Asset Publisher



This page lists answers to questions received after 1 August 2012 in response to (the pre-announcement of) the Announcement of Opportunity (AO) for Scientific Instrumentation on-board the JUICE spacecraft.

For the earlier entries up to 1 August 2012, see the link "Q&A - Continued" on the right.

12 Oct 2012 -  Spectrum used in shielding simulation
Q: In the AO Ref doc TEC-EES-2010.613-GS_i2.1 Graded shielding, chapter 3.2 it is stated: "In this simulation, we use the 3.1 version of GRAS on the JOSE spectrum for LAPLACE/JUICE trajectory". What has been used as input? Is it a single spectrum for a specific location in the trajectory, or several average spectra for the full JUICE trajectory, similar as in JES4.9 Table 20? Doing some graded shielding optimisation it would be important to know if we can directly compare with this reference.
A: The spectrum that was used was representative for the JUICE total electron fluence based on a typical Jupiter trapped electron spectrum, but it is not exactly the same as the total JUICE fluence. This TN is intended to demonstrate that an optimisation of shielding layers is possible and significant. Despite the statistical variations, a clear trend was found (cf. conclusions of this TN), and it is reasonable to assume that these conclusions will hold for the JUICE spectrum. This shall not be used for dose calculations. Clearly more detailed optimisations depend on the actual geometry used and on higher statistics.
12 Oct 2012 -  PI involvement in de-scoping discussions
Q: My proposal has a de-scoping plan based on loss of science objectives for various sensor elements. Will the PI be involved in the de-scoping discussions, if it occurs?
A: The proposal shall describe the instrument baseline configuration that satisfies the declared scientific objectives and requirements. The proposal must then demonstrate that the requested resources are compatible with those available (e.g., see EID-A and Model Payload Definition Document) and that the required technologies will be available on time. If it is foreseen that this might not be the case, the proposal should clearly describe de-scoping options and the implied losses in terms of scientific return. On the basis of the described scenarios, it is up to the payload review committee to evaluate the compatibility of these options with respect to instrument-specific and overall mission objectives and, eventually, consider them acceptable, based on the proposal content. Requests for clarifications may be sent to the PI if needed, but these will be limited to clarifications on technical interfaces and related issues.
12 Oct 2012 -  Clarification on proposal Annexes
Q: Looking at the page for proposal upload in response to this AO I see separate uplinks for the Annexes. I had assumed that the Appendices to the various parts would appear at the end of those parts, not in completely separate files.
A: In principle, it is up to the proposing team if they wish to include the Annexes in the same pdf file of the relevant "Part" or as separate pdf files. This is a facility to be used, e.g., when the Appendixes/Annexes may contain drawings and/or figures that could make it impossible to upload them in a single file with the relevant "Part" within the size limits imposed for each file.
12 Oct 2012 -  ESA contact to address Letters to
Q: Could you please let us know to whom at ESA the cover letter as well as the Letters of Endorsement from the Lead Funding Agency should be addressed to?
A: Letters can be addressed to:
Prof. Alvaro Giménez Cañete, ESA Director / SRE - ESA
cc Dr. Luigi Colangeli - SRE-SM - ESA
12 Oct 2012 -  ESA contact for submission form issues
Q: Could you provide a contact telephone number (business hours) to call in case of any technical problems during the submission process?

For any technical questions or help with the web form please send an e-mail to the web team at
 indicating your phone number where you wish to be contacted, if this is needed. For other questions please use, as usual, the e-mail address.
The suggestion is, of course, to avoid last minute delivery of your proposals.

