From bgail@ball.com Tue Jul 28 06:10:05 1998 Received: from aeromsg2.ball.com by phil.Stanford.EDU (940816.SGI.8.6.9/rsb-1.1) id GAA04656; Tue, 28 Jul 1998 06:10:05 -0700 Received: by aeromsg2.ball.com with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1458.49) id ; Tue, 28 Jul 1998 07:08:55 -0600 Message-ID: <53654725144FD111A24100805F57DEC0012D37C7@aeromsg2.ball.com> From: "Gail, Bill" To: "'phil@phil.Stanford.EDU'" Subject: RE: SOHO and Triana Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 07:08:52 -0600 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1458.49) Status: OR Dear Phil: Thank you for your interest in working with Ball on Triana. After careful review of the Triana AO and program status, Ball has decided not to pursue Triana in a mission prime or space segment lead role. I have discussed our position with Art Poland, and suggested that we would reconsider the position if SOHO instruments were to be flown through a different opportunity. I wish you the best with your proposal and would be pleased to explore working with you in the future (I am a former student of Bob Helliwell/Umran Inan, so I have a soft spot for Stanford). Best regards, Bill ______________________________________________________ Dr. William B. Gail Director, Program Development Ph: 303-939-4418 Civil Space Systems Fax: 303-939-4430 Ball Aerospace and Technologies Corp. bgail@ball.com P.O. Box 1062 Boulder, CO 80306-1062 > ---------- > From: phil@phil.Stanford.EDU > Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 1998 4:32 PM > To: bgail@ball.com > Subject: SOHO and Triana > > You are listed in the Triana web site as a possible proposer of the > Triana system. > > As you are no doubt aware that NASA has just added an opportunity for > SOHO replacement instruments to be added to Triana. > > I am the PI of the SOHO Michelson Doppler Imager experiment. MDI has > been very successful in the first two years of SOHO and produced many > important and visible results. We are far from completing the planned > investigation with MDI. I am very interested in seeing a clone of the > MDI instrument added to the Triana payload. > > Prior to adding the SOHO option to the Triana AO, NASA asked me for a > ballpark cost figure to provide an MDI for Triana then they asked me > if > it would be possible in a year. They seemed pleased with my > responses. > > According to the AO, NASA is looking for complete Triana proposals > with > add-on instruments included. This would seem to be nearly impossible > to accomplish at this late date. I believe that most of the SOHO > replacement instrument add-on proposals will be submitted > independently > with the expectation that NASA will join the selected add-on > instruments to the selected Triana proposal. I will submit such a > proposal. > > Nevertheless, if you are planning on submitting a Triana proposal > and would like to discuss a collaboration now please contact me. You > could also contact Art Poland (apoland@solar.stanford.edu is a link) > at > Goddard to contact all of the SOHO instrument groups who are likely to > propose. > > You can see more about the MDI instrument via the Solar Oscillations > Investigation website: http://soi.stanford.edu > > You can contact me via pscherrer@solar.stanford.edu or 650-723-1504 > > Thank You, > Phil Scherrer > From <@quake.Stanford.EDU:GoodsoM@thorin.atsc.allied.com> Fri Jul 31 14:28:52 1998 Received: from quake.Stanford.EDU by phil.Stanford.EDU (940816.SGI.8.6.9/rsb-1.1) id OAA01044; Fri, 31 Jul 1998 14:28:52 -0700 Received: from solar by quake.Stanford.EDU with SMTP (5.65/25-QUAKE-eef) id AA04496; Fri, 31 Jul 1998 14:28:50 -0700 Received: by solar.Stanford.EDU (5.57/Ultrix3.0-C) id AA09248; Fri, 31 Jul 98 21:36:56 GMT Received: from thorin.atsc.allied.com ([198.186.48.34]) by SLRAL2.ATSC.ALLIED.COM with SMTP; Fri, 31 Jul 1998 17:29:13 -0400 Received: from Microsoft Mail (PU Serial #1122) by thorin.atsc.allied.com (PostalUnion/SMTP(tm) v2.2 (Build 22005) for Windows NT(tm)) id AA-1998Jul31.172600.1122.1733973; Fri, 31 Jul 1998 17:19:39 -0400 From: GoodsoM@thorin.atsc.allied.com (Goodson, Michael J.) To: pscherrer@solar.stanford.edu Message-Id: <1998Jul31.172600.1122.1733973@thorin.atsc.allied.com> X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail via PostalUnion/SMTP (v2.2 Build 22005) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Organization: AlliedSignal Technical Services Corporation Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1998 17:19:39 -0400 Subject: Triana Proposals Status: ORf We (AlliedSignal) are supporting three different teams that will be responding to the Triana AO. Would you be intereseted in providing some information to each of the