HST Cycle 27 Proposal Selection

M. Peeples

With a diverse and growing users community (7,769 unique investigators to date), after twenty-nine years on orbit the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) continues to draw a high demand for observing time from astronomers across the world. The peer-reviewed proposal selection process is fundamental to maximizing the science return from this unique observatory in as fair a manner as possible. It is only thanks to the dedication, hard work, and integrity of all the Time Allocation Committee (TAC), review panel members, and external reviewers that this process is possible. We are deeply grateful to those who provide this important community service and to the many proposers whose creativity keeps HST's scientific demand high year after year. With this in mind, we present here the highlights from HST's Cycle 27 selection process.

We received a total of 1,019 proposals by the Phase Ⅰ deadline in April, including 92 in Archival Research and Archival Legacy categories, and 57 in the Theory category, requesting a total of 24,454 orbits. These proposals included investigators from 48 U.S. states (and the District of Columbia and the US Virgin Islands), and investigators from 40 countries. The international members of the proposal review panels and the TAC met in June to provide recommendations to the Director, who approved 181 proposals totaling 2,702 awarded orbits, which will start executing at the beginning of Cycle 27 in October. Up to 150 orbits will be available for Mid-Cycle GO programs targeting recently discovered, non-transient objects. Proposals may be submitted any time before September 27, 2019 for implementation in the November 1, 2019 to March 31, 2020 timeframe.

The Call for Proposals

The Cycle 27 Call for Proposals (CP) was released on January 14, 2019, announcing observing opportunities with HST’s current instrumentation: the Advanced Camera for Surveys (ACS), the Cosmic Origins Spectrograph (COS), the Fine Guidance Sensors (FGS), the Space Telescope Imaging Spectrograph (STIS), and the Wide Field Camera 3 (WFC3). The category of JWST Preparatory proposals (with a default proprietary period of zero months) to complement and enhance the scientific impact of future JWST observations was continued. Medium Proposals continued as a separate category for programs requesting between 35 and 74 orbits, to improve the success rate of programs in this historically challenging orbit range. As in previous cycles, as part of the HST proposal it was possible to request time on Chandra, Spitzer, XMM-Newton, and on NOAO and NRAO facilities. New this cycle was the opportunity to request high-cadence photometric monitoring by the Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite (TESS) for individual targets in HST programs.

The CP also announced opportunities to request funding for theoretical and archival research. To support the latter, the CP advertised that all non-exclusive access data for current HST instruments (ACS, COS, STIS, WFC3, FGS) have been made available as part of the Amazon Web Services (AWS) public dataset program; the CP included a new Archival Cloud Computation Studies category through which proposes could request to use these data via the AWS platform. The CP also encouraged archival proposals that mine the HST Source Catalog, combining tens of thousands of single visit-based WFC3, ACS, and WFPC2 source lists from the HST Legacy Archive into a single master catalog with roughly 100 million individual sources and the HST Spectroscopic Legacy Archive for high-level data products, containing "science grade" co-added spectra of all usable public data, combining exposures for each target from across visits.

Recognizing the unique and limited availability of HST's ultraviolet (UV) capabilities, the UV Initiative was continued to encourage the community (and the TAC and panelists) to increase the fraction of time and awards dedicated to wavelengths below 3200 Å. The UV initiative applied to all Small, Medium, Large, and Treasury GO Proposal (with the exception of SNAP), as well as Archival Proposals. The available UV instrument modes include ACS/SBC imaging, COS spectroscopy, STIS/MAMA imaging and spectroscopy, STIS/CCD spectroscopy (UV gratings only) and WFC3/UVIS imaging (UV filters only).

Finally, the CP highlighted the upcoming HST UV Legacy Library of Young Stars as Essential Standards (ULLYSES) program, which will serve as a UV spectroscopic reference sample of young high- and low-mass stars. Though specific targets have not yet been chosen, the community was encouraged consider to submit Cycle 27 proposals to supplement and complement the conceptual program. The CP also encouraged the community to submit proposals that address questions in fundamental physics, whether they are GO, AR, or theory proposals.

