A1 : No. The Draft EVI-5 PEA of the SALMON-3 AO solicits Instrument Investigations, where instruments are delivered ready for integration into a spacecraft. Investigation teams can propose instruments for which the costs fall well below the PI-Managed Mission Cost Cap. The integration of the instrument onto a bus occurs outside of the PI-Managed Mission Cost Cap and is NASA's responsibility. Posted 05/08/2018

A2 : Yes. Posted 05/08/2018

A3 : Click on the "Common Instrument Interface (CII)" link of the EVI-5 Library and it transfers to the Common Instrument Interface Website. Click on the "CII Hosted Payload Opportunity Online Database" link to access the database. All CII Reference Documents are available under the "Information Center" link of this CII Website. Posted 05/08/2018

A4 : The 6U (2x1x3) is the only 6U configuration described in the NASA Launch Services Program, Program Level Dispenser and CubeSat Requirements Document. The EVI-5 PEA of the SALMON-3 AO states that concepts that do not comply with the NASA Launch Services Program, Program Level Dispenser and CubeSat Requirements Document standards are required to clearly describe how their designs are packaged and deployed and that CubeSat form factors larger than 6U will not be considered. Posted 05/08/2018

A5 : The TMC panel will evaluate the original proposal. All TMC evaluators will be U.S. Citizens. Posted 05/08/2018

A6 : It is possible. However, the Draft EVI-5 PEA of the SALMON-3 AO states "The objective of this PEA is the selection of one or more Instrument Investigations where one or more instruments are built and deployed on an existing or planned spacecraft" and "To take advantage of excess payload capacity on any of these platforms, NASA is planning to have instruments available for inclusion on these various spacecraft." The Draft EVI-5 PEA of the SALMON-3 AO also states "For an EVI instrument proposal selection, these factors also include the likelihood that the proposed instrument can be accommodated on a NASA-selected platform in the near future." Posted 05/08/2018

A7 : It is possible, however unlikely. The Draft EVI-5 PEA of the SALMON-3 AO states "The objective of this PEA is the selection of one or more Instrument Investigations where one or more instruments are built and deployed on an existing or planned spacecraft" and "To take advantage of excess payload capacity on any of these platforms, NASA is planning to have instruments available for inclusion on these various spacecraft." The Draft EVI-5 PEA of the SALMON-3 AO also states "For an EVI instrument proposal selection, these factors also include the likelihood that the proposed instrument can be accommodated on a NASA-selected platform in the near future." Another selection factor is "available funding and funding profiles" that includes all aspects of the mission, e.g. access to space. Posted 05/08/2018

A8 : Yes. Please refer to Section 5.9.4 of the SALMON-3 AO. Posted 05/08/2018

A9 : We cannot respond to questions about EVI-6, EVM-3, or EVC. We can only respond to questions about EVI-5. Posted 05/08/2018

A10 : The presentation from the EVI-5 Prospective Bidders Web Conference is available for download from the (1) EVI-5 Library under Program Specific Documents and from the (2) EVI-5 Prospective Bidders Teleconference/WebEx page of the EVI-5 Acquisition Homepage. Posted 05/08/2018

A11 : Letters for international collaborations/partnerships do not count against the proposal page count. They should be included in Proposal Appendix J. 2. Posted 05/08/2018

A12 : The Draft EVI-5 PEA of the SALMON-3 AO states "NASA has been cataloguing the potential platforms that will exist over the next decade with capacity to accommodate potential EVI Instruments. The goal of this activity is to document, as a service to both NASA and all who are interested in potential integration of instruments on available payloads, the types of opportunities that exist and the current interfaces and constraints that exist for each potential platform. It is also desired that, as much as possible, agreements can be reached as to potential common instrument interfaces for many of these potential platforms." To access the CII Hosted Payload Opportunity Online Database and the CII documentation, a link to the Common Instrument Interface (CII) Website is available in the EVI-5 Library. Posted 05/08/2018

