1 Basic Science Call for Proposals, Process & Sim 6 B-G Andersson SOFIA Science Operations Manager SSSC, September 29, 2009 Ames

2 Outline Basic Science Call for Proposals –Timeline & Preparations –Tools –Operations Simulation #6 (end-to-end simulation) –Summary

3 Basic Science Schedule Interim, subject to ongoing negotiations between the SOFIA Program Office and NASA HQ 15 Dec., ‘08 Draft Call for Proposals Released 27 Feb., ‘09 Comments on draft CfP due 27 March, ‘09 Comments on draft CfP received Fall ’09 Data Rights Agreement signed Winter ‘09/’10 Final Call for Proposal released Release tied to successful first open door flight Winter ‘10 Proposal Deadline (Call +60 days) Spring ’10 Selections announced Winter ‘10/’11 Basic Science flights begin

4 Remaining Preparations Final Basic Science Data Rights Agreement actively negotiated in September Final CfP defined based on Data Rights Agreement Negotiations led by SMO Director Comments on Draft Call for Proposals: –Many informal, three formal (Paul Harvey, John Black, Martin Burgdorf) Many very good comments and suggestions - both editorial and substance Some good but probably not within purview of proposal process –(e.g. lifting restrictions on flight plans) Specific issue for Data Rights Agreement: Clearer definition of Reserved Targets asked for (“One reserved target for each FOV”)

5 Basic Science Proposing Basics Two-phase proposal with science justification in Phase 1 Phase 2 for Basic Science will be led by SOFIA staff and will require significant involvement from the Instrument teams Proposals shall be generated/submitted using the SOFIA Proposal Tool (SPT) –Similar to, and based on, the STScI APT Exposure time calculator available for FORCAST (SITE) Exposure time tutorial available for GREAT Transmission calculator (ATRAN) Visibility tool available on-line –No flight plans required/expected Lists of Reserved Targets for FORCAST and GREAT will be published with final CfP

6 Recent Progress Operations Simulation #6 (“Sim6”) “A training exercise employing personnel in their ops roles, using ops processes, tools, and products in a realistic environment.” End-to-End simulation of SOFIA proposal-to-archive process –Aimed at identifying issues, needed updates and clarifications –Not aimed at proving an existing flawless system –First large integrated operational exercise; many improvement issues identified Primary Goals included: Validate operational systems, processes, interfaces, products, procedures, and team performance. Secondary Goals included: Help drive overall development efforts. Integrate and supplement role- and functional-specific ops training. Identify existing weaknesses and areas for follow-up action.

7 Sim 6 Organization Organized and led by: Brett Stroozas, Gordon Tischler and Steven Culp (+ Andersson, McKown, Stephens & Shuping) Conducted at Ames: Aug 17 - Sept 10. Involved all the Operations Groups: –Science Operations - –Mission Operations - Exercised as integrated team –Aircraft Operations - USRA, DSI, NASA Ames & NASA DFRC –TA engineering - –+ “Peer Review Panel” - outside SOFIA project (Mark Morris) Based on paper-walk-throughs of processes and procedures: –Functional flow block diagrams –Interface meetings/agreements between groups Produced/checked processes and documentation: –Procedures –Checklists –Operational Interface Agreements (between groups) –Tools implemented (e.g. issue tracking s/w for both SciOps and MisOps)

8 Sim Program Plan 9 Planned Chronological Ops Validation Sim Exercises Per Sim Program Plan as briefed previously and worked through Ops IPT (core members are on sim planning team) Phase 1: paper sim process walkthroughs  Completed Sim1: In-Flight  16 Sep Sim2: Flight Series Observatory Preparation  22 Oct Sim3: Pre- and Post-Flight Activities  27 Jan Sim4: Science Operations  12 Mar Sim5: Flight Series Product Preparation  19 May  Helped to verify/validate ops process, assumptions, etc.  Identified numerous issues/actions for follow-up work Phase 2: partially-integrated major sim and follow-up  In Progress Sim6: End-to-End Science/Mission Operations  Aug-Sep Completed Sim7: Post-Sim6 and Pre-Phase3 IOWG  Mid Phase 3: fully-integrated major sims  In Planning Sim8: Fully Integrated Ops #1  (tied to FCAST LO#1) Sim9: Fully Integrated Ops #2/Mission Rehearsal  (tied to FCAST LO#2)

9 Sim 6, Proposal Process Assumptions: Basic Science assumed –FORCAST/GREAT –~3 months observing semester US proposal selection only –“Framework” proposals only, no scientific justification –BUT; several realistic target-selections, some deliberate target duplications, some targets out of range (RA or Dec) Provide input to layout and plan two flights, simulate one –Not intended to simulate realistic “full 12-flight plan” We do nominal calibration –Required in BaSc for uncertain state of instrument –Required in normal operations to fulfill SMOR II –Requires a SOFIA calibration plan

