Äîêóìåíò âçÿò èç êýøà ïîèñêîâîé ìàøèíû. Àäðåñ îðèãèíàëüíîãî äîêóìåíòà : http://hea-www.harvard.edu/~pgreen/CfP/CfP_Cycle14_updated_12-7-11-d.doc Äàòà èçìåíåíèÿ: Wed Dec 7 22:25:29 2011 Äàòà èíäåêñèðîâàíèÿ: Tue Oct 2 06:04:30 2012 Êîäèðîâêà: Ïîèñêîâûå ñëîâà: âíåøíèå ïëàíåòû

The Chandra X-ray

Observatory (CXO)

Research Program



Call for Proposals


Cycle 14



Due Date: 15 March 2012, 6 p.m. EDT


Prepared by:
Chandra X-ray Center
60 Garden Street,
Cambridge, MA 02138


15 December 2011




The Chandra X-ray Center is operated for NASA by the Smithsonian
Astrophysical Observatory







Table of Contents


Chapter 1 - General Information 2
1.1 The Chandra Program: Call for Proposals (CfP) 2
1.2 Proposal Review Process: Deadlines and Schedule 2
1.3 Summary of the CfP 3
1.3.1 Types of Science Research Proposals: 3
1.4 Cancellation of the CfP 4
1.5 What's New in Cycle 14 4
1.6 Proposal Submission 4
1.7 How to Get Help 4
1.8 Relevant Documents and Web Addresses 5

Chapter 2 - Overview of Chandra Mission 8
2.1 Overview 8
2.2 Science Payload 8
2.3 Operation 9
2.4 The Chandra X-ray Center (CXC) 10

Chapter 3 - Proposal Submission and Observing Policies 12
3.1 Who May Propose 12
3.2 Observing Policy 12
3.2.1 Chandra Observing Policy 12
3.2.2 Procedures Concerning TOOs and DDTs 15
3.2.3 Criteria for Completeness and Data Quality 16
3.3 Non-U.S. Participation 18
3.4 Proposal Confidentiality 18
3.5 Chandra Observation Catalog: Checking for Duplicate Targets 18
3.6 Supporting Ground-Based Observations 19

Chapter 4 - Proposal Types 20
4.1 General Observing (GO) Projects 20
4.2 Large Observing Projects 20
4.3 X-ray Visionary Projects 21
4.4 Target of Opportunity Projects 21
4.5 Joint Observing Projects 22
4.5.1 Chandra/Hubble Space Telescope (HST) Observations 23
4.5.2 Chandra/XMM-Newton Observations 23
4.5.3 Chandra/National Optical Astronomy Observatory (NOAO)
Observations 24
4.5.4 Chandra/National Radio Astronomy Observatory (NRAO) Observations
25
4.5.5 Chandra/Suzaku Observations 27
4.6 Theory/Modeling Projects 28
4.7 Archival Research Projects 28
4.7.1 Archive Proposals and the Chandra Source Catalog (CSC) 29
4.8 Proposals for Director's Discretionary Time 30





Chapter 5 - Proposal Preparation and Submission Instructions 31
5.1 Overview and Schedule of Process 31
5.2 Stage 1 Research Proposal Details 31
5.2.1 Proposal Content 31
5.2.2 Cover Pages 32
5.2.3 Target Forms 32
5.2.4 Science Objectives 33
5.2.5 Technical Feasibility 33
5.2.6 Archival Research and Theory/Modeling 33
5.2.7 Joint Proposals 34
5.2.8 Constrained Observations 34
5.2.9 Other Observing Facilities Being Used for the Research 36
5.2.10 Previous Chandra Programs (Required) 36
5.2.11 PI/CV Bibliography (Optional) 36
5.2.12 Observation Preferences 36
5.2.13 Proposal Formats and Page Limits 36
5.2.14 Proposal Preparation Tools 37
5.3 Proposal Submission Instructions 38
5.3.1 Electronic Submission Required 38
5.3.2 Remote Proposal System (RPS) 38
5.3.3 Help After Submitting: When You Have Discovered A Mistake 39
5.3.4 Color Figures 39

Chapter 6 - Resources for Proposers and Proposal Submission 40
6.1 On-line Resources 40
6.1.1 The Proposers' Observatory Guide (POG) 40
6.1.2 The HelpDesk 40
6.1.3 Searching the Chandra Archives and Downloading Data 40
6.1.4 Instrument Response Functions 41
6.2 Proposal Preparation Software 41
6.2.1 Precess, Colden, Dates, ObsVis, PRoVis, PIMMS, and Effective
Area and PSF Viewers 41
6.2.2 Software Helpfiles and Proposal Threads 42
6.2.3 MARX 42
6.2.4 CIAO 43
6.2.5 XSPEC 43

Chapter 7 - Stage 1: Scientific and Technical Proposal Evaluation,
Selection and Implementation 44
7.1 Evaluation of Research Objectives 44
7.1.1 Observing Efficiency/Slew Tax 45
7.1.2 Grid Surveys and Slew Tax 45
7.2 Selection 46
7.3 Implementation 46
7.3.1 Early Observation of Summer Targets 47







Chapter 8 - Stage 2: Cost Proposal Submission, Evaluation and Allocation
48
8.1 Overview 48
8.2 Content and Submission of Cost Proposals 48
8.3 Eligibility for Grant Funds 53
8.3.1 Switching Institutions 53
8.4 Evaluation of Budgets 53
8.5 Selection 54
8.6 Grant Award 54
8.7 Processing of Cost Proposals 55
8.8 Contact Information for Cost Proposals 56

Appendix A - Certifications and Assurances 57
A.1 Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, and Other
Responsibility Matters 57
A.2 Certification Regarding Lobbying (Applicable to Awards Exceeding
$100,000). 58
A.3 Assurance of Compliance with the NASA Regulations Pursuant to
Nondiscrimination in Federally Assisted Programs 59


Tables

Table 1.1. Schedule and Deadlines for the CfP
Cycle.............................2
Table 1.2. Useful
Documents...................................................................
.......................................5
Table 1.3. Web
Addresses...................................................................
............................................6
Table 5.1. Grading Scheme for Constrained
Observations...........................................................35
Table 5.2. Proposal Content and Page
Limit.......................................................................
..........37











Chapter 1 - General Information


1.1 The Chandra Program: Call for Proposals (CfP)


We invite scientists to participate in Cycle 14 of the Chandra X-ray
Observatory's (CXO) science program. The Chandra program is sponsored by
NASA's Science Mission Directorate (SMD) and managed by the NASA Marshall
Space Flight Center (MSFC). The Chandra X-ray Center (CXC), which is funded
by NASA via a contract to the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory (SAO)
in Cambridge, MA, has the responsibility for managing the Chandra science
program, carrying out the Chandra Education and Public Outreach (EPO)
program, conducting the peer review that recommends the allocation of
observing time and funds to the user community, selecting the proposals,
and operating the Chandra spacecraft. The Chandra X-ray Observatory is
described in Chapter 2.

The funding of all awards associated with this Call for Proposals (CfP)
flows from NASA through SAO and the CXC to the Awardees. The CXC is the
organizational unit within SAO that carries out SAO's contractual
obligation to operate the Chandra X-ray Observatory and solicit proposals
and when used in this document will encompass the NASA/SAO/CXC
interrelationship.

1.2 Proposal Review Process: Deadlines and Schedule


Science proposal submission and review will be conducted in two stages to
minimize the burden of proposal preparation. For details, please refer to
Chapter 5:
. Stage 1: Involves the scientific and technical merits of the
proposed investigation. Evaluation criteria include overall
scientific merit, relevance to the Chandra program and the
competence of the proposers (Section 7.1).
. Stage 2: The PIs of those proposals selected in Stage 1 will be
invited to submit a cost proposal for the Stage 2 review (Chapter
8):

Table 1.1 Schedule and Deadlines for the CfP Cycle
|event |date |
|CfP Release |15 December 2011 |
|XVP Notice of Intent |20 January 2012 |
|Science Proposal Deadline (Stage 1) |6 p.m. EDT, 15 March 2012 |
|Peer Review |25-29 June 2012 |
|Selected Proposals Announced |Mid July 2012 |
|Budget Deadline (Stage 2) |6 p.m. EDT, 14 September 2012 |
|Cost Review |October 2012 |
|Stage 2 Final Selection |November 2012 |
|Cycle 14 Starts |About December 2012 |

Late Proposals will not be considered. We recommend submission well before
the deadline.

1.3 Summary of the CfP


This CfP solicits basic research proposals for participation in the program
for the conduct of space science observations and subsequent analysis of
the resultant scientific data from the Chandra X-ray Observatory (CXO). The
CfP also solicits proposals for research that makes use of publicly
available archived Chandra data and for theoretical and modeling studies
related to the Chandra mission. The primary goal of the Chandra mission is
the investigation of the nature and physics of astronomical objects as
revealed through their X-ray emission.

This CfP offers the opportunity for the submission of seven different types
of proposals (see Chapter 4).

1.3.1 Types of Science Research Proposals:

1) General Observing Projects (GO) involving new Chandra observations,
generally (but not limited to) requiring less than 300 ksec of observing
time (regardless of the number of objects observed);
2) Large Observing Projects (LP) involving new Chandra observations that
require 300-999 ksec or more (regardless of the number of objects
observed) and designated as LPs by the PI;
3) X-ray Visionary Projects (XVP) involving new Chandra observations for
major coherent science projects to address key questions in current
astrophysics that require 1-6 Msec (regardless of the number of pointings
required).
4) Target of Opportunity (TOO) Projects that are triggered by the
occurrence of an unanticipated astrophysical phenomenon (e.g., a
supernova);
5) Joint Observing Projects that require multi-wavelength sets of data
taken by Chandra and one or more of the facilities described in Section
4.5;
6) Archival Research Projects that use data from the Chandra archives, or
the Chandra Source Catalog; and
7) Theory/Modeling Projects that seek to better understand and interpret
the data that have been taken with Chandra, or that seek to determine
what new observations might be taken to test a hypothesis.

The observations selected as a result of this CfP will be implemented
during a one-year period beginning about December 2012 with any multi-cycle
observations extending into the following two cycles. The observing time is
allocated as follows: 600 ksec of the on-target observing time available
during this cycle to calibration observations, 700 ksec is allocated to
Director's Discretionary Time (DDT), 2450 ksec to Guaranteed Time
Observations (GTO), and the remaining time available is allocated for
General Observations (GO). The time available for General Observers
(including Large Projects) under this CfP is estimated at about 18 Msec, of
which about 4 Msec will be allocated for Large Projects. In addition ~7
Msec will be reserved for X-ray Visionary Projects. It is anticipated that
further opportunities for participation in the Chandra Research Program
will be announced annually, including the analysis of the increasing body
of archival data.

1.4 Cancellation of the CfP


The CXC reserves the right to make no awards under this CfP and to cancel
this CfP. The CXC, the Smithsonian Institution, and NASA assume no
liability should the CfP be cancelled or for anyone's failure to receive
notification of a cancellation.

1.5 What's New in Cycle 14


1.5 What's New in Cycle 12

. Remote Proposal System (RPS) Update:

Upload of the PI's CV and Previous Chandra Programs in RPS are now
separatefrom upload of the science justification. After submission of
proposal information via the RPS form, proposers should now upload the
science justification PDF file and (separately) a single PDF file detailing
Previous Chandra Programs (required if relevant) and PI CV (optional).

. Use of Optional CCDs:

The CXC encourages observers to specify a total of 5 or fewer ACIS CCDs
(where total is the sum of required CCDs marked "Y" and optional CCDs
marked "OPT#"). Science programs that request a total of 6 CCDs must
specify at least one Optional CCD in the RPS.

. Chandra Source Catalog (CSC):

The CSC Sky in Google Earth, CSC-SDSS Cross-match Catalog, and CSC
Sensitivity Map Service have been updated to access Release 1.1 of the
Chandra Source Catalog.

. Update to Cost Review Process:

As implemented in Cycle 13, each approved proposal with a US-based PI
and/or Co-Is will be allocated a budget commensurate with the size and
scope of the approved program. For observing programs, this will be
similar to the previous fair share calculation, and for theory and archive
proposals, based on the proposed/recommended budget. Submitted cost
proposals should not exceed the allocated budget. Cost Proposal and
Funding Information is detailed in
Chapter 8.

1.6 Proposal Submission

Science proposals must be submitted electronically via the Remote Proposal
System (RPS) software (cxc.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/RPS/Chandra/RPS.pl),
available on the CXC website; see Section 5.3 for more details. Cost
proposals will also be submitted electronically using forms available from
the CXC website; see Chapter 8 for more details.

1.7 How to Get Help

Questions concerning the Chandra mission and requests for assistance in
Stage 1 proposal submission may be addressed to the Chandra Director's
Office (CDO) via the HelpDesk at: http://cxc.harvard.edu/helpdesk/ or by
email to cxchelp@cfa.harvard.edu.



The full contact information for the CDO is:

Chandra Director's Office

Chandra X-ray Center

Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory Telephone: (617) 495-7268
Garden Street, Mail Stop 6 FAX: (617) 495-7356
Cambridge, MA 02138-1516 Email: cxchelp@cfa.harvard.edu


For questions concerning Stage 2 Cost Proposals, please refer to the
information in
Chapter 8.

1.8 Relevant Documents and Web Addresses


Documents recommended to proposers for additional information are listed in
Table 1.2.

Table 1.2. Useful Documents

|document |description |
|Proposers' |Technical Description of the |
|Observatory Guide |Chandra X-ray Observatory and its |
|(POG) |Instruments. |
|MARX Manual |Manual describing the installation|
| |and use of the MARX simulation |
| |software. |




























Table 1.3. Web Addresses

|web link |description |
|http://cxc.harvard.edu/ |CXC Website. |
|http://cxc.harvard.edu/proposer/ |Page providing access to relevant |
| |web-based information and |
| |documentation necessary to prepare a |
| |Chandra proposal. |
|http://cxc.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/RPS/Ch|Remote Proposal Submission (RPS) |
|andra/RPS.pl |Software. |
|http://cxc.harvard.edu/toolkit/pimms.|Proposal Planning Toolkit: including |
|jsp |count rate determination (PIMMS), |
| |column density estimates (Colden), |
| |coordinates (Precess), and date |
| |conversions (Dates). |
|http://cxc.harvard.edu/soft/provis |PRoVis: Pitch, Roll and Visibility |
| |Tool |
|http://cxc.harvard.edu/obsvis |Observation Visualizer (ObsVis): for |
| |displaying and examining Chandra |
| |target field of view. |
|http://cxc.harvard.edu/proposer/maxex|MaxExpo: Table and plots allow |
|po.html |estimation of the maximum |
| |uninterrupted Chandra exposure time |
|http://cxc.harvard.edu/acis/optional_|Guide for selecting and activating |
|CCDs/optional_CCDs.html |the optimal set of ACIS CCDs |
|http://cxc.harvard.edu/proposer/orbit|Table of begin and end times of |
|s.html |Chandra orbits when observations are |
| |possible above the Earth's radiation |
| |zones. |
|http://cxc.harvard.edu/ciao/download/|CLI versions of the Proposal Planning|
| |Toolkit (without PIMMS) and ObsVis. |
|http://cxc.harvard.edu/ciao/ |CIAO: Data reduction and analysis |
| |software and information |
|http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/spp/sp/pol|Funding information web pages |
|icies/CPSR.html |providing information on Chandra |
| |grants |


|Observation Catalog: |
|web link |description | |
|http://cda.harvard.edu/chaser/ |WebChaSeR: Web interface to | |
| |catalog search and archive data | |
| |access. | |
|http://cxc.harvard.edu/targets/ |Target Search Page: Non-java | |
| |search engine. | |
|http://cxc.harvard.edu/csc/ |Chandra Source Catalog (Section | |
| |4.7.1) | |
|http://cxc.harvard.edu/cda/footprint|Footprint Service: A visual web | |
|/cdaview.html |interface to all public Chandra | |
| |observations and to the | |
| |observational data used for the | |
| |Chandra Source Catalog (Section | |
| |6.1.3) | |
|http://cxc.harvard.edu/cgi-gen/cda/b|Bibliography: Web interface that | |
|ibliography |allows simultaneous browsing of | |
| |the archive and papers published | |
| |about Chandra observations. | |
|http://cxc.harvard.edu/DDT/DD_progra|Information on DDT program and | |
|m.html |listing of DDT observations to | |
| |date. | |


Chapter 2 - Overview of Chandra Mission


2.1 Overview

The Chandra X-ray Observatory (CXO) was launched on the Space Shuttle
Columbia on
July 23, 1999. The Chandra program is sponsored by NASA's Science Mission
Directorate (SMD) and managed by the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center
(MSFC). The prime contractor responsible for developing the spacecraft and
integrating the CXO was TRW. The science instruments were developed as
follows:
. The Advanced CCD Imaging Spectrometer (ACIS), built by the
Pennsylvania State University in collaboration with the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT);
. The High Resolution Camera (HRC) built by the Smithsonian
Astrophysical Observatory (SAO);
. The Low Energy Transmission Grating (LETG) built by the Scientific
Research Organization of the Netherlands (SRON) in collaboration
with the Max-Planck-InstitÝt fÝr Extraterrestriche Physik (MPE); and

. The High Energy Transmission Grating (HETG) built by MIT.

