National Academies Press: OpenBook

Lessons Learned in the Implementation of NASA's Earth Venture Class (2022)

Chapter: 2 EV-I and EV-M Experiences to Date

« Previous: 1 Introduction
Suggested Citation:"2 EV-I and EV-M Experiences to Date." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Lessons Learned in the Implementation of NASA's Earth Venture Class. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26499.
×

2

EV-I and EV-M Experiences to Date

EARTH VENTURE PROPOSAL, SELECTION, AND IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS

Proposal Process

The Earth Venture (EV) Instrument (EV-I) and EV Mission (EV-M) solicitations follow the customary NASA announcement of opportunity (AO) single-step proposal selection process, as follows: NASA releases an AO based on the “standard” NASA AO template with very similar requirements, sections, page limits, reference documents, and so on, to other NASA AOs, including those for the Science Mission Directorate’s (SMD’s) Small Explorer (SMEX), Medium-class Explorer (MIDEX), and Discovery-class missions. While most of these other selections have two steps (i.e., NASA initially selects approximately two to five projects for a competitive Phase A, concept study report, and site visit leading ultimately to a down-select for Phase B), the requirements for EV proposals are very similar to the first step for these other programs.

Selection Process

In general, the selection process used by NASA for EV-I and EV-M follows the same structure, independent of the mission. This process is illustrated in Figure 2.1, which was used for EVI-4.1

The following three proposal review lanes are established to categorize each proposal:

  • Scientific merit of the proposed mission;
  • Scientific implementation merit and feasibility of the proposed mission; and
  • Technical, management, and cost (TMC) feasibility of the proposed mission implementation.

The proposal categorizations are based on these criteria with the weighting of each “lane” tailored (slightly) for each AO. The first two criteria (scientific merit and scientific implementation merit and

___________________

1 EVI-4 refers to the fourth EV-I solicitation. The other EV solicitations are referred to in the same manner.

Suggested Citation:"2 EV-I and EV-M Experiences to Date." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Lessons Learned in the Implementation of NASA's Earth Venture Class. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26499.
×
Image
FIGURE 2.1 The Earth Venture (EV) solicitation, evaluation, and selection process. NOTES: Yellow shading denotes meetings at NASA Headquarters; blue and green shading is used to separate TMC activities from the science evaluation. AO = announcement of opportunity; EVI-4 = fourth Earth Venture Instrument solicitation; PEA = Program Element Appendix;TMC = technical, management, and cost. SOURCE: Adapted from a NASA graphic depicting the EVI-4 proposal evaluation process.

feasibility), combined in a single box in the center of Figure 2.1, are each given an summary rating reported as excellent, very good, good, fair, or poor. TMC feasibility is reported as low risk, medium risk, or high risk. NASA then convenes a categorization committee that considers the science merit and feasibility peer reviews and TMC peer review results and, based on the evaluations, categorizes the proposals as Category I, II, III, or IV, as defined as follows:2

  • Category I. Well-conceived and scientifically and technically sound investigations pertinent to the goals of the program and the AO’s objectives and offered by a competent investigator from an institution capable of supplying the necessary support to ensure that any essential flight hardware or other support can be delivered on time and data that can be properly reduced, analyzed, interpreted, and published in a reasonable time. Investigations in Category I are recommended for acceptance and normally will be displaced only by other Category I investigations.
  • Category II. Well-conceived and scientifically or technically sound investigations, which are recommended for acceptance, but at a lower priority than Category I.
  • Category III. Scientifically or technically sound investigations which require further development. Category III investigations may be funded for development and may be reconsidered later for the same or other opportunities.

___________________

2 NASA, 1997, “Rewrite of the NASA FAR Supplement (NFS),” Federal Register 62(20):4466-4492, January 30, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-1997-01-30/html/97-1864.htm.

Suggested Citation:"2 EV-I and EV-M Experiences to Date." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Lessons Learned in the Implementation of NASA's Earth Venture Class. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26499.
×
  • Category IV. Proposed investigations that are recommended for rejection for the particular opportunity under consideration, whatever the reason.

FINDING 2.1: The overall EV solicitation, evaluation, and selection process follows previously established guidelines. In general, the process is clear and methodical, the science and technical management review process is streamlined, and there is an appropriate assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of a proposal. Selected missions have tended to be “Category I” missions, meaning excellent or very good science and implementation strategies with low risk as assessed by the review of TMC feasibility.

During interviews with the committee, more than half of the current PIs suggested that they did not discuss the full potential of their science investigations because it would have increased the perceived risk to the mission. The saying that “science wins but TMC kills” may limit the Earth Science Division’s (ESD’s) risk posture beyond what is necessary.

FINDING 2.2: By using the same selection process as previous missions in the Earth System Science Pathfinder Program, which has minimal feedback between science and technical risk portions of the assessment, the EV selection process appears to favor lower risk missions independent of potential advances that were not explicitly part of the baseline science mission.

For EVI-2, three Category III missions were referred to the NASA Earth Science Technology Office (ESTO). The following two missions were funded for technology demonstration: “Temporal Experiment for Storms and Tropical System (TEMPEST)” and “Atmospheric Transport, Hurricanes and Extratropical Numerical Weather Prediction-Optical Autocovariance Wind Lidar” (Athena-OAWL). TEMPEST was determined to have science merit and technical potential. However, the technical implementation approach on CubeSats for the measurement concept had not been proven. The five-frequency radiometer was built, integrated in a CubeSat and launched 3 years later at a cost of $8.3 million. This effort was so successful such that the TEMPEST instrument was selected for EVM-3.