The review process

We recruited 156 members of the review panels and the TAC several months prior to the proposal deadline, and asking them to serve on one of the 14 panels organized by science category, consisting of two panels on cosmology and the intergalactic medium, three on galaxies and the circumgalactic medium, two panels covering active galactic nuclei and their hosts, two on stellar populations, three on stellar physics, two covering exoplanets, and one covering solar-system objects. With the exception of solar system, each panel has at least one "mirror" panel, covering similar topics and expertise, allowing proposals to be transferred as needed to avoid conflicts of interest within a given panel.

A total of 1,019 proposals were received electronically via the Astronomer's Proposal Tool by the Phase Ⅰ deadline of April 5, 2019 and each was sorted by science category and organized into the review panels described above. Each review panel subsequently received between 30 and 70 Small (<35 orbits) and Medium (35 to 74 orbits) proposals to grade in preparation for the in-person discussion in June.

To decrease the burden on the panelists, each was only assigned about two-thirds of the proposals in their panel. We collected these grades a few weeks before the meeting, and sorted into a preliminary rank order within each panel. Proposals ranking in the bottom 40% were not discussed further in the TAC process unless raised for discussion by a non-conflicted panelist. The Large and Treasury proposals (>75 orbits) were reviewed by the TAC members for discussion in their meeting following the panel reviews.

The review panels met over three days in Baltimore, MD, to deliberate and re-grade the proposals, and produce a final rank order for the proposals in the top 60% in each panel. Members of the TAC were also assigned to these panels to serve as non-voting chairs, guiding the discussion and carrying forward opinions (should they be necessary) from the panels to the TAC. Each panel was provided a nominal orbit allocation to help guide decisions, especially for proposals critically ranked at or near the potential award boundary.

The Medium proposals were ranked amongst the Small proposals, allowing a gauge of their relative importance in the competition for the pool set aside for the Medium category, nominally 650 orbits. A panel could also choose to identify Medium proposals to award from its nominal allocation, ensuring the proposal's success, albeit at the expense of a large fraction of that panel's awardable time. Panelists were also asked to review the Large and Treasury proposals pertinent to their panel's science category. Comments on the Large proposals were provided to the panel chairs for the TAC review.

Immediately following the panel review, the TAC met for an additional two days to review the panels' recommendations, and to decide the final rank orders for the Large and Treasury programs, within those respective orbit pools. Dr. Rachel Somerville (Flatiron Institute, NY) served as chair of the Cycle 27 TAC; Prof. Corinne Charbonnel of University of Geneva, Prof. Mary Putman of Columbia University, and Prof. Mark Voit of Michigan State University served as TAC members at large. The Institute Director completed the final review of the TAC recommendations in the week following the TAC meeting, and the Cycle 27 results were announced shortly thereafter.

View accepted proposals for Cycle 27.

Ensuring an impartial review

We continue to strive for impartiality and fairness in the HST review process. Conflicts of interest for each reviewer are identified based on institution and publication record, and mirror panels are used to avoid conflicts when possible. Once the proposals are initially distributed to the panel, each panelist must identify any remaining strong conflicts of interest, including competing proposals, mentorship relationships, and close collaborations. Panelists are not permitted to grade proposals for which they are conflicted, and for strong conflicts, e.g., any from which they themselves would directly benefit, panelists are not permitted to participate in the discussion.

Additionally, the Institute has taken steps to address the unconscious biases of the HST TAC process, which has resulted in small but statistically significant over-representation of male PIs relative to female PIs in each of the last 26 HST cycles. As with the ΔCycle 26 TAC, a dual-anonymous system was used to review the proposals, in which the panelists did not know the identities of the proposers while reviewing the proposals.

