Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
>> Mary Beth: OK so, for the next, between now and 11:15,
we're going to open the floor for questions about any
of the research announcements or if we have totally confused you,
we're happy to try and unconfuse you.
If you'll come up to the microphone, either here
or in the overflow room to ask questions
so that people can hear the questions, we'd appreciate that.
And then whoever is the appropriate person will
answer them.
I do want to say a couple of things just to start,
to clarify, because after I talked and then listened
to the NIH guys, I realized wait a minute.
So.
[ laughter ]
Wait a minute in that.
Besides the implementation partners that you've met here,
most of whom have hardware, there is a lot
of hardware available that can be used for research
for the NIH announcement or any of these other announcements
that may already be on board or maybe NASA owned hardware
or international partner owned hardware.
All of that hardware can also be made available for any
of the research announcements that we discuss.
In those cases the implementation, NASA will make
for the NIH announcement, NASA will make
that hardware available and in
that case what the implementation partner is doing
is more of a service provider instead
of also a hardware provider and they're doing all
of the paperwork that goes with a space flight integration.
And what we have done in those cases
or what we did last year is,
especially if it's an international partner,
we drafted a letter between us and that partner to add
to the application that said, yes, we're aware you want
to use this international partners piece of hardware
and we've talked to them and we can work a barter for that.
So if you get selected then we'll go do a formal,
we'll formally add this to the barter
and make the agreements that we need to make.
If it's a NASA owned piece of hardware,
then we basically just kind of blanket have said,
we will make NASA hardware, NASA owned hardware available
if those proposals get selected, we'll probably end
up drafting a space act agreement with that investigator
to provide that hardware to them so that then they
and their implementation partner can do the paperwork
and everything they need to do on it, we'll fly it,
bring it back and then NASA will take back the hardware
at the end of the research period that NIH has funded.
>> Unknown: And so, Mary Beth,
you intend to make those more formal agreements during say
phase A studies after the initial selection
or in later phases?
Where do you see that happening?
>> Mary Beth: With the NIH announcements,
we'll probably do those during the UH2 phase.
They'll award and then we'll go start doing the paperwork
to either make the barter with our partners
or to provide the NASA owned hardware.
Because they'll need it
to do their UH2 ground phase, in a lot of cases.
>> Unknown: So, Mary Beth, is there a while ago, years ago,
there was a program called PIG that came
out of the biotech program which allowed for the use
by a ground based investigator to use some of the hardware
to develop familiarity with it.
Are there still any kind of similarities
for the hardware you're discussing, this goes back
to the Glen Spalding era.
>> Mary Beth: Not at this point in time, but on a case
by case basis, if a researcher needs access to hardware
to develop protocols or whatever we can make that available.
But again, that will probably be as part of the application
or right after the award process.
The other thing, comment, I wanted to make is when I talked
about the broad agency announcement,
I mentioned you know, this concept
of having implementation partners on call to help
out with different research areas.
One clarification or one caveat,
if the research area you're interested in is covered by one
of our MOU's with another government agency
and they choose not to fund it
because they don't find it scientifically meritorious,
then you're not going to be successful applying to the BAA
and saying, well NIH didn't fund my idea but if I send
to the BAA saying we're not looking at science merit first,
we're considering it in those that we fund
but it's not our prime driver as it is in these other calls,
if it's a research area that's really covered
by another government agency's mission and we are having MOU's
and are working with them, we're going to expect
that your applications go
through that other government agency.
Be it a security or a you know, a DOD type space experiment.
We wouldn't entertain those through the BAA,
we'd expect them to come through the DOD serb.
We wouldn't entertain you know, things that improve life
on earth that could go through the NIH call under the BAA.
We would be looking for things that are in areas
where we don't have agreements
or we don't have any partnerships with other agencies
or maybe there is no real agency that has that mission.
But I just wanted to clarify that.
So if you don't make it through NIH, it's not going
to do you any good to go ahead and send it to the BAA.
So, that's were the only points I wanted
to bring up after Kim's talk.
Because I wanted to make sure we didn't confuse people.
So questions?
And if you come up to the microphone in the middle
of the room, that would be helpful.
[ no speaking ]
>> Unknown: Mary Beth, speaking to the point you just made,
what if there's an MOU in place like the one between NASA
and the USDA, but USDA hasn't been forthcoming
yet with the call?