The Athena-OAWL instrument was a Doppler wind lidar system built by Ball Aerospace to improve the understanding of atmospheric dynamics, weather, water and energy cycles, and climate processes and variability. The measurement concept was determined to be unproven. With NASA support, the aerosol doppler wind lidar was successfully integrated and packaged into the NASA WB-57 long-range aircraft, conducted eight flight tests with dropsondes during 38 flight hours of operation and demonstrated continuous vector wind retrievals. It provided simultaneously two-look airborne Doppler wind measurements in a space-based operation geometry and was validated against in situ data. The task was completed in 24 months and a $6.9 million investment.

FINDING 2.3: A Category III ranking occurs when proposals with high science ranking, but mission or technology risks raise concerns during the review of TMC feasibility. Some Category III proposals have been successfully transferred to NASA’s ESTO, where solutions to specific issues were successfully demonstrated at much lower costs. The EV program has benefited from this as the TEMPEST instrument will be a component of the EVM-3 mission.

Suggested Citation:"2 EV-I and EV-M Experiences to Date." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Lessons Learned in the Implementation of NASA's Earth Venture Class. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26499.
×

Implementation Process

Once an EV-I or EV-M is selected, the rules of the implementation are based on the risk categorization per NPR 8705.4 and NPR 7120.5E. During interviews, the committee found that most PIs reported good experiences working with NASA Headquarters (HQ) and with NASA centers managing their programs. A single repeated concern, however, was the number and level of detail of the reviews included in the review process, which seems to follow the format of larger flagship missions even if the risk posture (either Class C or D) was much higher. Most PIs reported significant cost and schedule impact was incurred as part of the review preparation process. Other specific issues, both positive and negative, from the individual EV missions are summarized below for each of the missions awarded to date (see Table 1.1 and below).

  • EVI-1 (TEMPO)
  • EVM-1 (CYGNSS)
  • EVI-2 (ECOSTRESS and GEDI)
  • EVI-3 (MAIA and TROPICS)
  • EVM-2 (GeoCarb)
  • EVI-4 (EMIT and PREFIRE)
  • EVI-5 (GLIMR)
  • EVM-3 (INCUS)3

EVI-1: TEMPO (Tropospheric Emissions: Monitoring Pollution)

  • PI: Kelly Chance, Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory
  • Instrument development: Ball Aerospace and Technologies Corporation
  • Project management: NASA Langley Research Center (LaRC)
  • Cost: $90 million
  • Competitive selection: 1 selection/14 proposals

The TEMPO mission was selected in 2012 with the goal of measuring daily variations of ozone, nitrogen dioxide, and other key elements of air pollution from geostationary orbit. The instrument, an ultraviolet and visible spectrometer, was completed in 2019 and is in storage awaiting launch in January 2023 as a hosted payload on Intelsat 40e, a geostationary communications satellite being built by Maxar Technologies. Difficulties in finding an appropriate host have delayed the implementation by nearly 4 years.

TEMPO was a partnership between the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory and NASA LaRC that managed the mission. While the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory did have experience with NASA missions, the complexity of the proposal made it imperative, in the view of the PI, to have a NASA partner that could put the EV-I proposal together and manage the NASA implementation process if selected. During the committee’s interview, the PI opined that, while he was told that he had full management responsibility, the programmatic review process seemed to offer much less flexibility than he had envisioned. The reviews, he felt, were overly complex, and structured to assess missions with lower risk postures than TEMPO and required that engineers be redeployed from other tasks.

During the development of the instrument, Ball Aerospace encountered difficulties with the detectors that jeopardized the mission. Fortunately, Ball Aerospace was building the geostationary scanning ultraviolet-visible spectrometer (GEMS), a similar instrument, for the Korean Meteorological Agency. TEMPO had

___________________

3 This mission was selected during the course of this study, too late for it to be included for it to be assessed.

Suggested Citation:"2 EV-I and EV-M Experiences to Date." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Lessons Learned in the Implementation of NASA's Earth Venture Class. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26499.
×

to allow for small changes in the detector to make the synergy work, but according to the PI, this change did not compromise the overall science objective of the mission.

As an EV-I mission, the PI was only responsible for the instrument, which was to be mounted on a commercial telecommunications satellite. Because of uncertainties in the development of the instrument (along with it being the first EV-I mission), the ESD director decided not to solicit bids for hosting the TEMPO instrument until the instrument itself was completed. Changes in the availability of hosted opportunities led to further delays before the current opportunity on the Intelsat host. The time from selection to launch for TEMPO will be closer to 10 years instead of the intended 5 years. Given the mismatch in timelines between NASA missions and the commercial sector, the PI felt that the opportunities to use another spacecraft to host the instrument (both the originally proposed host and the current one) had been handled well by NASA.

TEMPO’s baseline and threshold science objectives are fairly modest in comparison to the objectives that might be achievable but were purposely not proposed.4 A list of these is available in the current TEMPO Green Paper.5 The PI hopes that once launched, NASA will allow for increased science and applications proposal calls through appropriate calls for Research Opportunities in Space and Earth Sciences (ROSES).6

For additional information, see Tropospheric Emissions: Monitoring of Pollution (EVI-1) (TEMPO), https://eospso.nasa.gov/missions/tropospheric-emissions-monitoring-pollution-evi-1.

