From: IN%"HUTCHINGS@comox.dao.nrc.ca" 4-OCT-1993 13:40:45.26
To: IN%"stockman@stsci.edu", IN%"macchetto@stsci.edu"
CC:
Subj: HST Users Comm report
Oct 4
Here is the STUC report from the meeting of Sept 27,28. I will have
neat Tex versions with me later this week, but the words will be the
same. This report has been agreed by the STUC membership, including Hobbs
and Windhorst, who did not attend the meeting.
--------------------
HST Users committee meeting Sept 1993
The committee met Sept 27,28 in the GSFC area. Members absent
were Hobbs and Kirshner. Windhorst participated in part by telephone.
We are pleased to note the number of actions taken following our last
report. We have instigated the procedure of checking all the recommendations
and action items from the previous meeting report. The following are the
issues that the committee wishes to put on record.
1. We remain very disturbed at the possible budget cuts
to the project and the STScI. We regard the uncertain status of GO funding
as unsatisfactory and would like to be informed when it becomes clarified.
We also wish to be informed of any significant proposed changes to user
services and the archive that may occur as a result of budget cuts.
We have been active since the last meeting in making our concerns felt
to several organisations, individuals, and groups over the budget cuts
threatened in the next few years. We are very pleased that the Senate
subcommittee appears to be supportive of restoring HST funding and
operating the full 15 year planned mission.
We have set in place plans for a full briefing of the HST budget to a
subcommittee of the STUC with some expert outside advisors. This review is
to take place in the week of January 17. We will use the findings
of this subcommittee in understanding the implications of any budget changes,
and in explaining budget problems to the astronomy community that we
represent.
2. We note that the STScI has responded to users whose early cycle
programs may not be completed before the repair mission, by proposing to
carry over largely incomplete high priority proposals. However, we
are not certain that this is necessarily the way to do the best science,
as cycle 3 programs were not designed for the refurbished HST, and as
cycle 3 was advertised as oversubscribed and unlikely to be completed.
Cycles 1 and 2 proposals should have a higher priority for carry-over.
We suggest that PIs of incomplete proposals should justify in writing any
further observing time their programs need, with the refurbished telescope,
after the observing status of cycles 1 through 3 is finally known.
Carry over of incomplete GO proposals should depend on these justifications.
We are concerned about conflict between carried over and cycle 4 approved
proposals and targets: if these occur, collaborations should be encouraged.
Incomplete GTO observations should be carried over with exposure adjustments
to achieve the defined science goals.
3. The proposed new method of updating and emailing proposal status
files was strongly approved. It is suggested that the files also contain the
name, email and phone number of the proposal TA, and also that normal
calendar dates be used instead of day of year dates. The plan to manage
large or difficult proposals by assignment of a shepherd-scientist was also
strongly approved.
4. The issues of GO/GTO conflicts was discussed. In order to facilitate
tracking such situations it is suggested that the phase 1 proposal form
contain a specific section asking the proposer to note overlaps with
other approved targets or archival data. We would like to be informed of
the overall conflict situation as it develops.
5. We appreciate hearing the SMOV plans and organisation, and the ERO
plans. We would like to be included in the email list to receive reports
of progress during the time following the repair mission and through SMOV.
6. We were pleased with the FOS flat field program and the
progress in understanding the FOS scattered light in the UV. Users should
be informed of this situation and how to deal with it, as soon as possible,
and pipeline processing and the archive updated accordingly. New calibration
data should be announced when available, and a 0.1-0.2 redshift galaxy
observed as a calibrator during cycle 4.
7. We remain concerned over the very tight schedules and budgets for
STIS and NICMOS. We request a simple summary of the current STIS and NICMOS
scientific capabilities, and proposed NICMOS filters, to be mailed when
available. We endorse the need for an advanced camera instrument
for the 1999 refurbishment mission. The AO and efforts to find new funding
for this are strongly supported.
8. We are pleased at the initiative shown by STScI in
announcing a special opportunity to propose observations of
the Jupiter-comet collision in July 1994.
9. We are pleased at the plans announced for streamlining and
improving the proposal process, from phase 1 through phase 2 and RPSS,
placing more detailed control of decisions in the hands of the observers.
These plans address many of our earlier suggestions and user complaints.
We would like information as the system is developed, at the next meeting,
and hope that much of it will be in place for cycle 5.
10. We congratulate the teams responsible for the excellent
state of preparation for the refurbishment mission. We are happy with
the complement of tasks and hope that the JIS exercises will lead to
realistic planning of the EVA schedules and priorities. We would like
to be informed of the final EVA timeline as it is defined.
11. We hope that efforts will continue to coordinate STScI
with STIS and NICMOS teams for calibration and software development.
12. We note that the problem of logging and tracking calls from users
still persists. We would like the STScI to look further into ways of
doing this.
13. We suggest that STScI look for ways to learn of research results
from observers, by requesting direct summaries, or requiring it in phase 1
proposals. This database can be used as reference in writing reports
or planning publicity. We would like a presentation from UPD at the next
meeting.
14. We request that plans for cycle 5 and the review panels be discussed
at the next meeting.
15. We noted the lists of filters and calibration plans for WFPC2.
We understand that these are being developed with some interaction with
cycle 4 observers, and suggest that cycle 4 observers be kept informed..
16. We suggest that in view of the current schedule for our budget review
in January and the repair mission/SMOV activites, the next STUC meeting be
on Jan 27,28 at STScI.
We thank those who took time to attend our meeting, and especially
Mal Niedner for local arrangements.