Chandra has as its primary mission the study of the structure and emission
properties of astrophysical sources of high-energy radiation. The
scientific objectives of the Chandra Mission are to utilize the Observatory
to:
. Determine the nature of celestial objects from normal stars to
quasars;
. Understand the nature of physical processes that take place in and
between astronomical objects; and
. Understand the history and evolution of the universe.

2.2 Science Payload

Chandra is comprised of the spacecraft, the X-ray telescope, and the
Science Instrument Module (SIM). The spacecraft provides the power,
attitude control, communications, etc. for the telescope and instruments.
The X-ray telescope consists of an optical bench, the High Resolution
Mirror Assembly (HRMA), an aspect camera system, and two objective
transmission gratings: the High Energy Transmission Grating (HETG) and the
Low Energy Transmission Grating (LETG). The HRMA is a Wolter Type I, 1.2-m
diameter, 10-m focal length, iridium-coated X-ray telescope consisting of 4
nested pairs of cylindrical hyperboloid and paraboloid mirrors. At 1.5 keV,
>85% of the on-axis, imaged and aspect-corrected X-rays are contained in a
circle of diameter ~1.0 arc second.

Chandra carries two focal-plane scientific instruments mounted in the SIM:
the ACIS, and the HRC. The SIM provides three functions: launch lock,
translation (to interchange focal plane instruments), and focus. Only one
of the two focal plane instruments can be placed at the telescope's focus
at any time; therefore, simultaneous observations with both focal-plane
instruments cannot be accommodated.

The ACIS has two arrays of CCDs, one (ACIS-I) optimized for imaging wide
fields (16x16 arc minutes) the other (ACIS-S) optimized as a readout for
the HETG transmission grating. One chip of the ACIS-S (S3) can also be used
for on-axis (8x8 arc minutes) imaging and offers the best energy resolution
of the ACIS system.

The HRC is comprised of two micro-channel plate imaging detectors, and
offers the highest spatial (<0.5 arc second) and temporal (16 msec)
resolutions. The HRC-I is a single micro-channel plate and has a field-of-
view of 31x31 arc minutes. The HRC-S consists of three contiguous segments,
tilted slightly in order to conform to the Rowland circle of the LETG. The
background rate is quite different in the two devices, being larger in the
HRC-S.

The HETG is optimized for high-resolution spectroscopy over the energy band
0.4-10 keV. Two types of gratings are mounted in the HETG: medium-energy
gratings (MEGs) covering the 0.4-5 keV band and high-energy gratings (HEGs)
covering the 0.9-10 keV band. The MEGs are mounted behind the annular
aperture of the outer two mirror pairs while the HEGs are mounted behind
the apertures of the inner two mirror pairs. The two sets of gratings
operate simultaneously so that the dispersed axes of the spectra cross at a
shallow angle in the focal plane. The ACIS-S is the readout of choice for
use with the HETG. The resolving power (E/DE) varies from ~800 at 1.5 keV
to ~200 at 6 keV.

The LETG is optimized for high-resolution spectroscopy over the energy
bandwidth ~0.09-4 keV. The LETG provides resolving power ~1000 at 0.1 keV
and ~200 at 1.5 keV. The HRC-S is the only detector aboard the Observatory
that can fully accommodate the LETG-dispersed spectrum.

Detailed descriptions of all of the instruments are contained in the
Proposers' Observatory Guide. Proposers should refer to that document for
additional details before preparing a proposal.

2.3 Operation


After launch into low earth orbit by the shuttle Columbia, the initial
Chandra operational orbit was achieved by use of Boeing's Inertial Upper
Stage and Chandra's own propulsion system. There are sufficient expendables
(control gas for momentum unloading) for 15-20 years of operation. The
orbital period of about 63.5 hours allows for reasonably long,
uninterrupted observations of up to ~180 ksec before the instruments have
to be powered down as the satellite dips into the radiation belts. Approved
longer observations are split into several orbit-sized observations on
ingestion into the observation catalog. Information as to the begin and end
times of Chandra orbits is available at
http://cxc.harvard.edu/proposer/orbits.html.

The Observatory's solar panels can rotate about an axis perpendicular to
the optical axis so that at any time the Observatory can be pointed to any
position in the sky except for avoidance regions around the Sun (46
degrees), Moon (6 degrees), and Earth (10 degrees). Both the Moon and Earth
may be viewed if specially requested and as long as an accurate aspect
solution is not required. In order to avoid over-heating the spacecraft
components on the sunward side or excessive cooling of the propellant lines
the maximum length of an exposure is dependent on the pitch angle at which
the target is observed. Some pitch angles are excluded. Observations with
exposure times longer than the maximum allowed at a given pitch angle will
be segmented. Details of these restrictions are given in Chapter 3 of the
Proposers' Observatory Guide
(http://cxc.harvard.edu/proposer/POG/index.html). However, pitch angle
restrictions are evolving with time and proposers are urged to check the
CXC website for current information.

The high elliptical orbit and the radiation belts that prevent the conduct
of observations at low altitudes imply that most of observations are made
nearer apogee, where the Earth, as seen from Chandra, appears to move only
slowly through the sky. As a result, the Earth and its surrounding
avoidance region constitute a portion of the sky that will be partially
blocked from view, and long, continuous observations in this region (>30
ksec at the center of the region) will be difficult, although shorter
observations are possible. The proposer is urged to read Chapter 3 of the
Proposers' Observatory Guide (POG) to become familiar with all Chandra
observing constraints and to make use of the Observation Visualizer
(ObsVis) and PRoVis to see how these constraints might impact their
observations. For highly constrained observations, we recommend that the
proposer contact the CXC Help Desk.

2.4 The Chandra X-ray Center (CXC)


The Chandra X-ray Center (CXC), funded by NASA via a contract to the
Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory (SAO) in Cambridge, MA, is
responsible for planning and conducting all aspects of Chandra operations.
The CXC's main activities include:

. Proposal Solicitation and Review: Soliciting proposals for observing
time and research funding, conducting peer reviews, and selecting
proposals.
. Mission Planning: Based upon approved proposals, creating a timeline
of science observations and detailed schedules of spacecraft
activities.
. Instrument Calibration: By means of special observations and
advanced data analysis, determining parameters and data products
that characterize the science instruments.
. Mission Operations: Commanding the spacecraft, monitoring and
assessing spacecraft and science instrument health and safety, and
receiving science and engineering data from the spacecraft.
. Data Processing and Archiving: Processing spacecraft telemetry to
produce science data products for users, and storing products in a
permanent archive. Data in the archive are typically available to
the public after the one-year proprietary period expires, while
calibration data are available immediately.
. Supporting Data Analysis: Defining and producing software for use in
analyzing Chandra data
. User Support: Assisting users to derive maximum benefit from the
Chandra X-ray Observatory; maintaining and conducting the Chandra
Users' Committee; and producing documents and other materials on the
use of the Chandra X-ray Observatory.
. Education and Public Outreach: Conducting a program of formal and
informal education and public outreach using Chandra data and
results.

SAO, through its management of the CXC, is responsible for scientific
research of the highest technical merit utilizing the Chandra X-ray
Observatory. In order to carry out this responsibility, NASA has directed
SAO to engage the participation of the broader science community and has
determined that this function will be accomplished by SAO allotting
observing time and research



funding to users in accordance with the following process conducted at
appropriate intervals:

. Prepare and issue Calls for Proposals for observations with the CXO
and for funding of activities including data analysis by General
Observers; Archival and Theoretical Research; Postdoctoral
Fellowships; Education and Public Outreach; and other research.
. Prepare and conduct independent peer evaluations of proposals, and
select proposals for observation and funding as recommended by the
peer review panels.
. Allocate funding to selected investigations as recommended by the peer
review panels, determine the period of performance of each award,
issue funding instruments on behalf of NASA in the form of grants, and
administer the awards through closeout.

SAO is not responsible for transferring funds to NASA Centers and Other
Federal Agencies whose proposals are selected for awards. NASA will be
responsible for direct funding of research at NASA Centers and for
executing appropriate inter-agency agreements with other federal agencies.
However, the CXC provides the results of the CXO observations, as selected,
to all investigators, including those at federal agencies.

Chapter 3 - Proposal Submission and Observing Policies


3.1 Who May Propose


Participation in this program is open to the following categories of
institutions and organizations:
. Educational Institutions - Universities or two- and four-year colleges
accredited to confer degrees beyond that of the K-12 grade levels.
. Nonprofit, Nonacademic Organizations - Private or Government supported
research laboratories, universities consortia, museums, observatories,
professional societies, educational organizations, or similar
institutions that directly support advanced research activities but
whose principal charter is not for the training of students for
academic degrees.
. NASA Centers - Any NASA Field Center and the Jet Propulsion
Laboratory.
. Other Federal Agencies - Any non-NASA, U.S. Federal Executive agency
or Federally Funded Research and Development Center (FFRDC) sponsored
by a Federal agency.
. Commercial Organizations - Organizations of any size that operate for
profit or fee and that have appropriate capabilities, facilities, and
interests to conduct the proposed effort.
. Non-U.S. Organizations - Institutions outside the United States that
propose on the basis of a policy of no-exchange-of-funds. See Section
3.3 for additional information.

Each proposal must have one, and only one, Principal Investigator (PI). Any
other individuals who are actively involved in the program should be listed
as Co-Investigators (Co-Is). The PI is responsible for the scientific and
administrative conduct of the project and is the formal contact for all
communications with the CXC.

Proposals by non-U.S. PIs that have one or more U.S. Co-Is who require
funding must designate one of the U.S. Co-Is as the "Administrative PI".
(Note: U.S. is defined as the 50 states and the District of Columbia.) This
person will have general oversight and responsibility for the budget
submissions by the U.S. Co-Is in Stage 2.

3.2 Observing Policy


3.2.1 Chandra Observing Policy


3.2.1.1 Introduction and Scope


This section establishes the observing policy for Chandra. This policy
reviews and confirms the distribution of observing time among the
Guaranteed Time Observers (GTOs) and General Observers (GOs), establishes
guidelines for the resolution of conflicts between and within these groups,
and sets guidelines for the distribution of observing time and data.

3.2.1.2 Distribution of Data


With certain exceptions, all General Observing data awarded either to GTOs
or to GOs will be proprietary for one year beginning when the data are made
available to the observer. For fragmented "Long Duration" observations, the
one-year period for each target begins when 90% of the data have been made
available to the observer.

Data from unanticipated Targets Of Opportunity (TOOs) and other use of
Director's Discretionary Time may be proprietary for limited periods - no
more than three months - before they are placed in the public archive.
Calibration data scheduled and obtained by the Chandra X-ray Center will
not be proprietary and will be placed directly into the public archive.

Data from X-ray Visionary Projects (XVP) will not be proprietary.

3.2.1.3 Distribution of Observing Time


Distribution between GO and GTO - Scientific observations commenced
approximately 2 months after launch. X-ray data obtained during these first
two months were considered calibration data and were placed directly into
the public archive. Following this, 2450 ksecs of observing time per cycle
is allocated to GTOs.

Distribution among GTOs - In Cycle 14, the GTOs comprise the following:
Four Instrument Principal Investigators (IPIs) for the Advanced Imaging
Spectrometer (ACIS), for the High-Resolution Camera (HRC), for the Low-
Energy Transmission Grating (LETG), and for the High-Energy Transmission
Grating (HETG). Their observing time is based on a distribution of 3.5
"shares" as follows:


|LETG IPI |0.5 share |0.5 share total |
|HETG, ACIS, and HRC |1.0 share each |3.0 shares total |
|IPIs | | |


3.2.1.4 Target Selection and Phasing


Target selection will be carried out in a sequence phased with the timing
of the CXC Call for Proposals. Target selection begins with the GTOs
specifying targets that over-subscribe the GTO time available. Any GTO-GTO
conflict at this point shall be resolved by the GTOs. In the event that a
resolution is not achieved, the GTOs shall write proposals in accordance
with the CfP. After the GO proposals are received, GO-GTO conflicts are
identified. In response, GTOs may either (i) replace a conflicted target
with an un-conflicted backup target or (ii) write a proposal and let the
peer review decide the conflict. Targets resulting from peer review of the
responses to the CfP will be added to the set of un-conflicted GTO targets
to form the complete approved target list.

3.2.1.5 GTO Proposals


GTOs must submit proposals for observing time if there are GO or other GTO
proposals for the same target. GTOs are guaranteed to receive their
observing time in accordance with
Section 3.2.1.3 but cannot reserve targets in advance of the CfP.

3.2.1.6 Conflict Resolution


All conflicts (GO-GO, GO-GTO, or GTO-GTO) are decided as part of the peer
review process with selection based on scientific merit.

3.2.1.7 Large Projects


Large Projects (Section 4.2) are those that are designated as such by the
proposer and that require 300-999 ksec observing time, whether long-
duration observations of single targets or shorter duration observations of
multiple targets. Large Projects are encouraged. An estimated 4 Msec of
observing time will be allocated for Large Projects in this cycle.

Large Projects may be multi-cycle (Section 3.2.1.14), but cannot reserve
targets beyond the time and cycles proposed.

3.2.1.8 X-ray Visionary Projects


An X-ray Visionary Project proposal (see Section 4.3) should describe a
major, coherent science program to address key, high-impact, scientific
question(s) in current astrophysics, must require 1-6 Msec of observing
time and may be multi-cycle (Section 3.2.1.14). An estimated 7 Msec of
observing time will be allocated to 2 or more X-ray Visionary Projects in
this cycle.

X-ray Visionary Projects must be proposed to be completed within the time
span covered by this CfP and cannot reserve targets beyond that time. Given
the limitation on observing as a function of pitch angle (Section 5.2.8),
the total observing time of XVP targets at ecliptic latitudes > 60º will be
limited to 2 Msec. The data obtained as part of an XVP will have no
proprietary time.

3.2.1.9 Targets of Opportunity (TOOs)


There are two categories of Targets of Opportunity: Those that are proposed
and selected through peer review (Pre-Approved); and those that simply
occur and have been brought to the attention of the Director of the CXC,
who may reschedule Chandra to obtain the appropriate observations in the
best interest of the scientific community.

Pre-Approved TOOs

A proposed TOO may be reserved for a single proposal cycle. The proposer
may propose to renew the opportunity in subsequent cycles.

Unanticipated TOOs

Data obtained from an unanticipated TOO are considered Director's
Discretionary Time. These data may be kept proprietary for a period not to
exceed three months.

3.2.1.10 GO Time Allocation


All GO time allocations will be subject to peer review.

3.2.1.11 GTO Time Allocation


All GTO targets with conflicts will be subject to peer review, consistent
with the provisions of Sections 3.2.1.3, 3.2.1.4 and 3.2.1.6.

3.2.1.12 Director's Discretionary Time (DDT)


For this Cycle, 700 ksec of observing time is reserved for Director's
Discretionary Time. This allocation includes unanticipated TOOs.

3.2.1.13 Time-Constrained Targets


The number of time-constrained observations accepted in any Cycle will be
limited to 15% of the total with quotas for the various classes of
constraints (Section 5.2.8). New or additional constraints may not be
imposed by the observer after the proposal deadline. Please note that an
observation is defined as a single observation of a target. Monitoring
observations are counted based on the number of repeat visits. Long
observations (>90 ksec) will be divided into several 90 ksec-long
observations for the purpose of counting constraints.



Information on the periods of time when Chandra observations are allowed
due to passage beyond the earth's radiation zone are provided at
http://cxc.harvard.edu/proposer/orbits.html.

3.2.1.14 Multi-cycle Observing Proposals


Starting in Cycle 14, proposals for time-constrained observations that span
more than one cycle may request time in up to 3 cycles. A maximum of 2 Msec
of Cycle 15 and 1 Msec of Cycle 16 observing time may be allocated to such
proposals in Cycle 14. Proposals must request time in Cycle 14, must
justify the requirement for multi-cycle observations and must justify the
allocation of time across the multiple cycles. The peer review reserves the
right to recommend only those observations proposed for the current cycle.

3.2.2 Procedures Concerning TOOs and DDTs




3.2.2 Procedures Concerning TOOs and DDTs

The deep orbit of Chandra permits reasonable access to any TOO. The minimum
planned response time for a TOO is approximately 24 hours. The total number
of TOOs performed is limited by operational and manpower constraints.