EVM-1: CYGNSS (Cyclone Global Navigation Satellite System)

  • PI: Christopher Ruf, University of Michigan
  • Observatory development: Southwest Research Institute
  • Project management: NASA LaRC
  • Cost: $152 million
  • Competitive selection: 1 selection/19 proposals

The EVM-1 solicitation came out in 2011. CYGNSS, a constellation of eight small satellites using reflected global navigation satellite system (GNSS) signals to infer tropical cyclone wind speed, was selected in 2012 and deployed by a Pegasus XL air-launched rocket in December 2016 (which was within the desired 5-year window). The mission has been conducted on budget and met all science requirements stated in the proposal. While early mission focus was on the separation of the eight satellites through differential drag maneuvers, ocean surface wind retrievals soon followed. CYGNSS is still collecting science data in 2022. Additional science benefits for surface inundation, land-surface water bodies, and soil moisture were established after launch. NASA used the ROSES mechanism to allow a broader community to propose an expansion of the science team and the science goals outlined in the baseline mission. The third ROSES call explicitly sought investigations related to inundation, which, together with other land applications such as soil moisture, now encompass about 50 percent of the CYGNSS science activity.

___________________

4 Threshold (or minimum) science requirements are the minimum performance requirements necessary to achieve the minimum science acceptable for the mission. Baseline science requirements are the investigation performance requirements necessary to achieve the entire set of science objectives identified at the initiation of the mission. From NASA, 2011, “Earth System Science Pathfinder Program Office: Program Plan,” NASA Langley Research Center, Document No. ESSPPO-0001, March 29, https://essp.larc.nasa.gov/EV-I/pdf_files/ESSP_Program_Plan_sig.pdf.

5 K. Chance, X. Liu, R. Suleiman, G. González Abad, et al., 2021, “TEMPO Green Paper: Chemistry Experiments with the Tropospheric Emissions: Monitoring of Pollution Instrument,” August 18, https://weather.msfc.nasa.gov/tempo/documents/TEMPOGreen-Paper-apr2021.pdf.

6 NASA’s SMD issues a ROSES solicitation annually. See, for example, NASA, “Schedule for Research Opportunities in Space and Earth Sciences (ROSES)-2021,” https://science.nasa.gov/researchers/sara/grant-solicitations/roses-2021/schedule-researchopportunities-space-and-earth-sciences-roses-2021.

Suggested Citation:"2 EV-I and EV-M Experiences to Date." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Lessons Learned in the Implementation of NASA's Earth Venture Class. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26499.
×

EVI-2: GEDI (Global Ecosystem Dynamics Investigation)

  • PI: Ralph Dubayah, University of Maryland
  • Instrument development: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC)
  • Project management: NASA GSFC
  • Cost: $95 million
  • Competitive selection: 2 selections/20 proposals

GEDI consists of a three-beam laser ranging system to make observations of the three-dimensional (3D) structure of forest canopy height, canopy vertical structure, and surface elevation, all with 15 cm vertical resolution. This makes it possible to characterize important carbon and water cycling processes, biodiversity, and habitat. GEDI was deployed on the Japanese Experiment Module-Exposed Facility (JEM-EF) of the International Space Station (ISS) in 2018 for a 2-year mission. GEDI is still collecting data and will do so until it is de-orbited, which is planned for 2023.

GEDI science objectives are mostly met, although ISS coverage issues7 have prevented achievement of all Level-1 science requirements. The science team has produced maps of biomass and used GEDI data in the Ecosystem Demography model to look at future sequestration under land use change scenarios. The team has also performed demonstrative biodiversity analyses.

GEDI was given an extension once its primary operational phase was concluded. A recent ROSES call resulted in the establishment of a competed science team, which began work in January 2021 with the objective of expanding the utility of GEDI science products by; for example, combining GEDI data with data from other sensors to advance scientific understanding of the carbon and hydrological cycles, biodiversity, and habitat dynamics.8 Other new science objectives include: applying machine learning for multi-sensor fusion; developing new biodiversity data products, including a waveform structural complexity index, and fusing data from GEDI and ICESat-2 for height, elevation, and biomass products. GEDI has also been used in studies of lake level heights, glacier temperatures, forest fire modeling, crop monitoring, and canopy interception of precipitation.

For additional information, see Global Ecosystem Dynamics Investigation Lidar (EVI-2) (GEDI on ISS), https://eospso.nasa.gov/missions/global-ecosystem-dynamics-investigation-lidar-evi-2.

EVI-2: ECOSTRESS (Ecosystem Spaceborne Thermal Radiometer Experiment on Space Station)

  • PI: Simon Hook, NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL)
  • Instrument development: NASA JPL
  • Project management: NASA JPL
  • Cost: $30 million
  • Competitive selection: 2 selections/20 proposals

ECOSTRESS, selected in early 2014 and launched to the ISS in June 2018, is a high-resolution, thermal infrared (TIR) radiometer that is addressing questions on plant–water dynamics and future ecosystem

___________________

7 See R. Dubayah et al., 2020, “The Global Ecosystem Dynamics Investigation: High-Resolution Laser Ranging of the Earth’s Forests and Topography,” Science of Remote Sensing 1(June):100002, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.srs.2020.100002. GEDI will continue toward meeting its Level-1 requirements through its mission extension period (at least January 2023) with Phase F/Closeout beginning October 2023.

