Results of the May OSS Strategic Planning Meeting were discussed. Programs included in the plan which are of particular interest to the SEC community include: (1) the continuation of the Solar Terrestrial Probe Line (with Solar-B, STEREO, Magnetospheric Multiscale and Global Electrodynamics); (2) Solar Probe, as part of the Outer Planets Line, and (3) an initiative to enhance SEC MO&DA in order to take proper advantage of the upcoming solar maximum.
The NASA Research Announcement for the FY 1998 Supporting Research and Technology program was relased on May 15. It should be a relatively good year for the Ionospheric, Thermopsheric, and Meospheric Physics SR&T program and the MITM Suborbital program: significant fractions of both programs will be open for competition.
The release of the first AO for the UNiversity Explorer program is expected in mid-August. The program will feature small satellites; the total cost for spacecraft and instruments will be capped at $6M.
OSS is expecting one launch a month in the August-December time period. Spacecraft scheduled for launch are: ACE, SNOE, Cassini, Equator-S, and TRACE.
A Workshop on Laboratory Astrophysics is being planned for April 1-3, 1998 in Cambridge, Massachusetts. The workshop, which is intended to facilitate the interaction between the space science community and those involved in making laboratory measurements critical to space science, is being organized by Bill Parkinson and Peter Smith.
Planning is also proceding for a Conference on Physics across the Stratopause, jointly sponsored by NASA's Office of Space Science and Mission to Planet Earth. It is expected that the conference will be held somewhere in the Shenandoah Valley during the summer of 1998. Mike Summers and Bob Conway of the Naval Research Laboratory are organizing this conference.
The SR&T
as are the suborbital
An ITM community meeting was held at the Spring AGU meeting. Short summaries of recent events at NASA and NSF were presented and participants were then invited to raise whatever concerns they had about the programs.
Recent highlights from NASA which were reviewed included: Staffing quotas at Headquarters are holding relatively steady, leaving the Office of Space Science still under signficant pressure but lessening fears of much lower quotas which were being discussed last year.
The Sun-Earth Connection will nonetheless lose the services of Bob Carovillano, Joe Grebowsky, Jim Willett, and Miram Forman, all of whom have come to the end of their service. NASA is working with several excellent candidates to fill these positions and hopes to have a new SEC team in place early this fall.
The funding requested in the President's FY 1998 budget for the Offifce of Space Science is signficantly more than that anticipated in the FY 1997 budget runout. Progress still needs to be made, however, in justifying future funding for the Sun-Earth Connection and Structure and Evolution of the Universe themes.
The latest Annuncement of Opportunity for the Small Explorer Program was released April 14. Two important changes from previous AO's are (1) a broadening of the definition of allowable launch vehicles and (2) the inclusion of Missions of Opportunity. Sixty-two lettters of intnet to propose were received in response to this call, approximately half of which dealt with SEC science.
The results of the TIMED Non-Advocate Review were presented to the NASA Program Management Council on April 21. The PMC accepted the NAR's recommendation that TIMED should proceed into developmentm (Phase C/D). This is a very important step for TIMED, which is now on schedule for launch in January of the year 2000.
The SR&T
as are the suborbital
Graduate Student Research Program (GSRP) 1996 Selection Announced
Letters announcing the results of the 1996 Graduate Student Research Program competition were mailed on April 26, 1996. Nine GSRP proposals were referred to the ITM program for review for Fiscal Year 1996 funding. Of the nine proposals, 3 were rated Superior, 3 were rated Very Good, 2 were rated Good, and 1 was rated Poor. The three Superior proposals were selected for funding, one to be supported by the GSRP program itself, two to be supported from ITM program funds.
Competition for GSRP slots is always fierce; this year the entire Office of Space Science was allotted 28 awards to be selected from among 220 proposals. The high degree of competition means that selected proposals have to meet very strict requirements: when there are so few awards to be made we select the students who appear to have the best chance of completing a distinguished thesis within the three year period supported by the fellowship. It has been our experience, for instance, that students who have not yet finished their undergraduate studies have seldom had sufficient experience in the field for them to be prepared to conceptualize and carry out a well thought out thesis in such a relatively short time. Proposals based on data which has not yet been obtained are at a disadvantage in this process because of the avoidable uncertainty in whether or not it will be possible to carry out the proposed project.
