Earth Venture Mission-3 (EVM-3) Acquisition
Earth Venture Mission-3 (EVM-3) Questions & Answers
SCIENCE MISSION DIRECTORATE (SMD) ACQUISITION COMMUNICATION POLICY:
Proposers are advised that only the Announcement of Opportunity, these Questions and Answers (Q&A), and any formal communications documented by the EVM-3 Program Scientist are maintained and considered as binding during the Evaluation, Categorization and Selection processes that would be applicable to this Announcement. Verbal, or other, unofficial communications with NASA, or other, personnel are non-binding and should not be considered as advice, guidelines, requirements, commitments or agreements for the purposes of this AO. By far, one of the most important SMD activities is the solicitation and selection of research investigations for NASA funding. Proposers and proposing colleagues should ensure that critical decisions are not based on erroneous, pre-selection hearsay information by asking for clarification through these Q&A and requesting that the Program Scientist document any proposal-specific communications with NASA officials.
Below are the answers to questions received to date. Similar questions may have been combined and answered as one question. If you have additional questions or feel your question was not answered, please submit an additional question.
For printing purposes please see the Print Version
Questions are listed below.
Use the "View Response" toggle associated with each listed question to reveal its SMD response. Repeat the action to hide the response.
EVM-3 AO Q&As
Q1 :
The EVM-3 AO allows investigation teams to propose non-AO-provided launch services where the PI arranges the required launch services for their proposed mission. Will proposed investigations be required to hold cost reserves against the cost of the launch services arranged by the PI?
Q2 :
The EVM-3 AO states "For contracts that exceed $2,000,000, the contractor will be required to provide certified cost and pricing data to support the cost estimate and award of the contract in accordance with FAR 15.403-4.". Does this requirement apply to a commercial subcontract for launch services (see FAR 15.403-1(b)(3).)?
Q3 :
In previous AOs, missions choosing non-AO-provided launch services were required to budget for the cost of NASA LSP launch vehicle monitoring and advisory services. The EVM-3 AO is silent on this requirement. Is this requirement NOT applicable for the EVM-3 AO?
Q4 :
Attachment 1 of the Commercial FAA-Licensed Launch Services Program Information Summary (found in the EVM-3 Library) states "A representative separation system is assumed, the mass of which is book-kept on the launch vehicle side." Does this also refer to CubeSat Dispensers? Please clarify.
Q5 :
On Attachment 3 of the Commercial FAA-Licensed Launch Services Program Information Summary (found in the EVM-3 Library), by the subtitle "Non-NASA Launch Services", there is an item that reads "Area of concern (__Yes or __No)". Please clarify the purpose of that item.
Q6 :
On Attachment 3 of the Commercial FAA-Licensed Launch Services Program Information Summary (found in the EVM-3 Library), under the subtitle "Non-NASA Launch Services", there is an item that reads "Is the proposal clear on the approach that the PI will utilize to ensure the adequacy of the technical work performed by the launch provider and to determine flight worthiness? (__Yes or __No)". Is "to ensure the adequacy of the technical work performed by the launch provider" and "to determine flight worthiness" redundant?
Q7 :
On Attachment 3 of the Commercial FAA-Licensed Launch Services Program Information Summary (found in the EVM-3 Library), under the subtitle "Non-NASA Launch Services", there is an item that reads "Does the proposal address PI's responsibility to obtain NASA Flight Planning Board approval prior to acquisition of the launch service? (__Yes or __No)". Is the PI required to show how they will obtain NASA Flight Planning Board approval on their approach for the acquisition of the launch service?
Q8 : Is there information available on the status of the Launch Vehicle Risk Category certifications for any of the Commercial FAA-Licensed Launch Vehicles?
Q9 : If the selected mission proposes to arrange alternative access to space (i.e., Non-AO-Provided Launch Services) through a Commercial FAA-Licensed Launch Service and plans to obtain Risk Category 1 certification (per NPD 8610.7) for the Launch Vehicle, what is the scope of this review and how much should be budgeted for NASA LSP to provide certification?
Q10 : How will the evaluation of EVM-3 proposed missions be inclusive of the applications requirements listed in the EVM-3 AO (Requirements 12 and 17)?