8 NASA, 2020, “Global Ecosystem Dynamics Investigation (GEDI) Science Team,” NNH20ZDA001N-GEDIST, https://nspires.nasaprs.com, and Duke University, 2020, “Global Ecosystem Dynamics Investigation (GEDI) Science Team (ROSES 2020),” https://researchfunding.duke.edu/global-ecosystem-dynamics-investigation-gedi-science-team-roses-2020.

Suggested Citation:"2 EV-I and EV-M Experiences to Date." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Lessons Learned in the Implementation of NASA's Earth Venture Class. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26499.
×

changes by measuring canopy temperature over the diurnal cycle for a wide range of biomes. The ECOSTRESS mission was to acquire data for 1 year, measuring TIR radiation, evapotranspiration, water use efficiency, and the evaporative stress index drought indicator for selected regions of the globe and the entire continental U.S. ECOSTRESS is active (as of January 2022), with scientific data, its primary objective, being shared through NASA and U.S. Geological Survey data portals. The ECOSTRESS Science and Application team was formed following the 2018 ROSES call,9 receiving 73 proposals for an initial budget of only $1.1 million per year, surpassing the expected level of interest. As a result, the budget was increased to $1.7 million per year for 3 years for 15 selected teams. The addition of an application component to the ECOSTRESS team was an expansion to the original science objectives.

The ECOSTRESS proposal assumed deployment on the JEM-EF on board the ISS and that the JEM-EF could accommodate the mass of the payload and its power, cooling, and other needs. However, after selection, with unanticipated demands from other payloads attached to JEM-EF, NASA informed the ECOSTRESS team of the need to reduce the mission’s mass and its power requirement. This started a lengthy and difficult negotiation process, primarily due to the dual funding approach (with capped instrument funding and integration/interfacing funding). While the post-selection accommodation requirements were changed by NASA, this change affected the design of the instrument, impacting the instrument budget, which was capped.

There were delays in the launch due to rocket availability, but the project was able to accommodate those. While not an issue for ECOSTRESS, the PI did note that if delays had continued, it would have been nearly impossible to keep staffing in place to avoid any unnecessary spin-up costs.

EVI-3: MAIA (Multi-Angle Imager for Aerosols)

  • PI: David Diner, NASA JPL
  • Instrument development: NASA JPL
  • Project management: NASA JPL
  • Cost: $38 million
  • Competitive selection: 2 selections/14 proposals

The MAIA uses 14 spectral bands with polarization at three bands to do a multi-angle scan of scenes to deduce aerosol concentrations and size distributions. Selected in 2016, the instrument has been completed. The MAIA investigation will seek to understand how different types of air pollution affect human health, based on a science team that includes both aerosols remote sensing scientists as well as public health and epidemiology experts.

The ESSP Program Office (ESSPPO) issued an RFP that led, in August 2018, to the selection of a General Atomics Electromagnetic Systems (GA-EMS) as the provider of the host spacecraft, including launch services and ground system, with a launch date of no later than October 2022. Prior to this selection, GA-EMS had acquired the U.S. subsidiary of Surrey Space Systems in an effort to develop a commercial space capability. This acquisition, however, was followed by significant staff turnover and the loss of effectively the entire original Surrey staff. GA-EMS held the hosting services critical design review in June 2021. The outcome of this review was that GA-EMS was deemed by NASA and the independent reviewers as unsuccessful in attaining the necessary level of maturity of the host spacecraft. The review board concluded that the spacecraft development was not successful in meeting identified performance standards and requirements and that continuation on this path would have entailed excessive risk to the MAIA mission. After much

___________________

9 See NASA, “NASA ROSES-18 Amendment 45: A.7 ECOSTRESS Science and Applications Team Final Text,” NNH18ZDA001N, https://ecostress.jpl.nasa.gov/events/a-7-ecostress-full-proposals-due.

Suggested Citation:"2 EV-I and EV-M Experiences to Date." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Lessons Learned in the Implementation of NASA's Earth Venture Class. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26499.
×

deliberation and review by the ESSPPO of the Independent Review Team’s conclusions, and with the concurrence of the MAIA PM and PI, the ESSPPO descoped the activity and closed the GA-EMS contract in October 2021.

The ESSPPO has assigned JPL the responsibility of determining a new provider for the host spacecraft, launch services, and ground system, and it has provided guidance to JPL regarding the available budget for the entirety of the remaining mission scope. The ESSPPO has directed the MAIA project to assume, for planning purposes, a revised launch date between October 2024 and March 2025; however, this window is subject to change pending identification of the new spacecraft and launch providers. The MAIA instrument may be put in storage after it is delivered to NASA (in summer or fall 2022).

For additional information, see New NASA Instrument Study Air Pollution, https://maia.jpl.nasa.gov.

EVI-3: TROPICS (Time-Resolved Observations of Precipitation Structure and Storm Intensity with a Constellation of SmallSats)

  • PI: William Blackwell, MIT Lincoln Laboratory (MIT LL)
  • Instrument development: MIT LL
  • Project management: NASA LaRC
  • Cost: $30.2 million mission cost cap, exclusive of launch costs
  • Competitive selection: 2 selections/14 proposals

Selected in 2016, the TROPICS mission will measure the temperature, humidity and precipitation of storms in the tropics. The mission will launch and deploy six dual-spinning 3U CubeSats10 carrying scanning 12-channel microwave radiometers into three separate orbital planes to enable the constellation to monitor tropical weather systems with unprecedented temporal frequency. MIT LL’s built the satellites for the TROPICS mission, which were checked out and delivered to NASA on schedule in 2019. The constellation is currently set to be deployed in a series of three launches by Astra Space in 2022. This is a change and a delay from that originally planned. Part of the delay is attributable to NASA’s desire to have multiple qualified bidders for a launch into specialized orbits.

