19 Oct 2005Chandra Users' Committee Cycle 7 Peer Review: June 2005  747 proposals, 12 panels, 101 reviewers  Hilton, Logan Airport

19 Oct 2005Chandra Users' Committee Submitted Proposals  New in Cycle 7 –Decrease in allowance for constrained observations: 15%, plus accurate accounting of # obsvns. –Database-based panel GUI software: faster and more accurate access to proposal information –PDF files only –Electronic proposal distribution, hardcopies on request (~20% requested hardcopy) –Spitzer joint time program –Fully-web-based peer-review reports –“War Room” at deadline time!

19 Oct 2005Chandra Users' Committee Aggressive Advertising of New Constraint Policy  CfP Erratum: describing new Constraint Policy CfP Erratum  Electronic Bulletin including the same notice  Pitch Angle Restrictions: web page updated Pitch Angle Restrictions  FAQs on Constrained Observations: web page posted FAQs on Constrained Observations  Helpdesk: available as always to answer detailed questions

19 Oct 2005Chandra Users' Committee Receipt Curve Cycle 7 Cycle 6

19 Oct 2005Chandra Users' Committee % Proposals accepted per Type vs Cycle

19 Oct 2005Chandra Users' Committee % Proposals Approved by Science Area

19 Oct 2005Chandra Users' Committee % Requested Time Approved by Science Area

19 Oct 2005Chandra Users' Committee Time Allocated per Instrument

19 Oct 2005Chandra Users' Committee Grant Award Periods  Award Periods: –Grants may be requested for 1 or 2 years –One-year no-cost extension to allow completion of science project is available on request with a brief justification –Second one-year no-cost extension is also available if justified  Documentation: –CfP Section 8.6, updated to clarify –Updated Section VE of the Terms and Conditions ready for Cycle 7: 1 st extension straight-forward, 2 nd or subsequent need justification

19 Oct 2005Chandra Users' Committee Constraints and the Peer Review  New Guidelines: –15% of observations –Observation: individual pointing, e.g. count monitoring sequence, or long observations split due to orbit –Each panel given quota determined by ratio of requested to available constrained observations –Instructed to abide by the quota, but talk to me if they needed/wished to go over  Results: –Real time determination of use/quota for each panel allowed us to update quotas as needed –No panel turned down a highly ranked proposal due to this quota

19 Oct 2005Chandra Users' Committee Suggestions from Panel Chairs Survey  Organization: generally very favorable comments  Pundits: get involved in review reports in advance of the review  LP/VLP: panel chairs (or panels) should meet on Wed pm to strategize on LP/VLPs  Stop it being a race!  Time: should we add another morning?  Too may junior/non X-ray panel members: –Starting much earlier to recruit panel chairs (5 already) and reviewers –Strong emphasis on inviting only senior people first (it is much easier to get junior people!)

19 Oct 2005Chandra Users' Committee Revised Observation Completion Policy  Complete observation: 90% (or more) of allocated time has been observed  Exceptions, implemented 8 July 2005: –TOO/DDT due to scheduling restrictions –Observations >200 ksec, any remaining time > 20 ksec will be observed  Exceptions, proposed for 1 Dec 2005: –Observations < 5ksec, observed only once –Observations with <2 ksec remaining will be considered complete  Policy posted on website and sent in an electronic bulletin  Will be described in Cycle 8 Call for Proposals

19 Oct 2005Chandra Users' Committee Summary of Response to Jan 2005 Report  E&PO: –Complexity of Process >NASA requirements are inherently complex. They are holding workshops. The E&PO CfP will be updated to clarify. –Low funding levels >2% of GO budget: about $200K. No more funding is available, unless CUC should recommend using more of GO budget to fund E&PO as opposed to GO science  All other items should have been covered during the day