Q11 : The first paragraph in Section 5 of the 2020 SMD ESPA RUG (located in the EVM-3 Library) states "The DoD STP developed a Rideshare Mission Assurance Do-No-Harm (TOR-2016-02946) guideline document. This document is only releasable to Government and Government contractors and will not be in the program library; the relevant requirements are included in this document." Does the second instance of "this document" refer to the RUG or the TOR-2016-02946?
Q12 : Requirement 103 of the EVM-3 AO states "For investigations proposing to launch on an ESPA, proposals shall clearly demonstrate compliance to the ESPA requirements and enveloping characteristics, as given in the 2020 SMD ESPA RUG document found in the EVM-3 Library." There are 50+ additional requirements in the 2020 SMD ESPA RUG. Are proposals required to address every requirement in detail?
Q13 : Part of Requirement B-4 of the EVM-3 AO states "Two extra pages are allotted for each additional separate, non-identical science instrument in the Science Section (Sections D and E); two extra pages are allotted for each additional separate, non-identical flight element (e.g., additional non-identical spacecraft) in the Mission Implementation and Management Sections (Sections F and G) ". Does the "additional separate, non-identical science instrument or flight element" count start from zero or one?
Q14 : Section 5.10.3.1 of the EVM-3 AO states that there are two performance categories of Commercial FAA Licensed Launch Services at two different price points. The Commercial FAA-Licensed Launch Services Program Summary in the EVM-3 Library only shows one fairing. How should launch vehicle fairing volume compatibility be assessed for the different performance options?
Q15 : Can a EVM-3 mission purchase supplies and services from non-U.S. sources using NASA funds?
Q16 : Section 3 of the EVM-3 AO states "All proposals, U.S. and non-U.S., must be received by the proposal submittal deadline. For those received after the deadline, the Government reserves the right to consider proposals or modifications thereof received after the date indicated for such purpose, if the Selection Official deems it to offer NASA a significant technical advantage or cost reduction (see NFS 1815.208)." What would be considered a "significant technical advantage or cost reduction"?
Q17 : Section 4.1.4 of the EVM-3 AO states: "SMD had determined that the EVM-3 mission to be selected as a result of this AO to be a Category 3 project (per NPR 7120.5E) with Class D payloads (per NPR 8705.4), with a prime mission life of less than 3 years. Proposers must incorporate appropriate work effort and support in their proposals accordingly." What is the definition of prime mission life?
Q18 : Section 5.6.3 "Student Collaboration (SC) (optional)" of the EVM-3 AO states, "An ideal SC provides a hands-on experience for students that focuses on the unique demands of instrument development, flight systems, environments, and operations, and on the opportunity to acquire early knowledge of systems engineering techniques." Is the example, which focuses on system engineering, the only area of interest for student collaboration or could the focus be on other aspects of the mission?
Q19 :
One of the bulletized items that shall be described in response to Requirement 12 of the EVM-3 AO (regarding Applied Science) is, "A budget for implementation of the activities listed in the above bullets." Is it required and expected to appear as a WBS element in Tables B3, and if so, does it go under the Science WBS? Is it a single budget number or should it be broken down by year and/or phase?
Q20 :
Requirement 13 of the EVM-3 AO, regarding the Operational Enhancement Opportunity (OEO), states, "If OEO activities are proposed, the submission shall define and describe the proposed activities and their costs." Items 7 and 8 of the Program Specific Data on NSPIRES ask for information on the "Enhanced PI-Managed Mission Cost". Q&A 10 for of the Draft (not final) AO indicates that the "Enhanced PI-Managed Mission Cost" line in Table B3 is NOT for the OEO, but the Q&A does not address NSPIRES. Please clarify the OEO.
EVM-3 AO Community Announcement Q&As
Q1 :
The NASA Policy Directive (NPD) 8610.7D "Launch Services Risk Mitigation Policy for NASA-Owned and/or NASA-Sponsored Payloads/Missions - Revalidated w/Change 2 (03/29/2018)" under the section "5. Responsibility" states, "d. Mission Directorates, Center Directors, and the Director of JPL shall ensure that all NASA-owned or NASA-sponsored payloads under their control obtain launch services provided by LSP, are consistent with this policy and are coordinated with HEOMD." Does this statement restrict proposals from NASA centers in any way?