10 Sim 6, Proposal Process, cont. Set up of DCS (SPT, SITE, etc.) for cycle specifics (instruments, modes) Submit and ingest proposals Set up user DCS accounts As service to Peer Review Panel (PRP): set up accounts for them To deal with possible conflicts of interest both in Technical Review (TR) and PRP, implement and test mechanism for selective viewing-privileges of proposals Assign TR and PRP access to identified users Perform target duplication checks Enter “Technical Review notes” Download proposal details -.pdf files Proposal evaluation, process only “PRP comments” generation Proposal selection Calibration plan/strategy generated (Sandell/Becklin) and ingested Grants management - DCS SMO Director Selected fields extracted from DCS as ASCII imported to Excel

11 Sim 6, Planning Process Some s/w tools are not planned to be ready for Early Science –AOR editor, Automated Flight Planner (long range plan) Detailed observation lay-out will be lead by instrument scientists working with SI PI and GIs –Calibration managed and implemented by SSC –Exercised/verified in Sim 6 “Long Range” Planning to be done “by hand” –Basic Science is only 12 flights –FORCAST/GREAT split means “even fewer” flight in series –Challenging, but experience, and Sim 6, shows this is a manageable task for Basic Science Sim 6 showed the need for a “rich” target pool to generate efficient flight plans and clear prioritization instructions from SMO director to Mission Operations team

12 Sim 6, Flight & Post-Flight Process Partly performed in the Software Integration Laboratory (SIL) –Provided a one-step-closer-to-reality environment A flight was successfully simulated (albeit with some “resets”) All operations groups involved (Sci-, Mis- & A/C-Ops, TA team) Additional software development (MCCS, FMI) and integration needed before realistic simulation can take place Showed the importance of a working Mission Audio Distribution System (MADS) Process, training and documentation gaps being filled. Post-flight activities covered: –Checks, flight-log debriefs –Data transfer, archive ingestion & retrieval

13 Sim 6 Summary We have a working proposal solicitation and selection process & system –Some issues remain to be addressed or refined Of 11 noted: 3 “Must fix”, 4 “Fix for convenience”, 2 rejected, 2 not issues in Early Science –No show-stoppers (at worst; “procedural” fixes possible) All “Must fix” ones are being addressed/implemented. We are well on the way to a working flight -planning and ‑ execution process for Early Science A large number of products (procedures, check lists, “ICD”s etc.) were generated for use in operations The Integrated Operations Team was successfully “exercised” Lessons Learned will feed into the “Fully Integrated Sims” (Sim 8 & 9) Final report on Sim 6 will be released early October

14 Backup Slides

15 # Issue IdentifiedSolution/Mitigation Proposed 3 Is the DCS server “black-listed” by some university servers? Mark Morris (UCLA) & Bill Blair (JHU) never received s from DCS Issue being worked 4 Tool needed to help SMO Director identify “unconflicted, expert reviewers” Summaries of number of props in give area, PIs & Co-Is, affiliations, etc. Issue being worked 5 DCS tools currently only allow target duplication checks against previous “cycles”, need to do this also between pending proposals Tool being worked 7 Getting individual.pdf files is awkward from DCS from 1) Click on link, 2) get , 3) download zip file, 4) extract and open Highly desirable to simplify by proposal deadline for BaSc 8 The layout of the DCS windows needs to be reviewed C omment from Morris Under review (convenience) 9 Correcting a field/setting (awarded time, PRP comments, TAC grade etc.) not possible after selecting Approved/Declines - even for “PRP lead” Generate/use checklist for the PRP Lead/SMO Director 10 Target prioritization mechanisms and specifics need to be clarified to aid scheduling (Policy) Policy discussions and decisions needed by SMO Director Proposal Process Issues Relevant to Early Science

16 Proposal Process Products see: DCS Concept of Operations for Early Science (Shuping) DCS proposal tool “cheat sheet” (Shuping) Proposal Review Procedure and Checklist (Andersson) USRA nondisclosure form (existing - Kniffen) TR instruction form (concept draft/identified need) Meeting agenda & minutes templates/examples –E.g. Cycle kickoff meeting - including template for required decisions (Stroozas) Calibration plan/strategy (Sandell/Becklin/Andersson) Operational Interface Agreements (OIAs) (team) –E.g.: “DCS inputs required to support cycle call-for-proposals.” “Approved calibration targets, coordinates, and other related information for use in DCS.” “Outputs from DCS to be used as inputs to grant management process.” “Request Tracker” activated to manage the help-desk queues –Ravi “system manager”