Requests either to initiate a Pre-Approved TOO or to propose a new one are
made to the CXC Director or his representative, who decides whether to
interrupt the timeline and conduct the observation. The investigator is
required to submit the appropriate web-based form: the TOO trigger form
(for pre-approved observations) or the DDT version of RPS (for new
observations) available at the CXC home page:
http://cxc.harvard.edu/soft/RPS/Chandra_RfO.html.

The response to a TOO will be classified according to the minimum time
delay between trigger and observation. The faster the Chandra response, the
more difficult and the more limited the number of TOOs allowed. TOO follow-
up observations (observations following a TOO within a few weeks) will
either count as TOOs (for rapid response) or time-constrained observations
(Section 4.4).

TOO triggers cannot be proposed for future cycles though follow-ups may
extend into future cycles.

3.2.2.1 Pre-Approved TOOs


TOOs generated by a peer review-approved proposal are those where time is
allocated to the proposal, but the time is unscheduled. To initiate the
scheduling process, the investigator is required to specify in the TOO
trigger form how the trigger condition has been met. TOOs disrupt the
timeline, and it is possible that a TOO conflicts with a time-critical
observation or with another TOO. In such situations, the CXC Director or
his representative will determine priorities. Any disrupted preplanned
observation will, however, ultimately be accomplished when feasible.

3.2.2.2 Unanticipated TOOs


A request for an unanticipated TOO observation is made directly to the CXC
Director or his representative as part of the DDT program. An RfO must be
submitted. The procedure is as follows:
. The proposer must determine whether the target falls within the portion
of the sky visible to Chandra. The PRoVis tool can generate such
information.
. The proposer must establish whether the target can be detected using
Chandra. The proposal planning tools can be used for this purpose.
. The proposer must address the following questions:
. Why is the science from the observation important, and why not
simply propose during the next Chandra CfP?
. Is there an impending, previously approved, Chandra observation
that can accomplish the objectives?
. How urgent is the TOO? Must the observation be done immediately?
. Ifrelevant, what is the likelihood of additional transient
behavior (i.e., does the phenomenon recur)? If recurrence is
likely, what is the consequence if the target is not observed
until the next occurrence?
. If data already exist in the archive, why is another observation
with Chandra necessary?
. What is the proposed or suggested detector configuration?

If the proposed observation is accepted, the CXC will create a new timeline
as soon as possible. Some negotiation between the observer and the CXC may
be necessary to achieve the optimum blend of response time and minimum
impact on the rest of the schedule.

3.2.2.3 Director's Discretionary Time (DDT)


General requests for DDT must follow the same procedure as required for an
unanticipated TOO. The procedure is described in Section 3.2.2.2.

. The proposer may apply for a short period of time (at most 3
months) during which the data are considered proprietary.

. A limited amount of funding is available to support US-based
PIs/Co-Is of DDT observations. This funding may be requested
using the standard cost proposal form on the CXC website
(http://cxc.harvard.edu/).

3.2.3 Criteria for Completeness and Data Quality


3.2.3.1 Completeness

In general, an observation, defined as corresponding to a unique sequence
number as assigned in the Observation Catalog (OBSCAT), will be
considered complete when 90% or more of the requested time has been
observed, as determined by the Good Time Interval (GTI) in the processed
data relative to the approved time.

The following 4 exceptions are identified:

1) TOO and DDT observations with GTI less than 90% of the requested time
may be declared complete by the CXC Director or his representative
when constraints due to competing targets and/or observatory
restrictions do not allow the full time (or 90% of it) to be achieved
and when a subsequent observation would no longer meet the objectives.
Such cases will be tracked and closed by adjusting the approved
observing time in the Observing Catalog (OBSCAT) after final
scheduling is completed.

2) For observations (unique sequence number) greater than 200 ksec, any
remaining time exceeding 20 ksec will be scheduled even if the GTI to
approved time ratio exceeds 90%, provided constraints allow.

3) For observations less than 5 ksec, targets will be observed only once
and the observation will be considered complete regardless of the GTI
achieved unless a spacecraft anomaly causes the entire observation to
be missed.

4) For observations with less than 2 ksec remaining, no additional time
will be scheduled even if the 90% GTI to requested time has not been
achieved.

Items 3 and 4 are intended to avoid additional short exposures with their
relatively high fractional overhead (inefficient use of Chandra). Item 4
assures that observations between 5 and 20 ksec get at least 60% of their
approved time (for 5 ksec approved) with a sliding scale assuring that at
least 90% is achieved at 20 ksec approved time.

Note: The proprietary time begins when the observation is "complete"
according to the above rules.

3.2.3.2 Data Quality Due to High Background


Data can be lost (or overwhelmed) because of occasional episodes of very
high background. If the principal target was a point source and the
background is ™ 10 times nominal for ™ 50% of the observation, the target
may be observed again for a period of time equal to the amount of time lost
due to the high background. If the target is extended and the background
increase is ™ 5 times nominal for ™ 50% of the observation, then another
observation may be scheduled to replace the amount of time lost due to the
high background. We realize that application of these limits is somewhat
arbitrary. The intent is to only schedule additional observations if the
scientific objectives were not achieved due to the high background. If
"space weather" only causes some deterioration in data quality, the
observation is considered complete.

Although the CXC monitors space weather, there is no real-time contact with
the Chandra X-ray Observatory so high background periods cannot be avoided.
Ultimately, it is the observer's responsibility to determine if the data
require another observation according to the criteria above. An application
for an additional amount of time on target should be made to the CXC
Director. Providing a plot of the background counting rate vs. time and a
short table with the integration time at different background levels is
required.

3.2.3.3 Data Quality - Telemetry Saturation Due to X-ray Sources


Telemetry saturation produced by the target and/or other sources in the
field-of-view are the responsibility of the observer. The unique case of a
previously unknown transient appearing in the field-of-view will be handled
case-by-case.




3.3 Non-U.S. Participation

Science proposals from outside the United States are welcome. However,
research conducted by non-U.S. Institutions cannot be funded by NASA;
therefore, non-U.S. researchers who propose investigations requiring new
Chandra observations must seek support through their own national funding
agencies.

The Chandra data archive is open to the public; to obtain data of interest
to his/her project, an interested researcher need only access the CXC
website (http://cxc.harvard.edu) or contact the Chandra X-ray Center for
assistance. U.S. researchers who wish to analyze archival data or undertake
theoretical investigations may apply for funding for their research through
this CfP. The PI of an archive/theory proposal must be affiliated with a
U.S.-based Institution. Non-U.S. researchers should not propose to this
CfP for funding unless their proposal includes U.S. Co-Investigators who
are eligible for funding.

3.4 Proposal Confidentiality

Proposals submitted to the CXC will be kept confidential to the extent
allowed by the review process. For accepted proposals, the scientific
justification section of the proposal remains confidential but other
sections become publicly accessible, including PI names, project titles,
abstracts, and all observational details. The remainder of the approved
proposals, and the entirety of proposals not selected, will remain
confidential.

All CXC and visiting personnel who will be handling or reviewing the
proposals as part of the review process will be fully informed of the
confidential nature of the proposals. They will be required to sign a non-
disclosure agreement, agreeing to treat information in the proposals as
confidential and not to disclose it or use it in any way beyond that needed
for the review process itself. All copies (electronic and hardcopy) of the
proposals distributed as part of the review process will be destroyed once
the process is complete.

3.5 Chandra Observation Catalog: Checking for Duplicate Targets

Proposals for new observations that duplicate existing Chandra observations
will not be accepted unless scientifically justified. It is the proposer's
responsibility to ensure that he or she does not propose for observations
of the same target with the same instrument and comparable observing time
to one already in the Chandra Observing Catalog or that such a request is
explicitly justified. For targets previously observed in the X-ray band,
particularly those observed by XMM-Newton, the proposal should address the
specific need for the addition of Chandra data to accomplish the proposed
scientific investigation. Previous observations may be checked using, for
example, HEASARC W3Browse:
http://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/HHP_heasarc_info.html.

Previous observations may also be checked using the CDA Footprint Service
(http://cxc.harvard.edu/cda/footprint/cdaview.html). Note, though, that
this interface only provides information on observations that have been
released to the public. Observations that are still proprietary or
scheduled in the future may be searched for in WebChaSeR
(http://cda.cfa.harvard.edu/chaser/). See Section 6.1.3 for details.

The review panels will be provided with a list of previous Chandra/XMM-
Newton/Suzaku X-ray observations of proposed targets. Information on the
various ways to access the Chandra Observation Catalog may be found in
Section 6.1.3.




3.6 Supporting Ground-Based Observations

As part of the proposal and corresponding budget for a Chandra
investigation, proposers may request funding support for correlative
observations at other wavelengths beyond the joint observations described
in this solicitation (Section 4.5). Funding for such correlative studies
will be considered only when they directly support a specific investigation
using Chandra. Unless there are exceptional circumstances, such as a
CXO/NOAO or CXO/NRAO joint proposal or some archive or survey proposals,
funding for ground-based supporting observations should not exceed 10% of
the total request.

Chapter 4 - Proposal Types

Observations to be carried out with Chandra during the 12 months of Cycle
14 science operations will be selected from proposals submitted in response
to this CfP. Up to 2Ms of Cycle 15 and 1Ms of Cycle 16 observing time may
be allocated to time-constrained, multi-cycle observing proposals
requesting time that extends beyond Cycle 14.

There are seven types of proposals that may be submitted in response to
this CfP; they are detailed in the following sections. In addition,
Director's Discretionary Time (DDT) proposals for observations that cannot
be completed in, or cannot wait for, the usual proposal cycle may be
submitted at any time (Section 4.8). The CXC reserves the right to reject
any approved observation that is in conflict with safety or mission
assurance priorities or schedule constraints, or is otherwise deemed to be
non-feasible.

4.1 General Observing (GO) Projects


There are no restrictions regarding the amount of observing time or the
number of targets that may be requested in this category. Proposals may be
submitted for single targets with a relatively short observation time, or
for larger programs involving multiple targets and/or significant amounts
of observing time. All proposals will be reviewed, and a mix of large and
small programs will be selected. Proposals requesting observations whose
science requires constraints distributed over multiple (up to three)
proposal cycles will be considered (Section 3.2.1.14) Observations
allocated time in this category will have one year of proprietary time
unless a shorter proprietary time interval is requested by the PI.

4.2 Large Observing Projects

Large Projects are defined as requiring 300-999 ksec of observing time,
regardless of whether they include long-duration observations of single
targets or shorter duration observations of many targets. Large Projects
must be designated as such by the PI and are encouraged. Up to 4 Msec
of the observing time in this Cycle is reserved for Large Projects, subject
to the submission of proposals of high scientific merit.

The observations proposed for Large Projects may span up to 3 cycles when
required to achieve the scientific goals. In the case of target conflicts
with a small proposal, the Selecting Official, based on the recommendation
of the peer review, may award the target in question to the smaller
proposal. In this case, the proposer of the Large Project may always make
use of data taken for the other project once they are made public.

Large Projects are evaluated differently from other proposals. A Large
Project is first evaluated and graded along with the other observing
proposals by two independent "Topical Science" panels. The graded Large
Projects are then passed to the "Big Project" panel which allocates time
separately to the LPs and XVPs and makes the final recommendations for an
integrated observing plan involving all top-rated proposals to the
Selection Official. Although the Big Project panel may recommend shortening
a Large Project under exceptional circumstances, it is intended that a
Large Project be an all-or-nothing proposition. Observations allocated in
this category will be allocated one year of proprietary time unless a
shorter time is requested by the PI.

4.3 X-ray Visionary Projects

X-ray Visionary Projects (XVPs) should describe a major, coherent science
program to address key, high-impact, scientific question(s) in current
astrophysics and may span up to 3 cycles when required to achieve the
scientific goals. We envision that XVPs will result in data sets of lasting
value to the astronomical community. We encourage proposers to describe the
legacy value of the data and any data products and/or software they expect
to release to the community as part of their project.

XVPs are defined as requiring between 1 and 6 Msec of total observing time
including long-duration observations of single targets or shorter duration
observations of many targets to address major, key questions in current
astrophysics. This category is open to all science topics and must be
designated as an XVP by the PI. About 7 Msec of the observing time is
reserved for X-ray Visionary Projects, subject to the submission of
proposals of high scientific merit.
Observations approved as part of an X-ray Visionary Project will have no
proprietary time associated with them, and the data will be made public
immediately. XVP projects will be allocated a maximum of 2 Msec of
observing time on targets situated above 60º ecliptic latitude.

Proposers planning to submit an XVP should send a Notice of Intent to
Propose, including the following information: title, PI name, estimated
observing time, preliminary list of Co-Is, and short abstract, to the CXC
helpdesk (cxchelp@head.cfa.harvard.edu) by 20 Jan 2012. This information on
proposals to be submitted will allow the CXC to plan a competent review
with minimal conflicts of interest.

Projects that plan to deliver products, such as source catalogs, high
fidelity data products, or software to the community are encouraged to
outline these plans in the proposal. A modest funding allocation may be
requested in the Stage 2 Cost proposal to facilitate the delivery of such
products.

X-ray Visionary Projects will be evaluated and graded by an XVP panel at
the peer review in addition to the topical panels. The recommendations of
all reviewing panels will then be passed to the Big Project Panel which
allocates time, separately, to LPs and XVPs and makes the final
recommendations for an integrated program involving top-rated proposals to
the Selection Official.

4.4 Target of Opportunity Projects

Proposals are also solicited for Pre-Approved Targets of Opportunity
(TOOs). These are defined to be observations of unanticipated astronomical
events, such as a supernova or a gamma-ray burst that must take place in
order to trigger the observation. The number of times the Observatory can
be used to respond to a TOO is limited by operational considerations with
difficulty increasing with rapidity of response. Given the limited
availability and high operational impact of TOOs, proposers are asked to
carefully consider whether Chandra is the optimal observatory for their
particular target(s) and to justify this choice in their proposal. Other X-
ray missions, e.g., SWIFT, are more flexible for performing TOO
observations on medium/bright targets. SWIFT TOO application information
either pre-approved (by peer review) or unanticipated, can be found on the
SWIFT website at: http://www.swift.psu.edu/too.html.



It is estimated that the Observatory can support a maximum number of
Cycle 14 TOOs of:

|Number of obsvns1 |Minimum response time (days)2 |
|8 |<1-4 |
|20 |4-15 |
|26 |15-30 |
|26 |>30 |

(1) Follow-up observations that require a rapid response to the initial
trigger also count against this allocation. Those with a slower response
count as time-constrained observations.

(2) The proposer must select the TOO Response Type on the RPS form based on
the minimum response time.

Once a TOO has been selected, the observing time is awarded, but not
scheduled until the triggering event takes place. It is the responsibility
of the PI to alert the CXC to the occurrence of the triggering event.
Proposals may not contain a mixture of TOO and non-TOO targets.

Given the high operational impact of TOOs, no constraints or follow-up
observations over and above those included in the proposal RPS forms and
recommended by the peer review will be accepted. All follow-up observations
whose timing depends on events close to the trigger need to be included in
the original proposal forms and will be counted as separate TOOs with
category determined by the requested time delay between the event and the
observation. All trigger criteria must be specified in the appropriate
fields on the RPS form. Follow-up observations that have a longer lead time
(> 15 days) are classified as constrained observations.

Those proposing for a Pre-Approved TOO should be aware that any such
observations awarded for a given observing Cycle, but not accomplished,
cannot be carried over to the next Cycle, although they may be re-proposed.
Since the CfP is being released prior to the end of this Cycle, there may
be a set of selected and Pre-Approved TOOs for this Cycle that have not
been triggered. Proposers may choose to assume that these will not have
been triggered by the time the next Cycle starts (about December 2012).
The PI/Observer should indicate on the RPS form of the new cycle proposal
whether/not a trigger of the previous cycles TOO would cancel the TOO
observation proposed/accepted for the new cycle.

4.5 Joint Observing Projects

Joint Observing Projects may be proposed as follows with the intent to
address those situations where data (not necessarily simultaneous) from
more than one facility are required to meet the scientific objectives of
the proposal. In addition to time on Chandra, time may be requested and
awarded via this CfP on one or more of the facilities described below. It
is the proposer's responsibility to provide a technical justification for
all observing facilities included in the proposal. A request for
simultaneous or otherwise time-constrained observations must be
scientifically justified, and the technical justification must include
consideration of the relative visibility of the target by all requested
facilities. Please note that coordination with ground-based observatories
other than NRAO is only available as a preference and will be carried out
on a best-effort basis. No time on the joint facilities will be allocated
without accompanying Chandra time on the same target, except where noted.
Up to 10% and 5% of the available joint time in Cycles 15 and 16
respectively may be allocated to multi-cycle observing proposals if
scientifically justified and subject to the continued availability of that
time.