Results

Of the 1,019 proposals submitted (requesting 24,454 prime orbits), 181 proposals were approved, including 10 Large, Treasury and Pure-Parallel Programs, 15 Medium Programs, 3 Archival Legacy Programs, and 7 Snapshot Programs. In addition, 2 joint HST/NOAO programs, 1 joint HST/Chandra program, 1 joint XMM-Newton program, 2 joint HST/NRAO programs, and 1 TESS coordinated program were awarded time. Additionally, 12 JWST Initiative and 9 Fundamental Physics proposals were successful.

The 2,700 available orbits were broken down into approximately 600 orbits for Large and Treasury proposals, 600 orbits for Medium proposals, and 1,500 orbits for Small proposals. The TAC also recommended approval of 813 Snapshot observations. The over-subscription ratio for GO programs was approximately 9.1:1 by orbits and 5.6:1 by proposals, which is higher than in previous cycles due to the lower number of available orbits. The over-subscription for Archival and Theory proposals was 4.1:1 and 9.5:1, respectively, which is also higher than in Cycle 24.

With 181 of 1,019 proposals accepted, the average HST Cycle 27 acceptance rate was 17.8%, somewhat lower than the acceptance rate from Cycle 24. (Owing to the available Cycle 26 small orbits being allocated in Cycle 25, Cycle 24 represents the last "normal" size allocation pool and is thus the most relevant for comparison here.) The estimated oversubscription of Archival and Theory proposals by nominal funding was 4.7:1 compared to 4.0:1 from Cycle 24. PIs from ESA member countries lead 21% of the accepted Cycle 27 programs, slightly lower than in Cycle 27. The success rate of Medium proposals was 8.1% by proposal (14 out of 172), for a total of 678 orbits, representing a decrease with respect to Cycle 24 (with a success rate of 15%).

WFC3 remained the most requested instrument, with 40.1% of the awarded time utilizing this instrument in its various modes on primary targets (10.4% WFC3/IR imaging, 9.4% WFC3/IR spectroscopy, 18.7% WFC3/UVIS imaging, and 1.6% WFC3/UVIS spectroscopy). COS is the second most requested instrument, being awarded 27.7% of available orbits, with most of the time going to the FUV (23.2%) and NUV (4.2%) spectroscopy. ACS was awarded 19.9% of the allocation, with the bulk (19.1%) of the time going to the WFC imaging mode. STIS was awarded 12.3% of available orbits, of the awarded time almost evenly split across the spectroscopic modes. The success rate for the proposals under the UV Initiative was 45% by proposal (10 out of 40 for archival research and 71 out of 388 for GO), and 51% by orbit (1,373 orbits out of 3,686 requested).

The Cycle 27 orbit distribution per science category is as follows: 12.3% for Exoplanets (relative to 15.5% submitted), 28.7% for Galaxies and the CGM (of 35.3% submitted), 20.3% for Stellar Physics (of 17.6% submitted), 20% for Stellar Populations (of 12.9% submitted), 8.9% for Cosmology and IGM (of 9.2% submitted), 2.6% for Solar System (of 1.6% submitted), and 7.2% for Black Holes (of 7.8% submitted).

We thank all of the HST TAC members, review panelists, and external reviewers for their service on the HST Cycle 27 TAC. Numerous Institute personnel contributed to the support of review process.

Science Policies Group astronomers Katey Alatalo, Alessandra Aloisi, Christine Chen, Andy Fruchter, Claus Leitherer, Amaya Moro-Martín, Molly Peeples, Neill Reid, and Lou Strolger were responsible for selecting the panelists—distributing the workload among the panelists according to expertise, but taking into account the conflicts—coordinating policy, providing oversight during the review process, and checking for duplications within the recommended proposal pool. 

Technical Manager Brett Blacker received, organized, and distributed the proposals, oversaw the proposal database, announced the results, and prepared the statistical summaries and figures provided here.

