CAN-02-OES-01

1
CAN-02-OES-01 A COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
NOTICE Earth Science REASoN Research,
Education and Applications Solutions Network A
Distributed Network of Data and Information
Providers For Earth Science Enterprise Science,
Applications and Education Pre - Proposal
Conference Sheraton, Crystal City October 10, 2002
2
Points of Contact
Area POC email Research Martha Maiden
mmaiden_at_hq.nasa.gov Applications Ed Sheffner
esheffne_at_hq.nasa.gov Education Ming-Ying
Wei mwei_at_hq.nasa.gov Technology Karen
Moe Karen.Moe_at_gsfc.nasa.gov SEEDS Kathy
Fontaine Kathleen.S.Fontaine.1_at_ gsfc.nasa.gov
3
Introduction/General Comments
This meeting is being recorded. REASoN CAN
(CAN-02-OES-01) website http//research.hq.nasa.
gov/code_y/nra/current/CAN-02-OES-01/index.html
All charts and other visual materials presented
this morning will be published on the REASoN
CAN website (target date is October 16,
2002.) All questions asked to date, today, and
through the due date for proposals (November
26, 2002), and answers supplied, will be
published on the REASoN CAN website. - Target
date for publishing questions from today is
10/16/02. - Q and A page will be updated as
necessary.
4
Introduction/General Comments (cont.)
The REASoN CAN and the REASoN CAN website are the
only official repositories of information on the
CAN. The REASoN CAN and the materials published
on the REASoN CAN website (including answers to
questions and addendums to the CAN - if any) are
the only sources respondents should consult for
guidance on completion of a REASoN proposal.
REASoN CAN location
http//research.hq.nasa.gov/code_y/nra/current/CAN
-02-OES-01/index.html
5
Introduction/General Comments (cont.)
Please register for this meeting -
Registration is outside this room - Option to
seek collaborations gt Fill out summary of
interests. Summaries will be published on the
web site gt Summaries may be completed after the
conference and submitted to John Shaw
(jshaw_at_nasaprs.com) for publication. Accommoda
tions - Exits - Restrooms
6
Introduction/General Comments (cont.)
Questions and answers - Questions may be
submitted orally or in writing. gt Questions
will be taken orally, following the
presentations, on a time available basis. gt
Written questions may be submitted any time and
deposited in the boxes at the back of the
room. - Questions will be reviewed by NASA staff
following the presentations. - Answers to
questions submitted today and prior to today
will be read following lunch. All questions and
answers will be published on the REASoN CAN
website.
7
Question Form
8
Pre-proposal Conference Agenda

• 800 Registration and continental breakfast
• 830 Welcome M.Cleave
• 840 Logistics/mechanics/agenda E. Sheffner
• 850 ESE overview REASoN CAN M. Maiden
• REASoN CAN Background M. Maiden
  
• REASoN Opportunities
• - Research Focus M. Maiden
• - Applications Focus E. Sheffner
• - Education Focus M.Y. Wei
• 1030 Break
• 1045 New Technology K. Moe
• 1105 SEEDS V. Griffin
• 1125 Evaluation process and schedule E.
  Sheffner
• 1145 The CAN Vehicle/Cooperative Agreements L.
  Kelley
• 1230 Lunch break/formulate answers to questions
• 130 Respond to questions
• 230 Adjourn

9
The REASoN CAN
10
The ESE Information Cycle
11
ESE Data Distribution Locations
ESE currently supports 68 public data
distribution activities (some of which are at the
same location), widely distributed
geographically. Additional data
distribution activities, including NOAAs NCDC
and NCARs Unidata, are networked through
membership in the Federation.
Background
(3)
?
Type 2 ESIPs
?
Type 3 ESIPs
?
RESACs
Directed
12
REASoN Precursors

• ESE had multiple peer-review programs and
  Congressionally-directed programs for generating
  and integrating data for science and
  applications. The result has been not easiest to
  explain or understand.
• REASoN is a joint CAN for research, education,
  and applications data and information systems and
  services opportunities, for functions needed in
  the next five years as articulated through ESE
  Strategy documents. Open to all categories of
  organizations.
• Follow-on for Earth Science Information Partners
  (ESIPs), including research, education, and
  applications
• Follow-on for Pathfinder Data Set program
• Follow-on for Regional Earth Science Applications
  Centers (RESACs)
• Follow-on for Application Research Centers (ARCs)
• Opportunity for open peer-review competition for
  Congressionally-directed applications data
  activities

13
The Challenge Ahead Next decade

• Answer a set of defined science questions (in ESE
  Research Strategy for 2000-2010) at the leading
  edge of both Earth system science and societal
  concern
• Provide data distribution systems and information
  products and services that serve national
  applications by enabling the integration of ESE
  observations and predictions into decision
  support systems operated by national
  organizations and agencies
• These lead to the need for timely delivery of
  information to the end users at an affordable
  cost as a driver for our data and information
  systems and services evolution.
• These also lead to the need to address use of
  data by providing flexible systems and services
  for focused usage.
• Available at http//www.earth.nasa.gov/visions/i
  ndex.html)
• Earth Science Enterprise Applications
  Strategy for 2002-2012, Report to Congress from
  the National Aeronautics and Space
  Administration, January 2002. (Also available at
  http//www.earth.nasa.gov/visions/index.html