The PI reports that NASA made reasonable decisions and treated the team fairly during the launch search process. Furthermore, NASA arranged for the pre-launch of an engineering model pathfinder satellite—TROPICS Pathfinder—to enable full testing of the technology, communication systems, data processing, and data flow to application users in advance of the constellation’s launch. This spacecraft was launched on June 30, 2021, by SpaceX; first images became available on August 8, 2021. The TROPICS Pathfinder is providing the TROPICS engineering and science teams a first look at data from the expected constellation in 2022, as well as “early adopters” within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA’s) National Weather Service. NOAA’s NESDIS has funded TROPICS to perform a low latency development and demonstration program for the pathfinder data in hopes this will better define the scope/cost for what would be needed for the constellation, as well as an early demonstration of the utility of this improved hurricane data sampling capability.

For additional information, see Time-Resolved Observations of Precipitation structure and storm Intensity with a Constellation of SmallSats (EVI-3) (TROPICS), https://eospso.nasa.gov/missions/time-resolvedobservations-precipitation-structure-and-storm-intensity-constellation.

___________________

10 CubeSats come in various sizes. The size is described in terms of units (U), where each unit is 10 cm × 10 cm × 10 cm. Possible sizes are 1U, 2U, 3U, and 6U.

Suggested Citation:"2 EV-I and EV-M Experiences to Date." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Lessons Learned in the Implementation of NASA's Earth Venture Class. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26499.
×

EVM-2: GeoCarb (Geostationary Carbon Cycle Observatory)

  • PI: Berrien Moore, University of Oklahoma
  • Instrument development: Lockheed Martin
  • Project management: Initially University of Oklahoma, now NASA GSFC
  • Cost: Upon selection in December 2016, NASA planned 5-year funding of $166 million for initial development, launch of the mission as a hosted payload on a commercial communications satellite, and data analysis. The FY 2022 budget added $117 million to cover the full mission life cycle.
  • Competitive selection: 1 selection/15 proposals

Selected in 2016, the Geostationary Carbon Observatory (GeoCarb) was initially targeted for launch in 2022; as of this writing, the launch target is 2024. The mission will build on the success of NASA’s Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2 (OCO-2) mission by placing a similar instrument on a commercial SES-Government Solutions communications satellite flying in geostationary orbit. Its longitude will allow observations over the Americas between 50 degrees north and south latitudes of (1) the concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, carbon monoxide and (2) solar-induced fluorescence across the diurnal cycle at a spatial resolution of about 5 to 10 km.

The mission passed its critical design review with NASA with some design modifications. However, it has encountered substantial programmatic challenges. The mission was given an extension during NASA’s review of final design and fabrication (i.e., KDP-C, Key Decision Point-C), but because of continuing issues, including cost increases, the mission was considered for cancelation.11 In 2020, NASA transferred GeoCarb project management from the University of Oklahoma to NASA’s GSFC, following a continuation review that also converted GeoCarb from a PI-led mission to a NASA center-directed mission. NASA’s FY 2022 budget includes an extra $117 million for the mission to fully cover life-cycle costs. This additional funding will mitigate future NASA impacts and accommodate changes that have been made to plans for hosting and launch.12 GeoCarb is now being carried out as a stand-alone ESSP mission rather than as an EV mission, and NASA is considering procuring a stand-alone spacecraft and launch for the mission.13

For additional information, see Geostationary Carbon Cycle Observatory (EVM-2) (GeoCarb), https://eospso.nasa.gov/missions/geostationary-carbon-cycle-observatory-evm-2.

EVI-4: EMIT (Earth Surface Mineral Dust Source Investigation)

  • PI: Robert Green, NASA JPL
  • Instrument development: NASA JPL
  • Project management: NASA JPL
  • Cost: $113 million
  • Competitive selection: 2 selections/14 proposals

___________________

11 The final decision on cancellation was made by the NASA Administrator, who gave approval in December 2019 for the mission to proceed to Phase C/implementation. See J. Foust, 2020, “NASA Earth Science Hosted Payload Mission Passes Key Review,” SpaceNews, January 5, https://spacenews.com/nasa-earth-science-hosted-payload-mission-passes-key-review/, and NASA, 2020, “Earth Science Advisory Committee, March 10-11, 2020, Washington, DC, Meeting Minutes,” https://science.nasa.gov/files/sciencepink/s3fs-public/atoms/files/ESAC%20meeting%20minutes%20March%202020.pdf.

12 See the NASA, “NASA FY 22 Budget,” https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/fy2022_congressional_justification_nasa_budget_request.pdf.

13 J. Foust, 2022, “NASA Drops Plans to Fly Earth Science Instrument as Commercial Hosted Payload,” SpaceNews, February 17, https://spacenews.com/nasa-drops-plans-to-fly-earth-science-instrument-as-commercial-hosted-payload.

