MER 2003 Participating Scientist - Rejection Briefing by Cathy Weitz
2002.06.25 1100am - 1125am

She cannot compare my proposal to others.
She can only read the evaluation reports.

Review Procedure: 
Science panel, composed of outside peer-reviewers, evaluated the four 
categories listed in the AO.
Feasibility panel, composed of Athena and project personnel, looked at 
technical risk only.
Categorization committee, composed of HQ personnel, used panel reports to 
categorize (I-IV) proposals.
Steering committee checked that procedure was fair, that categorization 
committee had not disregarded panel conclusions, and made recommendations.
Weiler and high-ups then made the selections.

Science Panel
Intrinsic Merit section:
Major Strength 1 - This investigation is specifically called out for in 
the AO, atmospheric profiles provide a unique dataset.
Major Strength 2 - Measurement objectives are clear, PI understands 
techniques used on earlier missions, the capabilities of MER, the need 
for supporting data, and has a commendable discussion of uncertainties.
Major Strength 3 - Algorithms developed and tested on MPF.
Minor Strength 1 - Understands importance of rapid analysis for MER-B, 
demonstrates familiarity with PDS/archiving procedures and commitment to 
archiving.
No Major Weaknesses.
Minor Weakness 1 - Discussion of scientific analysis of profiles is 
weaker than rest of proposal, but expert assistance is planned for. The 
problem is recognized.
Minor Weakness 2 - Displays thorough understanding of MPF, seems unaware 
of advantage of gyroscopes in correcting for spacecraft rotation.
Minor Weakness 3 - Beagle 2 is overhyped. It is an important addition for 
scientific analysis, but is not useful for MER entry. The entry sites, 
times, and systems are too different.
Minor Weakness 4 - Did not declare intent to participate in pre-flight 
calibration.

Competency of the PI section:
Major Strength 1 - MGS and Odyssey aerobraking experience, development of 
algorithm for Beagle 2 demonstrated by uncertainty analysis and MPF 
discussion.
Major Weakness 1 - PI is a fourth year grad student with little in the 
way of a publication record. However, shortness of track record is offset 
by demonstration of proposed analysis.
Minor Weakness 1 - PI is less familiar with martian atmosphere than with 
techniques, improvements to science from a single profile are overstated, 
what makes the data in a profile unique is not discussed.

Cost section:
Minor Strength 1 - Large numbers of people for low cost.
Major Weakness 1 - PI is budgeted as a grad student for 4 years, although 
he plans to graduate sooner. This is either a cost-underestimate or an 
over-commitment of the PI's time.

Management Section:
Major Weakness 1 - Some discussion of the individual roles is scattered 
in the proposal, there is little presented on the roles and 
responsibilities of individuals and even less on the time phasing of the 
efforts. This is amplified by the plan to provide precise 
responsibilities after selection.
Major Weakness 2 - There is a lack of discussion of specific management 
issues to demonstrate the ability to carry the investigation through to 
its conclusion. There are no explicit statements on the status of the PI, 
institutional support of the management structure, or guarantees that the 
PI will have a job if selected.

Feasibility Panel
Major Strengths - No additional operational requirements, the budget 
includes the landed mission, proposal is specific about required 
supporting data that should also be collected under baseline plans.
Minor Strength - Proposes the use of MER-A to support MER-B.
Major Weakness - The inexperienced PI could recommend a change for MER-B 
that is later discovered to be incorrect.
Minor Weaknesses - There are no guarantees as to how much IMU calibration 
the PI can participate in after selection and there are no plans to 
attend any of the EDL ORTs planned for FY04.

Rated as a Category II proposal.

Then Cathy asks if anyone from JPL/Project has contacted me yet. She has 
"spoken highly of me" and I "have something to add". Project would like 
to form atmospheric science advisory group that would work with the 
engineers to assist them during EDL. Would probably invite me. Main focus 
is on using MER-A to support MER-B. She and Joy Crisp would like to get 
data to PDS, but that's secondary. Specifically mentions $ possibilities. 
Should I contact someone? No, wait to be contacted.


************************************************************************
Paul Withers                             Office  +1 520 621 1507
Lunar and Planetary Laboratory,          Home    +1 520 327 4827   
University of Arizona, Tucson,           Fax     +1 520 621 4933
AZ 85721, USA                            Email withers@lpl.arizona.edu
************************************************************************