14
SEEDS Formulation for Next Decade

• NewDISS report, and recommendation to evolve
  current ESE system to a more heterogeneous,
  distributed system, serves as Preformulation
  Concept.
• Strategic Evolution of ESE Data Systems (SEEDS)
  Formulation began FY01.
• Need for Evolution
• ESE, with encouragement from AA, has undertaken a
  self-assessment of the components of our data
  systems and services
• This assessment documents strengths and
  challenges
• How we conduct SEEDS?
• (1) recognize need to strengthen current
  capabilities,
• (2) recognize need for ability to incorporate
  new requirements new technologies, new science,
  and science results for applications,
• (3) leads to direction, priority, and management
  of formulation and follow-through for SEEDS.

15
Nature of the CAN

• Purpose-based Partnerships
• Earlier calls were more generic in nature, our
  partners were asked to evolve our systems, to
  create innovative new products, to provide
  regional portals
• This CAN will include opportunities for specific
  and definite ESE needs, a move from push to
  pull
• Support the community to answer the questions in
  the ESE Research Strategy
• Provide real benefits to the nation

16
CAN Objective

• The CAN solicits proposals that will afford
  solutions for utilization of NASA assets and
  capabilities by
• providing data products and/or information
  systems and services capabilities in support of
  the goals and objectives of the research,
  applications, and education strategies of NASAs
  Earth Science Enterprise (ESE)
• developing, where necessary, advanced data
  systems technologies integrated into a project
  (solution) that addresses the above objectives.
• applying principles from the Strategic Evolution
  of ESE Data Systems (SEEDS) regarding community
  involvement, product life cycle planning, and
  standards and interfaces for interoperability and
  exchange of data and information
• supporting ongoing SEEDS efforts through Working
  Groups for Standards and Interfaces, Technology
  Infusion, Architecture and Reuse, and Metrics
  Planning and Reporting
• contributing to benchmarking solutions that serve
  society through integration of Earth science
  measurements, models and decision support
  systems.

17
CAN Objective (cont.)
Projects supported by this CAN will provide data
and data products and/or information systems and
services capabilities to
(Research) Improve accessibility by the NASA
science community to, and accuracy of a) data
and data products, including selected geophysical
parameters of Earth observations constructed from
multiple sources and, b) efforts that more
effectively integrate and fuse sources for
geophysical parameters that may not be directly
observed (Applications) Provide data products
and tools for resource management and policy
decision support in applications of national
importance, and provide decision makers with
interactive access to dynamically updated
knowledge of the Earth system and, (Education)
Address needs of the educational community
particularly with respect to timely and ready
access to Earth and environmental data to promote
math, science and geography in K-12 education,
and earth system science in graduate and post
graduate education.
18
Research Focus Point of ContactMartha Maiden
mmaiden_at_hq.nasa.gov
19
Science Questions

• How is the global Earth system changing?
• What are the primary forcings of the Earth
  system?
• How does the Earth system respond to natural and
  human-induced changes?
• What are the consequences of changes in the Earth
  system for human civilization?
• How well can we predict future changes in the
  Earth system?

20
Science Questions from the Research Strategy
Variability
Forcing
Response
Consequence
Prediction
Precipitation, evaporation cycling of water
changing?
Atmospheric constituents solar radiation on
climate?
Clouds surface hydrological processes on
climate?
Weather variation related to climate variation?
Weather forecasting improvement?
Global ocean circulation varying?
Changes in land cover land use?
Consequences in land cover land use?
Transient climate variations?
Ecosystem responses affects on global carbon
cycle?
Surface transformation?
Changes in global ocean circulation?
Coastal region change?
Trends in long-term climate?
Global ecosystems changing?
Stratospheric ozone changing?
Stratospheric trace constituent responses?
Future atmospheric chemical impacts?
Ice cover mass changing?
Sea level affected by climate change?
Future concentrations of carbon dioxide and
methane?
Motions of Earth interior processes?
Pollution effects?
21
Research Solutions Solicited, 1

• Projects Contributing to Systematic Missions
• ESE Research Strategy questions, esp. those
  concerning variability and forcing , need
  systematic measurements, i.e. accurate,
  uninterrupted series of key geophysical parameter
  records
• Systematic data sets typically involve the
  synthesis of data from multiple instrument and/or
  platforms, and will exhibit consistent
  calibration and common validation throughout the
  entire measurement time series
• Systematic data sets proposed should be highly
  useful to a significant segment of the Earth
  science research community in its efforts to help
  provide answers to the questions in the ESE
  Research Strategy, and also may be useful to a
  broader range of scientists and policy-makers in
  the context of assessment and support for
  environmental and policy decisions
• Where there are different ideas in the research
  community about how to synthesize or choose among
  alternative algorithms for data sets, proposers
  should demonstrate that they will work with the
  community reach resolution and consensus to
  maximize acceptance and use.