A13 : You should decide which instrument(s) allow you to address the most compelling science question(s) in a cost effective manner. We do not offer advice helping proposers chose between different science questions or instruments. Posted 05/08/2018

A14 :  Correct. The Draft EVI-5 PEA of the SALMON-3 AO solicits Instrument Investigations, where instruments are delivered ready for integration into a spacecraft. The spacecraft could be developed by NASA, other U.S. agencies, foreign space agencies, or commercial vendors. NASA will cover (outside the PIMMC) the cost of access to space (e.g. spacecraft, launch services), integration to the NASA selected platform (Phase D); and investigation costs during any potential gap between the delivery of the completed instrument (end of Phase C) and the start of integration of the instrument to the designated spacecraft (start of Phase D). Nevertheless, the EVI-5 PEA of the SALMON-3 AO also states “Proposals may include information on any research the proposing team has done relative to potential payload accommodations for their proposed instrument. This is not a requirement for any proposal.”. Posted 05/14/2018

A15 :  A Communication Program may be required after selection (with costs outside the PIMMC Cap). If a Communication Program is required, NASA will be open to discussions on how to best implement it. Posted 05/14/2018

A16 :  The proposing team should decide how to best address the Applications Dimension of the investigation. NASA is not expecting a “minimum” effort as the Earth Venture Program is intended to provide data and information products, to the extent possible, to key Applications Communities to increase the overall value and benefits of a mission. NASA recognizes that, in some science investigations, applications are not possible. In such cases, the proposer shall explain and justify why there is no viable application dimension to the investigation. Posted 05/14/2018

A17 : Soliciting instrument/spacecraft pairings is not within the intent of the EVI-5 Program Element. NASA is not planning on reconsidering this option for EVI-5. Posted 05/17/2018

A18 : The EVI-5 Program Element solicits science investigations and not technology development projects Posted 05/17/2018

A19 : Yes. NASA will consider accommodating an EVI-5 instrument on a mission for which it would fly as secondary payload on an ESPA ring, assuming that the mission fulfills the EVI-5 investigation accommodation requirements (e.g. orbit). Posted 05/17/2018

A20 : Both the Science and the TMC Panels have access to the proposal's Heritage Appendix to generate findings. Science Panel members who are not subject to export control restrictions will have access to the unredacted version of the Heritage Appendix to develop findings, particularly those associated with Factor B-2 (see Section 7.2.3 of the SALMON-3 AO). Posted 05/17/2018

A21 : Yes. Investigation Teams may propose any instrument package that is necessary to accomplish the proposed science as long as it fulfills the requirements stated in the EVI-5 PEA (e.g., cost and schedule) and those applicable from the SALMON-3 AO. Posted 05/21/2018

A22 : Investigation Teams should propose the applications that best suits their investigation. This text should be included where it best fits the proposed investigation and included in most appropriate WBS for the particular investigation. Posted 05/21/2018

A23 : Both.Posted 05/21/2018

A24 : NASA reserves the right to select and fund, partially select and fund, or not select the SEO of a selected investigation. Posted 05/21/2018

A25 : No. All compliant EVI-5 proposals will be evaluated according the criteria stated in Section 6.1 of the Draft EVI-5 PEA and Section 7.2 of the SALMON-3 AO. Please also note that the Selection Official may take into account a wide range of programmatic factors in deciding whether or not to select any proposals and in selecting among selectable proposals, including, but not limited to, planning and policy considerations, available funding and funding profiles, programmatic merit and risk of any proposed partnerships, and maintaining a programmatic balance. These factors also include the likelihood that the proposed instrument(s) can be accommodated on a NASA-selected platform(s). Posted 05/21/2018

