Recommendations to the CXC Director December 2000 Meeting Chandra Users' Committee [1] Policy on Reobservations and Proprietary Rights Current Chandra Observatory policy allows a target to be re-observed with the same instrument in a later Cycle if there is a sufficient scientific justification to do so. Examples might include source variability, or a longer exposure required to achieve an additional science goal of great importance. There is a danger that such a re-observation will reduce the proprietary time of the PI of the first observation. This recommendation concerns cases where the PI on the first observation requested his/her normal proprietary time, and this time has not elapsed by the start of the observing cycle in which the re-observation is to be done. Immediately following the review of proposals for each cycle, the CXC should identify any such cases. As a matter of routine policy, the CXC should delay the scheduled time for the re-observation until the proprietary time of the first PI is completed. If the re-observation has been completed before this rescheduling can be done, the CXC should hold the re-observation data, and release it to the PI of the re-observation only after the proprietary time of the first observation is complete. [2] Stability of Instrumental Parameters and Configuration The committee wishes to express a concern about changes in the instrument used for approved observations during the proposal period for the next cycle. Such changes can have an adverse on proposers writing for the same target with other instruments/configuration and also adversely affect the peer review's ability to judge the science program. [3] Large Proposals We suggest a review of the scientific impact of the Large Proposals which might result in an increase or a decrease in the allocated fraction. The first such review of the program should occur prior to the release of the NRA for Cycle 5. Criteria to measure the success of the Large Proposal program might include (1) key scientific results, (2) publications, and (3) citations (appropriately normalized). STScI undertook such a study for their large proposal program. Based on their experience, we advise CXC to begin tracking these metrics starting now. The review of the Large Proposal program should be undertaken by a panel of distinguished astronomers. [4] Theoretical Support of Chandra Science The committee has very serious reservations about taxing the data analysis (DA) budget to provide funding for theoretical projects. At present, the DA budget is stretched to fund Chandra observations and data analysis at an acceptable level. Also, the committee thinks that it will be difficult for Chandra proposal review panels to provide an adequate peer review of theoretical proposals. [5] Review of the GTO Program Following a request from HQ, the committee discussed the long term future of the GTO program. The committee recommends that the merits of continuing the program be reviewed by a panel of prominent astronomers at some point in the future. [6] GTO-GO Target Conflicts and GTO Proposals in Cycles 3 and Beyond a) It is Chandra Observatory policy that, although GTOs have a guaranteed allocation of time, they must compete for specific targets in Cycles 3 and beyond. The targets in conflict are subject to ranking by the peer review panels. The aim of this recommendation is to provide for a fair and competent review, protect the interests of GTOs and GOs, and minimize the burden of proposal writing and review for uncontested GTO targets. b) We propose a single due date for each Cycle, with GOs sending their proposals and GTOs sending a target list over-subscribed (in time) by a sufficient amount. Immediately following the deadline, the CXC will search the lists for conflicts. For those found between GTOs and GOs, the GTOs will be allowed to select 1 of 2 options: (i) Drop a target in conflict and replace the time with the next one or ones on their list, staying within their total time allocation. (ii) Write a proposal for the target or targets in conflict. c) If the GTO decides to write a proposal, this will be a standard Cycle 3 observing proposal, with a science and technical justification, and subject to the same page limits as GO proposals (4 pages, or 6 for Large Proposals). The GTO proposals must be submitted within 7 days of the notice from CXC of a target conflict. The GTO teams will be provided with no information from the competing GO proposal, and the CXC will insure that GO proposals are kept in confidence during this period. d) The GTO proposals will be reviewed by the relevant peer panels along with the GO proposals. Possible outcomes are: (i) the GTO proposal scores higher than the GO proposal and is accepted; the score need not be above the panel's threshold for allocating time, since the time comes from the GTO time allocation. (ii) the GO proposal scores higher than the GTO and is above the allocation threshold so receives some or all of the requested time. The GTO proposal is rejected, and is replaced with the next target on the GTO list. (Note that lower priority GTO targets with conflicts will need to have proposals written and reviewed in case they are needed.) (iii) the GO proposal scores higher than the GTO proposal, but not high enough to be allocated time. Then neither proposal receives time, since giving time to the lower rated proposal would seem unfair. [7] Lowering Grades of Rejected Proposals The committee recommends that during the review process, the grades of proposals rejected due to a target conflict with a higher rated proposal not be artificially lowered below the acceptance threshold. [8] Merging Panel The committee recommends that the merging panel at the proposal reviews have a chair appointed in advance who is a distinguished astronomer. We endorse having the merging panel consisting of the chairs of the individual panels plus three senior distinguished astronomers with wide research interests. These three merging panel members should be brought in only for the merging panel meeting and will not be members of the topical panels. The merging panel should compare the strongest subset of gray area small proposals, taken as a single suite, against the gray area Large Proposals. [9] Reobservations Due to Operational Errors The committee wishes to reiterate the policy on the handling of reobservations due to an operational error in the original data. When this occurs, the original data should be placed in the public archive as soon as the new observations is delivered to the PI. The committee was concerned that this policy was not applied for the HRC reobservations undertaken due to the timing fault with the HRC. [10] Grant Duration The committee recommends that the performance period of Chandra grants routinely be 2 years rather than one year, or that a 1-year no-cost extension be allowed in a completely automatic fashion. The present 1-year performance duration makes it difficult to hire graduate students and postdocs. [11] Short Exposure Targets The committee endorses the inclusion of