22
ESE Systematic Measurements Mission Summary
1 of 2
6/24/02
99
00
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
FY
Systematic Measurement Missions
Systematic Measurements
Landsat 7
Land Cover Inventory
Landsat Data Continuity Mission
TBD
SeaWiFS
Terra
Global Biosphere
Aqua
Ocean Color Land Surface Vegetation
NPP Bridge Mission (VIIRS)
NPOESS
Aqua
Atmospheric Temperature Humidity
NPP Bridge Mission (ATMS,CrIS)
(ATMS)
NPOESS
TRMM
Global Precipitation
Global Precipitation Mission
Topex/Poseidon
Jason-1
Ocean Topography
Ocean Topography
TBD
QuikSCAT
SeaWinds on ADEOS 2
Ocean Surface Winds
Ocean Surface Winds
TBD
Pre-EOS Mission
EOS Mission
EOS Follow-on Mission
EOS Follow-on Development
If NPOESS 3rd platform becomes unlikely,
morning observations of ocean color may be
revisited.
EOS Follow-on Formulation
TRMM is an exploratory mission due to its
scientific success, the community now seeks
global measurement
Operational System
23
ESE Systematic Measurements Mission Summary
2 of 2
6/24/02
99
00
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
FY
Systematic Measurement Missions
Systematic Measurements
ACRIMsat
SORCE
Solar Irradiance
Solar Irradiance Monitor Mission
NPOESS
ERBS - SAGE II
SAGE III -- 3M
Ozone/Aerosol Vertical Profiles
SAGE III -- ISS
NPOESS
TOMS EP
(QuikTOMS launch failure)
Envisat
Ozone/Aerosol Total Column
Aura (OMI)
Terra
NPP Bridge Mission (VIIRS)
O/A Total Column Mission
NPOESS
Stratospheric Constituents, Temperature Water
Vapor
UARS
Envisat
Aura
TBD
ICEsat
Land Ice Topography
TBD
ERBS - SAGE II
Radiation Budget (Not included in
follow-on budget may not be required)
CERES on TRMM
Terra
Aqua
NPOESS
Pre-EOS Mission
EOS Mission
EOS Follow-on Mission
ACRIM does total solar irradiance SORCE
combines total and UV spectral irradiance. If IPO
flies TSIM earlier, may change need for or
timing of solar iirradiance mission
EOS Follow-on Development
EOS Follow-on Formulation
SAGE III - 3M instrument has a 5 year design
life, but the spacecraft is a 3 year design life.
Operational System
Terra/MODIS and NPP/VIIRS give total amounts
the O/A Total Column mission gives the vertical
distribution. If IPO flies OMPS earlier or
accelerates NPOESS, may eliminate need for new
measurement in 2008.
International Partner
24
Research Solutions Solicited

• Projects Contributing to Interdisciplinary or
  Process Studies
• Some science questions by their nature pose needs
  for concerted gathering of bundles of data,
  information and services
• Large regional scientific problems
• Interdisciplinary scientific questions
• Cycling questions
• Large impact processes
• Community-based aggregation of data, information,
  tools, and services dedicated to providing inputs
  to the problem at hand may be most effective
• Information may need to be derived from disparate
  or multiple-source data with data-usage barriers
  (such as temporal and spatial differences)
  removed

25
CAN Examples

• Note CAN scope is not limited to the areas
  contained in the examples listed.
• Precipitation
• NASA moving to global precipitation after success
  with TRMM
• Data Assimilation Products Consistent for Climate
  Study
• Soliciting climate data assimilation output data
  sets, which are consistent over time and space
• Cryospheric Products
• Soliciting cryospheric products to effectively
  address questions that pertain to ice on the land
  and the seas and their interaction with the
  surrounding oceans and atmosphere
• The cryospheric products is a special opportunity

26
Evaluation Factors Research Proposals

• The following five factors will be used to
  evaluate RESEARCH proposals. Factors 1 through 5
  are rated equally. Within each factor, the
  points to be considered during evaluation are
  listed in priority order.
• Factor 1R The nature and quality of the
  contribution to Earth system science research
• a. The overall technical merit of the proposed
  science products and services, including their
  relevance to the overall goals and objectives of
  ESE and the ability to meet identified needs of
  the broad (or a targeted segment of the) Earth
  system science research community towards
  addressing NASA Earth System science priorities.
• b.The competence and relevant experience of the
  proposed Earth system science researchers
  included on the team as an indication of their
  ability to carry the proposed activity to a
  successful conclusion. Past performance will be
  considered in the evaluation.

27
Evaluation Factors Research Proposals (cont.)

• Factor 2R Degree to which the REASoN project
  meets the needs of the various segment(s) of the
  community it intends to serve in addressing NASA
  Earth System science priorities, and the
  segment(s).
• a. Identification of the user community,
  including any multiple segments, and the needs
  for products, information, knowledge, and
  services.
• b. The degree of understanding of the targeted
  user community and their requirements as
  documented in the proposal.
• c. Proposed methodologies of working with the
  users and assessment of effectiveness of such
  partnerships throughout the lifetime of the
  proposed project.
• d. The likely flexibility and responsiveness of
  the proposed REASoN project capabilities to meet
  evolving user needs as evidenced by the
  discussion of the approach to this issue in the
  proposal.
• Factor 3R Contributions to SEEDS objectives
  and considerations
• This factor will be covered later in the
  agenda.

