SOMA MMX Acquisition.

MMX NGRS Solicitation Questions & Answers
NASA 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 Martian Moons eXploration (MMX) Neutron and Gamma-Ray Spectrometer (NGRS) 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 solicitation. By far, one of the most important NASA 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&As 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.
 

• Submit a Question

 

Q1 : This question concerns the following text from the MMX NGRS PEAI of the SALMON-3 AO: “Pending a formal agreement, NASA may participate substantially in the MMX mission, in part through the provision of one science instrument. This solicitation calls for proposals for complete, Principal Investigator led (PI-led) science investigations requiring spaceflight instrument development. When deployed on the MMX mission, this spaceflight instrument will be used to conduct innovative, integrated, hypothesis, or scientific question-driven investigations addressing the mission's science goals.” The text seems a little unclear about expanded NASA participation in MMX. Does the limitation of the previous paragraph, restricting proposals to Neutron Gamma-Ray Spectrometers, apply? Or are other instrument proposals to be considered, pending a formal agreement?

A1 : NASA is interested in potentially participating in MMX, and is working with JAXA toward a formal agreement on what that participation will entail. Provision of the NGRS instrument is one possibility that has been extensively discussed; and this - and only this - is the subject of the PEA. Proposals to develop any instrumentation other than a NGRS will be considered not responsive to the MMX NGRS solicitation. The paragraph quoted simply expresses the likelihood that the eventual formal agreement will encompass other topics beyond the NGRS. This should not be taken as an indication that NASA will be soliciting further instruments.

 

Q2 : Can a non-U.S. organization propose to the MMX NGRS solicitation as a PI organization?

A2 : No. Section 4.1 of the MMX NGRS PEA I of the SALMON-3 AO states “For this particular PEA, only U.S. organizations are eligible to propose as the sole or lead organization. ”

 

Q3 : Can a non-U.S. organization participate as a partner on a proposal submitted to the MMX NGRS solicitation? If so, under what conditions?

A3 : Yes. Section 4.1 of the MMX NGRS PEA I of the SALMON-3 AO states “Non-U.S. organizations may participate as non-lead organizations collaborating with U.S. leads, under the rules described in Section 5.8 of the SALMON-3 AO. ”

 

Q4 : Is NASA open to considering ideas for other experiments that might be added as a NASA-supported contribution to MMX, including those that might address Phobos/Deimos strategic knowledge gaps for human exploration?

A4 : MMX is a JAXA mission, and we are delighted to have been invited by JAXA to participate in this exciting opportunity. JAXA is defining the science payload, consisting of a variety of instruments, some of which will provide data relevant to Phobos/Deimos strategic knowledge gaps. The instrument solicited in this MMX NGRS PEA I of the SALMON-3 AO will be the NASA contribution to the MMX payload. NASA is not planning to add further instruments or experiments to JAXA's payload.

 

Q5 : Will there be a NASA-supported Participating Scientist program on MMX beyond the NGRS instrument team?

A5 : NASA has supported Participating Scientists on several past and current missions, including non-U.S. missions. The possibility of a Participating Scientists Program for MMX is something that NASA and JAXA may discuss for potential negotiation and formal agreement at a later date.

 

Q6 : Which Fiscal Year is being referenced for the request of Fiscal Year dollars (FY$) in “Table B3b TOTAL MISSION COST FY$ PROFILE TEMPLATE” (see Requirement B-58 of the SALMON-3 AO)? This information is also requested to be on the Fact Sheet (see p. B-5 of the SALMON-3 AO). The SALMON-3 AO states that the FY$ are specified in the applicable PEA, however this information appears to be missing from MMX NGRS PEA I.

A6 : In Table B3b, the cost shall be in Fiscal Year 2020 dollars (FY2020$). This information is found in the amended MMX NGRS PEA I dated April 27, 2017.

 

Q7 : Section 3 of the MMX NGRS PEA I states a delivery date of a Structural & Thermal Model to JAXA in March of 2021 (estimated). A JAXA supporting document (JAXA-RPR-MX16301, Section 7.4.1.3) states a delivery date of March 2020. Which delivery date shall investigation teams use for proposing purposes?

A7 : March 2020. This change is reflected in the amended MMX NGRS PEA I dated April 27, 2017. The two dates are now consistent.

 

Q8 : How should a proposing team interpret the JAXA documentation, particularly the "Science Requirements Document for All Instruments" and the "Science Requirements Document for Neutron and Gamma-Ray Spectrometer"? Are we to take the science goals, objectives, and requirements in those documents as directly applicable to our proposed investigation or simply as suggested possible goals, objectives, and requirements that we might or might not choose to incorporate into our proposed investigation? Also, please clarify the meaning of the term "Specification" in section 3.1 and 3.2 of the JAXA "Science Requirements Document for Neutron and Gamma-Ray Spectrometer" document. Should we read that as part of the "Science requirements" directly above the "Specification" or not?
The Science Requirements Document for NGRS describes expected performance metrics, which include targets for an energy resolution and elements that could only be met by one type of detector technology. If other technologies can meet top level mission requirements, which do not stipulate instrument type, would these technologies be considered fairly in the selection?

A8 : The PEA solicits proposals for a science investigation and an instrument to deliver the necessary data, not for building an instrument whose specifications are set down in advance by JAXA or NASA. The Science Requirements Document sets the threshold that JAXA thinks an instrument must clear in order for MMX to be a successful mission. The example specification quoted in section in 3.1 and 3.2 describes an instrument idea, published in a JAXA internal study, that would clear the threshold. It does not specify an instrument to be proposed. All proposals for science investigations that address the MMX science objectives and that meet the requirements in SALMON-3 and PEA I will be evaluated on equal footing.

