FY25 Senior Review Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

The FY25 APD Senior Review website link is https://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/resources/documents/2025-senior-review-of-operating-missions/

The following typos will be corrected in the final Call for Proposals:

In Section 2.1, the proposal due date is December 12, 2024 -- not December 2025.

In Section 3 and in Section 6.1, the relevant time period is FY26-28, not FY25 through FY28.

Section 5.1 should refer to “General Investigator/General Observer” investigations.

Q1: How will APD proceed if the Review Panel identifies a technical issue for which the Panel feels that expertise is needed beyond what the panel members themselves can bring?

A1: APD would bring in a specialist non-panel reviewer to provide the panel with his or her assessment of the specific technical issue.

Q2: How can we help you ensure that the review committee has sufficient expertise to cover the breadth of science and operations relevant for all of our missions? Would you accept suggested reviewers, and/or be willing to share a preliminary list to allow feedback?

A2: Each mission may provide NASA with a list of up to five suggested reviewers, and a list of up to three reviewers that should not be used. This information should be sent to Janet Letchworth along with the list of organizations that would be allotted mission funding under any of the proposed budget plans. Suggested reviewers are most likely to be useful to NASA if they have minimal conflicts-of-interest with the missions under review.

Q3: Section 3.1 refers to “science activation.” What does the term "science activation" mean?

A3: The Science Mission Directorate (SMD) Science Activation (SciAct) program connects NASA Science with learners of all ages and backgrounds in ways that activate minds and promote a deeper understanding of our world and beyond, with the ultimate vision to increase learners’ active participation in the advancement of human knowledge.

Since this activity is funded by SMD outside of the operating missions’ budgets, it should not be included in the proposal and will not be reviewed.

Q4: Section 5.3 – Can Times Roman 11 pt be used for the body text? Is use of fonts such as Arial Narrow or Calibri Light (11 pt) allowed for headings?

A4: Other standard machine-readable fonts may be used, provided that the number of characters per horizontal inch and the number of lines per vertical inch does not exceed that for single-spaced Regular Arial font. The number of characters per horizontal inch must not be greater than that of 11pt standard Arial, and the vertical line spacing must be no tighter than single-spaced 11pt standard Arial. The pdf submission must consist only of printable text and figures, without animation, singing videos, etc.

Q5: Section 5.3 – does a Table of Contents page count against the page limits?

A5: Yes, it does.

Q6: Section 5.3.2 – Will the proposal and findings from IXPE’s Mission Success Progress Review (MSPR) be made available to the panel?

A6: Yes.

Q7: Section 5.3.3 – Is the non-public data only the prior Senior Review and OPCR proposals? If not, is it meant to convey that if the project needs to provide additional non-public data, then HQ will ensure the panel has NDAs?

A7: This statement has been reworded; it was intended simply to convey that the Panel will be required to refrain from disclosing to the public the content of current and past review proposals, and any material that the missions present by videoconference.

Q8: Section 6.1 – the language of the following doesn't apply to our mission: "if you knew that your mission would fail before the next Senior Review, what observations would you prioritize and why?"

A8: This text will be rewritten.

Q9: Section 6.2 – What is the best way to demonstrate continued support from international partners?

A9: The proposal should simply state what support is provided by the international partner, and the basis for expected future support. Letters from international partners are not required.

Q10: Section 6.4 – The budget items requested do not appear to include closeout costs. How will closeout efforts and costs be transmitted to HQ?

A10: The submitted budget should match the proposed work, whether this includes mission closeout or not. Projects should add lines to the budget template spreadsheet as required.

Q11: Section 6.4: The listed examples of proposed costs include a blend of in-kind and direct costs. Our mission doesn’t generally consider in-kind costs such as DSN aperture costs – should these be included in the proposed costs?

A11: The in-kind items should be listed in Section 6.2, but the budget amounts will not be required in Section 6.4 – this is a change from the Draft Call for Proposals.

Q12: Section 6.4 – do conflicts of interest extend to the institutions that hold research funding awards through the mission’s General Observer/General Investigator competition, or that might win such awards in future?

A12: Organizations that would be funded directly through a mission proposal must be named, since employees of those organizations have a financial conflict of interest with that mission proposal. Organizations that hold current or past research awards through a mission’s General Observer/General Investigator competition, or that might win such awards in future, should not be listed.

Q13: Section 6.4.2 – The minimum budget for an “under-guide” would likely include no General Observer (GO) program. Is that acceptable?

A13: The answer depends on the mission. It would be acceptable for a survey mission to propose taking standard data according to a pre-set schedule, or to monitor a given set of variable sources. Deleting the GO program would not be acceptable for a pointed mission with a wide variety of potential targets. “No GO funding” would be acceptable.

Q14: Section 6.4.2 – A large mission is likely to have many options for an under-guide, given the large trade space; a significant page count is likely required to explain all the assumptions for the position and what would be considered “untenable”.

A14: The proposed under-guide should represent the minimum cost that is viable for continued operation; the mission should propose an option that returns the best science available for that cost. The panel will have the opportunity to ask questions if it needs more information about other possibilities.

Q15: Section 6.4.3 – Should individual items in the “over-guide” be broken out in a manner that allows selection of only some parts of the over-guide? For example, one could provide an estimated cost of each item in the budget narrative.

A15: Yes, the budget requirement for individual items in the over-guide request should be broken out so that the panel can consider the over-guide items separately – this will be clarified in the final text.

Q16: Section 6.4.4 – will there be a period where missions can ask questions or make suggestions for the budget template spreadsheet?