28
Evaluation Factors Research Proposals (cont.)

• Factor 4R The practicality and likely
  effectiveness of the proposed activities
• a. Adherence to good management practices as
  exhibited in the management approach, including
  provision of data life cycle management plan,
  explanation of marginal distribution charges
  (excluding electronic distribution).
• b. The soundness of the implementation for
  production and publishing/distribution functions
  and the user services approach, including
  mechanisms for continued interaction with the
  particular research community being served for
  product and service effectiveness.
• c. The degree of understanding of scientific
  data management issues.
• d. The innovation shown in applying or
  developing advanced technology to minimize
  barriers to data access, promote
  interoperability, or manage knowledge.
• e. The general commitment and support of the
  proposing institution(s) for this activity and
  for on-site(s) Earth system science research and
  the quality, appropriateness and extent of
  collocated research using the data and
  information to be produced and/or published by
  the proposed REASoN project. Alternatively, the
  respondents may demonstrate how their teaming
  arrangements with remotely located partners can
  result in effective and practical collaboration
  with researchers using appropriate technology.
  The adequacy of the facilities, staffing, and
  equipment to support the proposed activity.

29
Evaluation Factors Research Proposals (cont.)

• Factor 5R Best value and cost
• a. The value to the Earth system science
  research community of the proposed project
  relative to its costs.
• b. The extent of cost sharing in the proposed
  partnership and the nature and reliability
  thereof.
• c. Cost realism of the proposed budget,
  particularly as an indication that respondents
  understand the nature of the proposed
  partnership.
• d. Total cost to NASA.

30
Applications Focus Point of Contact Ed
Sheffner esheffne_at_hq.nasa.gov
31
REASoN Applications
Projects supported by this CAN will provide
products and/or information systems and services
capabilities to (Applications) Provide data
products and tools for resource management and
policy decision support in applications of
national importance, and provide decision makers
with interactive access to dynamically updated
knowledge of the Earth system. Key words
national importance, interactive access,
dynamically updated
32
REASoN Applications
National Applications
Agricultural competitiveness Air quality
management Aviation safety Carbon
management Coastal management Community
growth for infrastructure Disaster
management Homeland security Energy
forecasting Invasive species management
Public health Water management and
conservation
33
REASoN Applications
Application Proposal Types
Type 1 Generate and/or provide data and data
products, from NASA/ESE systems, that are used in
decision support systems for national priorities.
Type 2 Develop cross cutting solutions,
i.e., solutions that address issues common to
multiple national applications, through
improvements in information technology.
Proposal type must be specified on the proposal
cover sheet.
34
REASoN Applications
REASoN applications projects should identify a
user organization that will ultimately benefit
from the decision support system (DSS), and an
existing or proposed DSS involved in the national
application. Applications should draw upon, and
contribute to, E-government solutions, with an
emphasis on delivering data and information over
the Internet. Project implementations that
include dynamic updates to databases of NASA
measurements and derivative Earth science data
products are preferred. A REASoN applications
project may operate independently or in
partnership with other REASoN projects and/or
other organizations with related solutions.
35
REASoN Applications
Applications Elements
36
REASoN Applications
Applications REASoN projects are expected to
perform one or more of the following
functions ?? Improve access to, and expand the
immediate relevancy of, ESE data, science
results and technology to the broad user
community by enabling these data and
capabilities to be utilized to serve policy and
management decision support. ?? Expedite the
realization of social and economic benefits of
ESE data beyond the science community through
involvement of resources and capabilities
outside of NASA, particularly in enabling
solutions integrated into the U.S. industrial
base . ?? Transform ESE science products into
innovative, applications-oriented information
products/ solutions designed to meet the needs
of specific national purposes and lead to
measurable enhancements to resource management,
economic growth, and overall quality of life
37
REASoN Applications
Applications functions (continued)
??Leverage non-NASA capabilities in remote
sensing, environmental monitoring and
information systems to extend the social and
economic benefits of ESE research to a broad
user community and enhance the relevance of
NASAs scientific research for societal
benefits. ?? Fuse, integrate and assimilate ESE
generated data with GISs and other technologies
presently in use by other Federal agencies, state
and local governments, value-added companies,
private sector users, and various
non-governmental organizations (NGO's). ?? Develop
and utilize processes to make Earth science data
easy to preserve, locate, access, and use for
practical applications within the context of the
existing Federation. ?? Provide cross-cutting
solutions, i.e., new technology that solves
problems common to multiple applications.
38
REASoN Applications
Required Elements
In addition to the elements required of all
proposals, Applications proposals must also
address the following 1. Linkage to an
application of national importance 2.
Description of utilization of NASA data
and/or capabilities 3. Current state of the
of the application and anticipated state
following cooperative agreement 4.
Identification of application end user 5.
Milestones to evaluate development of the
application (if applicable) 6. Post-CAN
plan.
39
REASoN Applications
Evaluation Criteria

• 1. Nature and relevance of the application
• - National priority
• - Socio-economic value
• - Application feasibility
• - NASA contribution
• Technical merit
• - Overall merit
• - Science and technology readiness
• - Innovation
• - Competence of the staff
• - Understanding of user community

40
REASoN Applications
Evaluation Criteria (cont.)

• 3. Contributions to SEEDS objectives and
  considerations
• 4. Management plan
• - Partnership opportunity
• - Cost sharing
• - Metrics
• - Cost/budget context
• - Plan for post REASoN activity
• - Total cost to NASA