4.5.1 Chandra/Hubble Space Telescope (HST) Observations

This CfP solicits proposals to allow observers interested in using both the
Hubble Space Telescope (HST) and Chandra to achieve their scientific
objectives to submit a single proposal in response to either HST or Chandra
CfPs. The only criteria above and beyond the usual review criteria are that
the project must be fundamentally of a multi-wavelength nature and that
both sets of data are required to meet the science goals. Simultaneous
Chandra and HST observations should be requested only if necessary to
achieve the scientific goals. Proposers responding to this CfP may request,
and be awarded, HST observing time in conjunction with their Chandra
observations. One hundred orbits of HST observing time are available for
this opportunity. Conversely, up to 400 ksec of Chandra observing time are
available for award as part of the response to HST research opportunities.
However, the Chandra project can award no more than one HST Target of
Opportunity (TOO) observation with a turn-around time shorter than two
weeks.

Proposers wishing to take advantage of the Chandra-HST arrangements are
encouraged to submit their proposal to the Observatory announcement that
represents the prime science. The expertise required to best appreciate and
evaluate the proposals will be weighted toward the wavelength band of the
primary observatory. Demonstration of the technical feasibility for both
observatories to produce the necessary data is required, including
consideration of the relative visibility of the target(s) to both
facilities for the case of time-constrained observations. Technical
information about HST is available at http://www.stsci.edu/. General
policies for HST observations are described in the latest HST Call for
Proposals, available at
http://www.stsci.edu/hst/proposing/documents/cp/cp_cover.html. In
particular, standard duplication policies described there in Section 5.2
apply to HST observations requested as part of Chandra-HST proposals. Known
duplications should be justified scientifically. The Space Telescope
Science Institute is prepared to assist observers proposing in response to
this opportunity. Questions should be addressed to help@stsci.edu.

Any major requested change to the approved HST portion of a Chandra program
such as a change of instrument, wavelength settings, the addition of
parallel orbits, etc. requires strong scientific justification, is not
normally approved, and may jeopardize the Chandra portion. Due to a backlog
of certain HST observations, the HST Cycle 20 will have specific Right
Ascension observing restrictions. Please review the HST Call for details
on these restrictions.

4.5.2 Chandra/XMM-Newton Observations

If a science project requires observations with both XMM-Newton, sponsored
by the European Space Agency, and the Chandra X-ray Observatory, then a
single proposal may be submitted to request time on both Observatories to
either the most recent XMM-Newton Announcement of Opportunity or to this
Chandra CfP so that it is unnecessary to submit proposals to two separate
reviews.

By agreement with the Chandra Project, the XMM-Newton Project may award up
to 400 ksec of Chandra observing time. Similarly, the Chandra Project may
award up to 400 ksec of XMM-Newton time. The time will be awarded only for
highly ranked proposals that require use of both observatories and shall
not apply to usage of archival data. The only criterion above and beyond
the usual review criteria is that both sets of data are required to meet
the primary science goals. Proposers should take special care in justifying
both the scientific and technical reasons for requesting observing time on
both missions. Simultaneous Chandra and XMM-Newton observations should be
requested only if necessary to achieve the scientific goals. No Targets of
Opportunity, either pre-Approved or unanticipated, will be considered for
this cooperative program. For this CfP, no XMM-Newton time will be
allocated without the need for Chandra time to complete the proposed
investigation.

Establishing technical feasibility is the responsibility of the observer,
who should review the Chandra and XMM-Newton
(http://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/xmm/xmmgof.html) documentation or
consult with the CXC HelpDesk (http://cxc.harvard.edu/helpdesk/). For
proposals that are approved, both projects will perform detailed
feasibility checks. Both projects reserve the right to reject any approved
observation that is in conflict with safety or mission assurance priorities
or schedule constraints, or is otherwise deemed to be non-feasible. Note
that simultaneous longer-duration observations with XMM-Newton that require
Chandra satellite pitch angles violating the conditions discussed in
Section 2.3 may not be feasible. Any observation(s) deemed to be not
performable as indicated above would cause revocation of observations on
both facilities.

4.5.3 Chandra/National Optical Astronomy Observatory (NOAO) Observations

By agreement with NOAO, proposers interested in making use of observing
facilities available through NOAO (including Gemini, CTIO, KPNO, SOAR and
WIYN, but not facilities made available through the TSIP or ReSTAR
programs) as part of their Chandra science may submit a single observing
or archival research proposal in response to this CfP. The award of NOAO
time will be made to highly ranked Chandra proposals and will be subject to
approval by the NOAO Director.

The primary criterion for the award of NOAO time is that both Chandra and
NOAO data are required to meet the scientific objectives of the proposal.
Both Chandra observing and archival research proposals are eligible. The
highest priority for the award of NOAO time will be given to programs that
plan to publicly release the optical data in a timely manner (i.e., shorter
than the usual 18-month proprietary period) and that create databases
likely to have broad application. NOAO plans to make up to 5% of the public
time each semester on each telescope available for this opportunity. Time
on the Gemini telescopes will be restricted to no more than 40 hours per
year per telescope, and will be scheduled as queue observations. The Gemini
queue time is distributed across three priority bands (see
http://www.gemini.edu for an explanation of the bands) as follows: NOAO
will schedule no more than 15 hours of the Chandra/NOAO time as Band 1, 15
hours as Band 2, and 10 hours as Band 3. In addition, the available
observing time is divided roughly equally between the A and B semesters
covered by the Chandra cycle, for a maximum of 20 hours per semester on
each telescope. Proposers wishing to make use of this opportunity must
provide the following additional NOAO-related information as part of their



Chandra proposal:
. Detail the choice of NOAO telescope(s) and instrument(s) (dates of
availability for the various telescopes and instruments can be found on
the web at: http://www.noao.edu/gateway/nasa/
. Enter the total estimated observing time for each telescope/instrument
combination and provide a quantitative breakdown of the total
(including details such as instrument configuration, the number of
targets, S/N ratios, magnitudes and exposure times, time needed for
calibration and overhead, any anticipated scheduling constraints, etc.)
. Specify the number of nights for each semester during which time will
be required and include any observing constraints (dates, moon phase,
synchronous or synoptic observations, etc.)
. Include a full and comprehensive scientific and technical justification
for the requested NOAO observing time; and
. Provide a plan for the public release of the NOAO data within one year
of the observation date.

Demonstration of the technical feasibility of the proposed NOAO
observations is the responsibility of the proposer. Detailed technical
information concerning NOAO facilities may be found at
http://ast.noao.edu/observing. Proposals lacking sufficient detail may not
be scheduled by NOAO.

If approved for NOAO time, successful PIs will be required to submit the
standard NOAO forms providing detailed observing information appropriate to
the telescope and instrument combination(s) awarded. NOAO will perform
feasibility checks on the proposed observations and reserves the right to
reject any observation determined to be unfeasible for any reason. Such a
rejection could jeopardize the entire proposed science program and impact
the award of the Chandra observing time as well.

In addition, for NOAO time on Gemini (only), successful PIs will be
required to submit a full scientific justification to NOAO on the standard
NOAO proposal form. NOAO will review the proposal in order to determine the
Gemini queue band into which the observations will be placed.

4.5.4 Chandra/National Radio Astronomy Observatory (NRAO) Observations

By agreement with NRAO, proposers interested in making use of the NRAO
Expanded Very Large Array (EVLA), Very Long Baseline Array (VLBA) and Green
Bank Telescope (GBT) facilities as part of their Chandra science may submit
a single proposal in response to this CfP. The award of NRAO time will be
made to highly ranked Chandra proposals and will be subject to approval by
the NRAO Director.

The primary criterion for the award of NRAO time is that both Chandra and
NRAO datasets are essential to meet the scientific objectives of the
proposal. No NRAO time will be allocated without Chandra time.


NRAO plans to make up to 3% of EVLA, VLBA and GBT observing time available
for this opportunity with a maximum of 5% in any configuration/time period
and including an 18-month period close to the Chandra Cycle 12 such that
all EVLA configurations are available. An EVLA
configuration schedule is published
at:http://science.nrao.edu/evla/proposing/configpropdeadlines.shtml.
For Chandra Cycle 14, observations with the EVLA will be limited to a total
bandwidth of
2 GHz per polarization.

Proposers wishing to make use of this opportunity must provide the
following NRAO-related information as part of their Chandra proposal:
. Enter the total estimated NRAO observing time in hours
. Indicate the choice of NRAO telescope(s) (VLA, VLBA and/or GBT);
. Include in your scientific justification a full and comprehensive
scientific and technical justification for the requested NRAO
configuration(s) and observing time.
EVLA observing will be supported only as Open Shared Risk Observing, which
is described at http://science.nrao.edu/facilities/evla/early-science/osro
.

Be aware that some Chandra targets might not require new NRAO observations
because the joint science goals can be met using:
. Non-proprietary archival data from the VLA/EVLA or VLBA available at
http://science.nrao.edu/evla/archive/evla/ and/or
. VLA continuum images from sky surveys at a wavelength of 20cm and at a
FWHM resolution of 45 arc seconds (see http://www.cv.nrao.edu/nvss/) or
5 arc seconds (see http://sundog.stsci.edu/top.html ).

Detailed technical information concerning the NRAO telescopes can be
found at:
http://science.nrao.edu/evla/index.shtml (EVLA),
http://science.nrao.edu/facilities/vlba, and
http://science.nrao.edu/facilities/gbt.

In particular, technical information required for a proposal can be found
at:

http://evlaguides.nrao.edu/index.php?title= Observational_Status_Summary,

http://science.nrao.edu/astro.obstatus/current/ (VLBA), and

http://www.gb.nrao.edu/gbtprops/man/GBTpg.pdf (GBT).

If approved for NRAO time, successful PIs will be contacted by the NRAO
Scheduling Officers. The successful PIs for GBT projects will be
responsible for organizing the project's information in the GBT Dynamic
Scheduling Software and for carrying out their GBT observations. For the
EVLA and VLBA, the PIs will be responsible for submitting scheduling blocks
to the telescope's dynamic queues. Projects requiring simultaneous NRAO-
Chandra observations will be performed ed on fixed dates. The NRAO
Scheduling Officers will tell the PIs those dates and times, and the PIs
will be responsible for submitting scheduling blocks two weeks prior to the
observations.



NRAO will perform final feasibility checks on the proposed observations and
reserves the right to reject any observation determined to be infeasible
for any reason. Such a rejection could jeopardize the success of the joint
science program.

4.5.5 Chandra/Suzaku Observations

By agreement with the Suzaku Project, proposers interested in making use of
Suzaku time as part of their Chandra science investigation may submit a
single proposal in response to this Chandra CfP. The award of Suzaku time
will be made to highly ranked Chandra proposals and will be subject to
approval by the Suzaku Project.

The primary criterion for the award of Suzaku time is that both Chandra and
Suzaku data are required to meet the scientific objectives of the proposal.
Suzaku time will not be awarded without accompanying Chandra observing
time. The Suzaku Project is making available up to 500 ksec of Suzaku
observing time available to such joint science proposals. Coordinated
observations are allowed, if judged feasible. Chandra Cycle 14 is expected
to overlap with Suzaku Cycles 7 (2012 April through 2013 March) and 8 (2013
April through 2014 March).

A maximum of 75 ksec on Suzaku can be time-constrained for science reasons,
including coordinated observations, roll, phase or window constraints, or
Targets of Opportunity. No TOO requiring less than 4 days response time
will be considered.

Proposers wishing to make use of this opportunity must provide the
following additional Suzaku-related information as part of their Chandra
proposal:

1) Enter the total requested Suzaku observing time in the relevant
Chandra RPS box; and
2) Include a full and comprehensive scientific and technical
justification for the requested Suzaku observing time, including the
expected count rates (from simulations or previous Suzaku
observations), and the desired observing modes.

It is the responsibility of the proposer to demonstrate the feasibility of
the proposed Suzaku observation. Detailed technical information concerning
Suzaku may be found at http://www.astro.isas.jaxa.jp/suzaku/. The Suzaku
Guest Observer Facility and Project Scientist will make feasibility
assessments of the proposed observations independently of the Chandra
review. Proposed Suzaku observations determined to be infeasible will be
rejected. Such a rejection could jeopardize the entire proposed science
program and impact the award of the Chandra observing time as well.

If Suzaku time is approved, successful PIs will then be required to submit
the standard Suzaku cover and target forms to the Suzaku Guest Observer
Facility via the RPS to provide the required information about observing
strategy and instrument configurations in a form amenable to the Suzaku
scheduling software.

Suzaku datasets obtained under this agreement will be proprietary to the PI
for one year after the performance of the observation, and will
subsequently be released publicly via the HEASARC.

4.6 Theory/Modeling Projects

Research that is primarily Theoretical/Modeling in nature can have a
lasting benefit for current or future observational programs with Chandra,
and it is appropriate to propose such programs with relevance to the
Chandra mission. Theoretical/Modeling research should be the primary or
sole emphasis of such a proposal. Analysis of archival data should not be
the goal of the project. Archived data may be used only to show how Chandra
observations may be better understood through the results of the proposed
Theory/Modeling research. Theory/Modeling proposals must be submitted using
the same proposal format as observing proposals, and the proposal type
"Theory" should be checked on the electronic submission.

A Theory/Modeling proposal should address a topic that is of direct
relevance to Chandra observing programs, and this relevance must be
explained in the proposal. (Research that is appropriate for a general
theory program should be submitted to the Science Mission Directorate's
Astrophysics Theory Program, solicited in the annual Research Opportunities
in Space and Earth Sciences (ROSES) NASA Research Announcement and/or other
appropriate funding sources.) The primary criterion for a Theory/Modeling
proposal is that the results must enhance the value of Chandra
observational programs through their broad interpretation (in the context
of new models or theories) or by refining the knowledge needed to interpret
specific observational results (for example, a calculation of cross
sections). As with all investigations supported through this CfP, the
results of the Theoretical/Modeling investigation should be made available
to the community in a timely fashion.

A Theory/Modeling proposal must include an estimated amount of funding in
the Stage 1 submission and must provide a narrative within the science
justification section that describes the proposed use of the funds.
Detailed budgets are not requested in Stage 1, however, and are due only in
Stage 2.

The scientific justification section of the proposal must describe the
proposed theoretical investigation and also the anticipated impact on
observational investigations with Chandra. Review panels will consist of
observational and theoretical astronomers with a broad range of scientific
expertise. The reviewers will not necessarily be specialists in all areas
of astrophysics, particularly theory, so the proposals must be written for
general audiences of scientists. The proposal should discuss the types of
Chandra data that would benefit from the proposed investigation, and
references to specific data sets in the Chandra data archive should be
given where appropriate. The proposal should also describe how the results
of the theoretical investigation will be made available to the astronomical
community, and on what time scale the results are expected.

4.7 Archival Research Projects

This CfP also includes the opportunity to propose investigations based on
data in the Chandra public archive for part or all of the study. Proposals
for which archival data is the major focus of the investigation should
select the "Archive" category on the RPS form. A PI may link an archival
research proposal with an observing proposal to extend an existing sample
to perform the same science. There is no restriction on the amount of
existing Chandra data that may be proposed for analysis. The Chandra
website (http://cxc.harvard.edu/) contains information on the data that are
available in the archive. The data currently available from the Chandra
Data Archive may be browsed and visualized through the CDA Footprint
service (http://cxc.harvard.edu/cda/footprint/cdaview.html). Data becoming
publicly available in the future may be browsed through WebChaSeR
(http://cda.cfa.harvard.edu/chaser/). The bibliographic interface allows
simultaneous browsing of the Chandra Data Archive and the literature
(http://cxc.harvard.edu/cgi-gen/cda/bibliography). See Section 6.1.3 for
further details on archive browsing.

The data may also be accessed through this website (see also Section 3.5).
All on-orbit calibration data are placed directly in the archive. Data from
Director's Discretionary Time (DDT) observations (Section 4.8) are placed
in the archive no later than three months after receipt by the PI, while
other proprietary observations are archived no later than one year after
receipt by the PI. XVP data have no proprietary period and are placed in
the archive coincident with receipt by the PI.

Archival Research proposals must include an estimated amount of funding in
the Stage 1 submission and must provide a brief narrative within the
science justification section that describes the proposed use of the funds.
Detailed budgets are not requested in Stage 1 and are due in Stage 2.

4.7.1 Archive Proposals and the Chandra Source Catalog (CSC)

We will accept archival proposals which make use of the Chandra Source
Catalog as all or part of the proposed science program. The current
release (1.1) of the catalog includes information about sources detected in
a subset of ACIS and HRC-I imaging observations released publicly prior to
January 1, 2010. Only point sources, and compact sources, with observed
spatial extents ˜30 arcseconds, are included. Highly extended sources, and
sources located in selected fields containing bright, highly extended
sources, are not included in the current release.