A26 : Yes. A 6U in the 1x1x6 configuration can be proposed, however deployment is only available from the International Space Station. The orbital location of the ISS is approximately 400 km at 51.6 degrees inclination. The orbital lifetime would be less than 3 years, however it can vary significantly depending on the CubeSat's mass and surface area. If a more specific lifetime estimate is needed, NASA provides the Debris Assessment Software (DAS) as a conservative, easy-to-use tool. If this approach is used in a proposal, the investigators do not need to describe the details of how their designs are to be packaged and deployed. New language to reflect this answer will be included in the final EVI-5 PEA of the SALMON-3 AO. Posted 05/21/2018

A27 : Yes. The gap plan is intended for only instrument maintenance activities such as storage and periodic monitoring and the necessary support of key personnel to maintain the integrity of the investigation. New language to reflect this answer will be included in the final EVI-5 PEA of the SALMON-3 AO. Posted 05/21/2018

A28 : For ISS deployments, eight 1x1x6 CubeSats could be configured for deployment in the NanoRack CubeSat Deployer (NRSCD) per single airlock cycle, but each deploy of a single 1x1x6 CubeSat must be separated by at least 3 hours per ISS Flight Rules. They are frequently separated by more than 3 hours due to other crew activities. In addition, six 1x1x6 CubeSats can be deployed directly from the Cygnus cargo vehicle after it departs the ISS. It raises altitude about 50-100km above ISS (450-500km, 51.6 deg) and deploys from an external NRCSD dispenser. Posted 05/22/2018

A29 : Yes. As an amendment to the evaluation criteria given in Section 7.2 of the SALMON-3 AO, the evaluation of the Experiment Science Implementation Merit and Feasibility of the Proposed Investigation, includes the following exception to Factor B-5. Factor B-5, probability of investigation team success, is amended with an exception for Tailored Class D instrument and CubeSat investigations that removes evaluation of the PI experience with NASA missions. The panel may provide comments to the Selection Official on the relevant managerial experience of the PI and on whether appropriate mentoring and support tools are in place. Any such comments will not contribute to the Experiment Science Implementation Merit and Feasibility of the Proposed Investigation rating. In addition, as an amendment to the evaluation criteria given in Section 7.2 of the SALMON-3 AO, the evaluation of the TMC Feasibility of the Proposed Investigation Implementation, includes the following exception to Factor C-4. Factor C-4, adequacy and robustness of the management approach and schedule, including the capability of the management team, is amended for Tailored Class D instrument and CubeSat investigations to assess the qualifications and experience of the management team as a whole as opposed to assessing the capabilities of each of the Key Team Members independently. The panel may provide comments to the Selection Official on the relevant managerial experience of the PI and on whether appropriate mentoring and support tools are in place. Any such comments will not contribute to the TMC Feasibility of the Proposed Investigation Implementation risk rating. Posted 06/26/2018

A30 : We will maintain past practice on this for EVI-5 solicitation. If there are any Category I proposals that are not selected, they will be listed in the Selection Statement and the reason that they were not selected will be described. If any Category II are selected, then the other Category II proposals will be listed and the reason that they were not selected will be described. For Category IV proposals, we will only state that all Category IV proposals were not selected for the same reasons they were assigned to Category IV. However, the titles, team members and specific reasons for their non-selection will not be provided. Posted 06/26/2018

A31 : Section 4.6.2 of the EVI-5 PEA states "CubeSat proposals are recommended to comply with the Cal Poly CubeSat Design Specification, found at http://www.cubesat.org/resources/. NASA's Launch Services Program has issued a Program Level Dispenser and CubeSat Requirements Document (PLDCRD), which can be found in the EVI-5 Library, with standard requirements for launching CubeSats with form factors up to 6U and qualifying form factors of 1U, 1.5U, 2U, 3U and 6U. Furthermore, NASA can also accommodate the deployment of a 6U CubeSat in a 1x1x6 configuration from the International Space Station. Concepts that do not comply with the above standards are required to clearly describe how their designs are packaged and deployed, but with the understanding that CubeSat form factors larger than 6U will not be considered. Note that the 6U limit is for a single CubeSat. CubeSat constellations are permitted but each individual CubeSat in the constellation cannot be greater than 6U. Proposers should be cognizant that a successful CubeSat constellation based investigation is required to be proposed within the PI-Managed Mission Cost (PIMMC) cap and must also pass through an accommodation study whereby NASA evaluates its capacity to launch such a constellation." Posted 07/27/2018