9 Oct 2012 -  Proposal submission web-interface
Q: We have the following questions about the submission web-interface
  1. In the current version the whole proposal (up to 400 Mbytes and up to 11 files) are submitted at one "go". Uploading such large amount of data at once involves high risks the submission is not completed. If the submission is not completed, some files will have to be re-submitted. It is not clear that the re-submission is allowed even before the deadline. Would it be possible to arrange the individual uploads for each part to avoid uploading large amount of data?
  2. The maximum file size is the same for all Parts. The Product Assurance Plan (Part 4) contains normally only text (no figures) and is below 1 Mbyte while Scientific and Technical Plan (Part 1) normally contains large number of figures. Would it be possible to change file size distribution between parts, while keeping the same total size of the submission?
  1. The proposal must be delivered in one go; it is unfortunately not possible to have multiple submissions.
  2. There is a limit on the maximum size that this web system can receive per single file and this is 50MB; therefore this limit cannot be overcome. We suggest you to check in advance files containing many images and look at the image quality settings, or sizes. E.g. before inserting in document already re-size it to roughly the intended display width. Or if an image uses transparency it can be 'flattened' first before inserting in the pdf.
9 Oct 2012 -  Data delivery responsibilities
Q: In the JUICE Science Management Plan (ESA/SPC(2012)20, rev.1), page 22, under SOC responsibilities it is stated: "Set-up, maintain and run a pipeline ensuring the processing of raw instrument data (telemetry) until L1b level (un-calibrated science data), based on inputs (routine, calibration files and algorithms) provided by the PI teams, where applicable". On the other hand it is the PI who is responsible for the delivery of "raw data, calibrate data, and higher level products" to the JUICE archive. How should we address this inconsistency? Can we simply assume that this statement is not applicable?
A: These statements are not inconsistent. The PI is responsible for the delivery of "raw data, calibrate data, and higher level products" to the JUICE archive. On the other hand, ESA intends to maintain at ESAC the data processing pipeline up to the Level 1b. It will be based on the inputs from the PI team. Instrument proposals shall be compliant with this requirement.
9 Oct 2012 -  Details for section 3 of the Management Plan
Q: The management plan contains Section 3 "Objectives and constraints of the instrument consortium activities". Would you please precise what is required to be described here?
A: As described in the AO document ESA-SRE(2012)4_i1.0_JUICE_AO (Section 2.6), "the Management Plan should cover all aspects of the proposed investigation for the entire duration of the mission. The PI must show how he/she will establish an efficient and effective management scheme that must include an Instrument Manager." ... "It is essential to provide a clear management plan, which is adequate with respect to the instrument complexity and the interfaces within the instrument consortium. Emphasis should be placed on a simple management scheme with as few interfaces as necessary." Section 3 should, indeed, describe the top level strategy that the PI intends to apply in the organisation of the activities within the Consortium. The PI should also evidence here any "constraint" linked to the structure of his/her team and participating Institutes/Groups that might drive the instrument consortium organisation. The Consortium organisation will, then, be detailed in the following Sections of the Management Plan. The described elements should give a clear indication of the "complexity" of the team organisation and the approach to achieve as much as possible "a simple management scheme".
9 Oct 2012 -  Financial information provided to NASA
Q: Will NASA have access to Financial Plan details for any European Co-I's in the Financial Plan for JUICE instruments with both European and US Co-I's?
A: Financial information provided to NASA for European-led proposals with US CoI's will concern only the elements relevant for NASA support.
26 Sep 2012 -  Financial Plan needs not NASA standards
Q: A US Team is involved in our consortium. For the quotation of their WPs, they have to follow the NASA financial standards. Can we add an annex to our proposal Financial Plan, with the entire details of NASA quotation?
A: The details on the NASA financial standards are not needed. The proposal must include the information required according to the ESA AO.
26 Sep 2012 -  Retrieve reference document RD-PA-22 
Q: I did not find the document RD-PA-22 (RHA EEE-components for JUICE) referenced in the EID-A. Is this document available?
A: The document can be downloaded here.
26 Sep 2012 -  HVC-HPC properties description
Q: Could you please point me to the description of the properties of the HVC-HPC mentioned in EIDA-R001840? Specifically I am seeking:
Parameters of the regulated voltage input pulse
A description of the dedicated HVC-HPC telecommand
The time correlation between the pulse and the command
A: This interface is described in ECSS-E-ST-50-14C (Space engineering - Spacecraft discrete interfaces). ECSS standards are available at EID-A-R-001840 ensures that it will always be possible to power-off the instrument in case either a LCL or an internal switch fails closed. Note that this overall approach is still TBC at this stage.