pointing overhead (about 1500 s) that is particularly important for short observations. It is probably simpler to include this overhead for all observations rather than for only short observations, and to include this when estimating the allocations to each review panel. [12] Allowing Panels to Increase Exposure Times The committee received a request from a Cycle 2 panel chair that panels be allowed to increase the exposure times on a target or targets. The committee feels strongly that panels should not rewrite proposals, and continues to feel that panel should not be allowed to increase exposure times. [13] Changing the Subject Divisions for Panels The committee recommends that the review panel subject divisions separate normal stars from SNRs, given the vastly different physics between these two classes of objects. Parallel panels (i.e. panels dealing with the same topic) dealing with large number of proposals in related areas should have as similar a mix as possible. Perhaps there should be a panel that handles miscellaneous classes of objects in subject areas with a small number of proposals. [14] Phase II Cost Review The committee recommends changes to the Phase II cost review to simplify the process. With the call for Phase II cost proposals, we suggest that the CXC provide proposers a "fair share" allocation based on 90% of the available funds. It is expected that proposals which request the fair-share allocation can be routinely expected to be approved (assuming proper justification). Proposers may request higher funding levels but these proposals will undergo more detailed review. [15] Non-Java "Bare Bones" Interface for the Archive The committee recommends that a non-Java interface for the archive be maintained after the final interface is completed. This might be done by maintaining the Processing Status tool, or by an interface through the HEASARC. [16] Timing Anomalies in Older HRC Data The timing anomaly which resulted in the false detection of a QPO in the M82 source might still be present in older HRC data. This should be listed on the Caveats webpage. [17] Optical Follow-Up Data on Chandra Deep Fields A considerable amount of optical follow-up data on these two fields has already been acquired by the two PI teams using ESO and Keck. The CXC should contact the PIs to determine whether this data is likely to be publicly available at some point, as this information might affect the review of the Chandra Deep Field follow-up proposals. This information should be made available to the review panel. [18] Operations Going Well The committee was been very impressed with the smooth operation and high operating efficiency which has been achieved by the CXC. The CXC should be justly proud of this. [19] Timely Data Processing The CXC has achieved a very smooth process for planning observations, and currently is processing the data very quickly. The CUC was very impressed with this record. [20] Public Data Release The committee was very happy with the timely release of the first originally proprietary data to go public. At present, the best way to find out about data which has or is about to go public is to use the "Processing Status" tool. Since many users may not realize this, this should be highlighted in several places on the CXC webpages, particularly on the archive page. [21] Changing Targets on Observations In general, observers should not be allowed to transfer observing time between approved targets or from approved to nonapproved targets. In exceptional circumstances, this might be allowed if the target was in the original proposal and was not in conflict with any other proposal, and if it is clear that the original review panel did not consider the originally approved target to be a superior choice. [22] Combining EPO Proposals and Budgets As part of the review of observational proposals for Chandra and other programs, PIs can propose for funding of Education and Public Outreach (EPO) programs. The individual EPO grants have been small, and it is difficult to propose a substantial EPO program on this basis. Partly due to this, the EPO program has not been very widely utilized. At present, PIs are not allowed to combine EPO funds from different observational proposals and programs. Pooling these resources, which was permitted in the past, would allow PIs to propose more significant EPO programs. We recommend that NASA allow the pooling of EPO proposals as soon as possible. [23] Foreign Co-Is on Chandra Proposals Recently, NASA has decided to require certifications from foreign Co-Is on Chandra proposals. Since the Co-Is receive no financial support, this policy may reduce the foreign participation in Chandra science, at least officially. We applaud the efforts at NASA HQ to remove this requirement. [24] Digital Submission of Technical Grant Reports Based on requests from Chandra grant PIs, we recommend that Chandra provide a digital form for electronic submission (via E-mail or the WWW) of the annual or final technical reports on grants. STScI currently provides such a mechanism, which is likely to facilitate the timely submission of such reports. [25] Don't Allow PIs on Review Panels for their Proposals Recently, the committee was asked to review the conflict-of-interest rule which prohibits PIs of Chandra proposals from serving on the review panel which judges their own proposal. The committee appreciates that all conflict-of-interest rules make it more difficult to obtain the most competent review panels. However, the committee felt that prohibiting PIs from serving on the panel which reviews their own proposal was essential to maintain the integrity of the review process. [26] No "Shotgun" Weddings of Proposals The Chair of a Cycle 2 review panel asked the committee to consider allowing review panels to merge competing proposals for the same target. Based on previous experience, the committee does not recommend this change. [27] New CIAO Scripts and Documentation The new release of CIAO has many improvements and new features. The committee was also very happy with the large number of new CIAO scripts, and the major improvements to documentation. The committee recommends that an effort be made to keep the "major bug list" up to date, as this can save a great deal of effort by observers and by CXC staff in responding to questions by CIAO users. [28] Better Public Information on Calibration Issues The committee continues to be concerned that information on important calibration issues in not reaching many of the users. The CXC staff involved in calibration should provide a short list of the major calibration issues which might affect the analysis of observations in a substantial manner, with a brief description of the problem and a crude estimate (one month, six months, one year, ...) of the time scale for resolution. [29] Not Cutting Time from Large Proposals Current Chandra policy does not allow topical review panels to cut time or targets from Large Proposals; they may make recommendation to the Merging Panel. The committee supports the continuation of this policy.