A32 : In the EVI-5 Library (https://essp.larc.nasa.gov/EVI-5/evi-5_library.html) under Program Specific Documents, item 13 - a LSP Small Payload Access to Space Catalogue page and item 2 - Common Instrument Interface (CII) link provide information on the potential platforms. However, NASA reserves the right to find other ways to provide access to space for selected investigations. Posted 07/27/2018

A33 : The EVI-5 solicitation is a unique opportunity announced through a Program Element Appendix (PEA) of the Third Stand Alone Missions of Opportunity Notice (SALMON-3), therefore there is no incumbent. Posted 07/27/2018

A34 :Section 4.7 of the EVI-5 PEA K states "An Education Program Plan is not required for EVI-5."  Posted 07/31/2018

A35 :Yes. Students are often involved in the science team effort for these types of investigations. NASA welcomes student involvement. Posted 07/31/2018

A36 :The PIMMC cap for EVI-5 Tailored Class D missions is $35M with an up to $5M additional for a Science Enhancement Option as stated in the EVI-5 PEA K. Investigation teams must propose the PIMMC needed to complete their investigation as proposed. The TMC Panel will evaluate against the proposed PIMMC and not the PIMMC cap. Posted 07/31/2018

A37 :No. Investigation teams must proposed the PIMMC needed to complete their investigation as proposed. The TMC Panel will evaluate against the proposed PIMMC and not the PIMMC cap. All proposals must comply with the requirements and constraints contained within the EVI-5 PEA K and the SALMON-3 AO. The proposal must be for a complete end to end science investigation. Posted 07/31/2018

A38 :No. Section 4.6.2 of the EVI-5 PEA K states "CubeSat form factors larger than 6U will not be considered." Posted 07/31/2018

A39 :Slide 2 of the EVI-5 Pre-Proposal Web Conference presentation "CubeSats - The Basics" presents an example of eight P-PODS capable carrying a 3U CubeSat each (total of 24Us). Posted 07/31/2018

A40 :Yes. Sections 4.5.2 and 4.5.3 of the EVI-5 PEA K state "costs that are within the PIMMC include: . operations, product generation, and data analysis during the proposed prime mission lifetime of the investigation" Posted 07/31/2018

A41 :No. Section 4.6.6.1 of the EVI-5 PEA K states "The assigned NASA DAAC(s) will be responsible for archival and public distribution of all data collected by the instrument(s) and produced by the investigation's prime measurement phase. Posted 07/31/2018

A42 :Yes. The 6U limit is for a single CubeSat. CubeSat constellations are permitted but each individual CubeSat in the constellation cannot be greater than 6U. Proposers should be cognizant that a successful CubeSat constellation based investigation is required to be proposed within the PI-Managed Mission Cost (PIMMC) cap and must also pass through an accommodation study whereby NASA evaluates its capacity to launch such a constellation. Posted 07/31/2018

A43 :Section 6.1.2 of the SALMON-3 AO and the NSPIRES Webpage request information to the extent that it is known by the NOI due date. Posted 07/31/2018

A44 :Yes. However if a particular aspect is funded by the other agency, inform the EVI-5 Program Scientist. Posted 07/31/2018

A45 :Proposing teams are welcome to proposed the organizational structure that best suits their investigation. Posted 07/31/2018

A46 :For the evaluation, investigation teams are expected to propose the orbit(s) that is best to accomplish the science objectives. For implementation, NASA considers the proposed/preferred orbit(s). NASA will likely offer the preferred orbit and an alternative. When an alternative is offered the impact to the investigation is considered to ensure the science objectives are met. All available access to space opportunities are considered, a study (together with the investigation team) is performed, and alternatives are presented to the NASA Earth Science Division. Ultimately, the access to space that is best for all the stakeholders is chosen. Flexibility in the orbits would facilitate arranging access to space. There is a broad spectrum of access to space opportunities that have been offered to selected EVI investigations to date. Posted 07/31/2018

