HST Cycle 12
TAC Results
Bob Williams
TIPS – 17 April 2003
1
TAC Review Committee



“We find no fundamental flaws in the process or
unwarranted influence by STScI staff or management.”
“ We also attest to the overall integrity of the TAC
process “
“The committee panel was impressed by the efficacy of
the process for awarding time on HST, and the role of
the STScI in organizing and supporting complex and
challenging TAC procedures that we judge to be fair and
unbiased.”
2
TAC Review Committee
Recommendations
 Each proposal should be reviewed by at least one expert
 Institutional conflict of interest rules should be eased
 Collective memory of TACs should be retained through
repeat panelists over consecutive cycles
 Written feedback on the evaluation of all proposals
should be provided to PI’s
 Encourage participation in Treasury Program by
organizing annual workshops for development and
coordination of large HST programs
3
Cycle 12 Timeline

Reduction in time between proposal submission
and cycle observations by ~ 4 months
 Opportunity
to follow up on scientific discoveries
 ‘Fresher’ science programs






Deadline was January 24 (from September 7)
11 review panels met 24-26 March
TAC met 27-29 March
Director’s Review April 3, PI notification April 4
Phase II deadline: Mid-May
Nominal Cycle 12: July 2003 - June 2004
4
Cycle 12 Overview

1,046 proposals received:
-19,674 orbits requested
•
Plus: 1860 [Cyc13] & 855 [Cyc14]
-6,067 SNAP targets
-$13.2 M AR funding (including Theory)
5
Oversubscription by Cycle
9.00
GO Proposal oversubscription
GO Orbit oversubscription
AR Funding oversubscription
8.00
7.00
Oversubscription Ratio
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Cycle
7N
8
9
10
11
12
6
Review Process

Panels select small/medium proposals (2000 orbits)

Panels review large programs for TAC


TAC selects Treasury/Large programs (1000
orbits)
Duplicate panels minimize conflicts and maximize
attendance and participation by all panelists
7
New and continued features since
Cycle 11

TAC met after panels- NEW
 Panels
provided input on Large/Treasury
programs via Chairs



“Progressive subsidy” for Regular proposals MODIFIED
Chandra allocation for multi-wavelength
programs
NOAO allocation for supporting ground-based
observations
8
Types and Sizes of Proposals

GO - orbits
 Large
(100 or more orbits)
 Regular (1-99 orbits)
AR and Theory - funding
 SNAP - targets

 one
visit = one target
 no links, no guarantees
 probability of execution ~50%
9
Proposal categories

Treasury




AR Legacy



Provide datasets for lasting value to HST program
Should focus on potential to solve multiple problems
Provide enhanced data products
Provide homogeneous set of calibrated data
Should enable new and important science
(AR) Theory


Direct relevance to HST observational research
Mission-specific favored over general theory programs
10
Other Categories

Long-term Programs
 Cycle
12 TAC/Panels may award Cycle 13+14 time
(~5%) where required by science.
 (No proposal resubmission in those cycles)

Target-of-Opportunity (TOO) Proposals
 1-2
ultra-fast (< 2 days) activations (15 orbit
overhead)
~
6 rapid (< 2 weeks) activations allowed
~
20 TOO activations (> 2 weeks)
11
Cycle 12 Summary

GO Acceptance Rate: ~1/5 for proposals and ~1/6 for orbits

SNAP Acceptance rate: ~1/3.5 for proposals and targets

AR Acceptance rate: ~1/2.6 for proposals and dollars

Theory Acceptance rate: ~1/4.2 for proposals and ~1/4.6 for dollars

AR Legacy Acceptance rate: 0 approved

GO proposals acceptance rate approximately independent of size.

28.7% of program awarded to Large/Treasury Programs.

Instrument breakdown for GO Programs: ACS (55%), STIS (23%),
NICMOS (21%), WFPC2 (2%), FGS (5%)

ESA acceptance fraction 16.8% for proposals and 10.2% for orbits
12
Cycle12 Summary (Cont.)








