The SCience OPErations (SCOPE) Division has been charged with developing a telescope allocation process that will extend to the Gemini telescopes and the independent observatories that will be supplying time to the community through NOAO. While we have been improving the existing process for some time, the present call for proposals marks the start of some important changes. Two factors motivate these changes: 1) the need to handle a substantially larger number of proposals efficiently and 2) the desire to simplify the process for astronomers to get time on all telescopes needed to carry out their scientific programs.
Increasing automation of the mechanics of proposal processing addresses the first factor. Although almost all proposals are now submitted electronically either through the Web or by e-mailing the LaTeX form, recent improvements include standardization of the forms and submission process for KPNO and CTIO and modification of the Web form to allow old proposals to be imported. On the reporting end, TAC members now write their comments on laptops, allowing us to edit and transfer them easily to the letters sent to proposers. We will continue to work to make all phases of this processing easier.
The second factor is addressed by restructuring the proposal review process to account for the complementary roles different facilities play. If a proposer has a program that requires imaging on a small telescope to support spectroscopic observations on a large telescope, it should be possible to guarantee the acquisition of that supporting data. If a sample can be split with bright and faint halves observed using two different telescopes, it should be straightforward to get the telescope time to do that. If a program requires observations of a sample extending over north and south hemispheres, a proposer should not have to argue separately to different TACs. The approach we are going to take is to generalize the current split of proposals between two panels (galactic and extragalactic) to a larger number of panels limiting the maximum number of proposals per panel to about 100. Associated with this, we will add the new telescopes into the mix, beginning with HET and MMT in March 1999, Gemini North in March 2000, and Gemini South in March 2001. Note that the pressure to accommodate these new telescopes comes initially in the north. Therefore, we are going to begin with the KPNO system and alter it to accommodate the new facilities. When it becomes appropriate to include the CTIO telescopes, we will consider the best approach.
Another significant change to note is one of perception. On the proposal form the question labeled "Why NOAO?" originally asked if proposers had access to other facilities on which they might be able to make the proposed observations, and if so, why they were not using them instead. A couple of years ago that question was changed to ask whether other facilities were being used in order to better understand the role that the NOAO facilities were playing in the overall program. We have seen that the majority of proposers have not recognized the change and are still answering the old question. Therefore, we are further modifying the question (and calling attention to the change). The "Why NOAO?" question has been eliminated and the information about other facilities has been incorporated into a new "Experimental Design" question. This new question now asks the proposer to list other facilities that are being used or applied for together with a brief description of the role of these in the overall program, followed by a couple of sentences to explain the value of the proposed observations in the context of the entire program. This information is needed by the TAC to ensure the proposed observations will make a significant contribution to the overall scientific program being judged.
Todd Boroson