Документ взят из кэша поисковой машины. Адрес оригинального документа : http://www.naic.edu/~astro/guide/node20.html
Дата изменения: Wed Feb 22 23:35:13 2012
Дата индексирования: Tue Oct 2 02:49:30 2012
Кодировка:
Поисковые слова: mercury surface

How to Propose

Full details on the proposal procedure, etc., can be found at;
http://www.naic.edu/~astro/proposals/proposal.shtml.

In summary, a proposal is composed of:

• a cover sheet containing, among other information, the proposal title, abstract, author contact information, time request, required instrument specifications, RFI considerations, and object(s) to be observed. The proposal cover-sheet should be submitted via a web form to be found at, http://www.naic.edu/~astro/proposals/cover.html. Full details of the submission procedure are also to be found at this web address.
• A scientific and technical justification submitted separately from the cover sheet as a postscript file via e-mail, or as a hardcopy by post.

Following the submission of a proposal, the Observatory will notify the authors that it has been received and specify an identification number. Astronomy proposals will be sent on to a number of anonymous referees (neither NAIC nor ``management troika'' staff, but with different referees for pulsar and non-pulsar astronomy). The recommendations of the referees serve to guide the Arecibo Scheduling Advisory Committee (ASAC) in respect of the time allocation and relative ranking of all proposals. The ASAC meets as soon as the referees' grades and comments have all been received. Subsequently, proposers are notified of the outcome for their project. Referee comments and grades are made available to proposers at this time, as are the ``broad rankings'' allocated by ASAC. These ``broad rankings'' are as follows:

A:

It is intended to schedule the proposal, which will remain active until this happens. Resubmission is not needed even if scheduling takes more than the usual 8 months.

B:

The proposal will be scheduled only if time is available. If not scheduled within the next two 4-month scheduling periods (beginning 4 months after the proposal deadline), the proposers will need to resubmit. (In other words, ``B-graded'' proposals have an active life of 8 months before requiring resubmission, perhaps with modifications in the light of the referees' comments.)

C:

The proposal is unlikely to be scheduled. The proposer is invited to submit a revised version.

The scheduler (Hector Hernández) will now prepare the telescope schedule for the coming months, guided by the deliberations of ASAC. It should be emphasized that because of the special requirements of the different research areas which use the telescope, and the semi-transit nature of the instrument, scheduling is a difficult task requiring interaction with proposers and the flexibility to accommodate what are often conflicting demands. Therefore, it is not always possible to schedule in a ``linear'' fashion, strictly following priorities. Nor is it possible to schedule everything four months in advance. Depending on circumstances, some proposals will take longer to be placed on the schedule than others.