Suggested Citation:"2 EV-I and EV-M Experiences to Date." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Lessons Learned in the Implementation of NASA's Earth Venture Class. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26499.
×

Selected in 2018, the EMIT instrument will map the surface mineralogy of arid dust source regions via hyperspectral visible and short-wave infrared images. The maps of the source regions will be used to identify the chemical composition of dust aerosols from those regions and hence improve forecasts of the role of mineral dust in the radiative forcing (warming or cooling) of the atmosphere. EMIT currently has a launch readiness date of October 2022. As a hyperspectral sensor, EMIT partially shares observing capabilities with NASA’s designated Surface Biology and Geology mission that touches on a much broader array of Earth science questions. Thus, EMIT is an example of a mission with broader scientific potential than can easily fit within and be fairly evaluated in the EV proposal itself.

For additional information, see EMIT, https://earth.jpl.nasa.gov/emit.

EVI-4: PREFIRE (Polar Radiant Energy in the Far Infrared Experiment)

  • PI: Tristan L’Ecuyer, University of Wisconsin–Madison
  • Instrument development: NASA JPL
  • Project management: NASA JPL
  • Cost: $33 million
  • Competitive selection: 2 selections/14 proposals

Selected in 2018, the PREFIRE mission consists of two CubeSats in distinct orbits with altitudes of 300 to 400 miles and near-polar inclinations (82° to 98°). Each CubeSat will carry a miniaturized infrared (IR) spectrometer, covering 5 to 54 μm. Operating for 1 year, PREFIRE will document for the first time the variability in polar spectral fluxes in the far-IR region on hourly to seasonal timescales. The surface emissivity and atmospheric greenhouse effect at these frequencies are not well known, but they are responsible for a large fraction of the spread in projected rates of Arctic warming, sea-ice loss, ice-sheet melt, and sea-level rise. There have been some schedule delays that are directly attributable to COVID-19 and supply chain disruptions, but NASA has accommodated those changes, and PREFIRE is progressing well. The mission is scheduled for launch in March 2023.

For additional information, see PREFIRE (EVI-4), https://eospso.nasa.gov/missions/polar-radiant-energyfar-infrared-experiment-evi-4.

EVI-5: GLIMR (Geosynchronous Littoral Imaging and Monitoring Radiometer)

  • PI: Joseph Salisbury, University of New Hampshire, Durham
  • Instrument development: Raytheon
  • Project management: University of New Hampshire
  • Cost: $108 million
  • Competitive selection: 1 selection/8 proposals

The GLIMR, selected in 2018, will measure the reflectance of sunlight from optically complex coastal waters in narrow wavebands using a hyperspectral ocean color radiometer. Data from GLIMR are expected to help quantify biological and biogeochemical processes, including primary production, and enable the tracking of colored constituent inventories in time and space. GLIMR is scheduled for launch in the 2026-2027 timeframe. The mission is planned as a hosted payload in geosynchronous orbit.

The first GLIMR proposal was submitted in 2016. Although the proposed science was well received, questions about implementation and cost were also noted and the mission was not selected. The proposal

Suggested Citation:"2 EV-I and EV-M Experiences to Date." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Lessons Learned in the Implementation of NASA's Earth Venture Class. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26499.
×

team, however, considered the process to be fair and thorough. They also report receiving highly valuable feedback, which allowed them to be successful upon their proposal resubmission in 2018.

For additional information, see GLIMR (EVI-5), https://eospso.nasa.gov/missions/geosynchronous-littoralimaging-and-monitoring-radiometer-evi-5.

EVM-3 INCUS (Investigation of Convective Updrafts)

  • PI: Susan Van den Heever, Colorado State University
  • Instrument development: NASA JPL
  • Project management: NASA JPL
  • Cost: $177 million excluding launch costs, which will be managed by the NASA Launch Services Program (LSP)
  • Competitive selection: 1 selection/12 proposals

INCUS is being designed to shed light on exactly where and why clouds and heavy precipitation form. It will use a combination of active and passive microwave sensors to measure water vapor, clouds, precipitation, and their evolution from three platforms in the same orbit plane at t = 0, 30 sec, and 120 sec. INCUS was selected in November of 2021 and implementation has not begun at the time of this report.

For additional information, see INCUS (EVM-3), https://eospso.nasa.gov/missions/investigationconvective-updrafts-evm-3.

FINDING 2.4: Many of the selected missions did not win on their first proposal. Instead, most of the missions benefited from the feedback they received and were able to win in subsequent solicitations. Having a regular and predictable solicitation cadence was critical to keeping teams together.

The issues noted in these findings are explored in more detail and associated recommendations are provided in the Chapters 3-5.

MEASURES OF SUCCESS FOR EV-I AND EV-M

The EV program has a number of objectives (see Chapter 1) and thus not a single measure of success. In addition to having missions fulfill their science objectives, EV missions were initiated to restore more frequent launch opportunities, facilitate the demonstration of innovative ideas and higher-risk technologies, and expand the pool14 of well-qualified PIs and PMs for implementation of future NASA missions.

NASA’s original implementation of the EV program called for EV-M selections every 4 years and EV-I missions every 15 to 18 months, as outlined in Table 1.1. Comparing the cadence for calls in Table 1.1 with the mission selection schedule in Table 1.2 demonstrates that the original schedule has largely been maintained until recently. Going forward, NASA plans to alternate calls for EV-I with the recently initiated EV-C. While the cadence of calls will not be altered, the time between specific opportunities for EV-I, a subject of this study, will increase from approximately 18 months to 36 months.