>> Mary Beth: Yes, I think in those cases
where USDA hasn't put out any kind of solicitation,
that we would entertain those.
We'll work with USDA for scientific review, to make sure,
we'll engage them on the merit, science merit review,
because they are the experts and NASA really isn't the expert
about you know, plant growth or animal health or whatever.
And we'll use the MOU that way
and if they deem it scientifically meritorious,
then we would look at whether there's a way we could partner
with that one.
Similarly you know, HRP has their call.
And there is cases where we've actually gotten proposals
against the standing announcement of opportunity
where people are bringing their own funding to the table.
But the research they want to do is really in HRP's,
in the Human Research Program's mission
and so what we're doing is we're sending those to the HRP team
to evaluate and see if it's something
that they're interested in supporting within their mission,
before we decide if we're going to use the NASA resources
to enable that flight or not.
>> Unknown: So if I could follow
up from the national lab perspective then.
Is there still a dialog between USDA and NASA or you're waiting
for USDA to step forward?
>> Mary Beth: Well, there's USDA is in the middle
of a massive reorganization and that's what's really held us up.
We had multiple discussions after the MOU assign and then
with the new administration,
they've been getting totally reorganized,
how they do intra mail research, how they do extra mail research
and they have not been able at this point
to even consider putting out any kind of call like NIH did
and so, you know, if there are ideas then we'll contact our
USDA colleagues and evaluate those.
But I don't, I don't foresee right now, until they've kind
of figured out where they're going and what they're doing,
we need to go reestablish some contacts and figure
out where the right place is
with the new organization that's being set up.
[ no speaking ]
>> Unknown: Is the dragon the only
down mass capability we're going to have
after the space shuttle we decommissioned, after SCS134?
>> Mary Beth: Yes.
That one's easy.
Assuming you mean recoverable down mass.
Yes. There's lots of down mass,
it just doesn't actually get all the way to the ground.
Yes. We differentiate.
>> Unknown: Well we need to be precise.
[ laughter ]
>> Mary Beth: But Dragon, you know, space X is expected
to fly two to three times a year and it has a significant
down mass capability and seeing
when shuttle retirement was announced,
the space station program went into a mode
of OK, build and burn.
Expecting everything to, all the equipment,
the replaceable units, the filters, the spares,
all those to be burned up.
So they've taken an approach to expecting not
to get any hardware back to be refurbished and re flown.
So they're in pretty good shape
and payloads actually has the edge
or utilization has the edge in.
We need samples down, we need different things down
and we can't afford to have it burned up.
So we kind of get first rights
to down mass I guess is how I would,
I might get in an argument from Suferdini [assumed spelling]
with that, but you know, we're better off
than we would have been.
Because they've built so many spares that they can afford
to let their be unrecovery down mass whereas we can't.
[ no speaking ]
>> Unknown: This is just a point of info,
I'd like to reiterate this.
With respect to the format of the application to the NIH,
you provide thirty pages, which is longer than any
of the other formats, twelve for the regular one now
and twenty five for the past ones [inaudible].
Is that because the implementation group is going
to be included in that description?
>> Unknown: It's because that the program directors involved
got to keep the number of pages long like they like it.
[ laughter ]
So you have thirty pages.
The reason is is that is bureaucratically is the UH2,
UH3 mechanism is not bound by the rules
of six and twelve pages.
So the program directors thought that yes, due to the complexity
of the work, it's warranted to have thirty pages,
in particular the multiple, the multiple phases involved.
I'll let John comment on that as well
from a programmatic perspective.
>> John: I really don't have anything to add except that,
you've got to cover three phases.
The milestones being in between.
>> Unknown: I think we ended
up giving you guys some additional language.
I think you put out a notice to the FOA,
that kind of clarified what we were looking
for in the NIH proposal so that we could do the feasibility
assessment that we are involved
in after they've done the science review.
So I don't know if that's in there or somewhere else.
>> Unknown: Yes, we, that question came
up while you were trying
to finish your slides, you know on time.
Sorry. That there was some additional information
that in hindsight, NASA wanted
to make more timely funding decisions and so we're writing
up a notice, but Doctor Jessup and I weren't sure
if that physically went out yet.
But that's, at least in process.
And that notice, there will be a link to that notice in the FOA,
in the initiative, when it comes out.