teams so they can say how they would accommodate add-on SOHO intruments? Please let me know. Mike Goodson --------------B2221094B0C9D64DC9A77683 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Phil, I just chatted with Bill about the idea of a data exchange. He mentioned that we had to be somewhat careful about not giving the impression of making a selection. We then could be criticized for making a selection without a fair competition. On, the other hand if we a not really making a selection but rather listening to prospective spacecraft providers and making a decision whether to pursue the issue furthre the situation is somewhat different. It seems to me that Allied Signal is offering to provide a spacecraft to a number of PI teams. If anything, we should listen to what Allied'sr system capabilities before going to the PI teams. It really does not matter to us that there a people happy with a system that is unsatisfactory to us. . What satisfies a small earth observing experiment may not be satisfactory for us. I don't think we have any obligation to be on just anyone's spacecraft. We do not even have an obligation to go to the lowest spacecraft bidder. The duration of the AO simply does not allow us to create a competition for a best partnership. I think we have a satisfactory partnership with the Goddard modified SMEX LITE. The reasons for this are: 1) We have done a study, HALE, with partner engineers in the SMEX project so that we know that they know our requirements. 2) The Goddard solar PI knows what is involved in operating a SOHO type mission. 3) We have put together an agreement with three PI teams do to something a way we all feel has a chance of working. 4) Goddard has not solicited us. Rather we have put a lot of pressure on Goddard to respond to our desires. 5) We have built an instrument rapidly and successful with the SMEX team and have a high confidence level at the start. We do not have to develop a working relationship or develop trust between the spacecraft and instrument developers. 5) The SMEX project has a demonstrated ability to get funds to the experimenter quickly and at a sufficient level. Never in the development of TRACE was there any funding problems. All the money we needed was there on day one of the development. I don't think we have any obligation to seek the lowest bidder. I think we are in a very high risk situation where there is real question if any organization can produce a spacecraft on schedule and on budget. I guess we will get into more trouble by inviting people in to discuss options than by just sticking with what we seem to have now with Goddard. By openning the box wider we may scare Goddard management and lose the only chance we may have. Philip Scherrer wrote: > Joe - I just received the following message backed up by a phone message. > It raises an important point. Since it is clear to many (not just us) that > NASA HQ wants SOHO parts on Triana then we must be careful to not > exclude other proposers out of hand. If we did, and I were one of them, > I would certainly talk to my congressman about it. I suggest we offer > information on the SOHO package of instruments to others who are willing > to come to, say, the SOHO EOF and make a presentation about their > proposed spacecraft and how they would manage their mission and how > they would accomodate us. Then if we were satisfied we would provide > them with detailed accomodation information and science proposal pages. > We should offer this "service" some day late next week, Weds or Thurs. > That way we would not have blocked a psuedo-required instrument package > from other proposals eliminating any semblance of a fair selection process. > If NASA instruments only cooperate with NASA Triana PI then a foul is called. > But, as Alan points out so forcefully, we can not just say we can work > with any proposer sight unseen - just as we need a managment plan from > the GSFC PI before we can finally sign up. > > Anyway, we probably need to discuss this question on Monday. > > Phil > > --- Forwarded mail from GoodsoM@thorin.atsc.allied.com (Goodson, Michael J.) > > From: GoodsoM@thorin.atsc.allied.com (Goodson, Michael J.) > To: pscherrer@solar.stanford.edu > Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1998 17:19:39 -0400 > Subject: Triana Proposals > > We (AlliedSignal) are supporting three different teams that will be > responding to the Triana AO. Would you be intereseted in providing some > information to each of the teams so they can say how they would accommodate > add-on SOHO intruments? > > Please let me know. > > Mike Goodson > > ---End of forwarded mail from GoodsoM@thorin.atsc.allied.com (Goodson, Michael > J.) -- Alan Title