___________________

14 See the NASA Science Mission Directorate/Science Office for Mission Assessments, Earth System Science Pathfinder Program Acquisition webpage “Earth Venture Programmatic Overview” at https://essp.larc.nasa.gov (last modified November 21, 2018). The same language appears recently in connection with EV-I opportunities; e.g., EVI-5 (NASA, “EVI-5 Acquisition Homepage,” https://essp.larc.nasa.gov/EVI-5, last modified August 2, 2019) and EVI-6 (NASA, 2021, “Partnership Opportunity Document (POD) for NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center (NASA’s GSFC) Earth Venture Instrument (EVI-6) Concepts CubeSat Partner,” March 30, https://imlive.s3.amazonaws.com/Federal%20Government/ID237895878251688714850364560812880694281/EVI-6%20POD%20Cubesat%20STEP%201-FINAL%20to%20POST.pdf.

Suggested Citation:"2 EV-I and EV-M Experiences to Date." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Lessons Learned in the Implementation of NASA's Earth Venture Class. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26499.
×

Of the seven missions that have been under way for more than 5 years, the PIs have delivered the instruments on time and schedule for one of the two EV-M and all of the EV-I missions. Unfortunately, mission success and science return have been disrupted by delays in accommodating three EV-I instruments (TEMPO, MAIA, TROPICS) on spacecraft and launches. NASA is primarily responsible for these delays, which may be attributable to changing opportunities in instrument accommodation and/or launch capabilities. The GeoCarb mission is also behind schedule, and NASA has continued to fund GeoCarb even though it has greatly exceeded its cost cap.

The three missions that have launched have met their initial science objectives in their entirety (CYGNSS and ECOSTRESS) or nearly so (GEDI), and all three have expanded their initial science objectives through the regular ROSES solicitation process.

NASA’s objective to “provide opportunities to expand the pool of well-qualified PIs and PMs for implementation of future NASA missions” has had mixed success. As discussed in Chapter 4, the great majority of EV PIs and PMs have not previously led NASA missions. However, most were already working quite closely with NASA.

FINDING 2.5: Delays in launching three EV-I missions and programmatic and budget issues with EVM-2 (GeoCarb) are the largest factors limiting the Earth Venture program’s science return to date. Multiyear schedule slips and projects growing substantially beyond their cost cap are inconsistent with the rationale for the EV program.

VIEWS FROM EARTH VENTURE PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATORS AND PROJECT MANAGERS

As part of its information gathering, the committee developed a questionnaire (see Appendix B) to solicit input from the PIs of EV-I and EV-M. The committee also conducted interviews during a committee teleconference with the PIs, PMs, and other key members of the project management teams for all EV-I and EV-M-missions selected to date, except for EVM-3, INCUS.15

The PIs for EV missions that were selected gave generally very positive reviews of their overall experience; however, for EV-I, difficulties that centered on spacecraft interfaces were noted. The selection of spacecraft very late in the process caused uncertainty in engineering design and budgets that may have been unnecessary from the perspective of PIs and PMs.

TROPICS and PREFIRE are CubeSat missions requiring specific launch services for the three launches for TROPICS and two launches for PREFIRE. Both PIs expressed positive interactions with the NASA LSP. TROPICS was delayed while NASA was awaiting bids to launch the CubeSats into three distinct inclination orbits. The PI seemed satisfied with the level of communication and the offer to pre-launch an engineering model pathfinder satellite (launched June 30, 2021, by SpaceX, with the first images available on August 8, 2021). In the case of PREFIRE, which needs two launches for two separate polar orbit planes, the PI mentioned that NASA was working to meet baseline science objectives requirements rather than settling for meeting threshold science goals, which might be accomplished with a single launch.

Many PIs and PMs cited the difficulties in meeting all of the NASA-mandated reviews. The committee found credence in these teams’ characterization of the mission reviews as particularly onerous. While EV missions have higher risk tolerance than NASA’s flagship missions, the review process itself may not be that different from that for larger missions. Most teams commented on the need for having well-informed partners, often NASA centers, managing program implementation. Many said they would have been overwhelmed without the support of NASA centers.

___________________

15 NASA’s selection of INCUS for EVM-3 occurred after the committee had completed its initial draft report; INCUS project team members were not interviewed.

Suggested Citation:"2 EV-I and EV-M Experiences to Date." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Lessons Learned in the Implementation of NASA's Earth Venture Class. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26499.
×

VIEWS FROM NASA HEADQUARTERS

NASA HQ managers who had had interactions with and responsibilities for the EV program indicated they were relatively happy with the science and the distribution of PIs associated with the EV-I and EV-M selections to date. In their view, a “new PI” is someone who has never been a PI of a flight mission before. With this understanding, the HQ managers interviewed by the committee reported that the EV program has opened the door to new PIs. The managers also uniformly emphasized the importance of ensuring that mission proposal teams and implementing institutions embody sufficient experience—either via collaboration with a NASA center or otherwise experienced implementation organization—to implement the mission and to work with the spacecraft, instrument, and/or launch vendors effectively.

VIEWS FROM CENTERS

Interviews with and information provided by mission formulation leads from NASA centers (e.g., GSFC, LaRC, and JPL) indicated that their staff generally believe that the EV program has been effectively implemented. One concern expressed is the intermittent impression that HQ may not always take into account the lead time and the internal investments in time and workforce needed to support PIs and develop proposals. For example, the recent change to EVI-6 in dropping its Class C designation and significantly lowering the cost cap had some ripple effects into longer standing development and formulation efforts. Similarly, for the second EV-C call, anticipated in 2023, there has been no indication from NASA HQ as to the topic or the manner in which it is to be determined. EVC-1 specifically targeted the Earth radiation budget and that was understood for a significant period of time prior to the call allowing for judicious planning efforts. For EVC-2, it isn’t clear if the solicitation target is to be open or will be narrowed to a given observable. A greater lead time for the whole community (i.e., PIs, centers, non-Center institutes, and industry) in knowing what to plan for directly translates into the quality of proposals that can be cultivated and developed.