The catalog includes sources detected with flux estimates that are at least
3 times their estimated 1 sigma uncertainties in at least one energy band
(typically corresponding to about 10 net source counts on-axis and roughly
20-30 net source counts off-axis). In the current release of the catalog,
multiple observations of the same field (if they exist) are not co-added
prior to performing source detection. Instead, source detection is
performed on each observation individually, so that the flux threshold
applies to detections from each observation separately.

Prospective users of the catalog should be aware of the selection effects
that restrict the source content of the catalog and which may limit
scientific studies that require an unbiased source sample. Users are urged
to review the catalog Caveats and Limitations prior to using the CSC for
their scientific investigations.

For more information on the Chandra Source Catalog, please refer to the
public catalog web pages at http://cxc.harvard.edu/csc. The data used for
the CSC, and the area of the sky covered by it, may be visualized with the
CDA Footprint Service:
http://cxc.harvard.edu/cda/footprint/cdaview.html (Section 6.1.3).




4.8 Proposals for Director's Discretionary Time

Unanticipated Targets of Opportunity or those that cannot wait for the
next proposal cycle may be proposed for observation using Director's
Discretionary Time (DDT) at any time. Proposals for DDT must be submitted
electronically through the RPS as described in Section 5.3. Note that the
RPS form for DDT is different from that for ordinary proposals. The DDT
form may be found on the CXC website by selecting the "Proposer" button
and then "Targets of Opportunity" and "Director's Discretionary Time"
(http://cxc.harvard.edu/soft/RPS/Chandra_RfO.html). More information is
available in Section 3.2.

Chapter 5 - Proposal Preparation and Submission Instructions


5.1 Overview and Schedule of Process

Science proposal submission and review will be conducted in two stages to
minimize the burden of proposal preparation.

. Stage 1: During the first stage, the scientific and technical merits
of the proposed investigation (Archival Research and Theory/Modeling
as well as new observations) will be reviewed, including the
appropriateness of using Chandra to address the scientific objectives
and the relevance of the investigation to furthering our understanding
of high-energy astrophysical processes. Based upon the recommendation
of the Stage 1 peer review (scientific and technical), the Selection
Official (the CXC Director) will select a set of proposals for award
of observing time (proposals for new observations) or award of support
for analysis and/or interpretation of existing data (Archival Research
and Theory/Modeling proposals).

. Stage 2: The PIs of those proposals selected in Stage 1 which include
US-based PIs or Co-Is will then be invited to submit a cost proposal
for the Stage 2 review (Chapter 8).

Once the targets are identified, the Chandra X-ray Center (CXC) is
responsible for generating the schedule of observations or science
timeline. The timeline is determined for the most part by satellite and
observing constraints, as specified in the proposal and as recommended by
the peer review. These constraints are described in detail in the Chandra
Proposers' Observatory Guide (POG)
(http://cxc.harvard.edu/proposer/POG/index.html). Proposers may also
specify additional constraints such as a particular time or time interval
during which an observation must take place. Proposers should note that
time-constrained observations are difficult to accomplish efficiently and
will be limited to ~15% of the total number of observations selected.
Details of constraint classification and quotas are described in Section
5.2.8.

5.2 Stage 1 Research Proposal Details


5.2.1 Proposal Content

The Stage 1 proposal must include:
. Cover Page Form;
. General Form;
. Target Summary Form, if the proposal requires new observations;
. Scientific Justification and Technical Feasibility (as described
below);
. Previous Chandra Programs listing (one page, described below);
and
. CV/Bibliography for the PI (one-page, optional).

The page limits are listed in Table 5.2. The proposal must be submitted
electronically (see Section 5.3 for proposal submission instructions). The
information will be entered into a database that will be used in cataloging
and evaluating proposals and, for those selected for implementation, will
be transferred to the Observation Catalog. The forms must be completed in
the requested format. Cost sections should not be submitted for the Stage 1
scientific review. However, proposals for the Archival Research or
Theory/Modeling projects must include a preliminary cost estimate and a
brief narrative describing the proposed use of these funds within the
science justification section of the Stage 1 proposals. Formal cost
proposals will be considered as part of the Stage 2 process.

5.2.2 Cover Pages

Institutional endorsement information (name of administrator,
administrative authority, and administrative institution) are optional for
the Stage 1 proposal but may be provided by separate hardcopy (to the
address in Section 1.7) in those cases where the proposing institution
requires them. In all cases, institutional endorsements are required for
the hardcopy submission of a Stage 2 cost proposal.

The abstract on the Cover Page Form is limited to 800 characters, including
spaces between words. If the abstract exceeds this length, it will
automatically be truncated at 800 characters when entered into the
database.

5.2.3 Target Forms

The RPS target forms must include full specification of the observing
parameters for every target and for every observation of that target. In
complex cases that cannot be entered on the forms, please enter a detailed
description in the Remarks section of the target form and/or contact the
CXC HelpDesk for advice. If any additional constraints or preferences are
included in the Remarks, you must set the corresponding flag (above the
Remarks) to ensure that they are implemented. Incorrect information will
jeopardize the acceptance of a proposal. The information in the RPS forms
will take precedence over any contradictory/different information described
in the proposal science justification. Any observing parameter information
included in the science justification and not in the RPS forms will not be
accepted. Additional constraints or changes to observing parameters
requested after the proposal deadline will only be considered in very
unusual circumstances and will require approval by the CXC Director.

For proposals involving observations, the proposer is urged to be as
accurate as possible when entering the position of the target, since even
small errors can seriously reduce the quality of the data. Positions must
be given in equinox/epoch J2000. Upon proposal submission, the RPS will run
a crosscheck of coordinates and object names entered with the SIMBAD
catalog and will notify PIs should any errors be found in this crosscheck.
If there is time before the deadline, the PI should re-check the target(s)
in question and, if necessary, re-submit his or her proposal (both target
form and science justification) with corrected target name and coordinates.
If the deadline has passed, the PI should contact the CXC, via the
HelpDesk, ((http://cxc.harvard.edu/helpdesk/) as soon as possible, to make
any necessary corrections. Proposers requesting more than one target, or
multiple pointings at a single target, should assign a Target Number that
indicates the order of priority. Prioritization will aid the Selecting
Official in the event that a reduction in observing time is recommended. In
such cases, every attempt will be made to honor the highest priority
targets.


Additional targets with the same observing parameters can now be added by
listing essential information only using the Add Target button. If a large
number of targets are requested and the web version becomes slow the PI can
switch to the email version of the RPS via the new RPS email button.

5.2.4 Science Objectives

State clearly the scientific objectives, with relevant background and
reference to previous work. The reviewers will not necessarily be
specialists in your particular science area, so include all relevant
information in your proposal. Show how the proposed investigation may be
used to advance our knowledge and understanding of the field. Justify the
use of Chandra or its archival data to accomplish the objectives, in
contrast to using other available observatories. If X-ray data from
Chandra, XMM-Newton, or any other facility exists, justify the need for
additional Chandra data to achieve the scientific objectives. To search for
other data, see e.g., HEASARC Browse web page
(http://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/db-perl/W3Browse/w3browse.pl). Any constraint
on the observations must be clearly stated and justified. Discuss the data
analysis program required to attain the science goals including the scope
of the effort.

5.2.5 Technical Feasibility


For all observing proposals, the proposer needs to justify the use of the
Chandra X-ray Observatory. The proposal should show how the particular
details (observing time, instrument, instrument mode, etc.) of the proposed
observations allow one to achieve the stated scientific objectives. State
how targets or pointing directions were selected. List assumptions about
source intensity, surface brightness, and spectrum. Estimates of both
counting rates and total counts needed to accomplish the investigation must
be provided. It is in the proposer's best interest to allow a reviewer to
understand the assumptions and to be able to easily reproduce the estimates
of the counting rate(s). The proposer should also demonstrate that the
estimated counts are sufficient to extract the desired science results from
the observation. The impacts of pileup on the observed energy spectrum
should be addressed for observations with ACIS, HETG/ACIS, or LETG/ACIS of
even moderately bright sources. Proposals for observations that might
encounter pileup must explicitly discuss the plans for dealing with such
data in order to demonstrate a thorough understanding of the implications
for their proposed research. To maximize the scientific utility of the
Chandra archive, proposers are encouraged to select more than the minimum
number of ACIS CCDs that their core science requires. While a maximum of 6
CCDs can be selected, observers are encouraged to use 5 or fewer CCDs if
their science objectives are not significantly affected by turning one CCD
off. Please see the Proposers' Observatory Guide (POG, Section 6.20.2)
concerning optional ACIS chips.

5.2.6 Archival Research and Theory/Modeling

Proposals that request funding for Archival Research must include a
discussion of any publications that already have resulted from the
observations and an indication as to how and why the proposed research will
significantly extend these results. Proposals for Theory/Modeling must
discuss how the proposed research will further the understanding of Chandra
data.

Proposers interested in Archival Research should also discuss how and why
the specific archival data are sufficient to meet their objective(s).
Furthermore, such proposals must address the analysis tools to be used,
their suitability for accomplishing the investigation, and the proposer's
ability to apply such tools to the project. Archival Research and
Theory/Modeling proposals should include a brief budget narrative within
the science justification section.

5.2.7 Joint Proposals

Proposers wishing to apply for joint time also need to include a section
entitled "Technical Justification of Joint Facilities" in which they
address the technical feasibility of the observations on the relevant
observatory(ries) in their proposals, this must include the visibility of
the target by the observatory(ries) in question (particularly in the case
of a request for simultaneous observations).

5.2.8 Constrained Observations

The proposer may desire to place constraints (e.g., monitoring,
coordination with observations at other wavelengths, uninterrupted
observing periods, roll angle, etc.) on the proposed observations. Such
constraints are discussed in Section 3.4.2 of the POG. Constraints limit
the flexibility of scheduling and, therefore, reduce the overall observing
efficiency. They may also cause an observation to be unfeasible if, for
example, they require violation of the pitch angle restrictions (Section
2.3). Thus, proposers should carefully consider the impact of a request for
a constrained observation and provide scientific and technical
justification. Proposers should note the potential impact on time-
constrained observations produced by interruption by a TOO or other
unanticipated events. An observation with very restricted time or roll
constraints may, if bumped or otherwise rescheduled, be delayed six months
or more to allow these constraints to be met. No more than 15% of Chandra
observations in this Cycle will be allocated to constrained observations
(see below). All constraints must be specified in the RPS forms or, if not
possible, in the "Remarks" field with the "Constraints in the Remarks" flag
set. Any constraints not so specified will need special handling and will
be implemented only on a best effort basis. Additional constraints, beyond
those proposed and recommended by the peer review, will be considered only
in extreme circumstances and must be approved by the CXC Director (request
via email to the CXC HelpDesk). Proposers should use the PRoVis tool,
available on the CXC website, to confirm that a constraint (or monitoring
sequence) which they are considering does not require observations at pitch
angles and/or durations that are not feasible (as directed in Section 2.3).
Information on the periods of time when Chandra observations are allowed
due to its passage beyond the earth's radiation zone is provided at
http://cxc.harvard.edu/proposer/orbits.html. The maximum uninterrupted
exposure time for a target observed at a given pitch angle can be estimated
from the MaxExpo page http://cxc.harvard.edu/proposer/maxexpo.html.

The grading scheme for constrained observations is shown in Table 5.1.
Cycle quotas are also listed; ~80% of these will be allocated to the
Chandra peer review.
Note that a constrained observation that has different grades according to
Table 5.1 will be given the most restrictive grade. Specifically:

1) If multiple observations of the same target are proposed (e.g., a
sequence of coordinated observations, or a monitoring series), then
each observation contributes separately to the allowed quota of
observations in that difficulty class.
2) An observation constrained in multiple ways is counted in the
highest (i.e. most difficult) category resulting from considering
each constraint type separately.
3) In the case of long observations (>90 ksec), each 90 ksec increment
or fraction thereof will count as a separate observation against
the quotas allowed for the relevant category of difficulty.
4) Constrained grid observations will also be counted in 90 ksec units
for the purpose of counting constraints (Section 7.1).

Constraints should be specified to fit the science not the classification.
It is noteworthy that, over the past several cycles, the Easy category had
the highest oversubscription factor while the
Average category had the lowest.

The RPS provides a tool which, given the entered target parameters,
generates an estimate of the constraint class of each target and the "slew
tax" (pointing overhead) which will be charged at the peer review. Final
constraint classifications will be determined by the CXC after the proposal
deadline, taking into account all declared constraints, including those
that are specified in the remarks.

Observers wishing to assess the classification of their observations in
complex, ambiguous or highly constrained cases should contact the CXC
HelpDesk (Section 6.1.2), allowing adequate time before the proposal
deadline for a response to be made.

Table 5.1. Grading Scheme for Constrained Observations


|Constraint |Parameter |Easy |Average |Difficult |
|Uninterrupted |Duration |<30 |30-40 |>40 |
|(ksec) | | | | |
|Coordinated |Window |- |>3 |<3 |
|(days) | | | | |
|Roll (days)1 |Window |>21 |3-21 |<3 |
|Time Window |Window |>21 |3-21 |<3 |
|(days) | | | | |
|Phase Interval |Period |<20 |20-60 |>60 |
|(days) | | | | |
|Monitor Interval|(2) |>5 |2-5 |<2 |
|Group |(3) |>10 |4-10 |<4 |
| |Cycle |54 |42 |24 |
| |Quota4 | | | |

(1) The constraint refers to the number of days at which a target can
remain within the declared roll angle constraint. This can be estimated
using the PRoVis tool available on the Proposer Webpage. Only nominal roll
values are recommended since off-nominal rolls have very brief dwell
times.
(2) The dimensionless parameter for the monitoring interval constraint will
be determined as follows:
o determine the smallest specified Imax of all the proposed
monitoring intervals, min(Imax)
o for that interval, compute the fractional tolerance fractol=
(Imax-Imin)/(Imax + Imin)
o compute the metric: min(Imax) * fractol /max(T)
Where Imin and Imax are the minimum and maximum proposed intervals,
min(Imax) is the smallest specified Imax of all proposed intervals and
max(T) is the largest exposure time of any proposed observation
(3) The dimensionless parameter for Group Observations is: (TIME INTERVAL
FOR THE GROUP) / (TOTAL DURATION OF OBSERVATIONS IN GROUP)
(4) Should a quota be unfilled at the peer review it may be combined with a
quota at a lower difficulty level.

5.2.9 Other Observing Facilities Being Used for the Research

The proposer should include in his or her scientific justification a list
of all other observing facilities being used for the proposed research, in
addition to those being requested in this proposal. These facilities should
be discussed whether or not their use results in a time constraint on the
Chandra observations. Note that, apart from NRAO, coordination with ground
based observations may only be listed as a preference.

5.2.10 Previous Chandra Programs (Required)

The PI and Observing Investigator (if any) must provide a list of all
previous Chandra Observing, Archival Research, Theory/Modeling, or GTO
programs for which they were PI along with a brief status of the program(s)
and any resulting publications (1 page maximum, see Table 5.2). This
page is optional for past proposals on which the PI/Observer were Co-Is.
Omit this page if there are no such programs.

Additional Co-Is that cannot be listed in the RPS form may also be included
in this page.

5.2.11 PI/CV Bibliography (Optional)

The PI has the option to include a one page CV and bibliography.

5.2.12 Observation Preferences

Observers with science goals that could be enhanced by having observations
carried out in particular time windows, roll ranges, phase ranges, or
monitoring intervals, are permitted to request these as preferences rather
than requiring hard constraints. Preferences are not counted against the
limited amount of constrained time, but can only be requested by formal
specification on the RPS forms, not through requests after a proposal is
accepted. Preferences are met on a best-effort basis. Specifically, when
the Chandra long-term schedule is generated, attempts will be made to meet
all preferences that do not conflict with approved constrained observations
and do not violate spacecraft constraints or guidelines. Preferences that
request observations which force targets to be observed at unfavorable
pitch angles will not be met. Proposers should use the PRoVis tool,
available on the CXC website, to confirm that a constraint (or monitoring
sequence) which they are considering does not require observations at pitch
angles and with durations that are not feasible (as described in Section
2.3). Once placed in the LTS, attempts will be made to accomplish the
preferences, but this is not guaranteed; changes required to meet TOOs or
to balance spacecraft considerations may result in changes to the observing
plan leaving preferences unmet.
Note: Any constraint that is required for the science goals of a proposal
MUST be specified as a constraint in RPS (Section 5.2.8).

