VOL 25 ISSUE 02 Space Telescope Science Institute Hubble Unveils Colorful and Turbulent Star-Birth Region on 100,000th Orbit Milestone Image Credit: NASA, ESA, and M. Livio (STScI) http://Hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2008/31/ Cycle 17 Proposal Review and Science Program Neill Reid, [email protected] “..now sits Expectation in the air...” On May 12–16, 2008, astronomers drawn from the worldwide astronomical community—124 in all—assessed the Cycle 17 proposals — Henry V, II, Chorus, I and made recommendations to the director. Peer Review Process ervicing Mission 4 (SM4) to the Hubble Space Telescope is currently To allow for the expected increase in the number of proposals in this slated for launch from the Kennedy Space Center in early 2009. At cycle, we made a number of changes to the process of assigning Hubble the conclusion of that mission, our hopes and expectations are time. First, we expanded the number of panels from 11 to 12. In doing that Hubble will be at the peak of its capabilities—with two so, we replaced the single Solar System panel with two panels devoted new instruments (Wide Field Camera 3 [WFC3], Cosmic Origins to the Solar System, exoplanets, circumstellar disks, and star formation. Spectrograph [COS]), two restored instruments (Advanced Camera The remaining ten panels were split equally between Galactic and 2 0 0 8 Sfor Surveys [ACS], Space Telescope Imaging Spectrograph [STIS]), and two extragalactic topics. For assignment purposes, observations of resolved continuing instruments (Near-Infrared Camera and Multi-Object Spectrograph stellar populations in nearby galaxies are considered “Galactic.” [NICMOS], Fine Guidance Sensor [FGS]). All six instruments were available for In Cycle 17, each panel had ten members, including the panel chair, who observing proposals in Hubble Cycle 17, which will start immediately after the also served on the Time Allocation Committee (TAC). The TAC also included instrumental commissioning following SM4. three at-large members and the TAC chair, Rob Kennicutt (IoA, UA). Most The post-SM4 suite of instruments will not only provide over an order- panelists and TAC members were recruited in October/November 2007, of-magnitude improvement in discovery power by imaging—with the new about seven months before the meeting itself. In May, the panels met over WFC3 and a revitalized ACS—but will also offer the first opportunity for the first three days to rank the smaller programs: General Observer proposals medium- and high-resolution spectroscopy since the demise of STIS in for less than 100 orbits and Archival Researcher SUMMER Cycle 13. It was therefore not a surprise that the community responded programs for less than $150,000. The TAC met after Continued enthusiastically, submitting a total of 958 proposals by the March 7 the panels completed their deliberations, and it graded page 2 deadline, an increase of 138 over the Cycle 16 totals. the Large, Treasury and Legacy programs. Hubble Update Kenneth Sembach, [email protected] n September 27, 2008, Hubble’s Control and Data Handling (C&DH) system experienced a problem that led to the safing of the science instruments. At the Otime this Newsletter goes to press, it appears that the problem is in the hardware, inside a unit called the Control Unit/Science Data Formatter (CU/SDF). The CU/SDF is an essential element for the operation of the existing instruments—WFPC2, NICMOS, ACS, and STIS—and it will be needed for COS and WFC3 when they are installed. The CU/SDF NASA stores and controls commands received by the instruments, buffers and formats science data, and sends the data to the communications system for transmission to Earth. There have been no previous failures in the CU/SDF or its associated electronics since launch in 1990. A second CU/SDF is presently onboard Hubble. Engineers and a review board are examining what it will take to return Hubble to service using this back-up hardware. In the meantime, Hubble continues to execute science programs with its Fine Guidance Sensors. Given the importance of the CU/SDF to the operation of the science instruments, NASA may determine that it is necessary to install spare C&DH hardware, which would likely delay Servicing Mission 4 until 2009. We will post updates to the Hubble website (http:// www.stsci.edu/hst/) as information becomes available. Each panel covered a broad science area, making it imperative for proposers to write lucidly for Cycle 17 non-specialists. from page 1 With multiple panels in each area, we could redirect proposals where a panelist had a conflict of interest to a mirror panel in the same subject area. By this means, while institutional and personal conflicts still arose, we avoided major conflicts. Even so, for some proposals the growing size of astronomical collaborations could lead to our disqualifying a majority of the panel were we to strictly interpret conflict-of-interest rules. In response to this situation, we adjusted the specific Results from the TAC Questionnaire YES NO No. of No. of respondents respondents 1. This year we moved the location of the TAC review from the BWI Marriott hotel to 52 (90%) 6 (10%) the Homewood campus. Did you find the location conducive to the TAC process? 