 

Q9 : The information provided in the MMX library on the Deimos flyby or quasi-satellite orbit does not appear to be sufficiently detailed to permit quantitative instrument performance estimates for elemental composition measurements of Deimos performed by a Neutron and Gamma-Ray Spectrometer. Will further detail be made available by JAXA prior to the proposal due date?
The JAXA proposal documents indicate several Deimos flybys are planned. For planning purposes, how many Deimos flybys should be baselined? What is the minimum approach distance (Deimos center to MMX spacecraft) expected for these flybys?

A9 : Because the Deimos phase of the mission is still conceptual, proposers may assume, for proposal purposes, that the duration over which NGRS could collect data from Deimos will be minimal. Science objectives may be based on the primary target.

 

Q10 : Can we assume that the Neutron and Gamma-Ray Spectrometer will be permitted to operate during the Phobos descent, landed, and ascent portions of the mission?

A10 : This may be possible, pending the resolution of certain safety issues; e.g., some components, such as those involving high voltage, may be susceptible to dust levitated from the surface during descent and ascent operations. These issues are unlikely to be resolved before the proposal deadline, so it is very unlikely that any PIP update (if there is one) will be able to provide more details on this issue specifically. In the absence of more information, the possibility of NGRS operation during these phases remains unresolved, for proposal purposes.

 

Q11 : Is there a schedule available that calls out all deliverables and reviews required by JAXA, along with dates? Some of that information is in the JAXA "Instruments-Interface Requirements Document", but it does not appear to be comprehensive. Also, will there be a separate set of reviews to meet NASA Key Decision Points and other NASA required reviews, or might some of the JAXA-required reviews be combined with some of the NASA-required reviews?

A11 : The selected team will be subject to the NASA lifecycle review process, the exact schedule for which will be set following selection. Proposers may suggest a schedule for the KDPs; NASA will finalize the schedule with JAXA, probably during the selection process. The selected team will participate in JAXA reviews, and, pending formal agreement, JAXA representatives may attend NASA reviews. The intent is for the reviews to inform each other in such a way that needless duplication of work is avoided.

 

Q12 : The PEA states that "Proposals shall include integration plans for Phase D that align with the schedule provided by JAXA in the MMX NGRS Library." Can you please explicitly state where in the MMX NGRS library a schedule is provided?

A12 : The schedule is in the MMX Instrument Interface Requirements Document, section 7.4.1.3.

 

Q13 : Is the Structural and Thermal Model (STM) of the instrument, which is called out for delivery to JAXA in the JAXA "Instruments-Interface Requirements Document", required to function electrically?

A13 : No, the STM is not required to function electrically.

 

Q14 : How does requirement B-70 of the SALMON-3 AO (page B-25) apply to JAXA in the case of this mission? Do we consider the interactions with JAXA as international participation or not?

A14 : You need to consider export laws and regulations with regard to Japan just as you would with any other country participating in your proposal. Any agreement between NASA and JAXA has no bearing on the responsibilities of the proposer with regard to these laws.

 

Q15 : In the MMX System Description Document, there are three quasi-satellite orbits (QSO) defined, namely, high-altitude, low-altitude, and inclined orbits. Are these the only orbits that the MMX spacecraft is going to achieve, or are they just notional orbits currently under investigation and are subject to change and open for input from instrument teams, including the NGRS team?

A15 : The latter is correct; the quasi-satellite orbits have not been finalized and input from the instrument teams will be welcome.

 

Q16 : Is it possible for the MMX spacecraft to accommodate a boom for NGRS? Is it acceptable to discuss merits of having a boom in the proposal, at least as a potentially descopable option? If it is possible at all, will its weight be allocated as a part of NGRS or the spacecraft?

A16 : Yes, it is acceptable to discuss a descopable boom. The mass would be considered part of the instrument.

 

Q17 : When uploading a document, NSPIRES is displaying the warning, "Uploading Non-US Organization/Agency Endorsement Attachments is recommended for Non-US Team Members." The foreign endorsement letters will be included in the proposal PDF in the appendix as instructed by the SALMON-3 AO. How do proposers address this warning?

A17 : If foreign endorsement letters are necessary with a proposal and they are included in the proposal single PDF file, please ignore this NSPIRES warning. NSPIRES does not have the capability to scan the content of a proposal PDF to verify that the appropriate letters are included.

 

Q18 : Is there a SPK or any other similar representation of the proposed Phobos Quasi-Satellite Orbit (QSO) mentioned in the System Description Document (Section 2.4.5.3) available for proposers to use?

A18 : See 2.3(1) of the Supplemental Design Document (JAXA-RPR-MX16311) that can be found in the MMX NGRS Library.

 

Q19 : Is there additional data available to proposers that describes the MMX attitude during operations? For example, the System Description Document (Section 2.4.5.2) states that the science deck (Z-) is nadir oriented and the spacecraft is in an “antenna toward Earth, an attitude that enables communication with the Earth during visible periods will be prioritized.” Is there any information on a maximum amount of time per day or orbit that this may be invoked over? What other attitude would be used when this attitude is not in use?

A19 : See 2.3(2) of the Supplemental Design Document (JAXA-RPR-MX16311) that can be found in the MMX NGRS Library.

 

Q20 : Can additional information be provided on the quantity of propellant (both N2H4 and MON3) in the propulsion module and particularly in the return module, for the purposes of modeling the impact of the spacecraft on NGRS response?

A20 : See 2.3(3) of the Supplemental Design Document (JAXA-RPR-MX16311) that can be found in the MMX NGRS Library.