ANNOUNCEMENT OF OPPORTUNITY FOR THE DISCOVERY PROGRAM DISCOVERY 2010 | Apply Online

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs): NASA Discovery 2010 Announcement of Opportunity (NNH10ZDA007O)

1) What is the NASA Discovery 2010 Announcement of Opportunity (AO)?

It is a competed solicitation released by NASA's Science Mission Directorate under the Discovery Program to propose planetary science missions. The funding opportunity number is NNH10ZDA007O.

2) What types of missions were solicited under this AO?

Competed planetary science missions within NASA's Discovery Program. The AO allowed a broad range of mission concepts targeting solar system bodies (with specific inclusions and exclusions noted in the AO summary).

3) What mission destinations were eligible?

Proposers could target essentially any solar system body, explicitly including Mars and Earth's Moon, but excluding Earth and the Sun.

4) Who was allowed to submit proposals?

Participation was open and essentially unrestricted with respect to organization type. The AO allowed proposals from U.S. and non-U.S. entities, including universities and other educational institutions, private industry, nonprofits, Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs), NASA Centers, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), and other government agencies.

5) Are non-U.S. organizations eligible to participate?

Yes. The notice stated that proposals could come from U.S. and non-U.S. entities alike.

6) What award instruments were expected to be used?

The AO listed cooperative agreements and grants as the award instruments.

7) Was cost sharing or matching required?

No cost sharing or matching requirement was stated in the notice.

8) How many mission proposals did NASA anticipate selecting initially?

NASA anticipated selecting up to three mission proposals for Phase A concept studies.

9) How long was the Phase A concept study period expected to last?

Roughly 9 months.

10) What happened after Phase A studies were completed?

NASA expected to review Phase A study results, then downselect and approve one mission to proceed into Phase B and the later implementation phases.

11) How many missions were expected to proceed into Phase B?

One mission was expected to be downselected for approval to proceed into Phase B and later implementation phases.

12) What was the key schedule constraint for launch?

The required Launch Readiness Date (LRD) had to be no later than December 31, 2017.

13) When did the AO open and close?

The AO opened on June 7, 2010 and closed on September 3, 2010.

14) When was the Notice of Intent (NOI) to propose due?

The Notice of Intent to propose was due on August 3, 2010.

15) Where could applicants access the full AO text and appendices?

The AO text and appendices were made available electronically through NSPIRES at http://nspires.nasaprs.com/.

16) Was there a preproposal conference?

Yes. NASA planned a preproposal conference in late June or early July in the Washington, DC area.

17) Where were preproposal conference logistics posted?

Logistics were to be posted through the Discovery Program website at http://discovery.larc.nasa.gov/.

18) Who was the technical or programmatic point of contact?

The Discovery Program Scientist, Dr. Michael H. New at NASA Headquarters.

19) Did NASA provide administrative support contacts for access issues?

Yes. NASA provided support contacts for administrative access issues (as referenced in the AO summary).

20) How did this final AO differ from the earlier draft Discovery AO (NNH10ZDA003J)?

The summary noted several major changes, including updated launch vehicle options, new compatibility requirements with multiple launch vehicle families through Preliminary Design Review, refined cost cap incentive policy tied to technology infusion, standardized ASRG-related compliance and service costs, clarified X-band and Ka-band communications expectations, changes to Mars surface mission relay requirements, and an extension of the latest allowable Launch Readiness Date to December 31, 2017.

21) What new launch vehicle options were added?

The AO added "medium" and "high" performance launch vehicle options with 4 meter fairings. NASA indicated that proposer cost impacts of those options were being assessed.

22) What launch vehicle compatibility requirement applied to proposed missions?

Proposed missions had to remain compatible through Preliminary Design Review with three launch vehicle families: Atlas V, Delta IV, and Falcon 9.

23) How did the launch vehicle compatibility requirement affect mission design?

Based on the summary, it effectively pushed teams to design with broader launch flexibility earlier in the project lifecycle, since compatibility had to be maintained through Preliminary Design Review.

24) What did the AO say about cost cap incentives related to technology infusion?

The AO pointed proposers to a Program Library document titled "In Space Propulsion Technologies Minimum Demonstration Requirements," which would specify the minimum demonstration thresholds necessary to qualify for cost cap incentives tied to technology infusion.

25) What is the referenced Program Library document for technology infusion incentives?

"In Space Propulsion Technologies Minimum Demonstration Requirements."

26) What special cost clarification was provided for missions using ASRGs?

For teams proposing to use Advanced Stirling Radioisotope Generators (ASRGs), NASA reduced and standardized certain compliance and service costs by setting the combined costs associated with NEPA, NLSA, and nuclear launch services to a firm fixed amount of $20 million in FY2010 dollars.

27) What was the purpose of setting the ASRG-related costs to a fixed amount?

The change was intended to reduce uncertainty and make planning for ASRG-related requirements more predictable.

28) What communications constraints were clarified for science data downlink using X band?

The AO aligned expectations with Space Frequency Coordination Group guidance by limiting deep space X band users to 12 MHz of bandwidth and limiting X band users at Mars to 8 MHz.

29) What if a mission needed more bandwidth than the X-band limits allowed?

Missions needing more bandwidth than those limits would be required to use Ka band.

30) Did the AO mention Deep Space Network (DSN) fees?

Yes. The AO stated that Deep Space Network aperture fees would still apply based on the standard formula, meaning teams needed to account for those operational costs in budgeting and mission design.

31) What change was made for Mars surface missions regarding the Electra-lite UHF radio package?

NASA removed the earlier requirement to carry the Electra-lite UHF radio package.

32) If Electra-lite was no longer required, were there still requirements for UHF relay on Mars?

Yes. The AO required that any UHF relay capability used by a proposed mission be interoperable with the existing Mars UHF relay network.

33) What did NASA say about additional updates beyond the listed changes?

NASA cautioned that the final AO contained many additional updates relative to both the prior Discovery AO and the draft version, including policy adjustments and proposal submission requirement changes.

34) What did NASA advise proposers to do given the number of changes?

Proposers were advised to read the AO carefully and ensure full compliance with all requirements, constraints, and guidelines.

35) How was this announcement framed within federal competitive acquisition policy?

The announcement noted that it constituted a NASA Research Announcement consistent with FAR 6.102(d)(2).