Q: Who do I contact for help with proposal preparation?
A: STScI maintains a hotseat from 9:00am to 5:00pm Eastern Time at
410-338-1082 or (toll-free in the U.S.) 800-544-8125, and e-mail to
help@stsci.edu. There is also the
ST European Coordinating Facility, at 49-89-320-06-291, email:
stdesk@eso.org, as well as a list
of contacts in Appendix A of the
Call For
Proposals.
Q: In the past for Archival Research Programs I have submitted my detailed budget with my Phase I Proposal, however I don't see the budgets forms available for download.
A: For Cycle 9, only Approved Archival Research Programs will be required to submit a detailed budget at the Phase II submission deadline. Detailed budgets are no longer required for Phase I.
Q: In the past I have submitted Paper copies of my proposal. Can I still do this?
A: For Cycle 9, we are only accepting electronic submissions; no paper is allowed. Please read our detailed submission instructions. In addition to your electronic submission of the LaTeX template, you must submit either a PostScript or PDF File. This can be done either via email to newprop@stsci.edu, or if you feel your proposal is too large to submit via email, via FTP to our secure FTP site.
Q: I would like to Propose for FOC in Cycle 9, can I?
A: See the following message:
Dear HST Cycle 9 Proposers:
Due to the fact that the FOC will be removed from HST in a future Servicing Mission during Cycle 9, relatively low usage in preceding cycles, the belief that nearly all FOC science can be accomplished with existing or soon to be installed instruments, and limited budgetary and human resources, the FOC is not being offered in Cycle 9. The need to make this adjustment in the instrument complement for Cycle 9 was discussed with and approved by the Space Telescope Users Committee (STUC). The Institute and the HST Project have a strong commitment to complete all programs previously approved for use of the FOC, but are not accepting new programs in Cycle 9.
We regret that there will be some astronomers who would like to propose for FOC in Cycle 9 and will not be able to do so, but after discussing the allocation of Institute resources with the Users Committee, we have jointly concluded that the HST science program is made stronger by shifting available resources to other areas of the HST science program, especially the new instruments, at this time.
---- Steve Beckwith, Director STScI
Q: The Call for Proposals states that the cycle starts in June 2000 and lasts for one year. I have observations that can only be done in March. Can I specify that they start in March of 2000 instead of March 2001?
A: You cannot propose for observations that would require the observations to schedule outside of the nominal cycle timeframe. The ongoing cycle takes much higher scheduling precedence than the cycle that is just beginning. If your observations are required to schedule out of the nominal cycle timeframe, then you should look into the submission of a Director's Discretionary (DD) proposal. See Section 2.5 of the Call for Proposals or the DD Time Submission Page.
Q: Can I exceed the page limit in order to insert figures?
A: You may use up to 2 (optional) pages for figures, tables and references, in addition to the pages allowed for your Scientific Justification and Description of the Observations. However, the TOTAL number of pages should not exceed 10 pages for Regular Programs and Archive Programs, and 13 pages for Large Programs. Target lists longer than 1 page and the list of previous HST programs are not counted towards these page limits.
Q: How do I check my targets for duplication against already approved proposals?
A: The simplest way to do this is to use StarView. Section 8 of the Call for Proposals gives directions for logging onto a guest account at STScI and conducting a search. If you run into trouble, the archive hotseat is available at 410-338-4547, archive@stsci.edu. Alternatively, you may also find it useful to check the ASCII Catalogs of Planned and Archived Exposures.
As an alternative the Archive Group has a web-based duplication checking tool. It is at http://archive.stsci.edu/hst/duplication_checking/.
Q: My proposal falls into a gray area between two science categories -- which one should I put it in?
A: Select the one that your feel is most appropriate. We request that you carefully follow our category descriptions, and select one and only one category. This ensures that your proposal will be judged by a panel with the appropriate expertise. STScI reserves the right to move proposals between categories if necessary to optimize the efficiency and fairness of the peer-review process.
Q: Do I have to use LaTex?
