Next: A VBA Desktop Database for Proposal Processing at National Optical Astronomy Observatories
Up: Observatory Planning and Scheduling
Previous: The Next Generation User Support Tools
Table of Contents -
Subject Index -
Author Index -
Search -
PS reprint -
PDF reprint
Pilachowski, C. & Barnes, J. 1999, in ASP Conf. Ser., Vol. 172, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems VIII, eds. D. M. Mehringer, R. L. Plante, & D. A. Roberts (San Francisco: ASP), 65
Results from the NOAO Telescope Proposal Process Workshop
Caty Pilachowski, Jeannette Barnes
National Optical Astronomy Observatories1, P.O. Box 26732, Tucson, AZ 85726
Abstract:
The National Optical Astronomy Observatories hosted a Telescope
Proposal Process Workshop in Tucson in mid-August in which
representatives of several observatories met to discuss common issues
and goals related to proposals for astronomical telescopes.
The goals of the Proposal Process Workshop were to develop a shared
understanding among observatories, including the National Gemini
Offices and the Gemini Project, of the requirements and procedures for
telescope proposals, and to encourage cooperation among the national
observatories of the Gemini partner countries, STScI, and other
institutions faced with similar issues and concerns related to the
telescope proposal process. This paper will summarize the issues
discussed at the workshop and the actions resulting from these
discussions.
Representatives of several observatories, including NOAO, Gemini,
STScI, McDonald Observatory and the HET, the MMT Observatory,
the CFHT, the National Research Council of Canada, the AAO,
and JACH, met together in Tucson to discuss common issues and
goals related to telescope proposals for astronomical telescopes.
The goals of the Proposal Process Workshop were (1) to develop a
shared understanding among observatories, including the National
Gemini Offices and the Gemini Project, of the requirements and
procedures for telescope proposals, and (2) to encourage cooperation
among the national observatories of the partner countries, STScI,
and other institutions faced with similar issues and concerns related
to the telescope proposal process.
The primary motivation for the workshop arose from NOAO's plan to
unify its proposal process which includes proposals and procedures for
all its nighttime facilities (KPNO, CTIO, HET, MMT, South Pole, and
Gemini) over the next year. We realized that many of the Gemini partner
countries would be facing the same issues as NOAO--how to present a
unified proposal submission system to its user community for Gemini and
their other nationally accessible telescopes. The Kona SPIE meeting sparked
an interest in a collaborative effort among other institutions as well.
Broad issues and goals were explored during the first morning of the
2-day meeting, and
the first afternoon was used to investigate the content of proposals
in order to identify the complete set of information necessary to include
in a telescope proposal. On the second morning we discussed the
proposal process to identify in some detail the scientific and
procedural requirements for the different phases, from preparation
through submission, merit review, technical review, and scheduling.
On the final afternoon we looked more deeply into specific implementation
issues, with the goal of identifying a clear path to providing a set of
tools for investigators and observatory staff to manage the proposal
process.
Prior to the workshop, participants were asked to provide URLs to
proposal information at their respective institutions.
Upon reviewing the posted URLs it was clear that most of the participants
favored a
LaTeX-based proposal form (not so surprising since LaTeX is the
``publishing'' language for astronomy!). Most proposal forms asked
investigators for similar information although perhaps not in the
same way (LaTeX keywords varied from form to form as well as descriptive
information).
The actual processing of proposals at the individual institutions varied
as did the database systems used to track the proposal information.
During the discussions several key items were clearly identified as important
issues in the proposal process.
- Some pre-proposal preparation tools should be available to the
investigators to help them plan their proposals. Some tools that would
be useful during this ``Phase 0'' are 1) exposure time calculators for
the different instruments at each site, 2) a unit translator that would
allow investigators to convert unfamiliar units, and
3) image quality estimators for determining the type of sky needed for
queue observing.
- Observatories should use as similar proposal forms as possible. The
participants felt that the proposal submission process should include an
option for Web-based preparation and submission that does not require the
distribution of software, similar to the system used at NOAO. The NOAO
Web-based proposal form transcribes the information entered into the Web
form into the standard NOAO LaTeX template for final submission.
Figure 1:
The NOAO Proposal Process.
 |
- The proposal form should only ask for information that is truly
needed to evaluate the proposal request. The process should be kept as simple
as possible for users while allowing them to present their scientific case in
a clear and concise manner. Information that is not needed for the
initial submission (Phase I) should be left for the Phase II step (target
stars, guide stars, etc.).
- Items on the proposal form should be requested in terminology
common in the astronomical community. This improves the chances that what is
requested is what you will get.
- Proposals need to appear ``professional'' for the review process.
The Telescope Allocation Committees prefer to review proposals on
``paper'' and it is important that the formatting is consistent from
proposal to proposal. It is not enough to have a Web-based
submission process, but the submitted proposals need to print in a
consistent and readable format.
- Local procedures for processing need to be fast and efficient to
minimize time between TAC approval and notification of time allocated.
Some observatories
receive hundreds of proposals and these need to be processed quickly so
that proposals can be sent for review to the appropriate panels in a
timely fashion. Observatories receiving large quantities of proposals
found a well-formed database critical to the proposal process.
At the conclusion of the workshop several items were identified as
``action'' items.
- The NOAO Web-based proposal form would be packaged up and
made available to those sites that wished to evaluate and possibly
implement it for their proposal process. At the time of this
writing six sites had acquired the package and two had implemented
it in some form.
- Gemini would continue to work on their Phase I tool that will be
used by the AAO for their next proposal round. This tool would use XML
for its markup language. Gemini will make their Phase I tool pages
available for evaluation by the workshop participants.
A subgroup was formed to review the page layout for Gemini and the NOAO
Web pages to improve the overall usability of the Web-based form.
- A subgroup was formed to define LaTeX tags (and possibly XML tags)
to find some common set that could be used by the different institutions.
Some progress has been made in this area and a review of the initial
set of tags was done during a brief session at the ADASS meeting in
Urbana.
- All participants found the workshop to be useful and agreed that
another similar workshop should be held in 1999 to follow up and review
progress in reaching common goals for the proposal process.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the following workshop participants for
their thought-provoking presentations and stimulating discussions:
AAO: Karl Glazebrook; CFHT: Dennis Crabtree, Christian Veillet;
Gemini: Kim Gillies, Phil Puxley; JAC: Nick Rees;
NOAO: Dave Bell, Todd Boroson, Christa Brown, Buell Jannuzi;
NRC: Tim Davidge; STScI: Brett Blacker, Glenn Miller;
University of Arizona: Craig Foltz; University of Texas: Mark Cornell.
Additional information on the workshop can be found on its Web page
at http://www.noao.edu/scope/tpp_workshop/.
Footnotes
- ... Observatories1
- Operated by the Association of Universities for Research in
Astronomy, Inc. (AURA) under cooperative agreement with the National Science Foundation
© Copyright 1999 Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 390 Ashton Avenue, San Francisco, California 94112, USA
Next: A VBA Desktop Database for Proposal Processing at National Optical Astronomy Observatories
Up: Observatory Planning and Scheduling
Previous: The Next Generation User Support Tools
Table of Contents -
Subject Index -
Author Index -
Search -
PS reprint -
PDF reprint
adass@ncsa.uiuc.edu