26 Sep 2012 -  Currency to be used in NASA budget
Q: In the budget part of the proposal, shall the NASA budget be indicated in Euros or in US dollars. If it is in dollars, shall it be FY13 dollars or RY dollars?
A: Please use RY dollars
26 Sep 2012 -  Font size usage within Proposal documents
Q: The guidance in the AO is that: Part I shall not exceed 40 single-spaced A4 pages, with a character size not smaller than 11 points, including illustrations without reduction, but excluding cover page and table of contents.
  1. Must figure legends also have a minimum font size of 11 points?
  2. Must text in tables also have a minimum font size of 11 points? You'll understand that for things like traceability matrices, such a restriction on font size will lead to enormous tables and little room for anything else.
  3. For figures that contain some text (e.g. axis labels, etc.), are we to measure the size of the text with a ruler to see if it meets with the 11 point directive, also?
  4. Am I right in assuming that this directive on text size pertains only to the 40 pages of the main case, and NOT to any appendices?
  1. Yes
  2. No, but they must be easily readable when printed
  3. No, but they must be easily readable when printed
  4. No, also Appendices must follow the 11 point directive
26 Sep 2012 -  Frequency of meetings for PIs
Q: Do you have an expected frequency of science working team meetings or other meetings that the PI of a JUICE mission (or their representative) should attend?
A: In the definition and implementation phases PIs should attend the meetings related to the project activity which are defined by the project schedule (see EID-A). In addition, through all the mission phases, up to two SWT meetings per year are tentatively foreseen. Other meetings of Science Operations Working Group or other thematic working groups could be possibly attached to the SWT meetings or as independent meetings (again up to two per year).
18 Sep 2012 -  Software implementation
Q: We are defining the details of the DPU software system of our experiment. We would like to receive suggestions on the best strategy for its implementation.
A: The Software running on an instrument should be decomposed in two items. One boot SW (category B) in charge of the initialisation of the instrument and supporting the critical functions including the capability to update, patch and dump the application SW in charge of the mission and that shall be demonstrated as category C/D. The boot SW shall be fully qualified with high level of criticality (including real-time operating system – RTOS if any). The application SW could use any RTOS (including community version).
18 Sep 2012 -  Delivery date of the instrument (P)FM
Q: Can you precise the delivery date of instrument (P)FM? It is written in EID-A page 209: "(Proto) Flight Model, (P)FM: Date: Nov. 2018-Nov. 2019 (TBC)". Why is there a large uncertainty on this delivery date?
A: The EID-A indicates the period of staggered delivery of the different instruments. We do not have yet the exact sequence and the proposer should aim at delivering at the beginning of the period.
18 Sep 2012 -  Instrument level reviews - Software reviews
Q: How do the instrument level reviews specified in the JUICE EID-A correspond to the software reviews in the ECSS-E-ST-40C standard?
A: Given the list of reviews indicated on page 195 of the EID-A, the correspondence would be as follows:
IQR <=> QR
The IPRR has no direct link to the software development cycle. At this stage the Software Requirement Document is only required at ICR level (see Table 33 in EID-A), for the IPRR, any software requirements are still embedded in the Instrument Requirement Specifications.
18 Sep 2012 -  Thermal modelling for boom-mounted unit
Q: For a boom-mounted unit, what's the conductive interface temperature we should assume in the thermal model? Should we assume that EIDA-R001640 is also applicable to a boom-mounted unit?
A: Units mounted on booms should be considered at this stage as thermally insulated units; therefore EID-A-R001640 does not apply. Externally mounted units are strongly coupled to space. For modelling purposes, based on previous missions like Rosetta, the temperature can be as low as 170 K. At this stage we would recommend to consider as a first step perfect conductive isolation from the boom and provide sensitivity analysis of the thermal design depending on the boom temperature assuming realistic thermal conductance between sensor and boom.
7 Sep 2012 -  Radiation simulation test case and discussion
  A set of files is now available, providing a radiation simulation test case as well as a discussion of related questions. The files can be downloaded here as a single zip file.
See also the earlier entry below, from 30 August, of an "Example radiation modelling calculation".
5 Sep 2012 -  Specific Software Products
Q: What software products are meant in section 9.2 (Specific Software Products) of the Part I (Sci-Tech Plan)? Does this include the L1/2/3 processing software? Calibration software products? Output of Science support codes? L1b data processing products?
A: This section shall describe calibration and other instrument specific software planned to be developed by an instrument team. The data processing software (L1/1b/2) shall be described in the section 9.1 (Data processing and standard data products). The science analysis software including modelling and simulation codes should be described in section 9.4 (Science analysis).