Centers would welcome more and earlier information regarding uncertainties in NASA’s posture for utilizing geostationary platforms, which to-date have experienced challenges. Recent changes by the EV program in allowing more complete responses to the Preliminary Major Weaknesses (PMW) report distributed to the teams prior to the completion of the review has been well received.16

VIEWS FROM NON-SELECTED PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATORS

As part of its information gathering, the committee had hoped to interview both selected and non-selected PIs and their teams. Selected EV teams are announced publicly, but information on non-selected teams is considered confidential, and NASA could not provide even anonymized demographic information on the proposal teams to the committee. Had the committee had access to teams that were never selected, they would have been asked questions including those shown below. The committee suggests that NASA—if it is not already doing so—consider asking a similar set of questions in their debriefs with non-selected EV teams.

___________________

16 The PMW clarification process is part of NASA’s proposal and review process. See Ellen Gertsen, “Proposal Process,” Nov. 18, 2019. https://science.nasa.gov/files/science-red/s3fs-public/atoms/files/PI%20Launchpad%20-%20Gertsen%20Intro.pdf. Changes to the PMW were announced in the EVM-3 AO. See NASA, 2020, “Earth Venture Mission – 3, Technical, Management, and Cost Evaluation Pre-Proposal Web Conference,” Announcement of Opportunity NNH21ZDA002O, December 17, https://essp.larc.nasa.gov/EVM-3/pdf_files/4_EVM3_TMCevaluationPPC.pdf.

Suggested Citation:"2 EV-I and EV-M Experiences to Date." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Lessons Learned in the Implementation of NASA's Earth Venture Class. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26499.
×
  • For PIs who were first-time proposers to an EV-I or EV-M AO: Were there aspects of the proposal process that were both unforeseen and challenging? Please elaborate.
  • If applicable: Do you believe it would have been valuable to have an experienced PI or project team member available to help in your preparation of a proposal?
  • Did you feel there was value in writing the proposal, even if not awarded?
  • What were the most challenging aspects of developing the proposal? Is there anything NASA could do to improve the process?
Suggested Citation:"2 EV-I and EV-M Experiences to Date." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Lessons Learned in the Implementation of NASA's Earth Venture Class. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26499.
×
Page 15
Suggested Citation:"2 EV-I and EV-M Experiences to Date." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Lessons Learned in the Implementation of NASA's Earth Venture Class. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26499.
×
Page 16
Suggested Citation:"2 EV-I and EV-M Experiences to Date." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Lessons Learned in the Implementation of NASA's Earth Venture Class. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26499.
×
Page 17
Suggested Citation:"2 EV-I and EV-M Experiences to Date." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Lessons Learned in the Implementation of NASA's Earth Venture Class. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26499.
×
Page 18
Suggested Citation:"2 EV-I and EV-M Experiences to Date." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Lessons Learned in the Implementation of NASA's Earth Venture Class. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26499.
×
Page 19
Suggested Citation:"2 EV-I and EV-M Experiences to Date." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Lessons Learned in the Implementation of NASA's Earth Venture Class. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26499.
×
Page 20
Suggested Citation:"2 EV-I and EV-M Experiences to Date." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Lessons Learned in the Implementation of NASA's Earth Venture Class. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26499.
×
Page 21
Suggested Citation:"2 EV-I and EV-M Experiences to Date." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Lessons Learned in the Implementation of NASA's Earth Venture Class. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26499.
×
Page 22
Suggested Citation:"2 EV-I and EV-M Experiences to Date." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Lessons Learned in the Implementation of NASA's Earth Venture Class. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26499.
×
Page 23
Suggested Citation:"2 EV-I and EV-M Experiences to Date." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Lessons Learned in the Implementation of NASA's Earth Venture Class. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26499.
×
Page 24
Suggested Citation:"2 EV-I and EV-M Experiences to Date." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Lessons Learned in the Implementation of NASA's Earth Venture Class. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26499.
×
Page 25
Suggested Citation:"2 EV-I and EV-M Experiences to Date." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Lessons Learned in the Implementation of NASA's Earth Venture Class. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26499.
×
Page 26
Suggested Citation:"2 EV-I and EV-M Experiences to Date." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Lessons Learned in the Implementation of NASA's Earth Venture Class. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26499.
×
Page 27
Suggested Citation:"2 EV-I and EV-M Experiences to Date." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Lessons Learned in the Implementation of NASA's Earth Venture Class. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26499.
×
Page 28
Next: 3 Changing Program Emphasis for Earth Venture Missions »
Lessons Learned in the Implementation of NASA's Earth Venture Class Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $25.00 Buy Ebook | $20.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

The NASA Science Mission Directorate/Earth Science Division's (SMD/ESD's) Earth Venture (EV) is a program element within the Earth System Science Pathfinder Program. At the request of NASA, this report examines the Earth Venture Instrument (EV-I) and Earth Venture Mission (EV-M) elements of Earth Ventures and explores lessons learned in the more than 10 years since selection of the first EV mission, including a review of the foundational principles and approaches underlying the program.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!