Previous Article
Next Article
Table of Contents

Some Reminders from the TAC (1Mar95)
(from KPNO, NOAO Newsletter No. 41, 1 March 1995)

During the last series of telescope Time Allocation Committee meetings it
became clear that some individuals may have forgotten some of the
guidelines that should be followed in submitting observing proposals to
KPNO.  As the next proposal submission cycle is approaching, now is an
appropriate time to point out some of these guidelines.

                            Long Term Status

The rules under which a proposal may be considered by the TAC for long
term status are fairly simple and well defined.  In order to qualify for long
term status, a proposal must successfully argue that all of the data must be
obtained before the basic scientific question being posed can be answered.
Simply enlarging a sample for the sake of completeness or better statistics is
not sufficient.  Put another way, a long term status project is one in which no
conclusions will be able to be drawn if, say, only half the observations are
made.  In its simplest form it is an all or nothing criterion.

                            Other Facilities

This is often a confusing issue.  Having access to other facilities does NOT
preclude proposing to KPNO or jeopardize its discussion by the TAC.  Many
successful KPNO observers also have access to other facilities.  What the
TAC very much wants to see is the reason why observations are also needed
with KPNO telescopes.  Such factors could be unique or complementary
instrumentation, darker site, coordinated observations involving other sites,
etc.  Problems arise when it is known that the principal investigators or
co-investigators are affiliated with an organization that has access to other
facilities and yet there is no explanation given as to why there is also a need
to use KPNO telescopes.  If such an affiliation exists but is not real, due to
internal organizational structure, this should be explained, as the TAC is
usually unaware of these internal restrictions.

                                Length

The guideline for the length of the scientific justification is one page of
text plus figures.  This criterion is often violated, sometimes flagrantly.
Violation of the length guideline may not be beneficial, as it can serve to
reduce the degree of benevolence with which a given TAC member may view a
proposal.  Repeated offenses are often remembered.  If a scientific program
is well defined and well thought out, a convincing justification can easily be
made to fit on one page and within the print size requirements.

                                 Form

Please be sure to use the current proposal submission form; we are still
receiving the occasional proposal on obsolete forms.  Electronic submission,
which is described in an accompanying Newsletter article, works well and is
strongly encouraged.

David De Young

Previous Article
Next Article
Table of Contents