Peer Review

The Peer Review for Cycle 1 observing proposals was held April 4-6 at the Westin Hotel, Waltham, MA. 779 proposals were submitted and were divided into 13 panels covering 4 broad subject areas. Each panel had approximately seven reviewers and was responsible for ranking approximately 60 proposals. The review followed the usual procedure for the first two days. Each proposal was assigned a primary and a secondary reviewer and each panel was given a certain amount of observing time to be awarded. Ten percent of the observing time was withheld and was awarded by a merging panel which met on the third day. This panel selected from a pool of borderline proposals submitted by the 13 science panels. 208 projects were approved, wholely or in part. There were restrictions on the number of TOO and other time-critical observations which could be awarded, and there was no special treatment for ``long observations''.

The figures show the distribution of observing time by science subject (arranged: solar system, galactic targets, extragalactic targets, surveys) and by length of observation. Submitted proposal numbers divided by the oversubscription factor of 6.8 are compared with numbers taken from approved projects. The partition of time and targets among science subjects was largely determined by proposal pressure. The three longest GO exposures awarded were 190, 150, and 150 ks. The three largest time awards (to one proposal) were 307, 195, and 190 ks. The median approved Chandra GO observation length is about 30 ks.

  

Figure 13: Chandra Cycle 1 Observing Time

LINK TO POSTSCRIPT FILE for Figure 13

Counting the initial calibration, cycle 1 is expected to span 12 months of observing time. This time is divided: 11.3 Ms for general observers (GO), 8.2 Ms for guaranteed-time observers (GTO), and 2.8 Ms for calibration.

  

Figure 14: Chandra Cycle 1 Observation Length

LINK TO POSTSCRIPT FILE for Figure 14

The Chandra Users' Committee considered alternate proposal submission and review procedures at their July meeting. Emphasis was on the timely generation of good technical reviews and on the function of the merging panel. Chandra users or potential users should feel free to discuss any concerns with members of the Users' Committee. Fred Seward