Cycle 7 Peer Review: 21-23 June 2005
 747 proposals, 12 panels, 101 reviewers
 Hilton, Logan Airport
19 Oct 2005
Chandra Users' Committee
Submitted Proposals
 New in Cycle 7
– Decrease in allowance for constrained observations:
15%, plus accurate accounting of # obsvns.
– Database-based panel GUI software: faster and more
accurate access to proposal information
– PDF files only
– Electronic proposal distribution, hardcopies on request
(~20% requested hardcopy)
– Spitzer joint time program
– Fully-web-based peer-review reports
– “War Room” at deadline time!
19 Oct 2005
Chandra Users' Committee
Aggressive Advertising of New Constraint Policy




CfP Erratum: describing new Constraint Policy
Electronic Bulletin including the same notice
Pitch Angle Restrictions: web page updated
FAQs on Constrained Observations: web page
posted
 Helpdesk: available as always to answer detailed
questions
19 Oct 2005
Chandra Users' Committee
Receipt Curve
Cycle 7
19 Oct 2005
Cycle 6
Chandra Users' Committee
% Proposals accepted per Type vs Cycle
Percent Proposals Accepted
60
Percent Accepted
50
GO
LP
VLP
Theory
Archive
Total
40
30
20
10
0
1
2
3
4
5
Cycle
19 Oct 2005
Chandra Users' Committee
6
7
% Proposals Approved by Science Area
Galactic Surveys Solar System
Extragalactic
4%
0%
Surveys
Stars & WD
3%
16%
WD Binaries &
CV
1%
Clusters of
Galaxies
10%
BH & NS
Binaries
12%
Active Galaxies
15%
Galaxies:
Population
11%
19 Oct 2005
Time Allocated by
Science Category
SN, SNR
18%
Galaxies:
Diffuse
10%
Chandra Users' Committee
% Requested Time Approved by Science Area
Percent of Requested Time Approved
Galactic Surveys
Extragalactic Surveys
Clusters of Galaxies
Active Galaxies
Galaxies: Population
Galaxies: Diffuse
SN, SNR
BH & NS Binaries
WD Binaries & CV
Stars & WD
Solar System
0
5
10
15
20
25
Percent of Requested Time Approved
19 Oct 2005
Chandra Users' Committee
30
35
40
Time Allocated per Instrument
Ti m e A l l oc a t e d pe r I nst r um e nt
HRC-S
1%
HRC-S/ LE T G
20%
HRC-I
1%
A CI S-I
21%
A CI S-S
15%
A CI S-S/ HE T G
19%
A CI S-S/ LE T G
1%
19 Oct 2005
Chandra Users' Committee
Grant Award Periods
 Award Periods:
– Grants may be requested for 1 or 2 years
– One-year no-cost extension to allow completion of
science project is available on request with a brief
justification
– Second one-year no-cost extension is also available if
justified
 Documentation:
– CfP Section 8.6, updated to clarify
– Updated Section VE of the Terms and Conditions ready
for Cycle 7: 1st extension straight-forward, 2nd or
subsequent need justification
19 Oct 2005
Chandra Users' Committee
Constraints and the Peer Review
 New Guidelines:
– 15% of observations
– Observation: individual pointing, e.g. count monitoring
sequence, or long observations split due to orbit
– Each panel given quota determined by ratio of requested to
available constrained observations
– Instructed to abide by the quota, but talk to me if they
needed/wished to go over
 Results:
– Real time determination of use/quota for each panel allowed
us to update quotas as needed
– No panel turned down a highly ranked proposal due to this
quota
19 Oct 2005
Chandra Users' Committee
Suggestions from Panel Chairs Survey
 Organization: generally very favorable comments
 Pundits: get involved in review reports in advance
of the review
 LP/VLP: panel chairs (or panels) should meet on
Wed pm to strategize on LP/VLPs
 Stop it being a race!
 Time: should we add another morning?
 Too may junior/non X-ray panel members:
– Starting much earlier to recruit panel chairs (5 already)
and reviewers
– Strong emphasis on inviting only senior people first (it
is much easier to get junior people!)
19 Oct 2005
Chandra Users' Committee
Revised Observation Completion Policy
 Complete observation: 90% (or more) of allocated
time has been observed
 Exceptions, implemented 8 July 2005:
– TOO/DDT due to scheduling restrictions
– Observations >200 ksec, any remaining time > 20 ksec
will be observed
 Exceptions, proposed for 1 Dec 2005:
– Observations < 5ksec, observed only once
– Observations with <2 ksec remaining will be
considered complete
 Policy posted on website and sent in an electronic
bulletin
 Will be described in Cycle 8 Call for Proposals
19 Oct 2005
Chandra Users' Committee
Summary of Response to Jan 2005 Report
 E&PO:
– Complexity of Process
> NASA requirements are inherently complex. They are holding
workshops. The E&PO CfP will be updated to clarify.
– Low funding levels
> 2% of GO budget: about $200K. No more funding is available,
unless CUC should recommend using more of GO budget to
fund E&PO as opposed to GO science
 All other items should have been covered during
the day
19 Oct 2005
Chandra Users' Committee