OPC matters

1
OPC matters

• Simon Morris

2
Topics for possible Discussion

• Simon Morris is OPC Chair for period 80 and 81
• Rapid turnover planned for Panel membership
• Large number of proposals, large number of panels
• Document describing feedback requirements (see 8m
  users web site)
• Following VG were written in Nov after last OPC
  describing OPC process for non experts (for
  information)

3
Normal Proposals

• Proposal deadline end of Sept for following
  April-Sept (and end of March for Oct-Mar)
• Sorted into 4 science categories
• A Cosmology
• B Galaxies
• C Stars
• D Planets and Solar System
• Depending on demand are 2-3 sub-panels (of 6
  people) per category. Proposals assigned to a
  panel trying to group science topics together and
  avoid conflicts of interest
• Each proposal gets a primary and 2 secondary
  referees. They give in grades and comments in
  advance of the meeting. All members of the panel
  have to read all their proposals before the
  meeting.
• During the meeting all proposals assigned to the
  sub-panel are discussed and regraded. Most panels
  use anonymous paper grades. The average and rms
  are recorded and used to generate a ranked list
  separated by telescope.
• There is a complex and evolving process for
  combining all the panel grades for each
  telescope. New for this period, the sub-panel
  grades are being renormalized to have matched
  mean and rms before merging.
• ESO then tries to schedule the proposals starting
  with the top ranked proposal in the merged list
  for each telescope and working down. However,
  will stop taking proposals from a given category
  regardless of rank when get to the fraction of
  time requested in that science category.
• Panels write feedback to proposers. Are
  instructed to include a statement about
  Strengths, Weaknesses and Ways to Improve. This
  is merged with quartile and scheduling
  information by ESO and sent to all proposers.

4
Large Programs

• Generally more than 100 hours of time, often
  spread over more than one telescope and more than
  one period.
• Get more space for science case
• Are assigned to a category as before, but are
  read by all sub-panels in that category, also are
  read by the OPC members of all categories (made
  up of Panel Chairs and a few others from the
  panels)
• Proposers are asked if they are willing to have
  the proposal converted to normal (i.e. cut down
  to only 1 period)
• Are discussed in joint meeting of category
  sub-panels and graded. Joint group also
  recommends on whether should go as a Large
  Program, and whether it should be considered as a
  Normal Program. If the answer to the latter is
  yes, then the sub-panel grades the current period
  bit during their normal discussions.
• After the sub-Panel meeting, the OPC meets and
  decides on all Large Programs. They never revive
  a programme recommended for death by a panel, nor
  do they change a recommendation for conversion to
  normal. They often do not recommend Large Program
  status even if a panel supported a proposal.
  Implementation as a Large Program requires more
  than a simple majority of the OPC to support, but
  not unanimity.

5
Targets of Opportunity

• GRBs, SNs, CVs,
• Now 3 classes of trigger
• Rapid Response Mode very fast response
  (minutes), mostly used for GRBs
• Hard Triggers between minutes and hours where
  ESO staff have to write the OBs
• Soft Triggers generally after several days, but
  at unpredictable time in period. Proposer can
  write OBs. ESO willing to support more of these.
• ESO willing to support about 200 Hard Triggers,
  with assumption they will only implement 100 or
  less of them in a period.
• Proposals graded as Normal, but then ToO
  sub-committee meets to prune down numbers of
  triggers awarded and sort out target conflicts.
  Generate ranked list of ToOs for ESO across all
  categories with recommended numbers of targets,
  RMM triggers and hard and soft triggers. OPC
  endorses this list.

6
VST and VISTA Surveys

• Were two separate Survey Panels set up, chaired
  by Duccio Macchetto. They were asked to take all
  VST and VISTA survey proposals, prune the list
  and talk to the proposers about possible merging
  of overlapping surveys.
• VST survey plan was endorsed by OPC 6 months ago
• VISTA survey plan was endorsed by OPC at this
  meeting
• VISTA will be almost exclusively used for surveys
  (probably 100 for 1st year, and 85 for
  following years)
• UK astronomers are PIs for 5 of the 6 merged
  VISTA surveys, although teams are very
  international.
• Is an expectation from ESO that PIs will find
  national (i.e. in our case PPARC) support to
  deliver the survey results.

7
Instrument News

• VST Telescope is still in Naples, primary ready
  for acceptance in Moscow, OmegaCAM ready apart
  from filters
• VISTA telescope and camera soon in Paranal,
  Primary on critical path and still in Moscow
• CRIRES offered high dispersion 0.95-5.3 micron
  spectrograph
• Laboca on APEX not offered
• DAZLE had first run of 10 nights. Claimed to have
  gone well.
• 3.6m was off line with dome problem 6 Oct 4 Nov

8
Proposal Statistics

• 898 proposals (635 for Paranal)
• 85 of proposals submitted in last 36 hours
• AB proposal count flat, CD driving increase
• Oversubscription factor on UTs 4
• Lilly zCOSMOS running very slow will take 5
  years to complete