The TAC logistics were devised and coordinated by Sherita Hanna, with Brett Blacker and Crystal Mannfolk providing technical assistance. Additional administrative support came from Robin Auer, Jody Charles, Martha Devaud, Brian Fincham, Flory Hill, Tracy Lamb, Jennifer McFalls, Susan Mucklow, Brenda Oleszczuk, Karyn Poletis, Jean-Baptiste Regnard, Karen Sealover, Michele Sharko, Darlene Spencer, Rolanda Taylor, Ana Maria Valenzuela, and Chris Zumbrun.

Panel support was provided by Trisha Ashley, Brett Blacker, Roger Cohen, Hannah Drew-Moyer, David French, Svea Hernandez, Tuomas Kangas, Mattia Libralato, Matthew Maclay, Camellia Magness, Crystal Mannfolk, Nathan Miles, Laura Prichard, Jenna Ryon, Elena Sacchi, Hannah Wakeford, and Tom Wilson. Keira Brooks, Lauren Chambers, John Debes, Theresa Dower, Bryan Hilbert, Samantha Hoffmann, Elizabeth Nance, James Paranilam, Blair Porterfield, Marc Rafelski, Catherine Riggs, Paule Sonnentrucker, Greg Snyder, Leslie Stabile, Lou Strolger, and Brian Williams served as Levelers.

Instrument expertise was provided by Roberto Avila and Marco Chiaberge for ACS; Cristina Oliveira and Gisella de Rosa for COS; Ed Nelan and Matt Lallo for FGS/OTA; John Debes, Joleen Carlberg, and TalaWanda Monroe for STIS; and Sylvia Baggett and Linda Dressel for WFC3. Denise Taylor provided expertise on scheduling issues.

IT support was provided by Romeo Gourgue, Jonathan Hanlon, Ryan Levine, Thomas Marufu, Corey Richardson, Patrick Taylor, Calvin Tullos, Jeff Wagner, and Sam Weinstock. Maria Bertch, Jeff Bucklew, Alex Framerini, Craig Hollinshead, Lauretta Nagel, Joel Richon, and Tom Comer provided support for the online reviewing tool. Leilani Felicitas, Kim Heavener, Lisa Kleinwort, Sherry Lewis, Ninel Serbreni, and Carolyn Walton provided support from the Business Resources Center. Ann Field and Pam Jeffries provided support from the Office of Public Outreach, and Zak Concannon and Steve Stout provided assistance from the Copy Center.

Finally, catering was provided by Café Azafran; we thank Salha Balala, Irena Stein, Mark Demshack, and Mikaele Porter for their support. From Facilities we thank Laura Bucklew, Bermond Few, Rob Franklin, Tiffany Lallo, Damon Levine, Greg Pabst, Trevor Thompson, Mike Venturella, and Grover Williams, without whose support the Cycle 27 review would not have been able to take place.

Summary of Cycle 27 Results

Proposals

Requested

Approved

% Accepted

ESA Accepted

ESA % Total

General Observer

838

149

17.8%

38

25.5%

Snapshot

32

7

21.9%

0

0.0%

Archival Research

69

16

23.2%

   

AR Legacy

23

3

13.0%

   

Theory

57

6

10.5%

   

Total

1019

181

17.8%

38

24.4%

Primary Orbits

24454

2686

11.0%

465

17.3%

16 orbits are from calibration pool

 

 

Proposal Breakdown by PI Country

Country

Submitted

Approved

Country

Submitted

Approved

Australia

3

 

Italy

30

4

Austria

3

 

Japan

10

 

Belgium

4

 

Mexico

5

1

Brazil

1

1

Norway

1

 

Canada

9

 

Serbia

1

 

Chile

6

1

Spain

12

2

China

7

 

Sweden

10

2

Czech Republic

2

 

Switzerland

18

4

Denmark

5

1

The Netherlands

15

4

Finland

2

 

United Kingdom

51

9

France

10

2

United States

774

140

Germany

32

8

Ukraine

2

1

Hungary

1

       