Q2 :
The language in the Community Announcement does not convey what is believed to be the intent, which is that missions must adhere to the constraints shown in Figure 1 of the Venture Class Launch Services Program Information Summary document found in the EVM-3 Library as 500kg / 500km is merely one point on the curve. The Community Announcement introduces the term "operational orbit" which does not appear in the Draft AO while the Draft AO refers to the "reference orbit". Please clarify.
Q3 :
For Venture Class Launch Services (VCLS) the Draft EVM-3 AO states "launch services for no more than a 150kg to a reference orbit of 500km Sun-Sync (inclusive of any project deployment hardware) per launch", however the Community Announcement is silent on the sun-sync orbit. Will the restriction to sun-sync orbits be lifted for the final EVM-3 AO?
Draft EVM-3 AO Q&As
Q1 :
Section 5.10.3.2 of the draft EVM-3 AO states "An EVM-3 investigation (including CubeSat investigations) may be proposed as a Rideshare Payload (RPL) for up to two platforms on an Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle Secondary Payload Adapter (ESPA) or ESPA Grande offered as AO-provided launch service". In a different paragraph of this section the draft AO states "Investigations may propose to utilize one or two ESPA ports. Investigations requiring two ports must comply with the requirements for each port." Are the terms "two platforms" and "two ports" intended to refer to two ports?
Q2 :
Can we specify an ESPA Grande since we would need the larger capacity for our proposed port(s)?
Q3 :
Are unencumbered cost reserves required to be budgeted under the PI-Managed Mission Cost (PIMMC) for AO-provided access to space (ELV, VCLS, or RPL) "standard launch services"?
Q4 :
Where should the launch service cost be presented in the proposal?
Q5 :
Is the cost of the Rideshare Payload (RPL) option $25M per ESPA/ESPA Grande port, or $25M per ESPA/ESPA Grande ring?
Q6 :
Section 4.3.3 of the draft EVM-3 AO references a "typical funding profile over a nominal 5-year development period". Could a quantitative definition of a "typical funding profile" be provided?
Q7 :
Compared with the EVM-2 AO (and the Standard AO), the maximum lines per page (5.5 lines per inch, 49 lines per page) has decreased by ~12% (the limit was 55 lines per page), yet the requirements have actually increased. The D/E page limit was reduced by one page in comparison to the EVM-2 AO without any reduction in requirements. Also, the limit of total number of extra pages (for instruments/flight elements) was reduced from 10 to 9 in comparison to the EVM-2 AO without any reduction in requirements. Can this be rectified for the final EVM-3 AO?
Q8 :
Requirements 12 and 13 of the Draft EVM-3 AO, stating that proposals specify the Level 1 and Level 2 requirements, appears to be premature for a Pre-Phase A proposal. Per NPR 7120.5E, Program-level Requirements (Level 1) and Project-level Requirements (Level 2), together with System Requirements, achieve 'preliminary' maturity by the Pre-Phase A Mission Concept Review (MCR), and 'baseline' maturity by the Phase A System Requirements Review (SRR). We recommend that these two requirements be deleted from the EVM-3 AO, and that overall mission requirements be addressed by the Science Traceability Matrix as part of Requirement B-17.
Q9 :
Is it acceptable to propose a NOAA collaborator without a proposed NOAA Operational Enhancement?
Q10 :
The table titled "Proposal Structure and Page Limits" on pages B-2 and B-3 of the Draft EVM-3 AO specifies that the NOAA Operational Enhancement (OE) is considered part of the "Total Budget". Please define this term and modify the templates for Tables B3a and B3b to include these values if necessary.
Q11 :
If the Virgin Orbit LauncherOne and Firefly are certified prior to the AO-specified Launch Readiness Date, will they be available as a Venture Class Launch Services (VCLS) launch option?
Q12 :
For the Expendable Launch Vehicle (ELV), VCLS, and Rideshare Payload (RPL) AO-provided access to space options, may NASA provide a series of curves of the performance to orbit available across a range of orbit altitudes and inclinations to facilitate the selection of the most applicable launch option for a proposed mission?