5.2.13 Proposal Formats and Page Limits

All proposal text must be in English. Because of the large number of
proposals anticipated in response to this CfP, there will be strict page
limits as shown in Table 5.2. Excess pages will be removed from proposals
before the peer review. All information required to complete and understand
the proposal must be included within the proposal page limits. Reference to
published papers or web-based material may be used for supporting material
only. The section including the scientific justification and technical
feasibility is limited to six pages for observing proposals that are
classified as Large Projects (designated as such by the PI and requesting
300-999 ksec) or as Joint Projects (CXO/HST, CXO/NOAO, CXO/XMM, CXO/NRAO,
CXO/Suzaku), to seven pages for X-ray Visionary Projects (requesting 1-6
Msec), and to four pages in all other cases including proposals for a TOO,
Archival Research, and Theoretical/Modeling Research. For purposes of
judging the length of the electronic proposal, the following guidelines
apply:
. Each side of a printed paper sheet containing text or
illustration will count as one page;
. Text may be either single or double-spaced, but must use an
easily read font having no more than 15 characters per inch
(minimum 11 pt); and
. Each page must have at least 1-inch margins on all sides of a
standard 8.5 x 11 inches (US-letter sized) sheet.

Proposers are encouraged to use the LaTex template provided at the CXC
website, (http://cxc.harvard.edu/proposer/) that conforms to these
requirements.

Proposals that exceed the page limit will have all excess pages removed.
Proposals that violate the font or margin sizes will be rejected.

5.2.14 Proposal Preparation Tools

Proposal preparation and simulation tools are available on the World Wide
Web as listed in Table 1.3. The proposer is urged to make use of these
tools well before the deadline for proposal submission.
Table 5.2. Proposal Content and Page Limit
|section (Note a) |page limit |comments |
|Cover Page Form |1 |No other cover needed |
|General Form |1 |No other cover needed |
|Scientific | |Including text, |
|Justification and | |figures, charts, |
|Technical Feasibility: | |tables, references, and|
| | |budget narrative (for |
| | |archival research and |
| | |theory). |
|. General, TOO, |4 | |
|Archival Research, or | | |
|Theory/Modeling | | |
|. Large or Joint |6 | |
|. X-ray Visionary |7 | |
|Projects (XVPs) | | |
|Target Forms |As needed |Not required for |
| | |Archival Research or |
| | |Theory/Modeling |
| | |proposals |
|Previous |1 |List of previous |
|Chandra Programs | |programs of PI and |
| | |Observing Investigator |
| | |(if any) including |
| | |publications (Note b) |
|PI's CV/Bibliography |1 |Emphasis should be on |
|(optional) | |relevant experience and|
| | |publications |


Notes:
a. The proposal forms may be accessed via the Remote Proposal System (RPS)
software at http://cxc.harvard.edu/.
b. Those with a large number of prior programs may include minimal
information but should include proposal number, PI, Observers, references
(one per line).


5.3 Proposal Submission Instructions


5.3.1 Electronic Submission Required

All Stage 1 proposals are required to be submitted electronically according
to the instructions given below and on the CXC website
(http://cxc.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/RPS/Chandra/RPS.pl). The file, including
the science justification and previous Chandra program list (and,
optionally, a CV), must be in PDF format. Electronic submission facilitates
efficient proposal processing and reduces the likelihood of transcription
error in the various databases. Proposers who do not have access to
electronic communications should call the Chandra Director's Office, (617)
495-7268.

5.3.2 Remote Proposal System (RPS)

Stage 1 proposals must be submitted electronically by either of two
methods, both of which make use of the Remote Proposal System (RPS)
software. More detailed information concerning the Chandra RPS system may
be found on the CXC website (http://cxc.harvard.edu/cgi-
bin/RPS/Chandra/RPS.pl).
The proposer may access this system either through the World Wide Web (WWW)
or by email as follows:

. The WWW version of the Chandra RPS provides a form-based interface.
Access is linked to the Chandra home page at http://cxc.harvard.edu/
(select "Proposer" link [http://cxc.harvard.edu/proposer/]. Help files
for each form and each input parameter are available as hypertext
links, and the user has complete control over the entries.
. The interface to the email version of the Chandra RPS needs to be
initiated by the proposer. Instructions may be obtained by sending an
email message to: rps@head.cfa.harvard.edu with:



in the body. A proposer may convert from the web-based to the email
version using the RPS email button. When using the email version, the
science justification PDF file should be submitted using ftp to
cxc.harvard.edu following the instructions provided by RPS.
. The email interface is recommended for proposals including a
significant number of targets.

Independent of interface, the process will, at a minimum, involve the
following steps for all proposals:
. Preparing the Scientific Justification and Technical Feasibility,
preparing the list of previous Chandra programs and (optionally) the
PI CV/bibliography, including any figures, and converting the document
to a single PDF file. Please be sure to print out the PDF file to
ensure it is readable before submitting it;
. Providing the information for, and completing, the Cover Page and
General Form;
. For proposals requiring new observations, the Target Form(s),
including constraints and remarks where needed;
. Using the RPS option to check the target coordinates against
NED/SIMBAD in order to minimize errors in target coordinates;
. Verifying that the information on the Cover Page Form, the General
Form, and (as appropriate) the Target Form(s) is correct;
. Submitting the Cover Page Form, the General Form, and (as appropriate)
the Target Form(s), following which the RPS assigns a proposal number;

. Submitting the PDF file of the Science Justification and Technical
Feasibility;
. Submitting the PDF file of the list of previous programs and
(optional) CV;
. Receiving an email acknowledging receipt of your proposal and
notification of the proposal number and of any errors found via
crosscheck of the target information with the SIMBAD and/or RASS
catalog and with the Chandra Observation Catalog. For gratings
observations this check will confirm whether or not there is an RASS
source close to the target position. Under the assumption that most
gratings targets are RASS sources, this minimizes the chance of
incorrect coordinates.
. Should an error in your coordinates or target list be found by the
above check, your proposal should be corrected and re-submitted.


5.3.3 Help After Submitting: When You Have Discovered A Mistake

If the mistake is discovered before the deadline, please go through the
submit process as if you had not submitted before, resubmitting both the
form and science justification, and entering the number of the proposal
being replaced. The proposal is scanned to confirm that it is a
resubmission. Proposals for which resubmission cannot be confirmed are
flagged for the attention of a staff member of the CXC. The proposal with
the most recent date and time is considered as the "final" proposal.

It is possible to correct minor errors in forms after the proposal
deadline, especially if the item is critical to the success of the
potential observation (e.g., incorrect coordinates). Please inform the CXC
(via the HelpDesk, http://cxc.harvard.edu/helpdesk/) as soon as possible
after the mistake is discovered.

Late changes in the Science Justification are not allowed. However, some
typographical or numerical errors can be misleading, and corrections of
such can be sent to the CXC in a letter or email of explanation. If
appropriate, this letter will be included in material sent to the peer
review. Note that a long list of corrections to a careless submission
cannot be accepted as this would be considered de facto as a late-proposal
submission.




5.3.4 Color Figures

The default distribution of proposals to the peer reviewers will be
electronic in PDF format. Black and white hardcopies will be provided only
at the specific request of individual reviewers. It is therefore no longer
necessary to submit multiple hardcopies that include color figures.
However, since color figures do not always reproduce well in black and
white, 10 color hardcopies may be submitted to the CXC, by the proposal
deadline, for distribution to reviewers who request hardcopies if the PI so
wishes.

Chapter 6 - Resources for Proposers and Proposal Submission

The CXC has extensive on-line resources for Chandra proposers and a suite
of software tools for common proposal-related tasks. All proposal-related
material can be found at http://cxc.harvard.edu/proposer/.

6.1 On-line Resources


6.1.1 The Proposers' Observatory Guide (POG)

The main reference document for Chandra operation and instrumentation is
the Chandra Proposers' Observatory Guide. The POG is available from the CXC
website (http://cxc.harvard.edu/proposer/POG/). Additional information can
be found at the "Instruments and Calibration" (http://cxc.harvard.edu/cal/)
link on the CXC web page.

A hardcopy version of the POG is available upon request to the CXC HelpDesk
(http://cxc.harvard.edu/helpdesk/).

6.1.2 The HelpDesk

The CXC uses commercial Helpdesk software to track users' requests and
problems. Click on "Log into the CXC HelpDesk", and the HelpDesk login box
will appear. Enter a user name (we suggest first and middle initial
followed by last name, but any unique string will be okay) and password and
press enter/return to log in. Once you have logged in, you can send a query
(or "ticket") by clicking on the "Open a New Ticket". New users will be
asked to enter more information (this only needs to be done once). HelpDesk
also allows you to search previous tickets that are not private. More
detailed information is given on the interface. Users can also email the
CXC HelpDesk: cxchelp@head.cfa.harvard.edu.

In the last few days before and after the proposal deadline, we activate a
dedicated email address for problems with proposal submission. This address
should be used for proposal submission purposes only and is not active for
most of the year. This dedicated email address helps the CDO to deal more
efficiently with the very large volume of correspondence we receive around
the proposal deadline. Dates for which the address is switched on will be
posted on the proposer page at the CXC website. The proposal help email
address is: prophelp@head.cfa.harvard.edu.
Proposal queries submitted to the HelpDesk will always be answered.

6.1.3 Searching the Chandra Archives and Downloading Data

ChaSeR (Search and Retrieval from the Chandra Data Archive) allows a user
to check what observations have been made, the status of the observations
(observed, publicly released, etc.), and ultimately to select data products
and retrieve them. The web version of ChaSeR can be accessed at
http://cda.harvard.edu/chaser/ .



There is also a downloadable version of ChaSeR that has somewhat more
sophisticated search capabilities than the web version. ChaSeR is available
from the Chandra Data Archive (http://cxc.cfa.harvard.edu/cda/chaser.html).


ChaSeR includes a precession tool and provides quick access to images.
ChaSeR is extensively documented on the archive pages of the CXC website.
In particular, there are detailed instructions for installation on many
systems and a useful FAQ page. The user is referred to these sources for
installation instructions as well as usage tips, updates, and more complete
documentation.

The Chandra Data Archive Footprint Service provides a visual web interface
to all public Chandra observations as well as the observational data used
for the Chandra Source Catalog. The instrumental sky coverage is
superimposed on an image from the Digital Sky Survey. This tool also
provides access to Chandra images and a seamless interface to WebChaSeR for
downloading data. The CDA Footprint service is available from:
http://cxc.harvard.edu/cda/footprint/cdaview.html

The Bibliography web interface allows simultaneous searching of the archive
and of the papers published on Chandra observations. It is available from:
http://cxc.harvard.edu/cgi-gen/cda/bibliography.

Detailed target lists by cycle and a complete list of approved Large and
Very Large Projects can be found at:
http://cxc.harvard.edu/target_lists/index.html.

An additional tool of interest is the processing status tool, which
provides comprehensive information about the processing of each
observation. The processing status tool can be accessed via WebChaser. The
tool can also be accessed from http://cxc.harvard.edu/soft/op/op_pst.html.

6.1.4 Instrument Response Functions

Instrument response functions (RMFs and ARFs) for simulating spectra within
Sherpa and XSPEC can be found on the proposer page
(http://cxc.harvard.edu/proposer/) and the Calibration Database (CALDB)
page (http://cxc.harvard.edu/caldb/). These responses should be used for
proposal preparation only; they should NOT be used for data analysis
because they are not accurate for the date of a specific observation.

6.2 Proposal Preparation Software

The CXC provides several software tools to aid in proposal preparation.

6.2.1 Precess, Colden, Dates, ObsVis, PRoVis, PIMMS, and Effective Area and
PSF Viewers

These tools perform the following functions:
. Precess is an interactive astronomical coordinate conversion program.
It allows precession of equatorial coordinates and conversion between
equatorial, ecliptic, galactic, and supergalactic coordinates.

. Colden is an interactive program to evaluate the neutral hydrogen
column density at a given direction on the sky. Colden accesses two
databases: the Bell survey (Stark et al 1992 ApJS 79. 77) and the
Dickey & Lockman 1990 (ARA&A, 28, p.215) compilation of Bell and other
surveys for all-sky coverage.
. Dates is an interactive calendar and time conversion tool.
. ObsVis is a tool to aid observation planning allowing inspection of
instrument fields-of-view (FOVs). It will display instrument FOVs on a
Digital Sky Survey or user-loaded image, mark the locations of sources
from various X-ray catalogs and other functionality such as
manipulation of multiple fields-of-view for planning of grids of
observations.
. PRoVis is a web-based tool which allows interactive plotting of
observatory roll angle, pitch angle and target visibility for use in
checking observation feasibility. This software includes indication of
ranges of pitch angle with restricted exposure times and dynamic
interaction with the display.
. PIMMS (Portable Interactive Multi-Mission Simulator) was developed at
NASA-GSFC by Dr. K. Mukai. [We thank Dr. Mukai for making some changes
to the code for Chandra.] PIMMS allows the user to convert between
source fluxes and count rates for different missions. PIMMS also uses
simple spectral models (blackbody, bremsstrahlung, power, Raymond-
Smith) to calculate count rates or fluxes.
. Effective Area Viewer is a web-based tool that displays the on-axis
Effective Area provided for proposal planning and allows comparison
with versions from previous cycles.
. PSF Viewer is a web-based tool that displays the PSF (Point Spread
Function) (see http://cxc.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/build_viewer.cgi?psf ).

All of these tools have web interfaces linked into the Proposer pages.
Command-line (non-web) versions that have additional features are also
available for several tools. For example, command line versions of Precess,
Colden, Dates allow for a list of input parameters in a text file.

The command-line versions of these tools are distributed with CIAO (see
Section 6.2.4). Chandra users with CIAO installed can run these routines in
the same way as all other CIAO tools (CLI tool names: prop_colden,
prop_dates, prop_precess, and obsvis). Standard CIAO helpfiles are
available.

6.2.2 Software Helpfiles and Proposal Threads

Helpfiles for proposal-related software and proposal "Threads" are
available from the CXC proposer site (http://cxc.harvard.edu/proposer/).
Helpfiles are available over the web as HTML files, in PDF format, and as
part of the CIAO "ahelp" system. Proposal Threads are modeled on CIAO
threads and give step-by-step examples of how to perform feasibility
calculations, fill in the RPS forms, and submit a proposal. They are
intended primarily (but not exclusively) for less experienced Chandra
users.

6.2.3 MARX

MARX is a suite of programs created by the MIT/CXC group and designed to
enable the user to simulate the on-orbit performance of the Chandra X-ray
Observatory. MARX provides a detailed ray-trace simulation of how Chandra
responds to a variety of astrophysical sources and can generate standard
FITS events files and images as output. It contains detailed models for the
HRMA mirror system as well as the HETG and LETG gratings and all focal
plane detectors. More detailed information, including the source code and
documentation, is available from the MIT MARX Web Page
(http://space.mit.edu/CXC/MARX/). MARX should be used to demonstrate the
feasibility of challenging observations, for example resolving multiple or
overlapping sources with unique spectra, HETG observations of extremely
bright objects, or grating observations of extended sources.

6.2.4 CIAO

The Chandra Interactive Analysis of Observations (CIAO) package is an
extensive suite of tools designed for Chandra data reduction. Although not
designed specifically for proposal preparation, CIAO can be used to analyze
simulated Chandra data (e.g. from MARX) and create simulated spectra. Full
details can be found at http://cxc.harvard.edu/ciao/. Sherpa is an
interactive spatial/spectral fitting package that forms part of CIAO. It
can also be used for simple simulations of Chandra spectra.

6.2.5 XSPEC

XSPEC is the spectral analysis portion of the Xanadu X-ray data analysis
package, developed and maintained at NASA-GSFC. XSPEC can be obtained from:
http://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/xanadu/xspec/index.html.

The spectral simulation portion of XSPEC can also be run on-line. WEBSPEC
can be accessed from: http://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/webspec/webspec.html.

Chapter 7 - Stage 1: Scientific and Technical Proposal Evaluation,
Selection and Implementation


7.1 Evaluation of Research Objectives


The criteria used in the Stage 1 evaluation are listed below in order of
importance.
1) The overall scientific merit of the investigation and its
relevance to the Chandra science program and capabilities. This
includes addressing the scientific objectives of the Chandra
mission which are aligned with the NASA strategic plans. For
observing proposals, the degree to which the objectives have
been satisfied by one or more previous observations will be
evaluated. (Section 3.5 gives instructions for obtaining
information on completed and planned observations).
2) For observing proposals, the suitability of using the Chandra X-
ray Observatory and data products for the proposed investigation
and the need for new X-ray data beyond that already obtained;
the feasibility of accomplishing the objectives of the
investigation within the time, telemetry, and scheduling
constraints; and the feasibility of the analysis techniques. For
programs incurring a large expenditure of observatory time
relative to exposure time (multiple short exposure or grid
pointings), the total observatory time required will be
considered. For X-ray Visionary Projects, the legacy value and
the project's ability to address key, high-impact questions in
current astrophysics will also be considered. For Archival
Research and Theory/Modeling proposals, the relevance to the
Chandra scientific program will be considered. For Archival
Research proposals, the value of any additional analysis beyond
the original use of the data will also be considered.
3) The competence and relevant experience of the Principal
Investigator and any collaborators as an indication of their
ability to carry the investigation to a successful conclusion.
Past performance in scientific research, as evidenced by the
timely publication of refereed scientific papers including those
on previous Chandra programs, will be considered.
4) To aid in the Stage 2 cost review, the data analysis and
interpretation effort required to achieve the proposed science
goals will also be evaluated by the Stage 1 peer review panels.