Ireland

1

       

Israel

4

1

ESA Proposals

93

38

 

 

 

Proposal Success Rate

Orbits by Science Category

Cycle 27 Instrument Statistics

Configuration

Mode

Prime %

Coordinated Parallel %

Total

Instrument Prime Usage

Instrument Prime + Coordinated Parallel Usage

Pure Parallel Usage

Snap Usage

ACS/SBC

Imaging

0.8%

0.0%

0.6%

   

0.0%

0.0%

ACS/SBC

Spectroscopy

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

   

0.0%

0.0%

ACS/WFC

Imaging

19.1%

58.2%

28.5%

   

24.9%

47.7%

ACS/WFC

Ramp Filter

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

19.9%

29.1%

0.0%

0.0%

ACS/WFC

Spectroscopy

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

   

0.0%

0.0%

COS/FUV

Spectroscopy

23.2%

0.0%

17.6%

   

0.0%

0.0%

COS/NUV

Imaging

0.3%

0.0%

0.3%

27.7%

21.1%

0.0%

0.0%

COS/NUV

Spectroscopy

4.2%

0.0%

3.2%

   

0.0%

0.0%

FGS

POS

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

FGS

TRANS

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

   

0.0%

0.0%

STIS/CCD

Imaging

1.5%

0.0%

1.1%

   

0.0%

0.0%

STIS/CCD

Spectroscopy

3.5%

0.0%

2.6%

   

0.0%

0.0%

STIS/FUV

Imaging

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

12.3%

9.3%

0.0%

0.0%

STIS/FUV

Spectroscopy

3.4%

0.0%

2.6%

   

0.0%

0.0%

STIS/NUV

Imaging

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

   

0.0%

0.0%

STIS/NUV

Spectroscopy

3.9%

0.0%

3.0%

   

0.0%

0.0%

WFC3/IR

Imaging

10.4%

3.6%

8.7%

   

26.4%

29.1%

WFC3/IR

Spectroscopy

9.4%

0.0%

7.2%

40.1%

40.5%

6.2%

0.0%

WFC3/UVIS

Imaging

18.7%

38.2%

23.4%

   

42.5%

23.2%

WFC3/UVIS

Spectroscopy

1.6%

0.0%

1.2%

   

0.0%

0.0%

   

100%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

 

TAC Members and Panelists

Name

Institution

Role

TAC Members

Somerville, Rachel S.

Flatiron Institute

TAC Chair

Charbonnel, Corinne

University of Geneva–Department of Astronomy

At-Large

Putman, Mary E.

Columbia University in the City of New York

At-Large

Voit, Mark

Michigan State University

At-Large

Extragalactic Members

Baldassare, Vivienne

Yale University

 

Barth, Aaron J.

University of California–Irvine

Chair

Cackett, Edward M.

Wayne State University

 

Daly, Ruth

The Pennsylvania State University

 

Gebhardt, Karl

University of Texas at Austin

 

Glikman, Eilat

Middlebury College

 

Kraemer, Steven B.

Catholic University of America

 

Leighly, Karen Marie

University of Oklahoma Norman Campus

 

Richards, Gordon T.

Drexel University

 

Villforth, Carolin

University of Bath

 

Constantin, Anca

James Madison University

 

Diamond-Stanic, Aleksandar M.

Bates College

 

King, Andrew Robert

University of Leicester

 

Lohfink, Anne

Montana State University–Bozeman

 

Longinotti, Anna Lia

Instituto Nacional de Astrofísica, Óptica y Electrónica

 

Maksym, Walter Peter

Smithsonian Institution Astrophysical Observatory

 

Mueller-Sanchez, Francisco

University of Memphis

 

O'Dea, Christopher P.

