Share Email Print
cover

Proceedings Paper

Ongoing evolution of proposal reviews in the Spitzer warm mission
Author(s): Lisa J. Storrie-Lombardi; Suzanne R. Dodd; Nancy A. Silbermann; L. M. Rebull; Seppo Laine; Megan Crane; John Stauffer; Lee Armus
Format Member Price Non-Member Price
PDF $14.40 $18.00
cover GOOD NEWS! Your organization subscribes to the SPIE Digital Library. You may be able to download this paper for free. Check Access

Paper Abstract

The Spitzer Space Telescope is executing the seventh year of extended warm mission science. The cryogenic mission operated from 2003 to 2009. The observing proposal review process has evolved from large, week-long, in-person meetings during the cryogenic mission to the introduction of panel telecon reviews in the warm mission. Further compression of the schedule and budget for the proposal solicitation and selection process led to additional changes in 2014. Large proposals are still reviewed at an in-person meeting but smaller proposals are no longer discussed by a topical science panel. This hybrid process, involving an in-person committee for the larger proposals and strictly external reviewers for the smaller proposals, has been successfully implemented through two observing cycles. While people like the idea of not having to travel to a review it is still the consensus opinion, in our discussions with the community, that the in-person review panel discussions provide the most satisfying result. We continue to use in-person reviews for awarding greater than 90% of the observing time.

Paper Details

Date Published: 15 July 2016
PDF: 6 pages
Proc. SPIE 9910, Observatory Operations: Strategies, Processes, and Systems VI, 991012 (15 July 2016); doi: 10.1117/12.2231788
Show Author Affiliations
Lisa J. Storrie-Lombardi, Spitzer Science Ctr., California Institute of Technology (United States)
Suzanne R. Dodd, Jet Propulsion Lab. (United States)
Nancy A. Silbermann, Spitzer Science Ctr., California Institute of Technology (United States)
L. M. Rebull, Spitzer Science Ctr., California Institute of Technology (United States)
Seppo Laine, Spitzer Science Ctr., California Institute of Technology (United States)
Megan Crane, Spitzer Science Ctr., California Institute of Technology (United States)
John Stauffer, Spitzer Science Ctr., California Institute of Technology (United States)
Lee Armus, Spitzer Science Ctr., California Institute of Technology (United States)


Published in SPIE Proceedings Vol. 9910:
Observatory Operations: Strategies, Processes, and Systems VI
Alison B. Peck; Robert L. Seaman; Chris R. Benn, Editor(s)

© SPIE. Terms of Use
Back to Top