How operational issues impact science peer review

Brett S. Blacker; Daniel Golombek; Duccio Macchetto

doi:10.1117/12.670026

30 June 2006 How operational issues impact science peer review

Brett S. Blacker, Daniel Golombek, Duccio Macchetto

Proceedings Volume 6270, Observatory Operations: Strategies, Processes, and Systems; 62702B (2006) https://doi.org/10.1117/12.670026
Event: SPIE Astronomical Telescopes + Instrumentation, 2006, Orlando, Florida , United States

Abstract

In some eyes, the Phase I proposal selection process is the most important activity handled by the Space Telescope Science Institute (STScI). Proposing for HST and other missions consists of requesting observing time and/or archival research funding. This step is called Phase I, where the scientific merit of a proposal is considered by a community based peer-review process. Accepted proposals then proceed thru Phase II, where the observations are specified in sufficient detail to enable scheduling on the telescope. Each cycle the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) Telescope Allocation Committee (TAC) reviews proposals and awards observing time that is valued at $0.5B, when the total expenditures for HST over its lifetime are figured on an annual basis. This is in fact a very important endeavor that we continue to fine-tune and tweak. This process is open to the science community and we constantly receive comments and praise for this process. In this last year we have had to deal with the loss of the Space Telescope Imaging Spectrograph (STIS) and move from 3-gyro operations to 2-gyro operations. This paper will outline how operational issues impact the HST science peer review process. We will discuss the process that was used to recover from the loss of the STIS instrument and how we dealt with the loss of 1/3 of the current science observations. We will also discuss the issues relating to 3-gyro vs. 2-gyro operations and how that changes impacted Proposers, our in-house processing and the TAC.

Citation Download Citation

Brett S. Blacker, Daniel Golombek, and Duccio Macchetto "How operational issues impact science peer review", Proc. SPIE 6270, Observatory Operations: Strategies, Processes, and Systems, 62702B (30 June 2006); https://doi.org/10.1117/12.670026

ACCESS THE FULL ARTICLE

INSTITUTIONAL
Select your institution to access the SPIE Digital Library.

SELECT YOUR INSTITUTION

PERSONAL
Sign in with your SPIE account to access your personal subscriptions or to use specific features such as save to my library, sign up for alerts, save searches, etc.

PERSONAL SIGN IN

No SPIE Account? Create one

PURCHASE THIS CONTENT

SUBSCRIBE TO DIGITAL LIBRARY

50 downloads per 1-year subscription

Members: $195

Non-members: $335 ADD TO CART

25 downloads per 1 - year subscription

Members: $145

Non-members: $250 ADD TO CART

PURCHASE SINGLE ARTICLE

Includes PDF, HTML & Video, when available

Members: $17.00

Non-members: $21.00 ADD TO CART

PROCEEDINGS
8 PAGES

DOWNLOAD PAPER SAVE TO MY LIBRARY

GET CITATION

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

Get copyright permission Get copyright permission on Copyright Marketplace

KEYWORDS

Space telescopes

Hubble Space Telescope

Telescopes

Gyroscopes

Observatories

Space operations

Cameras

Show All Keywords

Keywords/Phrases

Search In:

Publication Years