41
Education Focus Point of Contact M.Y.
Wei mwei_at_hq.nasa.gov
42
REASoN/Education

• Outline
• In the context of NASA and ESE Education
• Description of opportunities in Section II.C
• Summary of topics and approach options in Table 1
• Guidelines on project description specific to
  Education in Appendix B, Section 3.4.9
• Evaluation factors in Appendix C.III
• Resources

43
NASA Education

• Core mission to inspire the next generation of
  explorers as only NASA can
• Priorities
• Motivate K-16 students to pursue careers in
  science, math, and engineeringas only NASA can
• Provide educators with unique teaching tools and
  compelling teaching experiencesas only NASA can
• Optimize the integration of NASA results into
  education venues
• Engage minority and underrepresented students,
  educators, and researchers in NASAs education
  programs
• New Initiatives
• K-12 math science education, Telepresence
  technology, Minority/Under-representation,
  Education Mission Specialist Program, etc.

44
Telepresence Technology Initiative
Lets me go somewhere I have not gone, Lets me
meet someone I have not met, Lets me do things
something that I have not done ..but can with
NASA!
To research and develop interactive experiences
using revolutionary, accessible and affordable
technologies through collaboration with internal
and external stakeholders to enhance the
educational process for formal and informal
education and lifelong learning
Goal
Objectives
Challenges
Consolidate and Customize Use a standardized set
of descriptive indexing labels to enhance the
management, searching, and usability of
electronic educational resources to foster
technology-supported learning
Customer-Focused . Contextual, immersive, and
interactive linkage campaigns that provide
significant opportunities to transform the way
NASA interacts with its citizens through the
One OneNASA Portal
Virtual collaborations Pilot projects with
geographically dispersed teams. Build virtual
bridges to connect with education stakeholders
and customers
Successful Partnerships Create for broad reach
and long-lasting impact with joint-sponsored
research agreements for telepresence incubation
and commercialization
Results-Driven Quick, high-impact, wins
initially. Break long-term goals into short-term
projects with defined, measurable outcomes.
Rapid prototypes and constant user feedback.
Approach
Program Elements
Project Criteria
45
ESE Education

• Purpose to enable an accessible, dynamic, and
  engaging learning environment for all citizens
  that expands and deepens the Nations awareness,
  appreciation, and understanding of Earth system
  science and encourages pursuit of careers in
  science and technology
• Scope
• K-16 formal education in science, math,
  engineering and technology as related to Earth
  system science
• informal learning of citizens of all demographic,
  social-cultural, and economic variables, and
  mental and physical abilities about the Earth
  system and the environment, and
• workforce development for a vigorous Earth
  science research community and a competitive
  Earth remote sensing industry

46
From ESE RD to Education
INPUTS
OUTPUTS
OUTCOMES
IMPACTS
Knowledge Understanding and Predication of the
Earth System
Education Support Architecture Enabling Continuo
us, Engaging, and Dynamic Learning for All
Citizens
Public Literacy about the Earth System and the
Environment Competitive ST Workforce for
Socioeconomic Benefits and National Security
Educational Content, Resources, Tools, Programs
Educational Content, Resources, Programs, Tools
Select Redirect Translate Integrate Enhance Evalu
ate
Deliver Distribute Feedback Assess
Tangibles Data, Technologies, Facilities
Education Systems
People Career/Role Models in Earth/Environment Rel
ated Fields
Create a national architecture that enables
scalable, systemic, and sustainable solutions to
Earth System Science education
47
ESE Education Strategy
To create a strong and flexible architecture that
enables scalable, systemic, and sustainable
solutions to Earth system science education.
Delivery through traditional mechanisms (e.g.,
workshops)
Select, redirect, translate, integrate,
enhance, evaluate
Knowledge
Education Products Content, Resources, Programs
, Tools
Public Literacy ST Workforce
Distribution
Tangibles
Education Bridge
People
The Education Support Architecture A new
national capability that enables
continuous, engaging dynamic learning
Part of the new Education Support Architecture
allows evaluation and assessment of/from end
users
48
Highlight of Education Opportunity

• Learning about the Earth system
• Inside the classroom
• Outside the classroom
• At the workplace
• Data-enhanced learning experiences
• Prepare students (or learners) to address complex
  real-world problems
• Develop their ability to use scientific methods
• Provide interfaces to dynamically-updated
  knowledge, models, education modules, and Earth
  science data
• Teach students how to critically evaluate the
  robustness of data (or other forms of evidence)
  for their consequent interpretations or
  conclusions
• Provide training in technical and communication
  skills and the values and ethics of working with
  data

49
Highlight (contd)

• Application of telepresence technology

• Examples
• Use of sonic vision for the blind
• Enhanced vision for the deaf
• Distributed planetary exploration with 3D
  vision, force-reflecting hand
• controllers, audio, real-time data reports,
  etc.

50
Education Project Description

• Rationale
• Define the need to be addressed by the proposed
  solution
• Goals/objectives
• What is the desired accomplishment, and how does
  it contribute to ESE education goal?
• Audience
• Describe all aspects of the audience(s) targeted
• Activity
• Provide all appropriate details (including
  timeline) to allow the reviewers an easy job of
  evaluation
• Dissemination
• Engaging the audience(s) and intended actual use
  of the activity
• Evaluation
• How, when, who, how much, etc.

