Science Policy. Neill Reid SMO. STUC: 20 October

Transcription

1 Science Policy Neill Reid SMO 1

2 Outline Observing Venus with Hubble Large joint Hubble-Chandra proposals TAC demographics Summary 2

3 Venus & HST 3

4 Background Hubble is generally restricted from observing within 50 o of the Sun Venus reaches ~45-47 o at maximum elongation HST has observed Venus on 6 occasions close to maximum elongation Observations require waivers for specific restrictions Observing procedure requires manual intervention Exposures are taken when HST is in shadow (12-20 minutes/ orbit) During slews to and from Venus, solar illumination of areas inside the Light Shield is possible Periods of illumination are minimized by careful design of the observing plan 4

5 Venus Observation Planning example - Each Visit is tailored to minimize risk and increase probability of success - Example Venus Observing Plan from Jan 2011 program) 1 Target Visibility GS Pair Acq Venus Slew to Venus 3 OBAD 4 Target Visibility Shadow 5 Observe Venus GS Single Acq Venus GS Pair Acq Venus Slew to 6 Venus Sha 1 Initial GS Acq at Venus (away from sun) to zero out out attitude errors Offset from Venus protects against large slew pointing errors (worst case errors usually < 0.1 ) Offset is selected to minimize the slew distance to Venus and and thus preclude additional slew errors Choose GSs far from Venus to guard against FGS PMT exposure to bright Venus (Goodrich report) Check GS suitability, sometimes by performing on-orbit acquisitions weeks ahead of Venus observations 2 Smaller Slews to and from Venus may occur in sunlight, with +V1 sun angle CARD Constraint : Internal Baffle Temp < C (< Tbake-out to prevent outgassing) Guided by 1994 Thermal model of HST Venus attitude and Thermal Engineer review of specific visits Layout carefully planned to minimize solar illumination 3 On-Orbit Attitude Determination periods (OBADs) inserted to reduce attitude errors to 20 arcsec Allows reduction of FGS search radius to save time Reduced attitude errors in near proximity to Venus minimizes FGS bright object risk 4 Single FGS GS Acq and guiding to save time (if necessary, saves ~ 1 minute over pair) Again Choose GS far as possible from Venus and check GS suitability 5 Special commands may be used to disable the SI Take Data Flag response acquire science even if GS Acq Fails 6 Slew out 5-7 from Venus and perform another GS Pair acquisition in preparation for next orbit

6 All observations were successful. Observation Prop SI Jan 1995 (3v GHRS, 1v WFPC2) GHRS WFPC2 Time per exposu re s Sunlit Time inside SAZ While Slewing to/from Venus 2m 20s Science Topic High Res Spectroscopy of Venus Clouds CYC3 High UV Imagery of Venus Jan 2003 (1v) 8659 STIS 255s 2m 30s High Res Spectrum of Venus Lyman-Alpha Line Profile Dec 28, 2010 (2v) Jan 22, 2011 (2v) Jan 27, 2011 (2v) Oct 24, 2013 (5v) Accepted HST Venus programs STIS 153s 2m 14-3m 1s Coordinated HST, Venus Express, and Venus Climate Orbiter Observations STIS 58s 1m 50s - 1m 57s same 0/0 0/0 0/0 5/1 Publications All/ref See above STIS 120s 3m 2s - 3m12s same See above STIS 5m 0m 14s - 0m 55s D/H Ratio and Escape of Water 1/0

7 HST Venus Proposals STScI Proposal Count - 31 total Venus Programs Submitted for HST Phase I - 5 programs approved and executed (1 NASA and 4 GO) See Table 1 Led to 2-publications with one self-citation - 5 programs approved and withdrawn (2 GTO and 3 GO) - listed in Table 2 3 were in Cycle 6 (heavy oversubscription may have played a role), 1 was in Cycle 1 (concerns over solar avoidance) 1 was a GTO Cycle 7 withdrawn by the PI partway through the effort (7581) - 21 programs rejected (14 GO, 6 DD, and 1 AR) Table 2 Accepted Venus programs that ultimately did not execute Cycle Prop Title SI Comments 1 GO-2393 D/H Ratio of Venus and Mars from Lyman Alpha Emissions GHRS TAC Approved; solar avoidance concern 6 GO-6706 Deuterium Abundance in the Upper Atmosphere of Venus GHRS TAC Approved; Cancelled (Director) 6 GO-6771 Multispectral observation of Venus atmosphere: Composition, Circulation and Variability GHRS WFPC2 TAC Approved; Cancelled (Director) 6 GTO 6851 HST Observations of the Venus Nightside WFPC2 Cancelled (Director) 7 GTO 7581 Venus Atmospheric D and H Lyman-Alpha Emissions STIS Withdrawn by PI

