Working for an
STSCI just announced cycle 16 selections...
1/5 - can't grumble too much
oversubscription was in fact almost exactly 5:1
one other proposal was top quartile but didn't make the cut. Curses.
I like that one. Plus it'd have meant even more trips to Italy.
Both my theory proposals were bottom rated.
The Fools! Bwa ha ha!
But since I got one last year I can't really complain, too much.
"Cycle 16 will have a duration of approximately 15 months, beginning in July 2007.
For your information, 583 GO proposals requested over 17,000 orbits in Cycle 16,
compared to the 3100 orbits available. A total of 39 snapshot proposals requested
over 3600 targets, and 26 Survey proposals requested over 1700 orbits, compared to
the approximately 900 targets approved and a total of 173 Archival Research, Archive
Legacy, and Theory proposals requested almost 14 million dollars, approximately four
times the amount available for these categories."
Comments
Stupid panels, don't read proposals, grumble grumble
1/3, I guess I should not complain. But, of course, what got through was the ridiculously high redshift stuff.
Posted by: Brad Holden | March 30, 2007 2:41 PM
Yeah, I just read over mine:
they liked one (planets) a lot, good job PI dood (I'm not the PI!)
they liked another a lot, but it was too big and the panel argued (incorrectly) that it should waiit for WFC3, just failed to make the cut looks like
a third proposal was basically criticised as a fishing expedition
the theory proposals were amusing: one I always send in because I need a little bit more to wrap it up, and HST ought to pay for it, since they got the main benefits, even though it is primarily not HST science...
the other ought to have been easy - straigth forward continuation of development of successful models of an already approved major data set. The complaint was that the model didn't do something important - that it was static rather than following the dynamical evolution of the system - the whole point of the proposal is that this model does do the dynamics of that part of the system, as shown in several published papers over the last decade. Argh!
both complaned about lack of detail - proposals are 3 pages and must set the stage for the big picture and context...
so to get a theory proposal you must have someone on the panel who knows enough about your sub-sub-sub-field to know what you are talking about, AND to like that approach. So not your archnemesis, obviously.
Posted by: Steinn Sigurdsson | March 30, 2007 3:22 PM