University of Manitoba

Chair

Sarajedini, Vicki

Florida Atlantic University

 

Shen, Yue

University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign

 

Cucchiara, Antonino

University of the Virgin Islands

 

Eifler, Tim Frederik

University of Arizona

 

Franceschini, Alberto

Università degli Studi di Padova

 

Jha, Saurabh W.

Rutgers the State University of New Jersey

 

Lubin, Lori M.

University of California–Davis

 

Mei, Simona

Observatoire de Paris

 

Nierenberg, Anna

Jet Propulsion Laboratory

 

Sales, Laura Virginia

University of California–Riverside

 

Scolnic, Daniel

Duke University

 

Williams, Liliya L.R.

University of Minnesota–Twin Cities

Chair

Andreon, Stefano

Osservatorio Astronomico di Brera, Milano

 

Avestruz, Camille

University of Michigan

 

Dvorkin, Cora

Harvard University

 

Egami, Eiichi

University of Arizona

Chair

Foley, Ryan

University of California–Santa Cruz

 

Huterer, Dragan

University of Michigan

 

Kolb, Rocky

University of Chicago

 

Newburgh, Laura

Yale University

 

Rodighiero, Giulia

Università degli Studi di Padova

 

Troja, Eleonora

University of Maryland

 

Abramson, Louis Evan

Carnegie Institution of Washington

 

Borthakur, Sanchayeeta

Arizona State University

 

Burchett, Joseph Neil

University of California–Santa Cruz

 

Davies, Frederick

University of California–Santa Barbara

 

Erb, Dawn K.

University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee

Chair

Jorgenson, Regina

Maria Mitchell Association

 

Liske, Joe

Universität Hamburg, Hamburger Sternwarte

 

McGrath, Elizabeth

Colby College

 

Mutlu-Pakdil, Burcin

University of Arizona

 

Papovich, Casey

Texas A & M University

 

Peroux, Céline

European Southern Observatory–Germany

 

Becker, George D.

University of California–Riverside

Chair

Beckman, John Etienne

Instituto de AstrofÍsica de Canarias

 

Choi, Yumi

Montana State University–Bozeman

 

Cooksey, Kathy

University of Hawaii at Hilo

 

Darvish, Behnam

California Institute of Technology

 

de Mello, Duilia F.

Catholic University of America

 

Lara-Lopez, Maritza Arlene

University of Copenhagen, Niels Bohr Institute

 

Noble, Allison

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

 

Terlevich, Elena

Instituto Nacional de AstrofÍsica, Óptica y Elecrónica

 

Walker, Matthew G.

Carnegie Mellon University

 

Berg, Danielle

The Ohio State University

 

Boettcher, Erin

University of Chicago

 

Brinchmann, Jarle

Universidade do Porto

 

Burgarella, Denis

Laboratoire d'Astrophysique de Marseille

 

Jones, Tucker

University of California–Davis

 

Kulkarni, Varsha Purushottam

University of South Carolina Research Foundation

 

Parker, Laura C.

McMaster University

 

Trager, Scott Charles

Kapteyn Astronomical Institute

Chair

Trump, Jonathan R.

University of Connecticut

 

U, Vivian

University of California–Irvine

 

Planetary Members

Bennett, David P.

University of Maryland

 

Biller, Beth

University of Edinburgh, Institute for Astronomy

 

Caballero, Jose A.

Centro de Astrobiología (CSIC/INTA) Inst. Nac. de Tec. Aero.