>> John: And if there isn't a link and nobody's perfect,
I do think that you can go to the NIH guide and put in NASA
as a key search word and you should then be able to get all
of the NOT's, the notices, that are related
to this particular FOA.
[ no speaking ]
>> Unknown: Let me ask a question.
When it comes to your announcements,
do you also put them in federal business opportunities?
>> Unknown: No.
>> Unknown: No you don't.
OK.
>> Unknown: No.
This is a grant solicitation and so therefore it does not go
into FED BIZ OPS, which is for contracts only.
OK? So while this is a collaborative agreement,
a you mechanism, it is not a contract.
>> Unknown: That's interesting.
In the science mission directorate,
because most every announcement does involved contracts,
even the grant mechanisms there are some people
that we just have to do contracts with.
We do have all of our announcements
in the Federal Business Opportunities.
So that's a place to subscribe to,
at least for science mission directorate announcements.
In addition to Inspires.
OK. OK, so that's one area to subscribe.
>> Unknown: For an NIH application
and if the information part is part of the application,
how is the implementation part evaluated in the end.
Is [inaudible] cost of such equipment built provided
by an implementation [inaudible] judged at this phase?
>> Unknown: The review of that is really based on what the PI,
the applicant, writes and describes.
And one of the things that is critical is also
that the budget be pretty close
to what the budgetary amounts are for UH2 and UH3
as mentioned in the FOA.
So the and this was part of what I was trying to get at in terms
of sort of assessment
of feasibility just to do the experiment.
In that the applicant really has to work with a partner
and demonstrate that the applicant can use the partner's
equipment and has at least in some ground based experiment,
I think in order to get a good review, demonstrate proficiency
for that person's experiment
within the implementation partners,
sort of equipment and approach.
So I really think that's important.
For instance, we're all used to,
as research scientists growing things on polystyrene,
in a tissue culture plastic.
If you want to put something in space, more often than not,
it's got to go into a Teflon coated bag.
The amount of change that that actually generates
to how cells are grown, what happens, that sort of thing,
has really got to be taken into account by the applicant
and the applicant should at least demonstrate
that with this sort of shift in mileu,
that their experiment still has a chance
of testing the hypothesis that's postulated.
So it's a bit of a long winded answer.
I'm not sure that the implementation partner needs
to fully describe all their engineering facilities,
etcetera, but that the applicant has
to demonstrate really working with that partner
and having a partnership and collaboration with them
to use their equipment.
Does that answer your question?
>> Unknown: It certainly answers a part,
but going further really, is it at a certain point,
cost still play a role in NIH or space experiment.
Is it compared to all the other NIH experiments,
not going into space also by costing per experiment?
>> Unknown: That's why cost is important and
and it is important as a strategy for the applicant
to get through the institute
and have the institute support the application,
even if it is exceptionally meritorious, is to make sure
that the costs are in line with what is in the solicitation.
Yes. Oh yes, no, no, no, no.
That's a total direct cost.
So the implementation partner can't bill separately
and the applicant has to include the implementation partners cost
within the budget that they submit, which has to be
within the total direct cost that's
in the mentioned in the FOA.
So that's one, another reason why it is extremely important
for the investigator to the extent that they can,
to use equipment that is already been made and not
to be developing new hardware, not only is there the cost issue
but when you develop new hardware, you also have
to get the appropriate legendary number of approvals.
OK? For flying in space.
Oh, shut up.
[ laughter ]
>> Mary Beth: So, this is where using, as Kim said,
using existing hardware where all you have
to do is either certify it for that experiment
or perform you know, minor updates to safety data packages
and things makes that much more cost effective.
Building new hardware is probably not within the scope
of the NIH numbers, as far
as what they have set aside for this FOA.
With the international partner hardware, what's critical
or what it depends on is whether we already have existing rights
to that hardware in some way as NASA or whether we can add it
to existing barters or whether we have to put it
on top of existing barters.
All of those are possible but there's no cost to use that.
We worked that out through our barters.
The cost then for either that or the NASA hardware,
is that service, essentially that service of paperwork
that some of these implementation partners can talk
to you about, who just do that kind of paperwork for a living.
But and so those tend to be slightly less expensive
than when you're using somebody's hardware,
but not necessarily.
When we go through the evaluation process,
NIH looks at the overall cost and makes sure it's
within their ideas of what's appropriate for the FOA
and does the science review
and then they send the top however many of NASA and we look
at them for two things.