5 Sep 2012 -  Software Products and Procedure Standards
Q: In section 9.3 (Software Products and Procedure Standards) of the Part I (Sci-Tech Plan), what do you mean by standards of software products and procedures? Do software standards mean version control, UNIX/MAC etc.? Procedure Standards (production of science data): PDS, versioning, caveats, quality indicators, validation?
A: This section should describe software products for the on-ground support of an experiment (data processing pipelines, calibration software, data visualisation tools, etc.) that a PI team plans to develop. Also a proposal shall list the standards followed by the software and the procedure for its validation. For instance, although the present PSA standard (PDS3) for software delivered to the archive has no strong guidelines on software products, its next version (PDS4) will impose some standards on delivered software products. A PI shall clearly indicate all non-compliances with accepted ESA standards.
5 Sep 2012 -  Science analysis description
Q: In section 9.4 (Science analysis) of the Part I (Sci-Tech Plan) shall we describe how the science data can be accessed within the team, by ESA, by others?… and describe resources allocated for science analysis?
A: Section 9.4 shall describe a plan for the science analysis of the data within the team. This shall include a description of the proposed infrastructure and hardware configuration, describe foreseen laboratory and modelling support, adequately address the technical, managerial and programmatic issues, and give a realistic assessment of the level of resources for all phases of the mission (see sec 2.2.9 of the AO).
5 Sep 2012 -  Responsibility of instrument delivery
Q: We have a question about the management for JUICE payload proposal for the Q&A in the web page. It seems that the responsibility of instrument deliveries has incoherence between EIDA-R008510 and the AO section 1.4.1. In fact, the first requirement affirms that "The PI shall be fully responsible for the instrument programme and delivery of instrument models to ESA." On the other hand in the AO, the responsibility of the instrument delivery is assigned to the LFA ("The funding agency of the proposing PI is the Lead Funding Agency (LFA) for the instrument and has the overall responsibility to deliver the instrument."). It seems that the second configuration better responds to the standard and optimal approach for the project developments. Could you please clarify this issue?
A: Indeed the correct approach is that reported in the AO and the Science Management Plan. Therefore, the correct reading of the Requirement should be:
EIDA-R008510: The LFA/PI shall be fully responsible for the instrument programme and delivery of instrument models to ESA.
5 Sep 2012 -  Instrument data sheet template
Q: Would you please indicate where I can find the Instrument data sheet template?
A: Please use the instrument summary data sheet of the EID-B (Section 10) as template.
5 Sep 2012 -  Data rate limits
Q: Table 1 in the MPDD lists data rates for each instrument in the model payload. Are these values the limit of data rate allowed, and thus a mode with a higher data rate would be considered non-compliant in the proposal? If only one instrument were operating, would it be allowed to exceed this value?
A: The MPDD provides reference parameters of the model instruments for the assessment phase on how the available telemetry could be shared between instruments. These rates are not considered as strict upper limits. However, it should be taken into account that the total available data volume is limited due to the large distance and the resources onboard the spacecraft. Instrument teams are encouraged to consider possibilities of onboard data processing and compression to reduce the data to be returned to Earth.
30 Aug 2012 -  Instrument illumination - dusk vs dawn
Q: The mission description in the PIP is clear in stating the beta angle versus time for the Ganymede orbits. Please clarify whether the instruments receive dawn or dusk illumination in the end of the nominal mission. Is dawn vs. dusk an open trade that ESA will consider after instrument selection? Or are dusk orbits around Ganymede a fixed baseline?
A: The spacecraft will be inserted into Ganymede orbit at low beta angles (~13:00 local time on the day side). By the end of the nominal mission the orbit will evolve towards evening (dusk) sector.
30 Aug 2012 -  Instrument vibrational loads
Q: Please clarify the level of vibrational loads which the instruments should cope with.
A: The preliminary structural requirements are listed in Section 6.4.5 of EID-A (JUI-EST-INST-EID-001. Please note that a typo was identified in Table 23, where a "+" should be put instead of a "*" (see also these Q&A pages on this matter).
30 Aug 2012 -  Instrument mass margin
Q: Please clarify if 25% mass margin or a 33.3% mass margin shall be applied to instruments? I took the relevant information from your documentation and posted my question on the attached page.
A: We intend to distinguish between contingency and system margin, using an allocated mass (which remains stable). Therefore, at the proposal stage the requested mass allocation needs to be calculated in the way we described (Slide #16 of the JUICE AO Technical Q&A presentation on 13 July). This leads to 33% of the nominal mass, but we are using the allocated mass as the baseline.
30 Aug 2012 -  Example radiation modelling calculation