Q13 :
Section 5.10.3 of the draft EVM-3 AO states, "For this [VCLS] option, utilizing a domestic launch vehicle on its first flight would be permitted; however, prior to launch the vehicle must be certified as Category 1 per NPD 8610.7D, NASA Launch Services Risk Mitigation Policy for NASA-Owned or NASA-Sponsored Payloads/Missions (see EVM-3 Library)." Are Virgin's LauncherOne or Firefly Alpha viable AO-provided access to space options to propose?
Q14 :
Can non-sun synchronous orbits be proposed?
Q15 :
Are the rideshare opportunities listed at https://s3vi.ndc.nasa.gov/launchportal/ the only applicable options for EVM-3 proposed missions? Can NASA provide information about other missions launching to mid-low inclinations in the 2024-2025 timeframe that will accept an RPL/ESPA? Can EVM-3 missions propose a RPL/ESPA even if it is not listed on the website referenced above?
Q16 :
Is it permissible to use the inner volume within the ESPA or ESPA Grande ring for payload hardware? If if it is permissible, can NASA specify the constraints and whether this is considered as a "standard launch service"?
Q17 :
Can an appendage of an EVM-3 payload assigned to a single ESPA Grande port extend into another port?
Q18 :
The COVID-19 pandemic has substantially impacted the operations and resources of many institutions, universities, and government centers. This broad and deep disruption to the industry creates an extremely challenging environment for the development of a responsive proposal that is dependent on intense interpersonal interactions and a substantial investment of resources by proposing and partner institutions. Would NASA consider a delay in the release of the final EVM-3 AO until such time as: (1) the critical interactions necessary to generate a quality and responsive proposal can be undertaken; and (2) institutions can have greater confidence in their operational and fiscal planning?
Q19 :
Section 5.1.7 "NOAA Operational Enhancement Opportunity" of the Draft EVM-3 AO states that a sole source "Request for Proposal (RFP)" may be issued. The term "RFP" implies that this is for industry only. Is it correct to assume that this Operational Enhancement (OE) could be provided by another government organization, with appropriate funding mechanism?
Q20 :
Is the Launch Readiness Date (LRD) constraint for the first launch or all launches?
Q21 :
The EVM-3 Draft AO states to use the Inflation Index in the draft AO, which is also available in the EVM-3 Library. However, the index in the Draft AO is different from the index in the EVM-3 Library. The differences are in the Cumulative Inflation Index. Which index should be used on EVM-3 proposals?
Q22 :
Section 5.10.3.1 of the Draft EVM-3 AO states "The $25M charge is only applicable to launch services for no more than a 150kg to a reference orbit of 500km Sun-Sync (inclusive of any project deployment hardware) per launch." However, Figure 1 of the Venture Class Launch Services Program Information Summary document found in the EVM-3 Library, shows performance constraints that are more complex than simply 150kg to 500km Sun-Sync. Can NASA please clarify this apparent inconsistency?
Q23 :
Will NASA consider using the LSP catalog prices for VCLS ($15M vs. $25M per launch)?
Q24 :
For multiple launches, the second launch with the same mission requirements would inherently cost less for the items which are only incurred once (eg. trajectory analyses, coupled loads analysis, development of safety data packages, technical interface meetings, mission reviews, etc.). Would NASA consider cost efficiencies for multiple launches?
Q25 :
Would NASA consider removal of the limitation of two VCLS launches (Section 5.10.3.1), as long as the mission can be implemented within the EVM-3 AO cost constrains?
Q26 :
The EVM-3 $25M cost for an ESPA ring is higher than the $20M cost found in the NASA LSP 2020 catalog. Would NASA consider lowering the cost for the EVM-3 ESPA?
Q27 :
Would NASA consider a per-port cost for RPL/ESPA instead of charging for the entire ESPA?
Q28 :
Would NASA consider an incentive for missions that are easy to launch (ie. going to common ESPA Rideshare orbits)?
Q29 :
Although the draft EVM-3 AO defines the term "Adjusted AO Cost Cap", it does not define any adjustments. Are the prescribed costs, e.g., AO-provided access to space and environmental review and launch approval cost, meant to be reflected as reductions in the Adjusted AO Cost Cap.?
