Dear RHESSI'ers,
We are beginning to prepare the RHESSI proposal for the 2013 Senior Review for the Heliophysics operating missions. The proposal will be due at NASA HQ early next year. To be of greatest benefit to us in preparing this proposal, please send us material that you think will be useful as soon as possible.
We are particularly interested in the following information:
· Published or submitted papers that use RHESSI results, especially if they are not included in Markus Aschwanden's list of RHESSI publications at the following web site:
http://www.lmsal.com/~aschwand/publications/rhessi.htmlhttp://www.lmsal.com/%7Easchwand/publications/rhessi.html
Please inform Markus (aschwanden_at_lmsal.com) of any missing publications in his RHESSI list.
· New research topics for analysis of existing RHESSI observations.
· Ideas for future RHESSI observations, solar and non-solar, in the coming 3 - 4 years, 2013 - 2016.
· Participation in E/PO activities.
If you haven't already done so, please also enter all of your publications and research topics into the appropriate sections of the Max Millennium web site at -
http://solar.physics.montana.edu/max_millennium/
To help you decide what will be useful in preparing the new Senior Review Proposal, here are the Instructions to Proposers based on the last Call for Proposals from NASA HQ:
The SMD Science Plan incorporates the Heliophysics System Observatory as integral element of strategic plan of the Heliophysics science area. The 2009 Roadmap provides a series of open science questions that could be addressed by the continuation of specific assets of the System Observatory. Your proposal needs to discuss your mission's potential for elucidating such answers during FY13 to FY16 in each of these areas:
· Relevance to the stated Heliophysics research objectives and focus areas;
· Impact of scientific results as evidenced by citations, press releases, etc.;
· Spacecraft and instrument health;
· Productivity and vitality of the science team (e.g., publishable research, training younger scientists, etc.);
· Promise of future impact and productivity (due to uniqueness of orbit and location, solar cycle phase, etc.);
· and broad accessibility and usability of the data.
Instructions for the Science Section:
In the science section of a proposal, describe the science merits of your program and the specific contributions of the instruments within your mission. The science proposal should list the current science objectives for the mission and a summary of what has been accomplished in the past two to three years. (For missions currently in extended phase it is not necessary to cite the mission's original science objectives).
Contributions by guest investigators or other investigators not funded directly by your mission are important.
The emphasis of the science section should be how the proposed science program will discover and communicate new scientific knowledge in line with the Heliophysics research objectives and focus areas as stated in the SMD Science Plan. The scientific merit of the program is the chief criterion used to determine ranking.
You are encouraged to read previous RHESSI Senior Review proposals and also the panel responses. They are all available for downloading from the following web site:
http://hesperia.gsfc.nasa.gov/senior_review/2010/http://hesperia.gsfc.nasa.gov/senior_review/2010/SR_2010_call_for_proposals.doc
The most recent panel report was generally very positive with “No major weaknesses” in the section on EXTENDED MISSION RELEVANCE TO THE “Heliophysics System Observatory” and “Road Map.” Also, the listed Scientific and Technical Strengths and Weaknesses should be noted as they relate to the preparation of the new proposal. In particular, the Weaknesses section reads as follows: The proposal does not clearly present the fundamental science questions to be addressed, but rather appear to be a laundry list of assorted projects. In view of the large flare dataset already acquired by RHESSI, some justification for obtaining additional flare data during the rise phase of Solar Cycle 24 would have been appropriate. A stronger connection with modeling (other than data-analysis software) would enhance the physical insight to be gained from RHESSI observations, in light of increasing computational resources/capabilities and increasingly sophisticated numerical models of particle acceleration and eruptive flare/CME initiation. The discussions of the Drake et al. electron-acceleration mechanism and the Petrosian & Chen effort are promising steps in this direction.
We must try to do a better job of addressing these issues in the new proposal.
Thanks and best wishes,
Bob Lin, Brian Dennis, and Albert Shih
Robert P. Lin, RHESSI PI Space Sciences Lab. University of California 7 Gauss Way Berkeley, CA 94720 Phone: 510-642-1149 FAX: 510-643-8302 Email: rlin_at_ssl.berkeley.edu
Brian R. Dennis, RHESSI Mission Scientist Solar Physics Laboratory - Code 671 Heliophysics Science Division Sciences and Exploration Directorate Greenbelt, MD 20771 Phone: 301-286-7983 FAX: 301-286-1617 Email: brian.r.dennis_at_nasa.gov
Albert Y. Shih, RHESSI Deputy Mission Scientist Solar Physics Laboratory - Code 671 Heliophysics Science Division Sciences and Exploration Directorate Greenbelt, MD 20771 Phone: 301-286-1843 FAX: 301-286-1617 Email: albert.y.shih_at_nasa.gov