Q: At the JUICE AO meeting (13 July, ESTEC) it was mentioned that an example "Typical Case" radiation modelling calculation for GRAS and RestSIM was in preparation. Do you know when this might be available?
A: A GRAS test case is now available for download here (If you are prompted to "Please enter the full name of the file contained within the archive", then please type the filename with the extension .tar: JUICE_GRAS_simple_case.tar).
At this stage, Rest_sim is not considered as fully operational and we recommend using GRAS instead. We will keep you informed on the progress of Rest_sim and the related test case.
30 Aug 2012 -  Acceptable 3-D models
Q: The response for "Radiation modelling/analysis (3)" on the Q&A pages state: "Full 3D radiation modelling of instruments is required for the proposal. This model must be described in the proposal (EID-B)". I have two questions on this topic:
  1. Is a 3D model generated using the GDML tool in SPENVIS, acceptable?
  2. Is an analysis performed entirely with the JOREM / GEANT4 tools in SPENVIS, acceptable for the proposal?
  1. GDML is an acceptable standard for the 3-D model at this stage. The GDML tool in SPENVIS is considered as sufficient only if it leads to a detailed enough geometry so that the radiation model can be considered as representative of the instrument (i.e. more than a simple box). We recommend the use of FASTRAD (, ESABASE2 ( which provide powerful conversion capability from CAD type files to GDML. Please contact vendors for more information on licensing and conditions. The FreeCAD tool (as available from can also be used to generate GDML file based geometry, although with limited shape capabilities. Last but not least, a GDML based geometry model can of course also be generated "by hand" using a text editor and the result visualised using Geant4 tools (see simple GRAS test case provided by ESA). The final format for the radiation 3D model will be decided after the selection.
  2. We consider that sectoring analysis tools and non 3-D tools are insufficient. We recommend the use of full 3-D Monte Carlo modelling tools (GRAS or equivalent).
30 Aug 2012 -  Instrument quasi-static loads determination
Q: The quasi-static load figure in Section of the EID-A has a horizontal axis that is too ambiguous. Please provide a figure with more resolution on the horizontal axis or a table that provides enough data points that allow us to accurately interpolate the loads for our instrument mass.
A: Please use the following curve for quasi-static loads.
(Click image for larger version)
Click for large version
30 Aug 2012 -  Science during the cruise phase
Q: While reading the "JUICE Science Operations Assumption Document", in section 2.5.8 (Summary of Sciences Phases), on the first line of the table, you can find the Cruise phase. It is mentioned in the "Science Priorities" column that "No science is planned until ~6 months before orbit insertion." ESA is mentioning Cassini as an operational analog. This statement does not allow us to do science during the cruise. How definite is the statement in the Assumptions document?
A: Indeed, in the current mission baseline no science is planned until ~6 months before the Jupiter orbit insertion. Observations in cruise phase are not within the prime science objectives of the mission and are therefore not included in the design specifications and documentation. You may include a description of cruise phase observations in your science case. Any sensor deployment may need to be addressed separately (if relevant), as there may be other constraints on the times of deployment.
30 Aug 2012 -  Observations during flybys
Q: Are observations at Europa and Ganymede closest approaches possible, and if not at what distances we have to stop observing?
A: Figure 5.3 in section of the Yellow Book shows a possible scenario of science operations during Europa flybys that includes observations during the entire flyby including the closest approach. A more detailed refinement of the operations scenario for these phases will be developed during the next phase. We suggest you describe in the proposals your requirements.
30 Aug 2012 -  Instrument cover jettisoning
Q: Does ESA allow payloads to jettison one-time deployable covers or the cover must be captured?
A: No jettisoning of deployable instrument covers is allowed after launch.
30 Aug 2012 -  Required level of detail for EID-B
Q: The Experiment Interface Documents serve as the formal interface control documents between each instrument and the spacecraft, but some of the information contained in the EID-B template is beyond the level of detail available in a typical proposal to NASA. Can you provide guidance on the level of detail you expect to see in EID-B and which parts of the template ESA believes are most critical at the proposal stage? Also, approximately how many pages do you expect EID-B to contain in the proposal appendix?
A: The EID-B is a direct answer in terms of statements of compliance for each individual requirement given in the EID-A, it details (if needed) the foreseen implementation and contains the description of the interfaces. The timely provision of the details needed in the EID-B is necessary for the immediate start of the Definition Phase activities with industry. The EID-B addresses several main aspects:
  • Design requirements
  • Environment requirements
  • Technical Interface requirements (including responsibilities for some
  • Hardware parts, (e.g., thermal interface...)
  • Operations requirements
  • Management and programmatic requirements