A: No, for the required electronic part of the Phase I submission, you only have to fill out the first part of the LaTex template as indicated within the file itself and email that part to us at newprop@stsci.edu . The PostScript/PDF version of your proposal may be prepared with any word processor, as long as the style and conventions of the output are similar to those obtained with LaTeX.
Q: I'm having trouble with the LaTex file, getting messages about "overfull/hbox", "15.94222 points too wide in alignment", the title is going in the wrong place, and black boxes are appearing over the top of the Justification section. What's wrong? What can I do?
A: Send the file to us (best to first contact the help desk by phone 410-338-1082 or (toll-free in the U.S.) 800-544-8125) or e-mail: help@stsci.edu (please DO NOT send e-mail to newprop) and we'll take a look and try to understand and fix the problem. Then we'll get back to you with the fixed file or a suggestion of how to fix it on your system.
The Call for Proposals for Cycle 9 is not specific about this issue. but since it has a great impact on how we can write our proposal, I would very much appreciate if you could inform me what is the precise, official definition this cycle of Large proposals: orbits in Cycle 9 only or total requested orbits in Cycles 9, 10 and 11.
A: It is the sum of all orbits for Cycles 9, 10, and 11 that determines whether a proposal is Large (>100) or Regular (<100).
What should one assume about availability of the current instruments, WFPC2 in particular, during Cycles 10 and 11? Is it permissible to submit a Long-Term program that uses WFPC2 in all 3 cycles, or should one include a transition plan to ACS? If so, when should one assume that the transition should take place?
A: The following is the Policy for Cycle 9 Long Term Proposals that request the use of WFPC2 or STIS. The Cycle 9 Phase I template only allows the cycle 9 SIs, FGS, STIS or WFPC2, not ACS.
Proposers who wish to request Long Term status for the Cycle 9 Proposal Review and are requesting WFPC2 or STIS for their observations, should propose for WFPC2 or STIS for all three cycles, not ACS. The program should provide justification to continue to use the Cycle 9 SI, either WFPC2 or STIS in the future cycles as though ACS will not be available. The future orbits requested should be based upon usage of that Cycle 9 SI.
The proposer can propose a plan to switch to ACS in those future cycles if desired, in the Description of Observations section of the Phase I proposal template. A decision on whether observers will actually be able to switch to ACS for Cycles 10 and/or 11 depends on many factors not yet known, and will be made at a later date on a case by case basis. There is no guarantee that such a switch will be possible.
A: We have removed the requirement to submit detailed budget forms for Phase I as well as the authorizing Officer's signature. These will be required for approved programs only at the time of the Phase II deadline as is the current policy for GO and Snap Proposers.
Q: Do I need to include a list of all my candidate targets in a SNAPSHOT proposal?
A: No. One or more example exposures in the Observation Summary is sufficient, with an explanation in the proposal text as to how the targets will be chosen. You must, however, put the COMPLETE number of targets down in the TOTAL NUMBER OF ORBITS/TARGETS block. If you desire, you may include in the text the minimum number you feel will be required to achieve your scientific goals.
Q: Do I need to fill anything out in the TOTAL NUMBER OF ORBITS block for a SNAPSHOT proposal?
A: No, if you have designated your proposal as a SNAP, you may skip this and fill out the TOTAL NUMBER OF TARGETS section.
Q: If my SNAP targets duplicate another proposal's, but the exposure times are so different it's obvious there's no duplication of science, do I have to use the DUP flag?
A: Yes, but you can justify in the section `JUSTIFY DUPLICATIONS' that the duplication is not "real" because of the difference in exposure times.
Q: How much spacecraft time can a snapshot observation take?
A: Snaps in single orbits that propose to fill the entire visibility period may SOMETIMES schedule, but will frequently not. That's because the "holes" for snaps are frequently partly impacted by the SAA, or shortened by SI reconfiguration warmup times, or by a GS acq for the next orbit, etc. The result is that snaps longer than 30 min are less likely to schedule, and are decreasingly likely the longer they are. Thus a program that relies on obtaining 60 minute snaps is very unlikely to be successful. This is the origin of the recommendation that snaps be short. See Section 2.2 of the Call for Proposals for a more detailed discussion for SNAPshots.