A16: There will be a two-week review and comment period for the budget templates after the Call for Proposals is released.

Q17: Section 7 -- Does “Factor A-2: Quality of information collection, archiving, distribution, and usability.” refer to “Quality of mission science data collection, archiving, distribution, and usability.”?

A17: “Information” in this context extends beyond mission science data. It also includes tools provided by the mission, and engineering data that supports calibration and use of the science data. The text will be amended to read “Factor A-2: Quality of collection, archiving, distribution, and usability of the mission data and science analysis software.”

Q18: Section 8 – The text says that the individuals representing the project “must be direct representatives of the project itself”. May current sub-contractors and/or Users’ Committee members be included in the five individuals chosen to represent the project?

A18: Current sub-contractors may be included, but not members of a user committee.

Q19: Section 8 – Are there any limitations on the people who attend but do not speak?

A19: There are no limitations on who the project invites to attend its presentation. The presentation and interaction with the panelists may not be recorded; NASA does not intend to ask panelists for their permission to record.

Q20: Section 2 – "Each mission under review may provide NASA with a list of up to five suggested reviewers, with up to three reviewers that should not be used.” Are missions invited to provide two lists, one with up to five suggested reviewers and another with up to three reviewers that the team asks to be excluded from the panel?

A20: Each team may provide up to 8 names of potential panelists – five (5) whom they recommend being part of the panel and three (3) whom they request be excluded from panel membership. Names should be selected with conflict of interests in mind.

Q21: Do the panelists we suggest need to necessarily be U.S. citizens and/or at U.S. institutions?

A21: The recommended panelists do not have to be US citizens or be affiliated with a US institution. Foreign nationals from designated countries would be excluded. The link to the designated country list is below. (https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/oiir-designated-country-list-3-19-2024.pdf?emrc=575961)

Q22: Evaluation Factor B-3 for missions that took part in the 2022 Senior Review refers to progress “towards addressing any findings from that Review.” Does that Factor refer only to the specific findings for each mission, or also to the cross-mission findings: for example, those on Inclusion, and on Planning for the Future?

A22: Evaluation Factor B-3 for missions that took part in the 2022 Senior Review does encompass the cross-mission findings, including those on Inclusion and, importantly, on Planning for the Future.

Q23: May we solicit input from user committees?

A23:  Yes, input from User Committees is encouraged.

Q24:  May we solicit Program Scientist input or ask them to review draft proposal material? 

A24:  The Program Scientists should not be providing their perspectives on proposal content. 

Q25: May we include export-controlled material in the proposal? 

A25:  Including export-controlled material is highly discouraged.  If you fell it is unavoidable or if you have further questions, check with Janet.

Q26:  For discussion of “plans to create an inclusionary environment across the project”, per Focus Area 3 under Section 5.2 of the 2025 Senior Review call for proposals, should the instructions for Inclusion Plans in Section IV (e) (ii) of the ROSES-24 Summary of Solicitation, to “focus on inclusion, not diversity, accessibility, or equity”, be applied?

A26:  Yes, discussion of plans for an inclusionary environment should focus on inclusion, rather than on diversity, accessibility, or equity.

Q27:  Are there NASA documents that should be consulted in preparing material on plans for an inclusionary environment, per Focus Area 3 under Section 5.2 of the Call for Proposals, but are referenced neither in the Call for Proposals nor on the 2025 Senior Review website?

A27:  There are no such NASA documents that should be consulted in preparing material on plans for an inclusionary environment, per Focus Area 3 under Section 5.2 of the Call for Proposals.

Q28:  There is significantly more detail requested on the budget template this year.  Accounting on our contracts doesn’t align with these exact categories. How will this information be used?

A28:  Feedback from previous reviewers is that it is difficult to map costs from one mission to the next.  Having a consistent definition and understanding of what costs are in which “bucket” will help reviewers in making a consistent assessment of each mission.  The revised, more detailed, template is based on categories included in the budget submissions from 2022, including the places that missions included additional rows.

Q29:  The budget template does not ask for costs for in-kind services, as it has in previous years.  Is the expectation for a description of in-kind services be high level functional (ex: TDRSS S-band services, ESA science support center staff) or more detailed (ex: XX passes or minutes/day of specific services (SSA, MA, types of tracking data), XX ESA science center support staff performing YY specific functions)?

A29:  Section 6.2 of the Call for Proposals includes, “Projects are also instructed to show, in an appropriate summary manner, the anticipated ‘in-kind’ support from NASA-funded sources other than the project’s in-guide budget. These ‘in-kind’ sources include use of high-end computational facilities, tracking support from the NASA tracking networks, and support from the multi-mission infrastructure projects at AFRC, ARC, GSFC, MSFC, JPL, and elsewhere. Representations of direct or in-kind technical support from international partners, from other US Government agencies, or non-Government institutions should be provided separately, for informational purposes.”  It is expected any in-kind services described in the proposal are referenced in the budget Table V at a summary level.  Reviewers will look to proposal content for information on in-kind support, and any risks related to that support.

Q30:  The budget template asks for General Observer/General Investigator Grant Funding by year.  Does this also include Archival Research and Theory or is a single roll up to “General Observer/General Investigator Grant Funding” line sufficient?

A30:  The single roll up of grant funding is sufficient for the budget template and should reflect what is being proposed as an in-guide.  Proposal content should describe whether the proposed grant funding is for observations, archival research, theory, or any combination thereof.

Q31:  What is expected from in-guide, under-guide, and over-guide budget submittals?

A31:  The budget template has been updated to better describe the budget breakout expected.