science policies v4 - space telescope science institute · • choose gss far from venus to guard...

Science Policy

Neill Reid SMO

STUC: 20 October 2016 1

Outline

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

2 STUC: 20 October 2016

Venus & HST


Background

•  Hubble is generally restricted from observing within 50o of the Sun

•  Venus reaches ~45-47o 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


①  Initial GS Acq at Venus + 5°-7° (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 45°-47° •  CARD Constraint 2.2.1.7 : Internal Baffle Temp < 148.9° 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

①  ⑤ 

② 

③ 

④ 

⌃ Target Visibility

GS Pair Acq Venus + 5°-7°

Slew to Venus

Target Visibility

Shadow

Observe Venus Slew to

Venus + 5°-7° GS Single Acq

Venus OBAD

GS Pair Acq Venus + 5°-7°

Sha -  Each Visit is tailored to minimize risk and increase probability of success

-  Example Venus Observing Plan from Jan 2011 program) ⑥ 

Venus Observation Planningexample

Observation Prop SI

Time per

exposure

Sunlit Time inside SAZ

While Slewing to/from Venus

Science Topic

Publications All/ref

Jan 1995 (3v – GHRS, 1v – WFPC2)

4518 5783

GHRS

WFPC2

22-109

s

2m 20s

High Res Spectroscopy of Venus Clouds – CYC3 High UV Imagery of Venus

0/0 0/0

Jan 2003 (1v) 8659 STIS 255s 2m 30s High Res Spectrum of Venus Lyman-Alpha Line Profile

0/0

Dec 28, 2010 (2v)

12433 STIS 153s 2m 14 - 3m 1s Coordinated HST, Venus Express, and Venus Climate Orbiter Observations

5/1

Jan 22, 2011 (2v)

12433 STIS 58s 1m 50s - 1m 57s

same See above

Jan 27, 2011 (2v)

12433 STIS 120s 3m 2s - 3m12s same See above

Oct 24, 2013 (5v)

13047 STIS 5m 0m 14s - 0m 55s

D/H Ratio and Escape of Water

1/0

Accepted HST Venus programsAll observations were successful.

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

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

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 –  50o 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


Large Joint HST/Chandra Proposals


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


11

Past usage •  Programs listed at http://archive.stsci.edu/hst/joint_programs.html

HST Cycle ksec Chandra Cycle Orbits 9 328 3 90

10 345 4 51

11 170 5 43

12 115 6 77

13 85 7 60

14 130 8 25

15 60 9 59

16 89 10 62

17 110 11 99

18 170 12 84

19 0 13 96

20 270 14 66

21 0 15 44

22 120 16 54

23 0 17 83

24 128 18 39

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


Demographics


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

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Succ

ess r

ate

Cycle

Average

Male PI

Female PI

fraction female PI

STUC: 20 October 2016

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

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Succ

ess r

ate

Cycle

Average

Male PI

Female PI

fraction female PI


Cycle 24

16

•  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


Cycle 24 proposal format

17

PDF file is 829.pdf

No PI name

Alphabetical order PI not identified


Cycle 24

18

•  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)


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 19

19 0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

average

Male PI

Female PI


Seniority

20

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

1965-1969 1970-1974 1975-1979 1980-1984 1985-1989 1990-1994 1995-1999 2000-2004 2005-2009 2010-2014 2015-

frac

tion

succ

ess

Ph.D.

Female PI Male PI Cy 23


0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

1965-1969 1970-1974 1975-1979 1980-1984 1985-1989 1990-1994 1995-1999 2000-2004 2005-2009 2010-2014 2015-

frac

tion

succ

ess

Ph.D.

Female PI Male PI

F M Ph.d. ≤ 1999 16.2% 22.3% Ph.d. ≥ 2000 18.4% 21.4%

Cy 24

F M Ph.d. ≤ 1999 17.6% 20.8% Ph.d. ≥ 2000 23.4% 26.2%

Proposal types

22


0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

AR GO SNAP

Female PI

Male PI

Cy 24

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

AR GO SNAP

Female PI

Male PI

Cy 23

Discussion

23

•  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


Summary

24

•  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)


Backup

25 STUC: 5 November 2015

Seniority statistics

26

PhD Female PI acc Female PI rej Male PI acc Male PI rej fract f fract m 1965-1969 0 0 1 8 0 0.111111 1970-1974 2 2 4 19 0.5 0.173913 1975-1979 1 8 9 23 0.111111 0.28125 1980-1984 2 5 9 33 0.285714 0.214286 1985-1989 1 5 16 76 0.166667 0.173913 1990-1994 2 11 14 57 0.153846 0.197183 1995-1999 5 30 21 65 0.142857 0.244186 2000-2004 6 21 32 87 0.222222 0.268908 2005-2009 16 40 44 104 0.285714 0.297297 2010-2014 18 64 47 135 0.219512 0.258242 2015- 6 25 6 37 0.193548 0.139535 total 59 211 203 644 0.218519 0.239669

Cy 23

Cy 24 PhD Female PI acc Female PI rej Male PI acc Male PI rej fract f fract m 1965-1969 0 2 3 8 0 0.272727 1970-1974 0 6 2 18 0 0.1 1975-1979 0 6 6 22 0 0.214286 1980-1984 0 10 16 44 0 0.266667 1985-1989 2 5 14 56 0.285714 0.2 1990-1994 4 8 14 39 0.333333 0.264151 1995-1999 6 25 17 63 0.193548 0.2125 2000-2004 3 23 23 80 0.115385 0.223301 2005-2009 14 40 34 105 0.259259 0.244604 2010-2014 13 65 35 161 0.166667 0.178571 2015- 6 32 16 50 0.157895 0.242424 total 48 222 180 646 0.177778 0.217918

science policies v4 - space telescope science institute · • choose gss far from venus to guard...

Documents