What we owe NIH is just a yes we can accommodate it,
we have power, we have cooling, we have you know,
it's not 8 billion years of crew time, those kinds of things.
What we also did though was we went through the costs
for the implementation partners which were fairly easy to break
out the way the proposals came in and gave them some heads
up on, that's about what we spent on this kind
of thing before or that seems low or that seems high.
So they at least knew whether they had a cost risk
or whether you know, they were in line with this kind of stuff
that NASA has spent on this before.
Does that help?
>> Unknown: That does.
Yes, thanks.
[ no speaking ]
>> Unknown: As far as the space station as a national lab,
I'm sort of, we've heard all sort of information
about it's capabilities that things.
I'm a little bit interested in questions
about capacity and throughput.
I mean, in other words, if you have two projects
that are equally meritorious, technically, is one,
is bigger less likely to get or is one that's going
to take longer, those kind of questions.
>> Unknown: So there are two ways to approach that question.
One is what the total capacity is for transport
and then the other is how would priority calls be made should
things be limited.
For those of you that have flown in space before,
you flew on ISS perhaps, while we were assembling ISS
and utilization was not the top priority.
Assembling was the top priority.
And during that period we had payloads that sat
on the ground waiting for a launch opportunity for example,
for three or four years.
That backlog is completely gone.
Everything someone's building now is build, ship and shoot.
Pack, ship and shoot.
So there is and there is unused capacity we've turned back
over to the ISS program so they can see
if there are any other spares they can come up with.
About 800 kilograms so far this year
that we could have flown science with that up mass,
had their been science developed and available.
So those resources fluctuate over time and right now we're
in a situation where we're very up mass rich and we're,
our crew time is relatively balanced.
So there's not a lot of extra crew time, but we've been able
to get most of our planned research
without too many significant hardships.
We expect the crew time to actually get even better
than it is right now, over the next few years and as we get
to full six crew ops with no assembly left.
>> Unknown: Julie, I noticed on one of the charts
that there was only 35 hours a week for available crew time,
which with six crews, doesn't seem like too much.
>> Julie: It's 70 hours a week
if you count the Russian crew time for research.
So you know, we have a crew that's divided 50/50
between Russian crew members
and what we call the US Operating Segment, which is US,
Japan, Canada and Europe.
And we, we cooperate with the Russians significantly,
all the time.
Every partner has flown something
through every other partner's resources
under the different arrangements that we make.
But when we talk about 35 hours a week, that's 35 hours a week
that we as NASA, integrate for that international partnership,
the component in the partnership that includes Japan and ESA
and CSA, Canadian Space Agency and European Space Agency.
So totally there's 70 hours a week.
We can make trades and have made trades with Russia in the past
to get more crew time when we needed it.
What we're thinking right now is that it looks like that amount
of crew time is about sufficient including moderate national lab
users on top of all the NASA funded users.
And then we continue to make those trades
as we go forward in the future.
Now there was one other component to the question
which was priority, in other words, does it help to be small,
does it help to be big.
On general principles it always helps to be small.
Because you can fit in a corner that somebody else can't use.
And so as we work through the priority list,
something large might get postponed say by one flight,
because it can't be accommodated just because of it's volume
or just because of it's mass and the particulars
of the way something is getting packed.
It's sort of like when your family is going on vacation,
if you all use your big suitcases, somebody's not going
to fit in the trunk, but if one
of you uses two small suitcases, then it's fine.
And that's essentially the kind
of packing issues we sometimes get.
However, the unpressurized mass
and the pressurized mass, are not exchangeable.
So if you're launching in the unpressurized part of the can
and going out on the truss somewhere,
that's a completely separate prioritization and structure
than the pressurized part.
Because we can't change the size
of those two relative to each other.
Yes, that's a good point.
And the planning for that is done significantly earlier.
So those manifests are plotted well, three, two to three years
out those manifests are finalized
and we actually carry a working manifest that goes five years
out for our externals.
>> Unknown: Yes, I wanted to ask you
about the access to data sets.
It's somewhat difficult to find information
on what has been done, particularly experimental data.
And I would like to see how can we access this data,
analyze something that hasn't been necessarily published
in papers, in material science and in biological experiments.
Could you comment and refer to that?