A47 :The solicitation does not require that the PI reside at the Submitting Organization. PIs are expected to propose a management arrangement that best suits their investigation. However, the Principal Investigator (PI) is accountable to NASA for the success of the investigation, with full responsibility for its scientific and technical integrity, and for its execution within committed cost and schedule (Section 5.4.1 of the SALMON-3 AO). Therefore, proposals must demonstrate that the PI has the appropriate authority within the proposed management structure to implement these responsibilities. Posted 08/02/2018

A48 :The EVI-5 PEA K of the SALMON-3 AO solicits Earth Science investigation and not technology development/demonstration proposals. Nevertheless, your organization can partner with others to provide the enabling technology. In the EVI-5 Acquisition Homepage (https://essp.larc.nasa.gov/EVI-5/evi-5_index.html), there is a link entitled "Teaming Interest" that contains a list of organizations which are interested in teaming with other organizations on SALMON-3 AO proposals. Please note that, this webpage is provided by NASA as a service to the community, i.e., it is a list of those organizations that have asked to be included in this list. Proposing organizations are not required to team with any organization on this list, NASA does not endorse any of these organizations, and NASA does not accept responsibility for their capabilities or actions. Posted 08/02/2018

A49 :Yes. Please refer to Sections 2.2 and 4.6.1 in the EVI-5 PEA K of the SALMON-3 AO for more details on this topic.  Posted 08/02/2018

A50 :Yes, however it is not required. Please refer to Section 4.6.1 in the EVI-5 PEA K of the SALMON-3 AO for more details on this topic.  Posted 08/02/2018

A51 :No. The EVI Accommodation Worksheet requests specific accommodation information and should refer to sections in the proposal where supporting information, such as potential platforms, can be found. We advise proposers to not include information on the worksheet that belongs in the body of the proposal as the proposal could be deemed non-complaint and returned without being evaluated.  Posted 08/02/2018

A52 :Proposals are expected to include in the gap-filling budget all the activities that the investigation team deems necessary "to maintain the integrity of the investigation" during this period. Posted 08/02/2018

A53 : Yes. Posted 08/21/2018

A54 : Proposals must describe thoroughly the investigation team in the proposal. This is necessary for the evaluation and to avoid conflicts of interest when NASA assembles the proposal evaluation teams. Sections 5.4.1 - 5.4.3 and 5.5 and Factors B-5 and C-4 of the SALMON-3 AO; Sections A.2, A.3, E.5, G, and J.1 - J.4 in Appendix B of the SALMON-3 AO; and Requirement K-4 of the EVI-5 PEA are instances where detailed information, requirements or criteria regarding the investigation team are found. It is strongly encouraged that proposers read the PEA and the SALMON-3 AO carefully. Posted 08/23/2018

A55 : Yes. Section 5.2.5 of the SALMON-3 AO states "Activities such as extended missions, guest investigator programs, general observer programs, participating scientist programs, interdisciplinary scientist programs, and/or archival data analysis programs, where appropriate, have the potential to broaden the scientific impact of investigations. These and other optional activities may be proposed as Science-Exploration-Technology Enhancement Options (SEOs)...". Furthermore, the SALMON-3 AO also states that funding requested for SEO activities prior to Phase E should be minimized. Proposed SEO activities are optional and are not included within the cost capped baseline investigation. Posted 08/30/2018

A56 : For EVI-5 investigations, NASA provides the access to space and there is no requirement to include CSLI in the proposal. If a CubeSat proposal is selected, the NASA Earth Science Division (ESD) may decide to use CSLI for access to space. The terms will be negotiated between CSLI and NASA ESD. Investigation teams should propose the constellation size necessary to accomplish the science goals within the available resources, e.g., within the Cost Cap. Posted 08/31/2018