Q30 :
Under the EVM-3 AO-provided access to space ELV option, can a specific NLS launch vehicle that may be procured for $61M or less be proposed?
Q31 :
Under the EVM-3 AO-provided access to space VCLS option, can access to space via a specific NLS launch vehicle that may be procured for $25M or less be proposed?
Q32 :
May the EVM-3 AO or EVM-3 Library documents explicitly indicate the VCLS inclination options for a non-sun-synchronous orbit?
Q33 :
Would NASA consider allowing up to three launches under the EVM-3 AO-provided access to space VCLS option?
Q34 :
Would NASA consider that the EVM-3 AO-provided access to space VCLS option be specified as $15M in alignment with page 17 of the 2020 LSP Catalog, 8th Edition?
Q35 :
May NASA include all VCLS fairing sizes and launch performance parameters be in the EVM-3 AO or in EVM-3 Library documents?
Q36 :
Can two different spacecrafts mounted on two different ESPA ports go to different orbital planes and/or altitudes without propulsion? (Updated 05/22/2020)
Q37 :
Are 5-m fairings or other fairings available for the three AO-provided access to space options? Please specify which fairing options are considered "standard launch services" in the ELV Launch Services Program Information Summary or the Venture Class Launch Services Information Summary and please provide the cost of the ones considered non-standard options.
Q38 :
Can NASA provide the mass margins held by the launch providers for the AO-provided access to space options?
Q39 :
It has been reported that two remaining Pegasus XL rockets are available, see (https://spaceflightnow.com/2019/10/10/rockets-purchased-by-stratolaunch-back-under-northrop-grumman-control/). Can a Pegasus XL launch vehicle be proposed under the ELV AO-provided access to space option?
Q40 :
If an EVM-3 spacecraft is launched as a secondary payload for the RPL/ESPA AO-provided access to space option, is there capability to deliver the secondary payload to a different orbit (altitude/inclination) than the primary payload orbit? If so, can NASA specify the flexibility and limits on this capability?
Q41 :
Could NASA please specify the additional costs beyond the "standard launch services" if an investigation proposes launching two or more SmallSats on a single RPL/ESPA or ESPA Grande port.
Q42 :
Would NASA consider allowing the 2020 LSP catalog capabilities for mass to orbit for a potential 2026 launch?
Q43 :
How will an EVM-3 Project compliance with the Space Systems Protection requirements be verified?
Q44 :
Does the EVM-3 Project solution for the Space Systems Protection requirements need to be independently FIPS certified or just FIPS compliant as verified by the Project?
Q45 :
May NASA specify which items are included in the "standard launch services" as referenced in Requirement 100? Are unencumbered reserves required to be booked against the cost of launch services beyond the standard launch services offered?
Q46 :
What would be the additional costs if an investigation proposes launching two or more SmallSats on a single ELV or VCLS?
Q47 :
Can the $25M cost of the ESPA ring be reduced if another payload is assigned to one of the unused ports?
Q48 :
Can a payload exceed the ESPA or ESPA Grande dimensions specified in the RUG in the Z and/or Y axes? If so, is this exceedance considered a non-standard launch service? Must a proposer negotiate exceedance(s) with the LSP and include a signed letter in Appendix J.2?
Q49 :
The EVM-3 Library includes document 2018-09-18-IMAP-ESPA-SIS, which specifies a lower "Max RPL Mass" than that stated in the EVM-3 Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle Secondary Payload Adapter (ESPA) Rideshare User's Guide (RUG). May NASA reconcile this inconsistency?
Q50 :
It appears that the EVM-3 AO-Provided Access to Space is extremely limited in orbit options and that it seems to favor constellation missions over single spacecraft missions, particularly if the mission requires a non-standard orbit. Is this the case?
Q51 :
Regarding the EVM-3 AO-Provided Access to Space RPL/ESPA option, is the $25M charge for the entire EPSA ring with its capacity for up to 5 ports, even if only one is used by the proposed mission?
