Evolution of the HST proposal selection process

C. Megan Urry; Brett S. Blacker; Glenn E. Miller; Letizia Stanghellini; Peg Stanley; Roeland P. Van Der Marel

doi:10.1117/12.392482

25 July 2000 Evolution of the HST proposal selection process

C. Megan Urry, Brett S. Blacker, Glenn E. Miller, Letizia Stanghellini, Peg Stanley, Roeland P. Van Der Marel

Proceedings Volume 4010, Observatory Operations to Optimize Scientific Return II; (2000) https://doi.org/10.1117/12.392482
Event: Astronomical Telescopes and Instrumentation, 2000, Munich, Germany

Abstract

Through Cycle 8, the process of selecting HST proposals was extremely successful, according to hundreds of scientists involved in the proposal review. Yet the system showed signs of strain, as the number of proposals doubled and the panels/TAC grew commensurately. This led to highly specialized panels, each with limited amounts of observing time to award, and an increasingly narrow scientific focus that exacerbated the natural tension between scientific expertise and conflict of interest. The TAC's role of establishing priorities among scientific disciplines became simultaneously more critical and more difficult to carry out. Furthermore, the scientific community advised us strongly, starting in Cycle 7, that more HST observing time should be devoted to larger programs (> 100 orbits). For Cycle 9 we instituted significant changes to address these issues: (1) Fewer, much broader panels, with redundancy to avoid conflicts of interest. (2) TAC role re- defined, to focus on awarding a significant fraction (1/4 - 1/3) of the available time to > 100-orbit proposals. (3) Incentives for panels to award time to 'mid-sized' proposals. We outline these changes in greater detail, and describe to what extent their implementation in the Cycle 9 review achieved the goals of more large programs, fewer conflicts of interest for reviewers, and a stronger science program for HST.

Citation Download Citation

C. Megan Urry, Brett S. Blacker, Glenn E. Miller, Letizia Stanghellini, Peg Stanley, and Roeland P. Van Der Marel "Evolution of the HST proposal selection process", Proc. SPIE 4010, Observatory Operations to Optimize Scientific Return II, (25 July 2000); https://doi.org/10.1117/12.392482

ACCESS THE FULL ARTICLE

INSTITUTIONAL
Select your institution to access the SPIE Digital Library.

SELECT YOUR INSTITUTION

PERSONAL
Sign in with your SPIE account to access your personal subscriptions or to use specific features such as save to my library, sign up for alerts, save searches, etc.

PERSONAL SIGN IN

No SPIE Account? Create one

PURCHASE THIS CONTENT

SUBSCRIBE TO DIGITAL LIBRARY

50 downloads per 1-year subscription

Members: $195

Non-members: $335 ADD TO CART

25 downloads per 1 - year subscription

Members: $145

Non-members: $250 ADD TO CART

PURCHASE SINGLE ARTICLE

Includes PDF, HTML & Video, when available

Members: $17.00

Non-members: $21.00 ADD TO CART

PROCEEDINGS
9 PAGES

DOWNLOAD PAPER SAVE TO MY LIBRARY

GET CITATION

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

Get copyright permission Get copyright permission on Copyright Marketplace

KEYWORDS

Space telescopes

Observatories

Astronomy

Telescopes

Cameras

Space operations

Sensors

Show All Keywords

Keywords/Phrases

Search In:

Publication Years