Aura Stuff Spring 2009 jgr validation Papers

Aura Stuff

• Spring 2009

JGR Validation Papers

• Over 60 papers

• Slowly moving through reviews

• Probably finished by Jan 2008

• Introduction paper needs to be written

• Color figures

A-Train Spring AGU

• Special Sessions for A-Train

• Aura/Aqua combined products
• Clouds/Aerosols

• TC4

• Session proposals in January 08

Senior Review 2009

• “Senior Review” is the process of determining the future funding and operational status of a satellite that has extended beyond mission life - 2010 in our case.

• NASA presently supports 12 Earth observing missions that are, or soon will be, operating beyond their prime mission lifetimes.

• Continued operation of these missions and associated data production activities requires a significant fraction of the ESD annual budget”

Senior Review

• 2005 Senior Review

• TRMM, Terra, ICESat, TOMS, Jason-1, QuikSCAT, GRACE, Acrimsat, Topex/Poseidon, GPS Atmospheric Limb Sounding - all approved for continuation
• UARS & ERBS both terminated, SAGE III & Topex/Poseidon failed

• For the 2007 Senior Review

• Aqua, EO-1, SORCE, CloudSat were reviewed
• GPS limb sounding moved to R&A
• No results from review yet.

• Coming in the 2009 Senior review

• Anyone still left over from the 2007 SR
• Aura & CALIPSO added

Objectives of the Senior Review Process

• Congressional Direction:

• NASA shall “assess the cost and benefits of extending the date of determination of data collection from those missions”, and
• “For those mission with an operational component, NOAA or any other affected agency shall be consulted and potential benefits from missions ... taken into account.” [from Congressional authorizations]

• The ultimate goal is to “evaluate the allocation of mission operation and data analysis funds with the aim of maximizing the missions’ contributions to NASA’s and the nation’s goals within the available resources.”

• Process objectives include the desire to:

• Conduct these re-assessments in a rigorous manner, open to scrutiny to the degree possible
• Develop the process to be repeatable for subsequent cycles

Two Kinds of Evaluations Will Be Made

• There will be a Senior Review Science Panel and two support panels to conduct in depth evaluations

• Mission Operations
• Education and Outreach

• These panels will report findings to the Earth Science Division

Possible Review Outcomes

• There are three possible outcomes:

• basic continuation of the mission, including identification and provision of the minimum fiscal support necessary for mission operations and the continued routine production of core data products which are critical to ESD, NASA and national objectives;
• authorization of additional resources to the project for specific activities leading to increased use of the data and/or development of advanced algorithms and products, based on the value of the proposed research to ESD science objectives; or
• non-continuation of the mission.”

• “The Senior Review will provide detailed technical and budgetary findings for the 2-year period FY2009-FY2010, and tentative findings for the succeeding 2-year period.”

• Proposals are to be written to support decision process for these options

Actual Review

• Generation of a Proposal

• Presentation to 3 Panels

• Science Review Panel
• Outreach Review Panel
• Mission Operations Review Panel

PS Reaction to Recent Review

• One-size-fits-all style call for proposals did not work for evaluating either large or small missions.

• Each Project Scientist interpreted call in different way.

• Far too much information was requested.

• It was a complete program review and information package rolled into a proposal.
• Difficult to write and difficult review.

• Budget information was requested that is not the responsibility of the Missions.

• HQ requested that the Project Scientists provide documentation of mission-related R&A funding histories including In-Kind contributions.

• HQ let science panel decide programmatic issues and re-interpret the call letter terms ex post facto.

• Panel declared mission-related enhanced science to be the purview of the R&A program.
• Panel claimed there was not enough information to evaluate science in context of the Senior Review page limits - yet panel also missed information that was in the proposals.
• Missions that “rolled” their enhanced science into the Basic Mission succeeded- those that did not suffered.

Plan for Aura

• Generating the proposal will be the overall responsibility of the PS office

• Instruments, Mission, E&PO will write sections
• Introduction/Overview (1/8)
• Mission Operations (1/8)
• 4 Instrument sections (1/2) - written by PI’s
• Need to also talk about combined products, joint validation, A-Train interaction, field campaign participation.
• E&PO - defined # of pages
• Budgets (1/8) - HQ + Institutions
• Summary (1/8)
• Appendices (budget spreadsheets, mission data product inventory, a list of acronyms, publications, support letters, etc.)

• We will begin with an overall “blue team” Aura Team Review in Feb.-March 2008 time frame - this review will include HQ R&A managers

• Visits to your institution to help you get ready for writing
• Is your data being used by the community?
• What extended data products could you produce?
• Reviews of Mission and Instrument E&PO will occur as well.

• We do not know the deadline for the 2009 proposal - probably early 2009.

Questions

Senior Review Roles & Responsibilities

• ESD Director - Mike Freilich

• Decision authority for Programmatic decisions

• ESD Science Lead - Jack Kaye

• Leads science focus area managers

• Senior Review Program Officer - Stephen Volz (2007)

• Executes the overall senior review process

• Senior Science Review Chair - TBD

• Leads the Senior Review Science panel
• Panel members TBD

• ESD Focus Area Scientists - all

• Involved as the deliberative group evaluating panel findings and formulating programmatic recommendations to the ESD Director

Proposal Nuts & Bolts

• The written proposal shall contain (from 2007)

• (1) a mission and science operations and core data products section,
• (2) an enhanced science and data products section,
• (3) a budget section, and
• (4) an education/public outreach (E/PO) section.
• The first three sections should be no more than XX pages of writing and graphics. The E/PO section should be no longer than Y pages of writing and graphics.
• All pages are to be on 8.5 inch by 11 in paper, with character (font) size not less than 10 points. Print (copy) the proposals double-sided. A .pdf version of the entire proposal on CD is also required.
• Not included in the page limits are three Appendices: one for the budget spreadsheets, another for the mission data product inventory, and finally a list of acronyms.

• Budget format will be defined in an attached XL spreadsheet

• Stand-alone budgets should be included for the basic continuation mission and for the Enhanced Science mission.