Share Email Print
cover

Proceedings Paper

Resolving inherent planning and scheduling conflicts in HST's cycle 12
Author(s): Ian J. E. Jordan; William M. Workman III; Tricia J. Royle; Denise C. Taylor; Alison Sherwin Vick; Rodger Doxsey
Format Member Price Non-Member Price
PDF $17.00 $21.00
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

Introduction of the Large Proposal category for HST observing in Cycle 11 resulted in a significant migration toward multiple observing programs requiring 100 or more orbits on single target areas. While relatively benign in the inaugural Cycle, this policy created a formidable planning problem in Cycle 12 due to acceptance of several large programs with identical or closely located targets. The nature of this observing pool revealed shortcomings in the established processes for building an integrated HST science plan. Historically it has not been difficult to normalize individual programs within the overall HST observing plan. However, conflicts arising from competing demands and overlapping time windows in Cycle 12 necessitated compromises between programs at a more significant scale than experienced ever before. The planning tools and techniques needed to change rapidly in response, and communication both within the STScI and between the STScI and the affected observers was more crucial than ever before. Large and small-scale changes to major observing programs were necessary to create a viable integrated observing plan. This paper describes the major features of the Cycle 12 observing pool, the impact it had on the STScI front-end operations processes and how an executable Cycle 12 HST observing program was achieved.

Paper Details

Date Published: 16 September 2004
PDF: 11 pages
Proc. SPIE 5493, Optimizing Scientific Return for Astronomy through Information Technologies, (16 September 2004); doi: 10.1117/12.549427
Show Author Affiliations
Ian J. E. Jordan, Space Telescope Science Institute (United States)
William M. Workman III, Space Telescope Science Institute (United States)
Tricia J. Royle, Space Telescope Science Institute (United States)
Denise C. Taylor, Space Telescope Science Institute (United States)
Alison Sherwin Vick, Space Telescope Science Institute (United States)
Rodger Doxsey, Space Telescope Science Institute (United States)


Published in SPIE Proceedings Vol. 5493:
Optimizing Scientific Return for Astronomy through Information Technologies
Peter J. Quinn; Alan Bridger, Editor(s)

© SPIE. Terms of Use
Back to Top