The peer review will be conducted using a number of panels, each
responsible for proposals directed at particular scientific topics. Large
Projects will be initially evaluated by the appropriate topical panel, but
the final recommendation for award of time will be made by the Big Project
Panel. X-ray Visionary Projects will be evaluated by the XVP panel in
addition to the topical panels, but the final recommendation for award of
time will be made by the Big Project Panel. The final evaluation stages of
both Large and X-ray Visionary Project proposals demand that reviewers
efficiently consider a significant number of proposals that may be outside
their area of expertise. LP and XVP proposers are advised to bear this in
mind when preparing their proposals.


7.1.1 Observing Efficiency/Slew Tax

An observing efficiency including slew and settle time will be used to
determine the amount of time for observations. To evaluate time required by
a given proposal, a "slew tax" of 1.5 ksec will be added to each proposed
target within the peer review process; this added time closely represents
the average observatory slew and set-up time required for each observation.
At the peer review, the slew tax is taken into account along with the
requested time when assessing the resources requested to accomplish a
proposed research project. The formula for slew tax is included here to
enable proposers to understand the total time that they are effectively
requesting; however, the time on target is all that the proposers should
include in their proposal.

For a large set of short exposures this slew tax can substantially increase
the "cost" in terms of time needed for a project. The RPS provides a tool
which, given the entered target parameters, generates an estimate of the
constraint class of each target and the "slew tax" (pointing overhead)
which will be charged at the peer review. The CXC will compute the slew
tax and provide the information to the peer review.

7.1.2 Grid Surveys and Slew Tax

. For a series of contiguous or nearly contiguous pointings (maneuver
from one observation to the next of less than or equal to 1 degree),
with no change in instrument set-up or observing mode, the slew tax for
the first observation will remain 1.5 ksec, while for observations 2
through n (where "n" is explained below) will be assessed at 0.5 ksec.
. A grid of pointings will be assembled into one or more groups comprised
of a set of closely spaced pointings with maximum exposure time per
group of 90 ksec, including the slew tax.
. The value of "n" is the number of observations that can be done
including the slew tax without exceeding 90 ksec. Proposals requesting
more than 90 ksec (including slew tax) will be assessed slew tax in
several groups, the first observation of each group will be charged 1.5
ksec slew tax.
. Proposers should set the RPS flag "Is this observation part of a grid
survey?" to be "Y" (yes).

Please note that observations taken as part of a grid survey are not
constrained and therefore are not guaranteed to have the same (or similar)
roll angle. Proposers must also include a group or roll constraint if they
wish to ensure the individual observations have roll angles within
particular tolerances. The number of constrained observations, should a
grid be constrained, will be determined similarly to the slew tax
calculation. Grid observations will be grouped into sets with total
exposure time, including slew tax, of no more than 90 ksecs and each group
will be charged as 1 constrained observation, classified according to the
scheme in Section 5.2.8. Please refer to the thread Slew Tax and
Constrained Observations for
Gridshttp://cxc.harvard.edu/proposer/threads/slewtax for examples.





7.2 Selection

The final selection of proposals is made by the Selecting Official (the CXC
Director), who notifies the PIs and the Chandra Project Office at MSFC of
the results. The list of selected targets is posted on the CXC website
(http://cxc.harvard.edu/target_lists/) ) and entered into the Observation
Catalog.

Although some investigations may begin immediately (Archival Research,
Theory/Modeling, and Joint Observing Projects), no funding will be provided
until the results of the Stage 2 Cost review are complete and the final
award has been issued. As a general rule, PIs of proposals requiring new
observations will not be funded until the first observation has been
successfully performed and the data provided to them.

7.3 Implementation

Once the observing program is approved, the targets are transferred to the
Chandra Observation Catalog and assigned a unique observation identifier
(OBSID) for scheduling. Below we describe the process of observation
parameter confirmation and scheduling the observations (see the Proposers'
Observatory Guide for more information).

Once the approved observations are in the OBSCAT, the CDO contacts all PIs
and observers to confirm those parameters most critical for scheduling the
observations. This process, initiated in Cycle 9 and known as the Initial
Proposal Parameters Signoff (IPPS), includes confirmation of time
constraints and preferences, target coordinates and instrument selection.
Once these responses have been received and any updates completed, the
Chandra Mission Planning team begin their generation of the Long-term
Schedule (LTS), which covers the full observing cycle (see below). A
second, detailed review of observation parameters is initiated by the
Uplink Support Interface team (USINT) at the CXC and carried out by the
observers. USINT contacts each observer to request a detailed check of ALL
observing parameters. An observation can only be released for final
scheduling in the Short-term Schedule (STS, see below) once this second
check has been completed.

The Chandra Mission Planning and Operations teams at the CXC produce a
mission timeline using a two-part process. First, for the entire period
covered by this CfP, a long-term schedule (LTS) is generated with a
precision of about a week. The LTS is published on the CXC web page:
(http://cxc.harvard.edu/longsched.html.). Updated LTSs are generated
regularly, as needed, in response to TOOs and other timeline changes.
Targets are scheduled in the LTS to achieve maximum efficiency in the
observing program within the operational constraints of Chandra.
Unconstrained observations are scheduled to produce the highest observing
efficiency. Unconstrained targets with relatively short exposure times,
totaling a substantial fraction of the observing time, are held in a pool
from which they can be selected for use in short-term scheduling. Second,
about three weeks prior to the anticipated execution of the observations, a
short-term schedule (STS) is produced. The STS is used for the automatic
generation of the required spacecraft commands. The STS, including slew
times, pointing direction, guide stars, roll angles, etc., is reviewed and
finalized approximately one week in advance of execution, at which time it
is published on the CXC web page:
(http://cxc.harvard.edu/target_lists/stscheds/.

The CXC will make its best effort to schedule all approved observations.
All approved non-TOO observations that are not scheduled, or that were
scheduled but not successfully executed, will automatically be rescheduled
within the current observing cycle or carried over into the next observing
cycle. However, approved TOO observations that are not triggered will not
be carried into the next cycle; they must be proposed for again. The
official changeover date between cycles will be published on the CXC
website.

If observations have to be cut short because of unforeseen circumstances,
the following criteria will determine whether the target will be scheduled
for additional observing time. For observations of 5 ksec or greater, the
observation will be considered complete if 90% or more of the approved
exposure time was obtained; for observations less than 5 ksec, only one
best-effort pointing will normally be attempted. (See Section 3.2.3 for
more details).

For information on proprietary data rights, see Section 3.2.1.2. A PI may
waive or shorten the proprietary period, and this is customary for
observations intended to benefit the general community. The CXC will ensure
that the proprietary rights of other PIs are not violated by such an early
data release.

7.3.1 Early Observation of Summer Targets

Observations that are approved by the Cycle 14 peer review and which are at
good pitch during the months of July and August 2012 may be selected for
early observation. In this case PIs will be emailed directly first by the
CDO and then by USINT (User Interface) personnel requesting a detailed
check of observing parameters at short notice, skipping the IPPS step
outlined above. This contact may occur before the official approved target
list is announced in mid July. Please note that not all PIs of approved
proposals will be contacted early.







Chapter 8 - Stage 2: Cost Proposal Submission, Evaluation and Allocation


8.1 Overview

Subject to the availability of funds from NASA, funding will be provided to
support eligible investigators of approved proposals. It is anticipated
that approximately 200 awards will be issued for an estimated total amount
of $10M. In the case of Co-Is seeking funding, awards will be issued
directly to the Co-I's institution in order to avoid double charging of
institutional overheads.

Any investigator whose proposal receives sufficiently high evaluations
during the Stage 1 review and that requires financial support is invited to
submit a Stage 2 Cost Proposal. See Section 8.3 for the eligibility
requirements for funding.

Based on Stage 1 ratings, the Selecting Official (the CXC Director) will
invite eligible investigators whose investigations were recommended by the
peer review to submit a Stage 2 Cost Proposal. Proposers not recommended to
proceed to Stage 2 are not prohibited from preparing a Stage 2 proposal,
but they should be aware that their proposed investigation is unlikely to
be selected.

8.2 Content and Submission of Cost Proposals


Each PI and Co-I Institution shall submit their Stage 2 Cost Proposals both
electronically, using the Remote Proposal System (RPS), and via hard copy.

1) Electronic Submission:

The Remote Proposal Submission (RPS) system is found at
http://cxc.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/RPS/Chandra_Budget/RPS.pl. This must be used
for electronic submission of the Cost Proposal Cover Page and Budget Forms.
The Budget Justification, List of Current or Currently Proposed Research
Support, and the proposing institution's negotiated indirect cost rate
agreement shall also be submitted electronically. In order to do this,
after submitting the Cost Proposal Cover Page and Budget Forms, click on
the "Budget Justification" button and attach the Budget Justification and
List of Current or Currently Proposed Research Support. After submitting
electronically, selecting the PDF button on the RPS will return a PDF file
containing the Cover and Budget forms. This can be used, along with the
uploaded PDF files, for the hardcopy submission.

Each proposing PI should submit, through their institution, a single Stage
2 cost proposal, for each approved project, containing his/her own budget
requests and include the budget requests of any Co-Is seeking funding in
Section J of the Budget Form. If there are more than three separately
funded Co-Is, the total of all Co-I requests should be provided in Section
J of the Budget Form and the breakdown for each separately funded Co-I must
be provided in the Budget Justification.

Co-Is shall provide the PI with the necessary budget information to be
included in Section J of the PI's budget form. Co-Is shall submit their
cost proposal through their institution following the same procedures as
the PI.


2) Hard Copy Submission:

The hard copy of your cost proposal shall be generated by following the
instructions for the RPS. Note that Co-Is will now submit the hard copy of
their cost proposal directly to the SAO Subawards Section. Hard copies
shall be signed by the institution's authorized signatory and include all
cost proposal documents.

Hardcopy submission of the Stage 2 Cost Proposal to the SAO Subawards
Section may be done using one of two methods.
. The signed cost proposal must be scanned into an Adobe PDF file.
The signed and scanned Adobe PDF copies of the cost proposal shall
be submitted by e-mail to: chandracp@cfa.harvard.edu. For PIs, the
e-mail subject line must state "Chandra Cost Proposal #XXXXXXXX
PI". (Replace Xs with assigned Chandra Science Proposal number.) If
the submission is for a Co-I, the e-mail subject line must state
"Chandra Cost Proposal #XXXXXXXX Co-I". (Replace Xs with assigned
Chandra Science Proposal number.) Do not use any other e-mail
address for submission of the cost proposal.
. Cost proposals may also be submitted using a courier service or the
U.S. Mail. In this case each proposing institution shall submit an
original and 1 copy of the Stage 2 cost proposal information as
described above. All original cost proposals must have the original
signature of the institution's authorized signatory.

Hard copy cost proposals using U.S. Mail or courier service shall be sent
to:


|Mailing Address: |Courier Delivery (e.g. |
|Subawards Section |FedEx): |
|Smithsonian Astrophysical |Subawards Section |
|Observatory |Smithsonian Astrophysical |
|60 Garden Street, Mail Stop|Observatory |
|22 |100 Acorn Park Drive, Mail |
|Cambridge, MA 02138-1516 |Stop 22 |
| |Cambridge, MA 02140-2302 |
| |617-495-7421 |


Detailed instructions for preparation of the Cover Page can be found at:

http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/spp/sp/forms/CP_Cover_Instruct.html

Detailed instructions for preparation of the Budget Form and the Budget
Justification can be found at:
http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/spp/sp/forms/Budget_Instruct.html

Note that changes to the science proposal will not be allowed or considered
in Stage 2.
For Joint Proposals, the Chandra X-ray Center, the Space Telescope Science
Institute (http://www.stsci.edu/institute/), and the XMM-Newton Guest
Observer Facility (http://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/xmm/xmmgof.html)will
separately fund the observations performed with the appropriate satellite
and depending on the availability of funds. The PI will need to submit both
their observation specifications and a cost proposal to the relevant
organization, following their schedule and using their forms. Cost
proposals for all approved Chandra programs, including those awarded time
as part of the HST or XMM-Newton proposal process will be due in accordance
with the deadline listed in Table 1.1 XMM-Newton-approved projects may be
requested to submit their Chandra cost proposals early due to the earlier
allocation dates.
Cost proposals shall include:
1) The Chandra Cost Proposal Cover Page Form with institutional signature.
Note that the Institution Administrative Contact information and
Investigator information must be complete. This includes the email
addresses for both the Administrative Contact and the Investigator. Group
email addresses, e.g., sponsoredprojects@institution.edu, are not
acceptable.
2) A budget using the Chandra Cost Proposal Budget Form (see the item "Cost
Proposal and Funding Information" at (http://cxc.harvard.edu/). The PI's
Budget Form must include the required Co-I information and the totals of
the Co-I's budgets as line items in Section J of the Budget Form.
3) A succinct one or two page Budget Justification. The Budget
Justification should include a breakdown of the work assignments for all
funded investigators taking part in the investigation. The Budget
Justification must describe the basis of estimate and rationale for each
proposed component of cost, including direct labor,
subcontracts/subawards, consultants, travel, other direct costs, and
facilities and equipment. The Proposer must provide adequate budget
detail to support estimates. The Proposer must state the source of cost
estimates (e.g., based on quote, on previous purchases for same or
similar item(s), cost data obtained from internet research, etc.). The
Proposer must describe in detail the purpose of any proposed travel in
relation to the grant and provide the basis of estimate, including
information or assumptions on destination, number of travelers, number of
days, conference fees, air fare, lodging, meals and incidentals, etc. If
destinations are not known, the Proposer should, for estimating purposes,
make reasonable assumptions about the potential destination and use
historical cost data based on previous trips taken or conferences
attended. Funding for observing proposals is normally issued after the
data from the first successful observation is released to the PI. For
Target of Opportunity proposals, the budget justification must show the
breakdown of funding for each approved target. If there is more than one
approved target, the award may be incrementally funded as each target is
successfully observed and the data is released to the PI.
4) A written certification for any workstation, personal computer or any
general-purpose equipment costing $5,000 or more. The certification form
can be found at http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/spp/sp/forms/GO_forms.html
5) A List of Current and Pending Support Information must be provided for
all ongoing and pending projects and proposals that involve the proposing
PI and any Co-Is who are requesting funding. This information must be
provided for each such individual for each of the following two
categories of awards that may exist at the time of the proposal
submission deadline:
. Current Awards (for any of the period that overlaps with the submitted
proposal), and
. Pending Awards (including the proposal being submitted to CXC).
For each of these two categories, using a format of the proposers
choosing, provide the following information: name of the investigator,
project title, sponsoring agency, period-of-performance, amount of
award or total proposed budget, and commitment by PI (or Co-I) in terms
of a fraction of a full-time equivalent (FTE) work year. If the PI and
each funded Co-I have no Current or Pending Support, then a statement
to that effect is required.
6) A copy of the applicant institution's federally-approved Indirect Cost
(IDC) Rate Agreement (required for PI institution and any Co-I
institutions).
7) Certifications and Assurances Required by U.S. Code: The signature of
the Institutional Representative on the Budget Form verifies that the
proposing organization complies with the required certifications and
assurances (see Appendix A for full text); therefore, they do not need to
be independently signed and submitted.