Q: What is the approximate limiting magnitude I could reach in
one typical orbit when searching for (whatever1) counterparts of
(whatever2) using (instrument1) and (filter1) ?
A: A good place to start is with the Exposure Time Calculators (ETCs)
for the various instruments available on the
Instrument
web pages. Another option is to use the SYNPHOT package in
IRAF/STSDAS. Contact the Help Desk
help@stsci.edu to ask for more
information if you do not know how to get started. They will be able
to provide documentation and put you in touch with the experts if
needed. Please provide specific information when contacting the Help
Desk.
Q: How can I calculate exposure times and expected count rates when working with emission line strengths? Most of the documents (WFPC2 Handbook, etc.) do not seem geared to this sort of thing.
A: Ask the Instrument Scientists and/or SYNPHOT experts for advice and other assistance, via the Help Desk help@stsci.edu.
Q: My understanding of the correct way of writing the observing summary for an observation that uses all three STIS configurations is as follows:
\target {NGC1904-F1179}
\ra {05 24 12.0}
\dec {$-24$ 32 21}
\magnitude {18.6}
\configuration {STIS/FUV,STIS/NUV,STIS/CCD}
\mode {ACCUM}
\spectralelements {G140L,G230L,G430L}
\totalorbits {3}
\flags {}
But the \configuration output appears completely garbled, as text is being overwritten. Is this a problem with the template, with my understanding of the instructions, or with my LaTeX compiler?
A: The way to get around this format problem is too break up your observations into more than 1 set, so that it doesn't overwrite the text for the number of orbits.
\target {NGC1904-F1179}
\ra {05 24 12.0}
\dec {$-24$ 32 21}
\magnitude {18.6}
\configuration {STIS/FUV,STIS/NUV}
\mode {ACCUM}
\spectralelements{G140L,G230L,G430L}
\totalorbits {3}
\flags {}
\target {NGC1904-F1179}
\ra {05 24 12.0}
\dec {$-24$ 32 21}
\magnitude {18.6}
\configuration {STIS/CCD}
\mode {ACCUM}
\spectralelements{G140L,G230L,G430L}
\totalorbits {0}
\flags {}
Q: Are we allowed to propose for HST-Chandra programs that
involve Chandra TOO time ?
A: For this or any other question related to Chandra policy, refer to the Cycle 1 Chandra NRA, or consult the Chandra help desk. Concerning TOOs, the Chandra Cycle 1 policy is to limit time-constrained Chandra observations (which includes TOOs) to less than 20% of the observing time. For the HST-Chandra opportunity, this would mean that up to 80 ksec of time-constrained Chandra time could in principle be awarded by the Cycle 9 HST TAC.
Q: The Cycle 9 Call for Proposals has been revised to allow very rapid (12-24 hour) TOOs. The Call states that an overhead of 15 orbits will be charged for the use of this service. I have two questions: (1) Were one to request a TOO which had one image at 24 hours, say, and several more images taken over the course of the subsequent week, starting perhaps 12 hours after the first image, would one be charged a single overhead of 15 orbits --- since one was only asking for a single change to the schedule?
A: A proposal will be charged the sum of: (a) the total number of orbits during which actual observations are done; and (b) an extra 15 orbits if any of the observations have to be initiated within 24 hours.
Q: Has the statement in the original Call that only 6 rapid TOOs would be permitted now been entirely superseded? Is there still a premium on 3 day-3 week TOO turnarounds?
A: The Call for Proposals states (page 13): "Because of the heavy impact that TOO observations have on the short- and medium-term HST schedule, the number of rapid TOO programs (i.e., 3 weeks turn-around or shorter) will be limited to approximately 6 in Cycle 9."
The number 6 in this statement is an approximate target, based on previous experience. However, the TAC will be given freedom to recommend implementation of a larger number if there is a strong scientific rationale for this. Proposals will not be charged a fixed overhead for this (as for <24 hour turnaround TOO observations), but the TAC will be made aware of the typical overhead cost associated with TOO's with less than 3 weeks turnaround. This overhead will be charged to the total amount of orbits that the TAC can award this cycle.