be in Volume 1, but that is at the discretion of the proposer.

Q22. Are Volumes 1 and 2 bound together or bound separately?

A22. The proposal may be in one volume with dividers, tabs, or simply numbered sections, or it may be in two volumes at the discretion of the proposer.

Q23. On page B-8, the AO instructions state that assurance and safety plans must be described as part of Volume 1. In an earlier draft version of the AO, the Assurance and Safety plan were part of Volume 2. In view of the strict page restriction for the Scientific and Technical Plan, should a safety and assurance plan be included in Volume 2, the Management and Cost plan? Or is this plan supposed to only be included in Volume 1?

A23. The change from the draft AO to the officially released version to put the assurance and safety plans in Volume 1 was done for the intent of better organization, and to enable a smoother evaluation. However, it is recognized that there is a strict page limitation on Volume 1, and there is no intent to limit the quality of the assurance and safety plans, so if the plans are lengthy, the proposer may choose to put a summary of the activities in Volume 1, and the complete plans in the Management and Cost plan, where there is no page limitation.

Q24. We have been trying to verify the center of mass requirements calculations in the GLAST AO for the defined payload with the 6915 PAF and 10-foot fairing, and it seems to us as though the Payload Attach Fitting height was included in the calculation of Lt in a way that is not necessary. May we assume that we can define an instrument CG of our choice if we use the spacecraft properties defined in the AO and add sufficient justification as to its suitability for a Delta II launch using the 10-foot fairing and the 6915 PAF?

A24. Yes, as long as you show sufficient justification.

Q25. In Appendix D of the GLAST AO, section 5.3 says "...(the IDS)...will serve for a period of 30 months after postlaunch checkout." But on p. 18 of the main document, in section 4.6.1 (NASA costs) it shows an IDS budget of $100k/yr from 2002-2010, i.e., for five years after launch. Are these consistent somehow?

A25. Yes, they are inconsistent. Appendix D is in error. The IDS should propose for the full Phase E, i.e., a period of 5 years after launch.

Q26. The Observatory Pointing Knowledge Error Budget, Table 3-1 in the IRD, is inconsistent with the pointing knowledge requirement in the SRD. Can we assume the SRD value?

A26. There is a slight inconsistency between the numbers in the two documents. For purposes of the proposal, you may use the numbers in the SRD. For clarity, please note the following.

The pointing knowledge error contributions specified in the IRD are the instrument (60 arcsec), the attitude determination (30 arcsec) and the mechanical/thermal misalignment (20 arcsec). When these are combined in an RSS fashion, the total observatory pointing error is 70 arcsec. Note that the instrument error of 60 arcsec comes from the lower end of the range specified in the SRD for instrument source location (1-5 arcmin).

The pointing knowledge error contributions specified in the SRD are the same for the instrument (1-5 arcmin for source location), and 30 arcsec for the spacecraft (3 sigma). It is implied that misalignments are included in the 30 arcsec for the spacecraft, and that is what proposers may assume. Note, however, that if these two error sources are combined together in an RSS fashion, there is only a small difference between the resulting total errors in the IRD and SRD.

Q27. I would like to ask a follow-up question to Question 21 concerning the number of fold outs allowed in the proposal. I understand that the number of fold outs in Volume 1 should be limited to 4 because of page restrictions. To clearly present management aspects and requirements flow is it possible to make the restrictions to 4 fold outs for Volume 1 only, and allow for additional fold outs in the management volume since it is unrestricted? I feel this will make for a clear and easier to understand proposal.

A27. The response to Question 21 still stands. It is a NASA Headquarters policy to limit the number of fold out pages, so 4 is still the limit. Note that, as stated in the response to Question 21, whether those 4 fold outs are in Volume 1 or 2 is at the discretion of the proposer.

Q28. On page B-9, the AO speaks of Letters of Endorsement and of International Agreement(s). What is the difference? The latter sounds much more formal than the former. Would you please describe the contents of a Draft International Agreement and/or supply an example?

A28. Section 4.8 and 5.4 contains more information regarding international letters of endorsement and international agreements.

The letter of endorsement is used to assure NASA that the foreign institution or government will meet its commitments as described in the proposal. It is a letter from the institution, and/or government if government support is required, certifying that officials from that institution/government are aware and supportive of the proposed investigation and will pursuefunding for the investigation, if selected.

