1. 1 HST Cycle 12 TAC Results Bob Williams TIPS – 17 April 2003

2. 2 TAC Review Committee  “We find no fundamental flaws in the process or unwarranted influence by STScI staff or management.”  “ We also attest to the overall integrity of the TAC process “  “ The committee panel was impressed by the efficacy of the process for awarding time on HST, and the role of the STScI in organizing and supporting complex and challenging TAC procedures that we judge to be fair and unbiased.”

3. 3 TAC Review Committee Recommendations  Each proposal should be reviewed by at least one expert  Institutional conflict of interest rules should be eased  Collective memory of TACs should be retained through repeat panelists over consecutive cycles  Written feedback on the evaluation of all proposals should be provided to PI’s  Encourage participation in Treasury Program by organizing annual workshops for development and coordination of large HST programs

4. 4 Cycle 12 Timeline  Reduction in time between proposal submission and cycle observations by ~ 4 months  Opportunity to follow up on scientific discoveries  ‘Fresher’ science programs  Deadline was January 24 (from September 7)  11 review panels met 24-26 March  TAC met 27-29 March  Director’s Review April 3, PI notification April 4  Phase II deadline: Mid-May  Nominal Cycle 12: July 2003 - June 2004

5. 5 Cycle 12 Overview  1,046 proposals received : -19,674 orbits requested Plus: 1860 [Cyc13] & 855 [Cyc14] -6,067 SNAP targets -$13.2 M AR funding (including Theory)

6. 6 Oversubscription by Cycle

7. 7 Review Process  Panels select small/medium proposals (2000 orbits)  Panels review large programs for TAC  TAC selects Treasury/Large programs (1000 orbits)  Duplicate panels minimize conflicts and maximize attendance and participation by all panelists

8. 8 New and continued features since Cycle 11  TAC met after panels- NEW  Panels provided input on Large/Treasury programs via Chairs  “Progressive subsidy” for Regular proposals - MODIFIED  Chandra allocation for multi-wavelength programs  NOAO allocation for supporting ground-based observations

9. 9 Types and Sizes of Proposals  GO - orbits  Large (100 or more orbits)  Regular (1-99 orbits)  AR and Theory - funding  SNAP - targets  one visit = one target  no links, no guarantees  probability of execution ~50%

10. 10 Proposal categories  Treasury  Provide datasets for lasting value to HST program  Should focus on potential to solve multiple problems  Provide enhanced data products  AR Legacy  Provide homogeneous set of calibrated data  Should enable new and important science  (AR) Theory  Direct relevance to HST observational research  Mission-specific favored over general theory programs

11. 11 Other Categories  Long-term Programs  Cycle 12 TAC/Panels may award Cycle 13+14 time (~5%) where required by science.  (No proposal resubmission in those cycles)  Target-of-Opportunity (TOO) Proposals  1-2 ultra-fast (< 2 days) activations (15 orbit overhead)  ~ 6 rapid (< 2 weeks) activations allowed  ~ 20 TOO activations (> 2 weeks)

12. 12 Cycle 12 Summary  GO Acceptance Rate: ~1/5 for proposals and ~1/6 for orbits  SNAP Acceptance rate: ~1/3.5 for proposals and targets  AR Acceptance rate: ~1/2.6 for proposals and dollars  Theory Acceptance rate: ~1/4.2 for proposals and ~1/4.6 for dollars  AR Legacy Acceptance rate: 0 approved  GO proposals acceptance rate approximately independent of size.  28.7% of program awarded to Large/Treasury Programs.  Instrument breakdown for GO Programs: ACS (55%), STIS (23%), NICMOS (21%), WFPC2 (2%), FGS (5%)  ESA acceptance fraction 16.8% for proposals and 10.2% for orbits

13. 13 Cycle12 Summary (Cont.)  $2.97M awarded to Regular AR programs  $680K awarded to Theory programs  Proposal acceptance fraction similar for panelists and non- panelists  Proposal acceptance fraction similar for STScI staff & community  Chandra: accepted 3 out of 25 proposals, or 115 ksecs out of 1444 submitted  NOAO: accepted 7 out of 15 proposals, or 17.5 nights out of 41.5 submitted  Calibration: 2 AR for $130K and 3 GO for 12 orbits approved  ToO’s: approved 1 ultra-fast (< 2 days) + 2 fast (< 2 week) + 8 other

14. 14 Summary Results

15. 15 Acceptance Fraction by Size

16. 16 Orbit Size by Cycle

17. 17 STScI Acceptance Resources SubmittedApproved Fraction Fraction of Cycle Approved AR$492K (6) $60K (1) 12.2%2% Theory$472K (7) $90K (1) 19%13.1% Orbits2573 (73) 424 (20) 16.5%13.4% Snap Targets 460 (5) 40 (1) 9%2.3%

18. 18 STScI Proposal Acceptance

19. 19 GO Instrument Summary

20. 20 Pure Parallel Instrument Summary

21. 21 Calibration Proposals  7 Proposals Submitted: 2 AR for $130K and 5 GO for 33 orbits  2 AR and 3 GO approved for 12 orbits  AR: 0433.wyseAn astrometric standard field in omega Cen 0562.dolphinCTE Corrections for WFPC2 and ACS  GO: 0149.odellCalibration of the ACS Emission Line Filters 0568.dolphinACS Photometric Zero Point Verification 1233.hinesEnabling Coronagraphic Polarimetry with NICMOS

22. 22 TREASURY & LARGE PROGRAMS  Thompson -[T]- 144 orbits  Deep IR images in CHANDRA Deep Field South  Scoville-[T]-320 orbits Cy 12+320 orbits Cy 13  COSMOS 2-Degree ACS survey  Riess & Perlmutter -60 orbits each  SNIa Hubble Diagram  Benedict- 60 orbits-  Astrometric Calibration of Cepheids P-L relation

23. 23 TREASURY & LARGE PROGRAMS  Sahu- 110 orbits  Galactic bulge planetary transit survey  Malhotra- 40 orbits  Grism- ACS program for extragalactic science  Kochanek- 110 orbits  Imaging of gravitational lenses