Another thing to note is that each of the GSRP proposals which received a Superior rating met the general criteria which we have established for excellent proposals: that is, they presented (1) a clear description of a specific scientific question to be pursued, (2) a cogent description of how the investigation was to be carried out, (3) discussion of how the proposed effort would contribute to the resolution of the target problem, and (4) discussion of the relevance of the proposed effort to the NASA program.
Congratulations to the new ITM GSRP participants: Lynette Gelinas from the University of New Hampshire, John Leko from the University of Alabama Huntsville, and Deborah Walter from Penn State.
FY 96 ITM SR&T Program details are now available
Letters announcing the results of the competition for new Fiscal Year (FY) 1996 awards from the Suborbital Program in Magnetospheric, Ionospheric, Thermospheric, and Mesospheric (MITM) Physics were mailed to Principal Investigators on March 19, 1996. These awards were made on the basis of proposals submitted in response to NASA Research Announcement NRA-95-OSS-11. Although NASA cannot make final commitments on funding the newly selected efforts until after it has received and reviewed its FY 1996 budget, we are fairly confident that FY 1996 Supporting Research and Technology (SR&T) funding will at least approximately match that of FY 1995. The selections were based on this anticipation. Proposals describing 27 investigations were reviewed in the competition for Fiscal Year (FY) 1996 funding from the MITM program. Six of these were rated Excellent or Excellent/Very Good in a peer review of their scientific merit, 10 were rated Very Good or Very Good/Good, and 11 were rated Good or less. The total FY 1996 funding requested was $6.1 M and the funding available for competition was $1.7 M. The assignment of ratings was based on requirements set out in the NRA and followed carefully the NASA definitions of Excellent, Very Good, Good, and Poor which were provided to proposers. Specifically, in order for a proposal to be have been rated Very Good or Excellent it had to have (1) presented a clear scientific question to be answered, (2) outlined an appropriate and feasible method of approaching this question and (3) provided confidence that if the proposed effort were carried out, then definitive progress in understanding the phenomenon in question would likely result. A proposal was classified as Excellent if and only if, having met these necessary but not sufficient conditions, it also targeted a compelling question whose timely solution was important to advancement of the field. The competitive range for this selection included all 10 of the E, E/VG, and VG proposals. Selection for funding from among competitive proposals is usually based on a combination of programmatic, budgetary and operational considerations. Serious operational issues arose, however, in four of the scientifically competitive proposals, all of which were declined. The available funding proved sufficient to allow selection of all of the six remaining competitive proposals. All selected proposals were funded at the levels recommended by the review panel. The next opportunity to propose for MITM funding will be in response to the 1996 NRA for the space physics Supporting Research and Technology programs, which will be released this spring. A list of the selected proposals is appended. It is followed by a full list of the MITM investigations which are being supported in FY 1996. **** MITM Program Investigations Selected for Initiation in FY 1996 Kelley/Cornell Langmuir turbulence rocket Kintner/Cornell Cleft Accelerated Plasmas Experiment Rocket (CAPER) Maynard/Mission Research Coordinated rocket and ground base investigation of the spatial and temporal structure of the open/closed boundary and the dayside cusp Mlynczak/Langley Mesosphere-thermosphere Emissions for Ozone Remote Sensing (METEORS) Pfaff/Goddard Rocket/radar investigation of lower ionosphere electrodynamics associated with intense mid-latitude sporadic-E layers Smith/Goddard A sounding rocket investigation of transient features in the cusp *** Suborbital Program in Magnetospheric, Ionospheric, Thermospheric, and Mesospheric (MITM) Physics: Programs Active in FY 1996 Arnoldy/New Hampshire Study of wave-particle interactions on auroral field lines with the PHAZE 2 sounding rocket Broadfoot/Arizona Plasma imaging: He+ in the earth's plasmasphere Carlson/Berkeley Auroral sounding rocket experiments Christensen/Aerospace Coordinated study of magnetospheric/thermospheric coupling and dynamics