 

Gao, Peter

University of California–Berkeley

 

Jang-Condell, Hannah

University of Wyoming

Chair

Parmentier, Vivien

University of Oxford

 

Pope, Benjamin

New York University

 

Schwarz, Kamber

University of Arizona

 

Teske, Johanna

Carnegie Institution of Washington

 

Vanderburg, Andrew

University of Texas at Austin

 

Dressing, Courtney

University of California–Berkeley

 

Eisner, Josh

University of Arizona

 

Evans, Thomas M.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

 

Garcia Munoz, Antonio

Technische Universität Berlin

 

Kreidberg, Laura

Harvard University

 

Madhusudhan, Nikku

University of Cambridge

 

Rauscher, Emily

University of Michigan

 

Valencia, Diana

University of Toronto

Chair

Ward-Duong, Kimberly

Amherst College

 

Youngblood, Allison

NASA Goddard Space Flight Center

 

Bosh, Amanda S.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

 

Karkoschka, Erich

University of Arizona

 

Keane, Jacqueline

University of Hawaii

 

Kramer, Emily

Jet Propulsion Laboratory

 

Mandt, Kathleen

The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory

 

Mayorga, Laura C.

Harvard University

 

Thomas, Cristina A.

Northern Arizona University

 

Wong, Michael H.

University of California–Berkeley

Chair

Wray, James

Georgia Tech Research Corp.

 

Galactic Panel Members

Clayton, Geoffrey C.

Louisiana State University and A & M College

 

Dosopoulou, Fani

Princeton University

 

Harvey, Paul

University of Texas at Austin

 

Huard, Tracy L.

University of Maryland

 

Kaper, Lex

Universiteit van Amsterdam

Chair

McCully, Curtis

Las Cumbres Observatory Global Telescope Network

 

Mikolajewska, Joanna

Nicolaus Copernicus Astronomical Center

 

Radigan, Jacqueline

Utah Valley University

 

Rau, Gioia

NASA Goddard Space Flight Center

 

Skinner, Julie

Smith College

 

Sullivan, Mark

University of Southampton

 

Drout, Maria

University of Toronto

 

Kaplan, David L.

University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee

 

Karalidi, Theodora

University of Central Florida

 

Kastner, Joel H.

Rochester Institute of Technology

 

Kraemer, Kathleen E.

Boston College

 

Kubatova, Brankica

Astronomical Institute of the Czech Academy of Sciences

 

Mac Low, Mordecai-Mark

American Museum of Natural History

 

Moya, Andres

University of Birmingham

 

Oskinova, Lida

Universität Potsdam

Chair

Pejcha, Ondrej

Charles University

 

Watson, Dan

University of Rochester

 

David-Uraz, Alexandre

University of Delaware

 

Doherty, Carolyn

Konkoly Observatory

 

Ezzeddine, Rana

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

 

Froning, Cynthia Suzanne

University of Texas at Austin

Chair

Hora, Joseph L.

Smithsonian Institution Astrophysical Observatory

 

Hosseinzadeh, Griffin

Harvard University

 

Molinari, Sergio

INAF–Istituto di Astrofisica e Planetologia Spaziali

 

Sion, Edward M.

Villanova University

 

Szécsi, Dorottya

Universität zu Köln

 

Tendulkar, Shriharsh

McGill University

 

Caballero Nieves, Saida Maria

Florida Institute of Technology

 

Chandar, Rupali

University of Toledo

Chair

de Jong, Roelof S.

Leibniz-Institut für Astrophysik Potsdam (AIP)

 

Dotter, Aaron L.

Harvard University

 

Garrison-Kimmel, Shea

California Institute of Technology

 

Hansen, Brad M.

University of California–Los Angeles

 

Harris, Gretchen L. H.

University of Waterloo

 

Magrini, Laura

INAF–Osservatorio Astrofisico di Arcetri

 

Sobeck, Jennifer S.

University of Washington

 

Zasowski, Gail

University of Utah

 

Campos, Fabiola

Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul

 

Collins, Michelle L.M.

University of Surrey

 

Lardo, Carmela

École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne

 

Larsen, Søren S.

Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen

 

Lennon, Daniel J.

Instituto de Astrofísica de Canarias

Chair

Penny, Matthew

The Ohio State University

 

Reiter, Megan

United Kingdom Astronomy Technology Centre

 

Strader, Jay

Michigan State University

 

Watkins, Laura L.

University of Vienna

 

Zurek, David R.

American Museum of Natural History