>> Unknown: So data access for experiments done
on the space station are controlled
by the sponsoring organization.
Which means and then the rules for that are included
in the grant or the contract or the space act agreement
that that sponsoring organization makes
with the payload user, with the principle investigator.
So for the human research program for example,
all human research program investigators are required
to put all their samples in a common archive and access
to that archive is governed by a review process.
In the physical sciences, it's governed by different rules.
If it's funded by NASA and for example, our department
of defense, users of space stations,
will have their own rules about what data can be release
and what cannot be released.
We do keep a database out there that lets you know
who the principle investigator was
for every single experiment that's ever been done.
The but there is no central archive because there's
so central selecting authority.
And access to data in a particular of interest,
like access to most experiments here on the ground,
relies on developing good collaborations with people
who have collected that data.
[ no speaking ]
>> Unknown: This is would be Barbara,
one of the NIH representatives.
This past spring at Houston's Rice University,
Baker Institute.
There was a four day conference on human space flight
and future life science research opportunities.
And it was attended pretty much by the [inaudible] represented
by their administrators, their research teams and also a lot
of their crew members.
And one theme which dominated the discussion there was
that of export control.
So I'm just wondering, with respect to these proposals,
are there hurdles that have to be jumped with respect
to extra control up front, if so what are they and if not,
when are they addressed?
>> Unknown: That's a very good question and it's something
that our researchers have struggled a great deal
with over the past few years.
In the case of the announcements of opportunity put
out by the science mission directorate, it is something
that is addressed in the very first proposals.
One reason that these proposals take so much time and effort
to develop is that we do actually require a full
explanation of these entire mission concept.
We require the entire science plan,
the full implementation plan including how you're going
to deal with things like ITAR and export control.
It is something that, that institutions, they have to rely
on their own expertise to deal with
and it really is something that,
at least for the science mission directorate, that is evaluated
and dealt with at that first proposal.
Technical, management and cost risk and we evaluate it in terms
of risk, that's a major criteria that goes
into the selection process.
>> Unknown: For the NIH sort of life science experiments,
that really is not an issue.
Because as I understood, ITAR was really more about software,
electronics and that sort of information which may be more
in the satellite side of things.
But doing biological research, by and of itself,
is not generally subject to ITAR concerns.
>> Unknown: That's a good thing.
As it turns out, some space flight experimental hardware can
be covered.
There are certain types of camera's for example
that are considered to be covered by ITAR.
So you do have to take that into consideration and consult
with the experts when you're considering proposing.
[ no speaking ]
>> Unknown: We put a contact in our AO's
to help you out on that, too.
[ inaudible ]
>> Unknown: Is there any estimate
on when the Decatel [assumed spelling] survey results will be
coming out?
[ no speaking ]
>> Unknown: Let's see.
So there was a Decatel survey for earth science,
each of the four divisions in the science mission directorate,
do a Decatel survey with the National Academy of Science.
It's actually something that congress has written
into the language, you can see it in appropriations bill,
authorization bill, so it's actually now something we're
required to do.
Congress really feels that the Decatel survey process is
important for planning the future.
And so we do them one at a time.
They take two years.
The national academy, well it takes a lot of money, too.
Earth science did their, it came out in 2007.
The astrophysics division, theirs has been going
on over the past two years
and theirs is actually due this fall.
So it should be coming out,
I think the briefings maybe happening now.
It may be in review.
I think they've made their major decisions
but we haven't seen the results yet.
Because it may be at the review stage.
In the planetary group, they started their Decatel survey
about a year ago, so they have another year before the final
report comes out.
So they're right in the middle, they're right in the middle
of studying potential missions, that sort of thing.
For heliophysics, we just started the contract
for it's next Decatel survey this summer.
So the end result will be 2012.
They just announced the members of the steering committee.
They're having their first meeting in September.
So we just do them every two, three years in turn.
>> Unknown: And you should also know
that there is a Decatel survey in micro gravity
and partial gravity, life and physical sciences.
The draft of that was just posted
by the National Research Council recently and so you can find
that on their website.
Their draft study did not include the priorities
that will be in the final study.
One thing interesting about that is because of the time frame
when that was requested, it is guidance
to NASA, about NASA's mission.
So it is focused on exploration objectives
and was partly authored in a time frame
where lunar exploration was a major focus.
