Документ взят из кэша поисковой машины. Адрес оригинального документа : http://www.naic.edu/~astro/School/Talks/large_pdf/salter_prop_2.pdf Дата изменения: Thu Jul 14 20:27:22 2005 Дата индексирования: Sun Dec 23 04:15:56 2007 Кодировка: Поисковые слова: mars polar lander

The NAIC-NRAO School on Single-Dish Radio Astronomy Techniques and Applications -- July 2005

Writing Effective Telescope Proposals
Chris Salter (NAIC)

Chris Salter's credent ials to present a talk on writ ing telescope proposals:

1. Service as a proposal referee to a major radioastronomical nat ional facilit y. 2. Service as a member of the Arecibo Scheduling Advisory Co mmittee. 3. Long-time submitter of (often outstandingly unsuccesful) telescope proposals to many long-suffering radio telescopes world-wide.

1


The Arecibo Telescope Proposal System
Components that make up an Arecibo proposal; · The Cover Sheet (web-based) containing technical details and an abstract (not more than 150 words). · The Main Body (PostScript file) which contains; a) The scientific justificat ion. b) The technical just ification. Three pages maximum unless it is a long-term (1 -- 2 yr duration) or large (requesting > 300 -- 400 hr) proposal. Rules and regulations are at http://www.naic.edu/~astro/proposals/proposal.htm

2


A. Proposals subdivided by A -- Astronomy P -- Pulsars R -- Planetary Radar T -- Aeronomy B. The referees return; a) A grade fro m 0 b) Recommended to be awarded, c) Comments and proposers; mor

discipline, and sent for refereeing; (5 referees) (4 referees) (4 referees) (3 referees)

(reject) to 9 (absolutely fabulous). percentage of the requested time if scheduled. crit icisms to be passed to the e detailed for lower graded proposals.

C. The Arecibo Scheduling Advisory Committee (ASAC) meets. This consists of 5 NAIC staff members, plus an external member. ASAC members read all the proposals, consider the gradings and other recommendations of the referees, and make a technical audit of the suitability of a proposal for observation at Arecibo. Weighing all these factors up, they agree on a "ranking" for a proposal, and the amount of time it will receive, if scheduled. The rankings are very broad; A -- Will be scheduled, and remain active till then. B -- To be scheduled only if time is available within the next two 4-month scheduling periods. Otherwise the proposer should resubmit. C -- Unlikely to be scheduled. The proposer is invited to resubmit.

3


Before Preparing Your Proposal
· · ·
Read and understand the "rules and regulations". Understand the telescope. Become acquainted with the latest developments via http://www.naic.edu, and by enquiry.

Is this the Right Proposal at the Right Telescope?
· · ·
Is the proposal worth writ ing? Play "Devil's Advocate". Have the observat ions been done before? If so, why do them again? Is Arecibo REALLY needed?

The Scientific Justification: Do's & Don'ts
· · ·
A succinct, informative introduction. Sufficient detail to sell the power of your case.

However, don't "blind with science". Keep it clear and simple.

· · ·

On resubmissio n, make sure that you have answered the referees' quest ions. If this work will lead to further research, describe briefly the expected developments. If part of a larger project, describe briefly what other observat ions are being made, where, and their status.

4


Do's and Don'ts: Continued
· ·
Should only an upper limit be measured, will this have scientific value and meaning? Can you get "more bang for your buck" -- a broadened invest igat ion, or full "co mmensal" observing?

The Technical Justification
Should be a clear and concise elaboration and just ification of the technical cho ices, (receiver, frequencies, backends, special requests. RFI considerations, target list, etc.) summarized in the cover sheet. Check for COMPLETE consistency between the cover sheet and technical just ification. Also specify how you intend to reduce the data, ment ioning code development needed, and stressing expert ise in this area among your project team.

Yet More Do's and Don'ts
Demonstrate that you should reach the required signal-to-noise ratio in the time requested. In doing this, use the correct formula for your chosen methos of observing. · Include expected "overheads" in your time request (e.g. set-up time, slew time, calibrat ion time, radar blanker time loss, OTF "turn-around time", ON-OFF transit ion time for posit ion switching, etc. · Specify experimental parameters to enable cross checking, i.e. total bandwidth, channel width, assumed Tsys or SEFD, 3- or 9level sampling, etc. · For OTF mapping, specify scanning pattern, telescope drive speed, sampling considerations, etc. · Don't "pad" the time request; you may be found out!

·

5


Additional Do's and Don'ts
· If you are proposing co mmensal observat ions, show technical compatibilit y wit h the commensal partner, and specify which project is "primary". ·
Check carefully for "howlers" such as request ing, a) sources outside of the Arecibo Dec range, b) frequencies not covered by an Arecibo receiver, c) observations at the frequency o f strong, unblankable RFI, and d) impossible set-ups.

·

If exact sky location is not important, choose the least over-subscribed celestial regions, all else being equal.

General Considerations
· NEVER exceed your page (or figure) limits. · There is an abstract in the cover sheet, so do not repeat it at
the heady o f the proposal body.

· Get an independent third-party to read the final draft. · Do not use jargon, undefined acronyms, etc.

Student Participation
Specify at the appropriate place in the cover sheet if your team contains a student who will use the results towards their thesis. It can only help.

6


When you get the Proposal Results
Do not be surprised if the referees say nice things about your proposal but grades it below average! If your proposal is graded such that it is unlikely to be scheduled, consider modifying it and resubmitting. Be object ive about the referees' comments and decide if it is worth spending more time trying to satisfy their concerns. If so, try to understand why the referees reached their conclusio ns, and try to make sure it won't happen next time round. If you feel a referee has misunderstood your argument/s, unfairly damaging your chances of access to the telescope, you can write to the Director laying out your case, and requesting ASAC to reconsider the grading.

An Excellent Guide to Writing Effective Telescope Proposals
"Writ ing Good Observing Proposals" by Judith Irwin (Queen's Universit y, Kingston, Canada) available at, http://www.jach.hawaii.edu/JCMT/applying/goodprop.html

7


And After Your Observations

Please, please, please fill in an Observer's Comment Sheet, Available on-line at; http://www.naic.edu/~astro/obs_comment.html

8