51
Education Evaluation Factors

• Relevance to NASA and ESE educational objectives
• Technical Merit
• Contribution to SEEDS objectives and
  considerations
• Management and cost

Read the CAN carefully then read it again!
52
Additional Helpful References

• http//earth.nasa.gov/education/catalog/index.html
  
• http//www.earthscienceedrevolution.org/index.cfm
• http//www.dlese.org/
• http//usingdata.comm.nsdlib.org/

53
New Technology Point of Contact Karen
Moe Karen.Moe_at_gsfc.nasa.gov
54
Technology Participation
New Technology

• ESE Advanced Information Systems Technology
  program goals
• Reduce cost/development time of information
  systems
• Increase access and use of Earth science data
• Enable new Earth observations and information
• REASoN proposers are encouraged to consider
  technology solutions addressing ESE data systems
  needs
• Reference ESTO AIST Needs database at
  esto.nasa.gov/aist
• Technology developments are above and beyond the
  proposal requirements to develop and demonstrate
  data products/services/systems called for in the
  REASoN CAN
• Technology development is optional
• NASA is not soliciting stand-alone technology
  proposals

55
Technology Proposal Option
New Technology

• Technology components of proposals must
  demonstrate technology entry TRL-3 or higher,
  exit TRL-7 or higher
• Technology is theoretically proven, but has not
  been demonstrated in a relevant Earth science use
• Reference Technology Readiness Level definitions
• Proposals must show how the successful technology
  component development will be integrated and
  demonstrated in proposers final data system
• Technology development awardees will be required
  to participate at a level of up to 0.25 FTE in
  the SEEDS Tech Infusion Working
• Working Group will help develop technology needs
  and infusion processes

56
Technology Proposal Option (cont.)
New Technology

• Integrated technology component is priced as an
  identifiable element in the CAN budget submission
• Targeted support may increase by 75 - 300K per
  year
• Technology Categories
• Access and Delivery Technologies
• Interoperability Framework
• Knowledge Management
• ESTO will monitor progress of REASoN technology
  components

57
New Technology
Relationship to AIST NRA
58
Strategic Evolution of ESE Data Systems
(SEEDS) Point of Contact Kathy
Fontaine Kathleen.S.Fontaine.1_at_gsfc.nasa.gov
59
Overview
SEEDS

• Formulation Charter - Establish a strategy for
  the evolution of the Earth Science Enterprise
  network of data systems and service providers
  over the next decade that
• Ensures the timely delivery of Earth Science
  information at an affordable cost.
• Fully engages the community on data management
  issues, objectives, and solutions.
• Addresses recommendations from NewDISS Strategy
  Document.
• Unifying Framework - How to introduce greater
  flexibility and responsiveness into the science
  data and information products standards,
  processes, and infrastructure?
• Technology Infusion - How to leverage information
  technologies that exist or are being developed by
  other agencies/commercial sector?
• Management - How to establish a more broadly
  based network of science and applications
  providers of products and services to address the
  ESE strategic science objectives?

60
Overview (contd)
SEEDS

• Formulation effort
• Recognizes the need
• to strengthen current capabilities,
• to incorporate new requirements new
  technologies, new science, and science results
  for applications
• See http//lennier.gsfc.nasa.gov/seeds/index.html
  for additional SEEDS information.

61
SEEDS Participation
SEEDS

• Working Groups defined to date
• Standards and Interface Processes
• initiate a coordinated set of activities that
  will support the ESE and its projects and user
  community in the definition and effective use of
  standards and standard interfaces for data and
  information systems.
• Technology Infusion
• define processes to infuse new technologies into
  the evolving ESE data systems, and to define and
  conduct community-based processes to identify
  needed capabilities and technologies.
• Architecture and Reuse
• explore, via prototyping, whether open source
  software development efforts sharing ESE custom
  code could enable greater re-use across ESEs
  science data systems.
• Metrics Planning and Reporting
• define performance metrics to be collected and
  reported by the data systems and services
  providers funded by the ESE.

62
SEEDS Participation (contd)
SEEDS

• Proposals must identify first and second choice
  SEEDS Working Group on which to participate.
• Proposals must plan for at least .25 FTE for this
  participation and for at least 2 trips per year
  (see Appendix B, Section 3.10)
• Working groups will consist of mix of CAN
  winners, other contractor participants, NASA
  participants, and other Agency or university
  participants as needed.

63
SEEDS Participation (contd)
SEEDS

• Open Source Prototype Demonstrations
• OPTIONAL, and must be costed separately (Appendix
  B, Section 3.10).
• Open source "testbeds"/prototypes will
  demonstrate reuse for mission success
  activities. 
• Evaluation criteria are listed in Appendix C,
  Factor 3R.2.3.

64
SEEDS Evaluation Criteria
SEEDS

• Designed to evaluate potential contributions to
  SEEDS through consideration of
• formats, standards, and interfaces as integral
  elements to successful communication between and
  among heterogeneous data systems and their users
• data life cycle issues (ingest through archive)
• software reuse where possible
• metrics to evaluate progress or services or to do
  self-assessments
• ways to identify or provide capabilities or
  methodologies for evolving ESE data systems
• levels of service associated with all of the
  above and the costs of those levels of service
• Factor 3R.1 applies to all proposals.
• Factor 3R.2 use the criteria for the working
  group(s) you are proposing to join.