ESA plans to end the Phase A with a Preliminary Requirements Review (PRR), which is currently scheduled for September 2013. One of the main objectives of this review is to freeze the interfaces. Therefore instrument EID-B's shall be at a level of definition, which is compatible with these objectives. It is expected that the interfaces will be iterated and negotiated between ESA and the PI teams before that, and the EID-B's that are provided at the proposal stage will serve as starting points.

The size of the EID-B's depends on the complexity of the interfaces and are typically about 40 pages at the proposal stage, and are expected to grow to about 100 pages at the end of the implementation phase (2018), depending on whether detailed interface control drawings are all included or separated from the core document.

The annexes of EID-B should provide the most complete description of all requirements towards the S/C available at the time of proposal submission, including their justification. Not justified requirements will not be taken into consideration.

If a non compliance with respect to the EID-A is expected at the time of writing of the document, the EID-B shall clearly provide the justifications and propose a way forward. Discussions with the ESA study team will then take place to reach a common ground after selection. For the proposal, we acknowledge the fact that the level of details on some part can only be limited, especially where the EID-A is still using TBD (To Be Defined) or TBC (To Be Confirmed). Similarly, we understand that detailed instrument interface drawings may not be readily available.

Due to its importance and use, it is seen as inappropriate to focus the draft EID-B on only a few sections and we recommend addressing the document as a whole, with the view of a long-term interface definition.

21 Aug 2012 -  Co-I budget submission
Q: We're struggling with how to submit the right information on science Co-I's associated with an ESA-led instrument (but not intimately involved in hardware development). I noticed in the Q&A section, Q-9: "ESA will provide information on all submitted proposals that contain requests for a NASA contribution(s), such as a NASA-funded U.S. Co-I." But there is no place in the ESA template in which to provide science Co-I budgets (whether US or European). Should US Co-I budgets be submitted to the ESA-proposing institution? Do they need to carry institutional signatures?
A: Section 2.7 of the ESA AO states that "The PI, Co-PIs (if any) and Co-Is shall include separate sections for their own resource provision with the detail of estimated resources for each activity..." and provides further information on the details that should be provided. The cost template provided in the ESA PIP should be filled out for each Co-I. This template must be filled out for hardware components as well as for any other activity requesting NASA funding.
21 Aug 2012 -  Management plan details
Q: In order to provide a clear management plan, I need to have some clarification regarding the mission phases and the related organization charts. In particular, following the indication of the JUICE Payload AO for the part V-VI, we should provide a management plan covering all aspects of the proposed investigation and mission phases, and specify the responsibilities and the manpower resources (FTEs) and cost; my doubt is related on the level of detail with whom we have to elaborate in this PHASE the WBS and the description of work in order to be congruent to the request to cover all mission phases.
A: The contents of the Management Plan and of the Instrument Financial Plan are described in ESA/SRE(2012)4 and the suggested structure of the documents indicated in the JUICE AO Proposal Template file. Moreover, the JUICE Instrument Cost Template excel file gives a guideline on the way in which costs must be reported.
As clearly stated in ESA/SRE(2012)4, the level of details for the structure of the WBS and description of tasks for the team activities must be sufficient to give evidence that "an efficient and effective management scheme" will be put in place. Moreover, "the contribution of each institution must be clearly indicated and the responsibilities of each participant described in detail. It is essential to provide a clear management plan, which is adequate with respect to the instrument complexity and the interfaces within the instrument consortium." Clearly, the complexity of the management plan and, thus, the level of details to be presented depend very much on the complexity of the proposed instrument and the number of key partners/institutions involved in the instrument realisation and management. On the other hand, as (again) said in ESA/SRE(2012)4, "emphasis should be placed on a simple management scheme with as few interfaces as necessary". Overall the plan and the description of activities must give to the review process all elements to clearly trace responsibilities and roles, with clear identification of associated resources (manpower, funds and all other needs).
21 Aug 2012 -  PI-team support during cruise
Q: Section 8.1 of the "Yellow Book" states, "During 7.6 years of transfer to Jupiter the spacecraft would nominally be tracked once per week (TBC), except for the planetary flybys when special operations would be carried out. Instrument health checks would be performed at regular intervals." Please clarify how much support will be required by the PI teams during cruise.
A: For what concerns in flight activities support from the PI teams will be required for the health checkout of the instruments. There will be one checkout phase after launch, during early operations. It is expected that the PI supports all checkout activities of his instrument. The checkout activities have to be defined and justified by the PI. This general assumption may be adapted to the needs of an instrument, after agreement between ESA and PI Team.
21 Aug 2012 -  System I&T
Q: It's not clear from the ESA documentation when system level I&T occurs. Please identify when system I&T occurs, and clarify how much support is required by PI teams during system I&T.
A: The system "Assembly, Integration and Test" (AIT) will start after the end of the instrument delivery campaign (sec. 9.6 of EID-A) and will end in January 2021 (TBC). A detailed planning will be available at the end of the Definition Phase. System AIT will include at least two System Verification Tests, which shall be supported by PI teams.
21 Aug 2012 -  PI-team support
Q: What level of support is desired / expected of the PI teams after instrument delivery but prior to system I&T? Specifically, when determining staffing during this interim time, we need to budget time and resources to support any project required meetings and activities.
A: We do not foresee any PI team involvement after the delivery review process (see EID-A pages 194-195) and before AIV/AIT activities. But please note that all schedules are TBD at this point in time and will be finalised during the Definition Phase. We suggest you reserve a margin for currently unplanned meetings and/or technical support.
We wish to clarify the following. Two reviews are associated with FM delivery. The Instrument FM Acceptance Review (IFDR) is a hardware related review and shall be conducted prior to the delivery of the FM to the Prime in view of the programme level FM test campaigns. The objective of the review is:
to assess the instrument FM programme,
to accept the models for spacecraft system level FM AIV,
to freeze the on-board Software ensuring that the updates to the S/W required after previous system level tests are completed and successfully integrated in the FM.