$2.97M awarded to Regular AR programs
$680K awarded to Theory programs
Proposal acceptance fraction similar for panelists and nonpanelists
Proposal acceptance fraction similar for STScI staff &
community
Chandra: accepted 3 out of 25 proposals, or 115 ksecs out of
1444 submitted
NOAO: accepted 7 out of 15 proposals, or 17.5 nights out of
41.5 submitted
Calibration: 2 AR for $130K and 3 GO for 12 orbits approved
ToO’s: approved 1 ultra-fast (< 2 days) + 2 fast (< 2 week) + 8
other
13
Summary Results
Proposals
RequestedApproved% AcceptedESA Accepted ESA %
GO
819
170
20.8%
28
16.5%
Snapshot
74
21
28.4%
4
19.0%
Archival
111
41
36.9%
Theory
42
10
23.8%
Total
1046
242
23.1%
32
16.8%
Primary Orbits
19674
3154
16.0%
323
10.2%
Includes 0790.bahcall (48 orbits) and 0314.webster (30 orbits) and 12 calibration orbits
14
Acceptance Fraction by Size
100.00%
90.00%
Proposals
Orbits
80.00%
70.00%
60.00%
50.00%
40.00%
83
30.00%
26
38
20.00%
6
8
4
4
10.00%
0.00%
1 - 10
11 - 20
21 - 30
31 - 40 41 - 50
Orbit Bins
51 - 100
>100
Overall
15
Orbit Size by Cycle
35
Median Submitted
Median Approved
Average Submitted
Average Approved
30
Orbit Size
25
20
15
10
5
0
6
7
7N
8
9
Cycle
10
11
12
16
STScI Acceptance Resources
Submitted
Approved
Approved
Fraction
Fraction of
Cycle
Approved
AR
$492K
(6)
$60K
(1)
12.2%
2%
Theory
$472K
(7)
$90K
(1)
19%
13.1%
Orbits
2573
(73)
424
(20)
16.5%
13.4%
Snap
Targets
460
(5)
40
(1)
9%
2.3%
17
STScI Proposal Acceptance
100%
STScI Acceptance Rate
Average Acceptance Rate
Fraction of Program
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
5
6
7
7N
7AR
Cycle
8
9
10
11
12
18
GO Instrument Summary
Requested
Instruments Orbits
%
ACS/HRC
1914
7.4%
ACS/SBC
266
1.0%
ACS/WFC
11727
45.3%
FGS
578
2.2%
NIC1
427
1.6%
NIC2
1866
7.2%
NIC3
1471
5.7%
STIS/CCD
1475
5.7%
STIS/FUV
2743
10.6%
STIS/NUV
1516
5.9%
WFPC2
1919
7.4%
25902
100.0%
53.7%
2.2%
14.5%
27.8%
7.4%
Approved
Total for
Orbits
% Instrument
251
4.7%
19
0.4%
2640
49.7%
54.8%
268
5.0%
5.0%
183
3.4%
597
11.2%
342
6.4%
21.1%
333
6.3%
433
8.1%
126
2.4%
23.2%
123
2.3%
2.3%
5315
100.0%
19
Pure Parallel Instrument Summary
Requeste
Instruments Mode
d Orbits
ACS/WFC
Imaging
700
ACS/WFC
Spectroscopy 300
NICMOS/NIC/3 Spectroscopy 500
WFPC2
Imaging
500
2000
%
35.0%
15.0%
25.0%
25.0%
Approve
d Orbits %
0
0%
0
0%
500
100%
0
0%
500
20
Calibration Proposals

7 Proposals Submitted: 2 AR for $130K and 5
GO for 33 orbits
2


AR and 3 GO approved for 12 orbits
AR: 0433.wyse
0562.dolphin
GO: 0149.odell
0568.dolphin
1233.hines
An astrometric standard field in omega Cen
CTE Corrections for WFPC2 and ACS
Calibration of the ACS Emission Line Filters
ACS Photometric Zero Point Verification
Enabling Coronagraphic Polarimetry with
NICMOS
21
TREASURY & LARGE PROGRAMS

Thompson -[T]- 144 orbits
 Deep

IR images in CHANDRA Deep Field South
Scoville-[T]-320 orbits Cy 12+320 orbits Cy 13
 COSMOS

Riess & Perlmutter -60 orbits each
 SNIa

2-Degree ACS survey
Hubble Diagram
Benedict- 60 orbits Astrometric
Calibration of Cepheids P-L relation
22
TREASURY & LARGE PROGRAMS

Sahu- 110 orbits
 Galactic

Malhotra- 40 orbits
 Grism-

bulge planetary transit survey
ACS program for extragalactic science
Kochanek- 110 orbits
 Imaging
of gravitational lenses
23