2. If you have experience of previous TAC meetings, which location is preferable? BWI Marriott: 7 (25%) JHU: 21 (75%) 3. In your opinion, what aspects of the TAC logistics worked well, and what [48 responses] aspects worked less well? 4. Could you find the answer to most of your questions in the documentation available 56 (97%) 2 (3%) to panelists (CP and/or guidelines)? 5. Was the information that you required for the review well organized? 46 (79%) 12 (21%) 6. Did you feel you had the appropriate expertise to review the proposals assigned to you? 53 (90%) 6 (10%) 7. Did you feel the panel as a whole had the appropriate expertise? 51 (86%) 8 (14%) 8. Do you feel that you were able to contribute effectively to the panel discussions? 57 (97%) 2 (3%) 9. This year we modified our procedures for dealing with conflicts of interest. 51 (88%) 7 (12%) Do you feel that the revised system strikes the right balance? 10. This year we experimented with a new web-based system for collecting the comments on proposals. How well do you feel that the system worked? Very poorly: 3 (5%) Somewhat well: 32 (53%) Somewhat poorly: 13 (22%) V ery well: 12 (20%) 2 ProposalsProposals by Countryby Country GO Proposal oversubscription Coun try SubmittedApproved GO Orbit oversubscription 9.00 AR Funding oversubscription Australia 3 0 Belgium 6 1 8.00 Canada 15 5 Chile 4 0 France 19 6 7.00 Germany 32 7 Ireland 5 1 6.00 Israel 2 0 Italy 16 4 5.00 Japan 1 0 Mexico 31 Netherlands 10 3 4.00 Poland 1 0 Russia 2 0 Oversubscription Ratio 3.00 Spain 19 1 Sweden 4 0 2.00 Switzerland 7 1 Cycle 7 AR Extension UK 51 8 1.00 USA 758 190 ESA Proposals181 35 12345677N 8910 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Cycle Figure 1. Oversubscription ratios for Hubble over its lifetime. ProposalsProposals by State by State State SubmittedApproved application of those rules for panelists who were collaborators with proposal co-investigators. We distinguished two types of conflict: major conflicts, where the panelist was required to leave AL 5 1 the room for the full discussion; and minor conflicts, where the panelist declared the conflict and AR 1 0 participated in the discussion, but did not vote. AZ 54 13 In past years, we have defined as major conflicts those situations where a co-investigator on a CA 152 37 proposal is a close collaborator of a panelist. This year we relaxed that criterion, redefining these Co-I CO 26 6 CT 9 3 close-collaborator conflicts as “minor conflicts.” This allowed the panels to discuss some proposals DC 34 2 without eliminating all the relevant experience in that particular science area. A “close collaborator” DE 5 0 is a colleague with whom one is (1) actively collaborating on a current research program, including FL 21 2 a current-cycle Hubble program; (2) an active collaborator on three or more completed research GA 9 3 programs within the last three years; or (3) an active co-author on three or more papers within the HI 19 5 IA 1 0 last three years. Amplifying on the last criterion, we define an “active co-author” as a colleague IL 24 4 with whom the panelist has communicated directly in the course of writing a paper; nowadays IN 8 4 there are many large collaborations where team members have authorship rights, and may appear KY 8 0 as co-authors with other astronomers whom they have never met (sleeping collaborators?). LA 3 1 MA 26 13 A third major change in Cycle 17—and most obvious for the participants—was the venue for MD 130 34 the TAC. MI 26 8 In the early years of Hubble, the TAC met at the Institute. However, the large number of separate MN 7 1 panels (and smaller number of meeting rooms) required spreading the process over a two-week NH 6 4 period. Starting in Cycle 11, the TAC moved to a local hotel equipped with sufficient conference NJ 13 4 NM 9 2 rooms to complete the process in a single week. For a variety of reasons, this option became NV 4 0 untenable, and the Cycle 17 TAC moved back to the Homewood campus of the Johns Hopkins NY 46 9 University, where the Institute is located.