65
Evaluation Process and Schedule
66
Funding
NASA anticipates funding about 50 cooperative
projects with varying annual budgets,
commensurate with the proposed activities and
needs for particular targeted support, and,
depending on the proposed co-funding, ranging
between 200k and a maximum of 700k to 1000k
per year. The upper limit is for proposals that
have a well articulated balance of research,
education and technology or applications,
education and technology. Proposals that include
an optional SEEDS Open-Source Prototype/testbed
should indicate the amount of funding required
for that activity. It is anticipated that the
allocation by subject will be in the following
range, based on total funding available or number
of projects Research 50???? Applications
35???? Education 15???
67
Funding Options
68
Funding
Funding for selected REASoN projects will be for
up to five years. NASAs ability to fund the
REASoN projects selected under this CAN is
contingent upon the availability of appropriated
funds. Educational institutions, federal or
state government agencies within the US, and
other non-profit organizations are encouraged to
propose cost sharing. Commercial recipients of
cooperative agreements are expected to match the
funds received by that commercial recipient from
NASA. Recipient contributions may be cash,
non-cash, (in-kind) or both. Cost sharing for
commercial recipients is addressed in paragraph
1274.204 (b) and for educational institutions and
other non-profit organizations is addressed in
paragraph 1260.13 (c) of the NASA Grant and
Cooperative Agreement Handbook.
69
NASA Participation
NASA will contribute to the research,
applications and education REASoN projects by
providing ???SEEDS provisional process
recommendations for evaluation ? NASA ESTO
and SEEDS expert consultation in identifying
opportunities and needs for leveraging or
developing advanced technology ? Assistance in
locating and accessing input data sets and ? A
web page organizing ESTO technology investments,
including research titles and abstracts. Additiona
l NASA participation may be proposed by potential
recipients.
70
Selection Process
Proposals will be selected following review by
discipline specialists in research, applications
and education, technical review by technology or
technique innovation area specialists, and
evaluation of management and costs. Final
decisions will be made by the designated NASA
selecting official.
71
Selection Process
Proposals will be evaluated and selected
independently for Research, Education, and
Applications in accordance with their respective
criteria. NASA reserves the right to make
judgments during final project selection based on
programmatic factors, including the overall
balance of viable proposals across Earth system
science disciplines and across technology and
technical innovation areas. Projects will be
selected with consideration to the balance and
importance of the eventual products/services and
the overall contribution of the REASoN project to
the entire user community.
72
REASoN Schedule
CAN-02-OES-01 released September 27, 2002
Pre-proposal conference October 10, 2002
Letters of intent due November 1, 2002
Proposals due 430pm EST November 26,
2002 Proposals distributed for mail
reviews December 6, 2002 Mail reviews
due January 15, 2003 Review panels January
27, 2003 Selection February,
2003 Selections announced February 26, 2003
Agreements in place March/April,
2003 approximate date
73
The CAN Vehicle/Cooperative Agreements
74
Procurement Considerations

• Upon formal selection, the Government will make
  award utilizing any number of possible vehicles,
  depending on circumstances. Most likely vehicles
  appear to be
• Cooperative Agreements (either to non-profit or
  commercial entities)
• Interagency Agreements
• RTOPs (intra-NASA arrangements)

75
Different Types of Vehicles
Procurement Considerations

• Cooperative Agreements
• NASA awards grants and cooperative agreements
  under the authority of 42 U.S.C. 2473(c)(5), the
  National Aeronautics and Space Act, as
  implemented by NPG 5800.1, NASAs Grant and
  Cooperative Agreement Handbook.
• Agreements between NASA and non-profit (including
  educational) or commercial entities
• The purpose of the effort, not the status of the
  entity involved is the primary factor in
  determining the appropriate award instrument.
• NASA does not allow for payment of profit or fee
  to commercial firms under grant/cooperative
  agreement awards

• Interagency Agreements
• NASA awards interagency agreements under the
  authority of the Federal Acquisition Regulations
  (FAR) and the NASA FAR Supplement (NFS)
• Agreements between NASA and other Federal
  Agencies
• Tends to be a transfer of funds rather than the
  collaborative relationship like a cooperative
  agreement

76
Nature of a Grant
Procurement Considerations

• A grant shall be used whenever the principal
  purpose is the transfer of anything of value to
  the recipient to accomplish a public purpose of
  support or stimulation authorized by Federal
  statute. Grants are distinguished from
  cooperative agreements in that substantial
  involvement is not expected between NASA and the
  recipient when carrying out the activity. Grants
  are distinguished from contracts in that grants
  provide financial assistance to the recipient to
  conduct a fairly autonomous program contracts
  entail acquisition.
• A research grant is used to accomplish a NASA
  objective by stimulating or supporting the
  acquisition of knowledge or understanding of the
  subject or phenomena under study, or attempting
  to determine and exploit the potential of
  scientific discoveries or improvements in
  technology, materials, processes, methods,
  devices, or techniques and advance the state of
  the art.