in the diffuse aurora Earle/SAIC Rocket investigation of descending plasma layers in the lower ionosphere Espy/Utah An investigation of the effects of mesospheric aerosols on the odd-oxygen chemistry and distribution Kane/Penn State Coordinated rocket and ground-based studies of high-latitude fine-scale structure in ion-sodium sporadic layering events Kelley/Cornell An experiment to study sporadic atom layers in the Earth's mesosphere and lower thermosphere Kelley/Cornell Langmuir turbulence rocket Kintner/Cornell Cleft Accelerated Plasmas Experiments Rocket (CAPER) Larsen/Clemson Sounding rocket investigations of eddy and molecular diffusivities in the mesosphere/lower thermosphere Maynard/Mission Research Coordinated rocket and ground based investigation of the spatial and temporal structure of the open/closed boundary and the dayside cusp Mlynczak/Langley Mesosphere-thermosphere Emissions for Ozone Remote Sensing (METEORS) Parks/Washington A rocket experiment to study pulsating aurora Pfaff/Goddard Rocket/radar investigation of lower ionosphere electrodynamics associated with intense mid-latitude sporadic-E layers Smith/Goddard A sounding rocket investigation of transient features in the cusp Torbert/New Hampshire Auroral Turbulence II Wescott/Alaska Shaped charge injection of field aligned Ba and Ca plasma to investigate the physics of mass dependent ion acceleration Woods/Colorado Solar irradiance and thermospheric airglow rocket experiments1996 ITM MOWG findings
The results are now available from peer review of the scientific merit of the proposals submitted to the Suborbital Program in Magnetospheric, Ionospheric, Thermospheric and Mesospheric Physics (MITM) and the Supporting Research and Technology Program (SR&T) in Ionospheric, Thermospheric and Mesospheric (ITM) Physics.
This was the first step in a three step selection process. The second step, which is the recommendation of an investigation for funding, will be done by discipline personnel. This recommendation will be based primarily upon the evaluation of scientific merit although other factors such as Space Physics Division (SPD) objectives, cost, and program balance will also be taken into account. The actual selection of proposals for funding will be made by the SPD Director, Dr. George Withbroe. His decision will be based on a combination of the proposal's scientific merit, the recommendation of discipline personnel, and Division priorities.
While it will be some time yet before final selections are announced, we can, on the basis of the review, announce that the competitive range for these selections has been established. Although we do not yet know the final disposition of proposals within this range, we do know that proposals which were not included in this category will not be funded.
In order to provide community members with as much information as possible as soon as possible we have sent letters to all of the proposers to the MITM and ITM SR&T programs, informing them of the status of their proposals with respect to the competitive range.
Program Status Summaries for both the MITM and ITM SR&T programs were included in the packages sent to proposers. These interim summaries are presented below. Final selection announcements are expected in January.
PROGRAM STATUS SUMMARY
NRA-95-OSS-11: Suborbital Program in Magnetospheric, Ionospheric, Thermospheric, and Mesospheric (MITM) Physics
Proposals describing twenty-seven investigations were reviewed in the competition for Fiscal Year (FY) 1996 funding from the Suborbital Program in Magnetospheric, Ionospheric, Thermospheric, and Mesospheric Physics. Six of these were rated Excellent (E) or Excellent/Very Good (E/VG) in a peer review of their scientific merit, 10 were rated Very Good (VG) or Very Good/Good (VG/G), and 11 were rated Good (G) or less.
The assignment of ratings was based on requirements set out in the NRA and followed carefully the NASA definitions of Excellent, Very Good, Good, and Poor which were provided to proposers. Specifically, in order for a proposal to be have been rated Very Good or Excellent it had to have (1) presented a clear scientific question to be answered, (2) outlined an appropriate and feasible method of approaching this question and (3) provided confidence that if the proposed effort were carried out, then definitive progress in understanding the phenomenon in question would likely result. A proposal was classified as Excellent if and only if, having met these necessary but not sufficient conditions, it also targeted a compelling question whose timely solution was important to advancement of the field.