The sole basis for assessment is the End Item Data Package. This review will issue the "consent to ship" but shall not be regarded as final acceptance for flight.
The IFAR (Instrument Flight Acceptance Review) shall be conducted after completion of the spacecraft system level FM electrical verification (TBC) including on-line compatibility tests with the respective flight operations centres and shall precede the system level Flight Acceptance Review. The objectives of the review are:
to assess the results of the system level FM testing with respect to the instrument,
to assess the completion of instrument units and subsystems,
to assess / ensure the readiness of the instrument for flight operations,
to assess the completeness of the Instrument Users' Manual, database and other documentation,
to close out any outstanding issue.

The successful completion of the IFAR will mark the formal acceptance of the instrument.
The whole process of FM delivery review will start in November 2018 (TBC). The IFDR might coincide with the IQR depending on the planning constraints. For all this process PI support is needed.
9 Aug 2012 -  Maximum rate of yaw steering
Q: The PIP does not give any explicit quantitative specification on the maximum rate of yaw steering about the nadir vector. Two payloads in the MPDD assert an assumed maximum rate of 0.05 deg/sec and 0.1 deg/sec, respectively. Should we assume that the maximum rate of yaw steering is 0.05 deg/sec, or 0.1 deg/sec, or some other value?
A: For the low circular Ganymede orbit with a Sun angle of 60 degrees the yaw steering rate can be assumed between -0.05 and +0.05 deg/sec (TBC). The yaw angle changes between -50 degrees and +50 degrees. Please, note that all these numbers are TBC. PIs are solicited to specify requirements on yaw steering from their experiments. They will be reviewed to complete the requirements at platform level.
9 Aug 2012 -  Relative Pointing Error
Q: On page 31 of the EID-A, the Relative Pointing Error (RPE) is quoted as being:
1 arcsec over 1.6 msec (TBC)
3.3 arcsec over 16 msec (TBC)
10 arcsec over 500 msec (TBC)
However sounding of Jovian features from Ganymede orbit with FOV stray below 10% of its width over an integration time of 100s requires RPE=0.1 arcsec/sec, much less than the quoted figures. Can you clarify please if you expect the pointing of JUICE to approach this level of stability?
A: The numbers given in the EID-A are TBC. PIs are solicited to specify pointing requirements from their experiments to the spacecraft. They will be reviewed to complete the requirements at platform level.
9 Aug 2012 -  Repositories for technical documentation
Q: It would be useful to know whether there are any repositories (a new livelink area perhaps?) that ESA are using to publish technical documentation relevant to the JUICE mission.
A: Technical documentation relevant for the JUICE AO is included in the PIP posted on the ESA web site. After payload selection documentation exchange will be addressed with the selected PI teams. Please refer to JUI-EST-SYS-PR-001, which is part of the PIP, which is intended to prepare document exchange.
9 Aug 2012 -  Technical Assistance Agreements and sharing of information
Q: At the briefing meeting it was re-iterated that TAAs (Technical Assistance Agreements) should be prepared at the instrument level. We are working with U.S. colleagues to prepare a TAA to accompany our proposal but I'm finding it hard to see how this will work. We clearly need to be able to share information with ESA engineers and contractors so I was assuming that we'd need to switch to a programme wide agreement.
A: NASA employees may be authorized to transfer certain export-controlled technical data to certain persons and destinations pursuant to an agreement or contract. In the case of ESA’s JUICE mission, NASA and ESA have an agreement which allows NASA use of exemption authority for the transfer of technical data controlled by the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) and the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR); provided the technical data is not controlled for missile technology concerns (i.e., not listed on the Missile Technology Control Regime annex). Proposals submitted to NASA in response to AO [NNH12ZDA006O-JUICE] will be shared with ESA without export control redaction.
NASA generally does not have the authority in this instance to approve transfers to foreign persons or entities of export- controlled technical data by non-NASA civil servants. As part of the process of providing technical information directly to ESA for European instrument consortia, non-NASA U.S. persons should work closely with their home institution’s export control authorities and consult with the U.S. Government regulatory agency with jurisdiction over the technical data, i.e., Department of State Directorate of Defence Trade Controls for ITAR data, or the Department of Commerce Bureau of Industry and Security for EAR data, or the Department of Energy for nuclear data.