77
Nature of a Cooperative Agreement
Procurement Considerations

• A cooperative agreement shall be used whenever
  the principal purpose is the transfer of anything
  of value to the recipient to accomplish a public
  purpose of support or stimulation authorized by
  Federal statute, and substantial involvement is
  anticipated between NASA and the recipient during
  performance of the contemplated activity
• Characteristics inherent in a cooperative
  agreement include those that apply to a grant,
  plus the following
• Substantial NASA involvement in and contribution
  to the technical aspects of the effort are
  necessary for its accomplishment. While monetary
  involvement is not, of course, prohibited, it
  cannot be the sole basis of NASA
  involvement/contribution
• The project, conducted as proposed, would not be
  possible without extensive NASA-recipient
  technical collaboration
• The nature of the collaboration shall be clearly
  defined and specified in the special condition at
  1260.51 of the NASA Grants Handbook

78
When Do You Use What?
Procurement Considerations

• The decision whether to use a contract, grant or
  cooperative agreement as an award instrument must
  be based on the principal purpose of the
  relationship.
• If the principal purpose of the action is to
  accomplish a public purpose of support or
  stimulation authorized by Federal statute, a
  grant or a cooperative agreement is the
  appropriate instrument.
• If the principal purpose of a transaction is to
  accomplish a NASA requirement, i.e., to produce
  something for NASAs own use, a procurement
  contract is the appropriate instrument.
• For instance, if NASA wishes to work with a
  recipient to use Federation technology and data
  to develop software to track schools of whales,
  which the recipient would then market, that would
  be a cooperative agreement if NASA wishes to
  fund the study of whales, that would be a grant
  if, on the other hand, NASA wishes the entity to
  develop this software for NASA, then a contract
  should be used

79
When Do You Use What? (Contd)
Procurement Considerations

• Two essential questions must be asked to ensure
  that a grant or cooperative agreement is the
  appropriate instrument.
• Will NASA be directly harmed in furthering a
  specific NASA mission requirement if the effort
  is not accomplished? The answer to this question
  must be "no.
• Is the work being performed by the recipient
  primarily for its own purposes, which NASA is
  merely supporting with financial or other
  assistance? The answer to this question must be
  "yes."
• If these criteria are met, then the effort is not
  a NASA requirement, and can then be considered as
  to whether it supports or stimulates a public
  purpose.

80
Who is the User?
Procurement Considerations

• In applying the principal purpose test, one must
  determine whether the Government is the direct
  beneficiary or user of the activity.
• If NASA provides the specifications for the
  project or is having the project completed based
  on its own identified needs or will directly use
  the report or result of the project for a
  scheduled NASA mission, then, in most cases, the
  principal purpose is to acquire property or
  services for the direct benefit or use of NASA,
  and thus, a contractual relationship exists.
• Where an expenditure will produce a benefit or
  use that is only indirect in nature, a grant or
  cooperative agreement may be used. Since NASA
  grant recipients usually gain no measurable
  commercial or economic benefit from grants, other
  than conducting research, cost sharing for
  research grants is not generally required. NASA
  may, however, accept cost sharing when
  voluntarily offered. Additionally, in instances
  when the grant officer determines that the
  recipient will benefit from the research results
  through sales to non-Federal entities, cost
  sharing based upon this mutuality of interest
  will apply, per Grants Handbook 1260.123.

81
Cost Sharing/Matching
Procurement Considerations

• All contributions, including cash and third
  party in-kind, shall be accepted as part of the
  recipient's cost sharing or matching when the
  contributions meet all of the following criteria.
• Are verifiable from the recipient's records.
• Are not included as contributions for any other
  federally-assisted project or program.
• Are necessary and reasonable for proper and
  efficient accomplishment of project or program
  objectives.
• Are allowable under the applicable cost
  principles.
• Are not paid by the Federal Government under
  another award, except where authorized by Federal
  statute to be used for cost sharing or matching.
• Are provided for in the approved budget when
  required by NASA.
• Conform to other provisions of this subpart, as
  applicable.
• The basis for determining the valuation for
  personal service, material, equipment, buildings
  and land shall be documented.

82
Cost Sharing/Matching (Contd)
Procurement Considerations

• If potential commercially marketable products
  expected to result from the research activities
  of a cooperative agreement, resource
  contributions (cost sharing/matching) are
  required from the recipient. The commercial
  recipient is expected to contribute at least 50
  percent of the total resources necessary to
  accomplish the cooperative agreement effort.
  Recipient contributions may be cash, non-cash
  (in-kind) or both. Acceptable non-cash or in-kind
  resources include such items as equipment,
  facilities, labor, office space, etc. In
  determining the incentive to the recipient to
  share costs, agreement officers must consider a
  variety of factors.
• Although the future profitability of intellectual
  property may serve as an incentive for
  involvement of the commercial firm in the
  cooperative agreement, the actual or imputed
  value of such items as patent rights, data
  rights, trade secrets, etc., included in
  intellectual property is generally not considered
  a reliable source for computation of the
  recipients contributions and are not
  quantifiable.
• Once accepted for application to costs shared
  under the cooperative agreement, cash and in-kind
  contributions including Independent Research and
  Development (IRD) costs, may not be included as
  contributions for any other federally assisted
  project or program.