Q52 :
Is the seemingly lower risk posture of only allowing AO-Provided Access to Space for EVM-3 inconsistent with the stated focus of the Earth Venture program – to demonstrate innovative ideas allowing the use of existing moderately higher-risk technologies or approaches?
Q53 :
May NASA reconsider allowing alternative access to space for the final EVM-3 AO, where the PIs would be able to use different alternatives?
Q54 :
Would NASA consider procuring a Firefly Alpha under the EVM-3 VCLS AO-Provided Access to Space option if it demonstrates a successful flight and achieves Category 1 status?
Q55 :
Why is the EVM-3 RPL/ESPA AO-Provided Access to Space option $25M cost to be reflected as a reduction in the Adjusted AO Cost Cap if integration costs are covered by the SMD primary payload sponsoring division, as stated in the SMD Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) Secondary Payload Adapter (ESPA) Secondary Payloads Rideshare policy document (SPD-32)?
Q56 :
The NOAA Operational Enhancement (OE) Opportunity Section 5.1.7 of the draft EVM-3 AO provides few clues regarding the structure, content, or NOAA priorities beyond the general ones listed. Would the following activities be within the scope of NOAAs OE Opportunity? (i) use of EVM-3 measurements to validate and improve NOAA's operational weather and climate prediction models and assimilations (especially for coupled model and assimilation); (ii) test impact of EVM-3 measurements on NOAA's weather forecast through Observing System Sensitivity (OSE) experiments. (iii) validation field campaign focused on assessing the accuracy of EVM-3 products for Numerical Weather Prediction (NWP).
Q57 :
May respondents propose Commercial Ground Station services in place of SCaN provided data services?
Q58 :
For proposing purposes, should EVM-3 projects baseline to the Mission Assurance Requirements (MAR) for Geostationary Carbon Cycle Observatory (GeoCarb) Mission document found under the EVM Contract link in the EVM-3 Library or the new Science Mission Directorate Standard Mission Assurance Requirements Payload Classification: D document?
Q59 :
To fullfil Requirements 41, 42, and 43 of the draft EVM-3 AO, can proposals use the released 10/29/19 version of NASA Standard 1006, or can the EVM-3 AO more clearly delineate where AO requirements supersede those in NASA Standard 1006?
Q60 :
Section 2.3 of the draft EVM-3 AO states "NASA will prioritize consideration of proposals that address questions laid out in the 2017 Decadal Survey and will use the classification of the question being addressed." It further states that observables that were deemed to be considered or Explorer Class. and "Other ESAS 2017 Targeted Observables" will be considered here as there are no assurances that all of these particular observables would be address in the near future. Is there an implied prioritization that proposals that target portions of the DOs (even if the proposed EVM-3 would launch many years prior to DO launch) would be a lower priority because of the existing funding lines?
Q61 :
Regarding Section 5.10.4 of the draft EVM-3 AO, while it is understood that NASA will not agree a priori to options for alternative access to space, would NASA like to see options that proposers may put forward (similar to Earth Venture Instrument solicitations that states you may provide research the proposing team has done)?
Q62 :
The NASA Earth Science Division (ESD) has created strong international partnerships which have benefitted the Earth system science community significantly. Recommendation 4.5 in the DS encourages NASA to pursue expanded and extended international partnerships. While ensuring a preponderance of NASA interest in the mission is certainly important, may NASA consider increasing the hard cutoff of one third (1/3) for the sum of contributions to enable more creative options and partnership opportunities?
Q63 :
Given Requirements 6, 18, and B-24, is a formal "Data Management and Archive Plan" required for pre-Phase A EVM-3 AO proposals?
Q64 :
In response to the previous posted Q&A 7, since line spacing (or "leading" in desktop publishing programs) and type font are set independently, it is consistent to have a 12 point font with 55 lines per page. Proposers have been meeting both of these requirements for many years. Lowering the lines per page to 49 results in an effective 12% reduction in the page count for the page limited sections of the main body of the proposal. May NASA consider increasing the page count allocation by six pages in the final EVM-3 AO to offset the lost space?
- NASA Official: Waldo J. Rodriguez, PhD.
- Curator: SOMA Web Support
- Document Initialized: April 10, 2020
- Last Modified: March 1, 2021