An international agreement is to document the arrangement entered into between the U.S. and non-U.S. entities. Note that signed agreements are to be delivered after selection, while the draft agreement is required with the proposal. The agreements need have as a signatory an official of sufficiently high level to commit the organization/agency to the specified work. The agreement must state that both sides agree to discharge their respective duties. It generally includes a program overview, context of the participation of each agency/organization, roles and responsibilities of each (including deliverables), any special agreements, financial arrangements (which could simply be a no-exchange-of-funds basis), and optionally a termination clause and legal disclaimers.

The letter of endorsement is a one-way letter signed by the proposing organization. The international agreement is generally a two-way agreement signed by the U.S. and non-U.S. entities (see section 4.8 for further information regarding who should be the responsible U.S. entity).

Q29. For the GLAST main instrument contract, is it acceptable to implement a contract with the primary industrial partner that is not performance based (i.e., not an incentive fee contract) if this course is justified in an innovative approach to cost reduction?

A29. For purposes of the proposal, you may assume that this is acceptable. However, after the selection, when the contract is actually put in place, NASA has the right to review and consent to major subcontracts. At that time, it will be reviewed more closely for cost benefits as well as maintaining cost performance.

Q30. I'd like to ask whether you can give any guidelines about the amount of support NASA anticipates requiring of IDS's. In Appendix D, section 4.0 says that IDS's will be funded for their support work for NASA. I imagine that means attending reviews, SWG meetings, etc... For budgeting purposes, though, it would help to have a more specific idea, if possible, either as a fraction of full time effort, or maybe in terms of estimated number of meetings per year.

A30. As stated further on in the Appendix D, you are correct that the type of support required from the IDS investigators includes attending project reviews, science team meetings, and assisting in providing the scientific guidance to help make mission decisions and trade-offs (this will include reviewing mission documents from time to time). As a rule of thumb, it is reasonable to assume about 2 to 3 science team meetings per year, and approximately 1 project meeting/review to support, per year. These are not hard numbers, and since it is late in the proposal preparation period, these numbers will not be binding on proposals, provided assumptions made are reasonable, given the requirements stated in the AO. However, for those proposers looking for realistic assumptions for this workload, the recommendations made here can be used.

Q31. The Announcement of Opportunity states that Co-Investigators are not allowed for IDS proposals. Since foreign IDSs participate on a no-exchange of funds basis, may a foreign investigator include a colleague at a U.S. Institution who would be eligible for funding?

A31. The intent of the IDS opportunity is that the GLAST Project have access to a broad range of scientific advice from active scientists. The intent of the funding is to ensure that the IDS has resources to attend important project meetings and participate in other activities where such advice is needed, in addition to maintaining an active science program relative to the GLAST objectives. Since the proposal is evaluated in part based on the value of advice of the IDS to the project, it would not be appropriate to fund a colleague to perform that role. The situation described has the same problem as the Co-Investigator scenario, and hence would not be allowed. An alternative possibility would be for the colleague to propose to be an IDS separately. Following this approach the proposals could be linked or not depending on the preference of the proposers, though it would be advisable not to make this a hard link because of the problem of double jeopardy. (This is the situation where the review panel would be forced to choose both investigators or none, because the investigations are inextricably linked.)

Q32. The AO 99-OSS-03 GLAST cover page requests funding data without stating the period to be covered. Specifically for the IDS, is this the total (years 2000-2010) or an annual average?

A32. It is the total.

Q33. Are the secondary instrument budgets, that are "capped" at $5M, supposed to include the cost in Phase E , such as for maintaining and calibrating the instrument as well as making catalogs?

A33. Yes, the proposal should include the costs during phase E; but no, the costs for phase E are not included in the $5M cap. The $5M cap pertains to money spent in years FY2000 to FY2005. For phase E money available to the secondary instrument, see the response to Question 1 on this GLAST AO Q&A page ("MO&DA" in that response is phase E).

Q34. For a non-US IDS proposer considering partnering arrangements, are Draft International Agreements required for 1) the non-US partners in the investigation, and 2) the US partners also?

A34. Draft international agreements are required for IPI proposals only. However, letters of endorsement are required for any proposing institution.

The purpose of the letter of endorsement from a partnering institution is to ensure that any organization providing support you need from someone who is not under your financial control, is signed up to deliver the needed support to you. Without such a letter we would have to judge your proposal with the assumption that the support would not be provided.

>