8 Discussion Venus has been observed successfully with HST Recent observations have been in support of Venus probes No new probes planned for at least 5 years Observations require careful planning and therefore additional resources Observations carry significant risk Given these circumstances, we will no longer accept Venus programs as part of the standard TAC call 50 o solar exclusion zone will be enforced We will still allow the community to propose for Venus observations as DD time The bar for acceptance will be correspondingly high 8

9 Large Joint HST/Chandra Proposals 9

10 Context HST currently has a joint observing program with Chandra Program avoids double jeopardy for proposals requiring observations with observatories HST TAC can allocate up to 400 ksec CXC TAC can allocate up to 100 orbits Proposal is submitted to the observatory that s the major contributor to the program Most joint programs are regular programs 10

11 Past usage Programs listed at HST Cycle ksec Chandra Cycle Orbits

12 Proposal Chandra proposes extending the program to enable the submission of Large Joint Proposals Chandra would provide an additional 600 ksec to the HST TAC HST would provide an additional 150 orbits to the Chandra TAC Allocation of those resources would be limited to Large programs Programs requiring at least 75 orbits with HST and at least 400 ksec with Chandra Proposals can be submitted to either observatory (but not both) We propose making this option available in Cycle 25 Additional Chandra orbits would be made available by reducing the pool for Large/Treasury programs in Cycle 25 Continuation to future cycles would be dependent on the response from the community and feedback from the TACs 12

13 Demographics 13

14 Gender-correlated systematics Over the past 5 years, we have briefed you on an apparent correlation between PI gender and proposal success rate Gender stats drawn publicly available sources Possible evidence that the offset is higher for more senior astronomers Look at this as the canary in the coalmine something that we can measure that might hint at underlying unconscious bias in the review Success rate Average Male PI Female PI fraction female PI Cycle 14

15 Gender-correlated systematics Over the past 5 years, we have briefed you on an apparent correlation between PI gender and proposal success rate. We have adjusted the TAC process to a) De-emphasise the focus on the PI b) Increase the focus on assessing the written proposal against standard criteria Success rate Average Male PI Female PI fraction female PI Cycle 15

16 Cycle 24 More extended discussion of unconscious bias & meeting etiquette Given by Karoline Gilbert available on website Continued to emphasise grading against standard criteria Lists posted in each panel room Proposal format changed All investigators listed alphabetically PI not identified past usage section removed 16

17 Cycle 24 proposal format PDF file is 829.pdf No PI name Alphabetical order PI not identified 17

18 Cycle 24 More extended discussion of unconscious bias & meeting etiquette Given by Karoline Gilbert available on website Continued to emphasise grading against standard criteria Lists posted in each panel room Proposal format changed All investigators listed alphabetically PI not identified past usage section removed Feedback from the TAC generally positive The decision not to identify the principal investigator during the review process seemed to have a very positive impact. While I do not know whether the policy improved the success rate of proposals from women or underrepresented groups, I believe the policy did have a strong positive impact on the panel discussions. Discussions focused closely on the value and impact of the proposed science and on the expertise of the team as a whole, rather than on the individual PI or her/his record of accomplishment. I encourage the Institute to continue the practice for at least a few years to evaluate the results. [C. Pilachowski, TAC Chair) 18

19 Cycle 24 results 1096 total proposals including 270 with female PI 24.6% à up 0.6% from Cycle 23 Results 228/1096 recommended for acceptance: 20.8% 180/826 with Male PI: 21.8% 48/270 for female PI: 17.8% Comparable statistical results in Cycle average Male PI Female PI

20 F M Seniority Ph.d % 22.3% 0.6 Cy 24 Female PI Male PI Ph.d % 21.4% 0.5 fraction success fraction success Cy 23 Ph.D. Female PI Male PI Ph.D. F M Ph.d % 20.8% Ph.d % 26.2% 20

21 Proposal types Cy Female PI Male PI AR GO SNAP Cy Female PI Male PI AR GO SNAP 22

22 Discussion Reviewers were generally not aware of the identity of the PI on proposals New format was generally popular with the TAC Overall gender success ratios were lower for female PIs than in Cycle 23 Statistics match previous cycles if we exclude cosmology Given these results, the trends that we re seeing in proposal success rates may be driven by broader characteristics within the community, rather than personal biases within the review committee Following the comments from the TAC chair, we will use the same proposal format in Cycle 25 23

23 Summary Observing Venus with Hubble GO proposals will no longer be permitted DD proposals may be submitted with an appropriately compelling science case Joint HST-Chandra Large Programs Additional 600 ksec to HST TAC & 150 orbits to Chandra TAC Allocations are only available for Large programs (>75 orbits HST & 400 ksec Chandra) Proposals can be submitted to either (but not both) TACs Demographics Change in proposal format was well received by the TAC Statistics continue to show the offset in success as f(pi gender) 24

24 Backup STUC: 5 November

25 Seniority statistics Cy 23 PhD Female PI acc Female PI rej Male PI acc Male PI rej fract f fract m total Cy 24 PhD Female PI acc Female PI rej Male PI acc Male PI rej fract f fract m total

26 27