The competitive range for this selection has been defined to include all 10 of the E, E/VG, and VG proposals. Selection for funding from among this proposals will be based on programmatic, budgetary and operational considerations.
PROGRAM STATUS SUMMARY
NRA-95-OSS-11: Supporting Research & Technology (SR&T) Program in Ionospheric, Thermospheric, and Mesospheric (ITM) Physics
Proposals describing seventy-four investigations were reviewed in the competition for Fiscal Year (FY) 1996 funding from the ITM SR&T program. Twenty-two of these were rated Excellent (E) or Excellent/Very Good (E/VG) in a peer review of their scientific merit, 24 were rated Very Good (VG) or Very Good/Good (VG/G), and 28 were rated Good (G) or less.
The assignment of ratings was based on requirements set out in the NRA and followed carefully the NASA definitions of Excellent, Very Good, Good, and Poor which were provided to proposers. Specifically, in order for a proposal to be have been rated Very Good or Excellent it had to have (1) presented a clear scientific question to be answered, (2) outlined an appropriate and feasible method of approaching this question and (3) provided confidence that if the proposed effort were carried out, then definitive progress in understanding the phenomenon in question would likely result. A proposal was classified as Excellent if and only if, having met these necessary but not sufficient conditions, it also targeted a compelling question whose timely solution was important to advancement of the field.
The competitive range for this selection has been defined to include all 36 of the E, E/VG and VG proposals. Selection for funding from among this proposals will be based on programmatic and budgetary considerations.
Competition for GSRP slots was thus particularly fierce this year. The high degree of competition meant that selected proposals had to meet very strict requirements: with so few awards to be made, the ITM branch tried hard to select the students who appeared to have the best chance of completing a distinguished thesis within the three year period supported by the fellowship. It has been our experience, for instance, that students who have not yet finished their undergraduate studies have seldom had sufficient experience in the field for them to be prepared to conceptualize and carry out a well thought out thesis in such a relatively short time.
Another thing to note is that each of the GSRP proposals which received a Superior rating met the general criteria which we have established for excellent proposals: that is, they presented (1) a clear description of a specific scientific question to be pursued, (2) a cogent description of how the investigation was to be carried out, (3) discussion of how the proposed effort would contribute to the resolution of the target problem, and (4) discussion of the relevance of the proposed effort to the NASA program.
Congratulations to the new ITM GSRP participants: Greg Delory from the University of California, Berkeley and Eric Dors from the University of New Hampshire.
Fifteen IRP proposals were referred to the ITM program for review for Fiscal Year 1995 funding. The entire Space Physics Division (SPD) received on the order of 50 of the 600 proposals which were submitted NASA-wide to this program, and 2 of these 50 were selected for funding. The odds were thus very high against any of these proposals being selected. I am thus pleased that one of the two SPD selections was, in fact, the most highly rated ITM proposal. The intensity of the pressure on the program resulted in the limitation of selections to the very most innovative proposals. It worked against , for instance, investigators who proposed "evolutionary" rather than "revolutionary" efforts, even when these efforts met the criterion of being "risky." It also worked against the selection of investigators who innovation consisted mainly of proposing the application to new areas of relatively well proven techniques.
Of the fifteen proposals reviewed by the ITM branch, 2 were rated Excellent, 7 were rated Very Good, 4 were rated Good, and 2 were rated Poor. Each of the proposals which received a Excellent rating, in addition to presenting truly innovative ideas, also met the general criteria for excellent proposals: that is, they presented (1) a clear description of a specific scientific question to be pursued, (2) a cogent description of how the investigation was to be carried out, (3) discussion of how the proposed effort would contribute to the resolution of the target problem, and (4) discussion of the relevance of the proposed effort to the NASA program.
Congratulations to Rob White and Greg Earle of SAIC on their winning ITM IRP proposal "Development of miniature electro-mechanical pressure sensor arrays for high resolution thermospheric and mesospheric neutral wind measurements."
Web Editor: Amy Skowronek
amy@aloha.nascom.nasa.gov
(301) 286-4713
Last Modified: 1998 February 23