The Budget Form and Justification must contain estimated costs for the
following potential expenditures:
. salaries and wages: List personnel, individual person-months, and
total cost for each individual.
. other direct labor: Costs and/or stipends for Individuals providing
research assistance, such as graduate students, post-doctoral research
associates or science data aides.
. fringe benefits
. equipment: Provide estimated costs for workstations, personal
computers and other equipment. List items separately. Explain the need
for items costing more than $5,000. Describe the basis for estimated
cost. General-purpose equipment (i.e., workstations, personal
computers and/or commercial software) is not allowable as a direct
cost unless specifically approved by the SAO Subawards Section
Contracting Officer. Any general-purpose equipment purchase requested
to be made as a direct charge under this award must include the
equipment description, an explanation of how it will be used in the
conduct of the research proposed, and a written certification that the
equipment will be used exclusively for the proposed research
activities and not for general business or administrative purposes.
The need for general-purpose items that typically can be used for
research and non-research purposes should be explained. The
certification form can be found at
http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/spp/sp/forms/GO_forms.html (See below for
additional information on workstation requests.)
. travel: Describe the purpose of the proposed travel, specifically who
will be traveling, the departure location and destination, estimated
airfare, lodging, meals and incidentals etc., length of trip, the
relationship of the travel to the grant, and the basis of cost
estimate. [Note: For Nonprofit Nonacademic Organizations, foreign
travel destinations listed on the proposal must be specific. If
additional foreign travel is added or if the destination changes after
the proposal has been approved, prior approval from the SAO Grant
Subawards Section is required by the Code of Federal Regulations, 2
CFR Part 230.51.e, Foreign Travel (OMB Circular A-122).]
. supplies: Provide general categories of needed supplies and the
estimated cost.
. publication costs: Provide number of papers, total pages, and total
cost.
. computer services: Provide type of service and total cost.
. other direct costs: Enter the total of direct costs not covered above.
Provide an itemized list explaining the need for each item and the
basis for the estimate.


. indirect costs: Provide the name of the cognizant Federal agency, date
of negotiation agreement, rate(s), base, and total. Attach a copy of
the rate agreement per Section 8.2, Item 6 above.
. subtotal: Enter the sum of items above.
. co-I awards: Provide name, institution, and total dollar amount for
each Co-I requesting funds.
. project total: Total cost of support being requested for the project.

The allowability of the above costs is dependent upon conformance with the
Terms and Conditions for CXC Observing Program Awards (see the Terms and
Conditions currently being used for Cycle 13
http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/spp/sp/policies/grants.html; the Terms and
Conditions for Cycle 14 will be posted at a later date).

While proposals from investigators working at for-profit organizations are
eligible for funding, profit is unallowable. Management fees of up to 3%
may be permitted on a case-by-case basis.
Proposals involving NASA employees as either a PI or as a Co-I should use
the full cost accounting method authorized at their Centers at the time
proposals are due for the entire proposed period-of-performance.

To assure compatibility with NASA's data systems, requested
workstation/computer systems must be capable of establishing one of the
existing portable data analysis environments supported by the CXC.
Information on the minimum computer system and platforms on which the
software is available can be found on the CXC web page
(http://cxc.harvard.edu/) (click on "Data Analysis" and then "Download") or
by direct link at http://cxc.harvard.edu/ciao.

Requests for workstations/computers must be justified in the Budget
Justification. Workstations/ computers are not allowable as a direct cost
unless specifically justified and approved by the SAO Subawards Contracting
Officer. Any equipment purchase requested to be made as a direct charge
under this award must include the equipment description, how it will be
used in the conduct of the basic research proposed, why it cannot be
purchased with indirect funds, and a statement certifying that the
equipment will be used exclusively for research and not for general
business or administrative purposes
(http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/spp/sp/forms/GO_forms.html). Regardless of
whether the request is through direct or indirect costs, the justification
must be provided and should briefly describe the computing capabilities
that exist or are expected to exist at the proposers institution during the
period in which the proposed research would be performed and then explain
the impact to the proposed work if the request for the additional
workstation is declined. The budget request for workstations must be
clearly stated on the Budget Form as a line item.

Further information and instructions can be found on the CXC website:
http://www.cxc.harvard.edu/spp/sp/policies/CPSR.html.








8.3 Eligibility for Grant Funds

Proposals for funding will be accepted from institutions/organizations
described in Section 3.1.
Funding for these programs may be requested by scientists who are:
. U.S. Citizens residing in the United States;
. U.S. Citizens residing abroad if salary/stipend and support are being
paid by a U.S. institution; and
. U.S. permanent residents and foreign national scientists working in
the United States if salary/stipend and support are being paid by U.S.
institutions.

(Note: U.S. is defined as the 50 states and the District of Columbia.)
These definitions include U.S. Co-Is on observing projects with non-U.S.
PIs.

Proposals by non-U.S. PIs that have one or more U.S. Co-Is who require
funding must designate one of the U.S. Co-Is as the "Administrative PI".
This person will have general oversight and responsibility for the budget
submissions by the U.S. Co-Is in Stage 2.

When a U.S. investigator obtains grant funds for a project that involves
non-U.S. investigators, no funding may flow through the U.S. investigator
to the non-U.S. investigators. This prohibition includes funding for
travel.

8.3.1 Switching Institutions

Investigators who are switching institutions during a grant award period
and whose current institution agrees to a transfer should contact the CXC
and/or the SAO Subawards Sections as soon as possible to arrange for their
award to be transferred to the new institution with the minimum of delay.
Please see Section XIX, "Transferring the Award" of the SAO terms and
Conditions for details of this process.

Investigators whose affiliation changes from a US to a non-US Institution
cannot retain their NASA funding. However if, as a result of the PI's move,
other US-based Co-Is of the original proposal have taken on a larger share
of the work, it may be possible for that funding to be officially
transferred to the relevant US-based Co-I. The PI should contact the CXC
Helpdesk to discuss this matter.

Investigators who move from a foreign institution to a US-based institution
within a year of the original science proposal submission may be eligible
for funding and should contact the CXC helpdesk for more information.

8.4 Evaluation of Budgets

Each approved science proposal with US-based PIs and/or Co-Is will receive
written notification of the allocated budget amount. The allocated budget
is based on the amount of approved Chandra time, the number of targets
approved and an evaluation of the level of effort required to complete the
data analysis and interpretation phase of the project, the funding
eligibility of the Science PI and, in the case of joint proposals, whether
or not Chandra is the primary facility. For a project with a science PI
employed at a non-US institution, a PI with multiple appointments where a
non-US institution funds >50% of his/her time, or for a joint proposal
where Chandra is not the primary facility, the budget allocation will be
reduced. In the case of an Archival Research or Theory/Modeling proposal,
the allocation is based upon the budget proposed by the PI, the
scientific/technical rating and the availability of funds. The relative
value of any highly rated proposals for Archival or Theory/Modeling
Research will be considered against the perceived value of proposals for
new observations, taking into account the critical resources of available
funds and the amount of Chandra observing time. The Stage 2 proposals will
be reviewed for: the total cost of the investigation, including cost
realism and reasonableness in the context of the anticipated level of
effort required to carry out the investigation successfully, and the total
proposed cost in relation to available funds. Awards will be made at the
allocated budget amount or the amount requested in the cost proposal, which
ever is less. Cost proposals exceeding the allocated budget amount will
not be considered and award will be made at the allocated budget amount.

8.5 Selection

After receipt and review of Stage 2 proposals, selection will be made based
on the Stage 1 evaluation of scientific merit and technical feasibility and
the Stage 2 evaluation of proposed costs. Based on the totality of these
evaluations, a recommended set of cost proposals will be delivered to the
Selecting Official for final selection and award. Given the submission of
proposals of sufficient merit, it is anticipated that approximately 200
investigations, including those for Archival Research and Theory/Modeling
Research, will be recommended for selection. The CXC reserves the right to
offer selections at a reduced level of cost and/or observing time from that
proposed in order to fit within the program constraints. Proposers to this
program should further understand that the lack of either monetary or
observing time resources are sufficient grounds for not selecting a
proposal even though it may have been judged to be of high intrinsic
scientific merit.

8.6 Grant Award

The Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory (SAO) is under contract to NASA
to operate the CXC, and therefore CXC grants will be issued and
administered by the SAO Subawards Section, with the exception of awards
issued to NASA Centers (including JPL) and Other Federal Agencies. For the
latter, the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center will be responsible for the
transfer of funds as well as the administration of these awards.

It is important to note that until an award is made, there is no guarantee
that the recommended financial resources will be available and that awards
are made to the proposing institution and not directly to the PI.

Those proposers selected for award by the CXC will be notified of the
allocated budget amount for their investigation. Revised budgets will not
be required to be submitted when the amount approved for funding is within
twenty percent (20%) of the proposed amount. However, if there are
separately funded Co-Is on the project, the PI must provide the Subawards
Section, in writing, the revised information on how funds are to be
allocated. In cases where the reallocation of funds will result in a
difference exceeding 20% of the original budget submitted by the PI or any
individual Co-I, a revised budget will be required to be submitted by that
investigator. Awards to winning proposers will be implemented through the
issuance of grants. No awards will be funded by the contract mechanism.

Following selection and notification, the CXC will communicate formally
only with the PI, or, in the event that the PI is unavailable, the CXC will
communicate with the person identified in the proposal as the Observing
Investigator. It will be the PI's responsibility to respond to any
questions concerning observational constraints or configurations.

Grants awarded for programs that do not include new Chandra observations
(e.g., Archival Research and Theory/Modeling projects) as well as Joint
Observing projects will be issued at the beginning of the Cycle, defined as
1 January of the new Cycle. Those grantees that include new Chandra
observations, including joint projects, will receive their awards when the
data from their first observations have been successfully processed and
delivered to the PI, or the start of the Cycle, whichever is later. Target
of Opportunity awards with more than one approved target may be
incrementally funded as each target is successfully observed and the data
is released to the PI. Depending on the availability of funds, the Award
should arrive approximately one-month after the first processed data has
been distributed to the PI. It should be noted, however, that, in general,
the initial release of awards for a cycle will not take place until January
(but see Section 8.7 below).

In unusual cases where the PI requires work to be accomplished prior to the
observation, up to 25% of the approved funds can be awarded before the
first observation has been taken. If preparatory funds are required, the PI
shall submit a written justification to the SAO Subawards Section after the
investigator's institution has received notification that it will be
receiving funding. Requests for preparatory funding should not be
included in the cost proposal.

We will issue awards with a two-year period-of-performance when requested
in the submitted budget. Multi-Cycle Observing Proposals (MCOPS) will be
issued with a three-year period-of-performance when requested in the
submitted budget. Please note that the Code of Federal Regulations, 2 CFR
Part 215 Section 215.51, Monitoring and Reporting Program Performance,
requires that a Program Performance Report be submitted at least annually
for all multi-year awards. This Annual Report must be submitted thirty (30)
days prior to the end of each twelve-month period as stated in the Report
Filing Guide of the Award documents. The eligibility of individual
Investigators to receive future multi-year awards will depend upon
recipients' compliance with the Annual Report requirement.

All grants will be administered in accordance with the Terms and Conditions
for CXC Observing Program Awards (see the Terms and Conditions for Cycle 13
the Terms and Conditions for Cycle 14 will be posted at a later date).

8.7 Processing of Cost Proposals


Observations of some new cycle targets may begin in July-August of the
previous cycle rather than the typical November timeframe expected for the
start of the new cycle's observations. This has resulted in an offset
between the availability of new data and the issuing of awards to fund the
work on that data for a subset of proposals. Our processing procedures have
been modified in order to facilitate funding of the early-observation
proposals as soon as possible after the observations are taken, subject to
the availability of funds to cover those awards.

This updated process has three stages:
(1) PIs of science proposals with observations that take place in
July-August of the prior cycle are requested to submit their Cost
Proposals within four weeks after receipt of the peer review results
letter. Awards for cost proposals in this category that are received,
are complete and within budget will be issued in September if funding
is available.
(2) Cost proposals for observational projects which are submitted on
time, which are complete, and within budget will be processed first
and award letters mailed in October/early November. Awards will be
issued once the observations begin, subject to the availability of
funds.
(3) The remaining cost proposals including archive and theory
proposals and incomplete/late/incorrect submissions will be processed
on the usual timescale with award letters mailed in late
November/early December and awards issued beginning 1 January.

8.8 Contact Information for Cost Proposals

Questions concerning the Stage 2 Cost Proposals may be addressed to:

Subawards Section

Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory

60 Garden Street, Mail Stop 22

Cambridge, MA 02138-1516

Email: grants@cfa.harvard.edu

Telephone: 617-496-7705

Fax: 617-495-4224

Technical questions regarding the Remote Proposal System (RPS) should be
directed to the CXC HelpDesk at http://cxc.harvard.edu/helpdesk/
ohttp://cxc.harvard.edu/helpdesk/ or by email to cxchelp@cfa.harvard.edu
cxchelp@cfa.harvard.edu"







Appendix A - Certifications and Assurances

The following pages contain copies of the two Certifications and one
Assurance currently required by U.S. Code from every institution, except
from U.S. Federal institutions, submitting a Stage 2 proposal. Note that
these individual Certifications and Assurance are included for reference
and should not be signed and returned; language is included on the Web-
based Cover Page that confirms that these Certification and Assurance
requirements are met once the printed copy of the Cover page is signed by
the Authorizing Institutional Representative and submitted with the Stage 2
proposal.

A.1 Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, and Other
Responsibility Matters

This certification is required by regulations for compliance with 2 CFR 180
implementing Executive Orders 12549 and 12689, "Debarment and Suspension".

(1) The prospective primary participant certifies to the best of its
knowledge and belief, that it and its principals:
1) Are not presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared
ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from covered transactions by any
Federal department or agency;
2) Have not within a three-year period preceding this proposal been
convicted of or had a civil judgment rendered against them for
commission of fraud or a criminal offense in connection with obtaining,
attempting to obtain, or performing a public (Federal, State, or local)
transaction or contract under a public transaction; violation of
Federal or State antitrust statues or commission of embezzlement,
theft, forgery, bribery, falsification or destruction of records,
making false statements, or receiving stolen property;
3) Are not presently indicted for or otherwise criminally or civilly
charged by a governmental entity (Federal, State or local) with
commission of any of the offenses enumerated in paragraph (1)(b) of
this certification; and
4) Have not within the three-year period preceding this
application/proposal had one or more public transactions (Federal,
State, or local) terminated for cause or default.

(2) Where the prospective primary participant is unable to certify to any
of the statements in this certification, such prospective participant shall
attach an explanation to this proposal.
A.2 Certification Regarding Lobbying (Applicable to Awards Exceeding
$100,000).


No Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on
behalf of the undersigned, to any person for influencing or attempting to
influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an
officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in
connection with the awarding of any Federal contract, the making of any
Federal grant, the making of any Federal loan, the entering into of any
cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment,
or modification of any Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative
agreement.

If any funds other than Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will
be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer
or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of
Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with this
Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement, the undersigned
shall complete and submit Standard Form- LLL, "Disclosure Form to Report
Lobbying," in accordance with its instructions.

The undersigned shall require that the language of this certification be
included in the award documents for all sub awards at all tiers (including
subcontracts, sub grants, and contracts under grants, loans, and
cooperative agreements) and that all sub recipients shall certify and
disclose accordingly.

This certification is a material representation of fact upon which reliance
was placed when this transaction was made or entered into. Submission of
this certification is a prerequisite for making or entering into this
transaction imposed by section 1352, title 31, U.S. Code. Any person who
fails to file the required certification shall be subject to a civil
penalty of not less than $10,000, and not more than $100,000 for each such
failure.
A.3 Assurance of Compliance with the NASA Regulations Pursuant to
Nondiscrimination in Federally Assisted Programs


The (institution, corporation, firm, or other organization on whose behalf
this assurance is signed, hereinafter called "Applicant") hereby agrees
that it will comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (P. L. 88-
352), Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (20 U.S.C. 1680 et
seq.), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (29 U.S.C.
794), and the Age Discrimination Act of 1975 (42 U.S.C. 16101 et seq.), and
all requirements imposed by or pursuant to the Regulation of the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (14 CFR Part 1250) (hereinafter called
"NASA") issued pursuant to these laws, to the end that in accordance with
these laws and regulations, no person in the United States shall, on the
basis of race, color, national origin, sex, handicapped condition, or age
be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be
otherwise subjected to discrimination under any program or activity for
which the Applicant receives federal financial assistance from NASA; and
hereby gives assurance that it will immediately take any measure necessary
to effectuate this agreement.

If any real property or structure thereon is provided or improved with the
aid of federal financial assistance extended to the Applicant by NASA, this
assurance shall obligate the Applicant, or in the case of any transfer of
which the federal financial assistance is extended or for another purpose
involving the provision of similar services or benefits. If any personal
property is so provided, this assurance shall obligate the Applicant for
the period during which it retains ownership or possession of the property.
In all other cases, this assurance shall obligate the Applicant for the
period during which the federal financial assistance is extended to it by
NASA.

This assurance is given in consideration of and for the purpose of
obtaining any and all federal grants, loans, contracts, property,
discounts, or other federal financial assistance extended after the date
hereof to the Applicant by NASA, including installment payments after such
date on account of applications for federal financial assistance which were
approved before such date. The Applicant recognizes and agrees that such
federal financial assistance will be extended in reliance on the
representations and agreements made in this assurance, and that the United
States shall have the right to seek judicial enforcement of this assurance.
This assurance is binding on the Applicant, its successors, transferees,
and assignees, and the person or persons whose signatures appear below are
authorized to sign on behalf of the Applicant.