So it's not as broad perhaps as some of the Decatel surveys
on the science mission directorate side
in addressing all of the different possible uses.
But it is certainly going to be good guidance
for the NASA funded research side
of that pie chart we keep showing.
[ inaudible ]
>> Unknown: What you mentioned about the ITAR [inaudible].
>> Unknown: The one of the other things about the NIH FOA is
that it is only for domestic institutions, American PI's.
The only way that this would come up and it was not an issue
at all in the first round, is that through subcontracts.
Because this is an American PI, American institution,
on an American satellite.
[ no speaking ]
>> Unknown: So I have a question for doctor Jessup,
based on for hopefully for the audience.
Based on what happened at our break conversation.
So on the NIH initiative, this speaks to the variability
of practice at the NIH institutes.
On the NIH initiatives, some
of the institutes say specifically what they're
looking for and one or more
of them don't mention specific things that they're looking for.
Specific work.
So how does one figure out is for example,
those that mention specific items is
that the only thing they're listed in
and if an institute is listed but doesn't say what they want,
how do I figure out what they're looking for?
>> Unknown: Good luck Boyle.
The main thing is that if the, when an applicant wants
to propose an application, they really need to make contact
with the program director that is listed for that institute.
Because that program director will tell the applicant whether
they're hypothesis and ideas are in line
with the missions for the institute.
Hopefully the applicant will take that to heart.
That was not the case in the first round.
For some of the applications.
So it is important that if you're going to put
in an application to the NIH, because of the vagueries
of the different institutes and the way
that they handle these kind of funding opportunities,
it is important to get in touch with a contact person
because they act, hopefully in good faith,
as an [inaudible] person between the applicant
and their institute and they should give practiced advice
as to what will and will not be in line with what
that institute will fund.
[ no speaking ]
>> Unknown: Just to in contrast, I can tell you,
we don't operate that way.
Just to be and that's good, that's a good thing.
In our case, if you call the program officer and ask advice
on what to propose, they're going to say,
I'm sorry we're not going to give you advice on how
to write your proposal.
We literally mean what's in every announcement.
And it is kind of interesting, people will try to read
between the lines and say what they really mean is X.
If you find yourself saying that when you've read
at least the explorer announcement, back off.
We really mean every word literally and when it comes
to the evaluation and selection, we stick by every word,
even if the landscape changes.
We really do mean it strictly.
And so if it's very open, we mean it to be very open.
If it's very specific, we mean it to be very specific.
And we make sure that our program officers don't
give advice.
Because quite frankly, if you ask me about the explorers,
I can only lead you astray.
[ laughter ]
>> Unknown: So we have the specificness and the generality
in a single announcement and I'll let Doctor Jessup talk.
But the program officers don't give research advice.
They give advice on guiding work that's relevant to the mission
so if you do this, we would want it.
If you do that, another institute may want it.
As opposed to, you should use this model, look at this marker
and that sort of thing.
But it's important to clarify because,
because there could be differences.
>> Unknown: That's absolutely right.
However, project officers, program officers, program staff,
really do need to help the investigator align their
research with what an institution can do and support
or tell them to go elsewhere.
We are not here, program staff cannot formulate the questions
and the hypothesis denovo, but can say perhaps
that you might want to think about changing your hypothesis
because the institute can't fund this but in a related issue,
it might make this more attractive to the institute.
>> Unknown: And just to try and represent some
of the other NASA mission directorates,
I think you'll find that the science mission directorate,
because they have very specific goals, is more able to sort
of say well, read the book and we can't help you.
On the human research program side,
they lay out very specific goals which change year by year.
You can call up the right points of contact there and say,
I'm thinking about this, does that fit in your goals
and they'll tell you if they think it fits.
On the life and physical sciences experiments,
those are quite variable year to year
and those program executives, who I know well, are very open
to discussions and approaches.
Because you know, if they've got a fluid physics announcement
out there and you want to bring in something that's
on the borderline between fluids and materials, you're trying
to figure out how you fit a sub discipline
when all the other disciplines aren't open each year.
And so they work quite closely with investigators
to help give them guidance.
[ no speaking ]
>> Unknown: OK.
If there aren't any other questions, then we'll see
if we can go ahead and start
with the implementation partners.
Justin, if you can get TBE cued up here,
we can probably get them started in the next couple of minutes.
So let us do that.