Please note that, for these proposals, which are limited in page-length, the potential inclusion of export-controlled technical data should be balanced with the goals of the proposal and the need to share such detailed information in the proposal stage.
9 Aug 2012 -  Outline for "Data reduction, Scientific Analysis and Archiving plans"
Q: The outline of Section 2.2.9 "Data reduction, Scientific Analysis and Archiving plans" of the AO ESA/SRE (2012)4 does not match the EID-B Template. What should we follow: the AO or template?
A: Section 2.2.9 of Part I (Scientific and Technical Plan) of the Instrument Proposal is aimed at a description (Plans) of the strategies that the instrument proposing team intends to put in place for Data Reduction, Scientific Analysis and Archival plans and shall follow the structure described for that Section. As also described in Section 2.2.8 of the AO after selection more detailed documents will have to be put in place by ESA and the selected PI teams. EID-B is instead an interface document and the instrument proposing team shall address compatibility with the requirements indicated in EID-A. In particular, Section 5 of EID-A/B is relevant for the Ground Segment & Mission Operations. Thus, the Part I and Part II will have to contain different kinds of information and therefore the outlines are different.
9 Aug 2012 -  Software model of the instrument - timeframe and details
Q: The Announcement of Opportunity for the JUICE Payload (ESA/SRE(2012)4), page 13, states "Specifically, a software model of the instrument shall be provided that could be used for radiation transport simulations". Does this statement refer a requirement to be met AFTER selection or, the model is required as a part of the proposal? If the latter, no details on the format / software compatibility are provided. This may need a number of meetings and interface discussion to check compatibility with the ESA codes.
A: Detailed discussion will take place after selection. However, instrument proposing teams are expected to describe the S/W model in their proposals (e.g. EID-B).
9 Aug 2012 -  Minimum operating/non-operating temperatures and interfaces
Q: What are the minimum operating and non-operating temperatures? What are the interfaces?
A: Please refer to EID-A (Sections and Please note also that in EID-A-R001640 the given design temperature ranges apply to the Unit Reference Point (URP). All these values are TBC.
9 Aug 2012 -  Gimbal command
Q: Will the gimbal be commanded by the Telecommand interface described in section 4.7.2? Is a different interface (to be agreed upon) acceptable?
A: These details are expected to be addressed after instrument selection. Please make sure you identify all commands needed for your subsystems.
9 Aug 2012 -  Temperature range for externally mounted payload
Q: Is there a preliminary temperature range for externally mounted payload, in particular for mechanisms?
A: The temperature range depends very much on the layout, assumed location, thermal properties, size, volume, etc, Therefore, it is for the instrument proposing team to perform first thermal calculations based on their assumptions for external H/W. These assumptions, in particular in terms of interfaces at S/C level, shall be properly documented by the proposing team in the EID-B. Requirements towards the S/C shall be captured in the Annex of EID-B.
9 Aug 2012 -  "Drill plate" delivery
Q: Please clarify if ESA requires the delivery from instrument providers of a "drill plate" to check mechanical interfaces prior to instrument STM delivery.
A: This is not yet decided at this time.
9 Aug 2012 -  Simulator for the spacecraft-instrument electrical and flight software interface
Q: Please clarify if ESA foresees to deliver to the instrument providers a simulator for the spacecraft-instrument electrical and flight software interface to perform interface compatibility tests prior to instrument EM delivery.
A: This is not yet decided at this time.
9 Aug 2012 -  Typo in the formula for In Plane Qualification
Q: The formula for In Plane Qualification levels appears to be in error in Table 23 of EID-A – it states:
(2/3)^2 *0.03 x[(M*30)/(M+1)]^1.5
M is the mass unit (kg)
Where M*30 seems wrong, M+30 more likely.
A: Indeed, there is typo and it should be a '+': M+30. Therefore the correct formula for In Plane Qualification levels is:
(2/3)^2 * 0.03 x[(M+30)/(M+1)]^1.5
where M is the mass unit in kg.

For the earlier Q&A entries, which were added prior to 9 August 2012, see the link "Q&A - Continued" on the right.

Last Update: 1 September 2019
13-Jun-2024 22:37 UT

ShortUrl Portlet

Shortcut URL

Images And Videos

Related Publications

Related Links