ESD 2026 Senior Review Frequently Asked Questions

Below are the answers to questions received to date. Similar questions may have been combined and answered as one question.

Questions on Logistics:

Q1: Is this new schedule still compliant with the 2023 NASA Authorization Act which requires requires triennial reviews?
A1: Yes, with our last Senior Review in 2023, ESD needs to conduct a Senior Review in 2026; this review will be complete with a final report delivered in May 2026.

Q2: Does the new schedule support the NASA budget formulation and decision process?
A2: Yes, the revised schedule will deliver preliminary results to ESD in April, with final results in May. This schedule aligns with the 2028 budget formulation process.

Q3: What is the due date for proposal presentations?
A3: Proposal presentations are due to HQ on March 27 by COB/EOD. Note, your Program office may have an earlier due date, please work with them for their endorsement prior to submitting.

Q4: Do we need to travel to HQ for the presentation?
A4: Yes, it is highly encouraged for presenters to be in-person at HQ, unless absolutely necessary. We will have remote participation for those that are physically unable to attend and for those that are needed to provide support for the Q&A. 

Q5: How many people can represent the proposal to the panel? Can there be online representation?
A5: A maximum of 3 presenters is preferred. If you have strong justification for more than 3 presenters in the room, you can make that request to the Senior Review Program Officer in advance.

Q6: Is the 30-minute Q&A from the panel included in the 1-hour presentation timeframe?
A6: No, it is 1 hour for the presentation plus a half hour for Q&A, so an hour and a half total. Ensure that your presentation is 1 hour maximum and we will facilitate the Q&A portion to remain within the total allotted time.

Q7: How many people are on the panel?
A7: About 25

Q8: Is there a list of Agencies that will be surveyed as part of the National Interests evaluation?
A8: You can review previous Senior Review reports to find the agencies/organizations that have served on the National Interests Panel in the past. These agencies/organizations are not guaranteed to be on the 2026 Senior Review panel but should serve as an example.

Questions on Content:

Q1: Should the Senior Review budget be identical to PPBE28?
A1: Yes, your 2026 Senior Review budget submission should be identical to your PPBE28 budget submission for FY27-29 unless otherwise directed by the Earth Science Division.

Q2: When are we expecting the budget levels (PRG) to be available?
A2: The PPBE2028 schedule has not yet been determined.

Q3: Can target budgets result in a new estimate of mission lifetime that differs from those presented previously?
A3: Any proposed extension beyond the approved operational period should be in an over-guideline request if it cannot be executed within the in-guideline target.

Q4: Will the budget targets be provided as bottom-line numbers (i.e., no MO/DA breakdown, no Center breakdown, and as long as total is preserved the budget is still in-guide?
A4: Budget targets are at the Project WBS level, ESD is not providing MO/DA or Center breakdowns, however, those splits should be equitable but are at the discretion of the proposers. In-guide budget submissions must align with the budget target by fiscal year. Over-guide submissions may request rephasing of budgets between fiscal years. 

Q5: Will over-guides be considered?
A5: Over-guideline proposals will be considered but are not guaranteed.

Q6: Can multiple optimal/over-guide budget scenarios be submitted? 
A6: Yes you may submit multiple over-guide scenarios, although, one over-guide submission with multiple itemized requests may also be submitted.

Q7: When will the mission presentation schedule be provided to the proposers?
A7: The presentation schedule is forthcoming, likely sometime in February. A draft schedule will be released and if there are conflicts for missions, we will work to accommodate those and rearrange the schedule. Please send any date constraints to the Senior Review Program Officer so she can accommodate those in the draft schedule.

Q8: In 2023, 3-6 years used to be the proposal period, is there a particular reason to focus on 3 years in this review?
A8: In the past, we would provide notional guidance for each mission in the out-years (i.e., the next 3 years following the Senior Review period) contingent upon the following Senior Review results. During the 2023 Senior Review, ESD decided to manage those funds in a centralized budget wedge, therefore Senior Review guidance will only include the 3-year Senior Review window (FY2027-FY2029). This approach avoids confusion for the review panel and ensures evaluations are focused on the current extension window.

Q9: How much are Program Scientists encouraged to review materials?
A9: The Program Scientist should be a resource to the proposing missions to help understand ESD, SMD, and administration priorities and ensure that proposals are aligned with those priorities.

Q10: What is the best source for listing National/Administration/NASA priorities?
A10: ESD’s Earth Science to Action Strategy can be found here (https://science.nasa.gov/earth-science/earth-science-to-action/). The Administration priorities were listed in the Call for Proposals and Dr. St. Germain also presented them during the National Academies’ Committee on Earth Science Applications from Space (CESAS) meeting with the recording found here (https://vimeo.com/event/5631447). 

Q11: Will you provide an example for the “Fact Sheet”? 
A11: We are not providing a template for the “Fact Sheet” but it should provide an overview summarizing the mission and data products including known operational users and applications of the mission data including the private sector. You may utilize links to your websites if they provide additional information. You may submit a draft of the “Fact Sheet” to the Senior Review Program Officer for review and comment prior to formal submission. 

Q12: Does the “Fact Sheet” go to the National Interest Panel? Is that the only thing they will get, or will they get the rest of the proposal as well?
A12: National Interest representatives will be on the panel and hear the proposal presentations. Applications panelists are not only serving on the panel and representing their own perspectives but their agency/organization as well. The “Fact Sheet” will be provided along with a survey to the panelist’s respective agencies/organizations to help query their agency/organization regarding the use of the mission's data. Panelists will then use the resulting feedback to represent their agency/organization during the panel. 

Q13: Can teams insert an animation (GIF) into the “Fact Sheet” in the PDF deliverable?
A13: Yes, you may include animations in the “Fact Sheet”.

Q14: Is landscape-orientation for the “Fact Sheet” an acceptable format? 
A14: Landscape-orientation or portrait-orientation are acceptable formats for the “Fact Sheet”.

Questions on Program Office Involvement:

Q1: When should missions receive Program Office endorsement?
A1: Please work with your respective Program Offices (PO) to determine the timeline for review and endorsement of your proposal. The PO endorsement should be completed by March 27.

Q2: What does Program Office endorsement entail?
A2: We would like to ensure that Program Offices have reviewed the proposed mission extension including any budget requests. The Program Offices are not expected to certify that the project can meet all objectives in the proposal.

Q3: How can Program Offices communicate their endorsement confirmation?
A3: The Program Offices should email the Senior Review Program Officer that a review has been conducted and that the Program Office endorses the mission package. Program Offices may also note in their written correspondence any additional items of note.