Hubble multicycle large proposals were due today...
Julianne tests the conjecture of proposal number invariance under simple scaling.
Looks to be annoyingly close to correct with about 40 proposals in by the deadline.
I still think we need to check the proposal success probability as a function of proposal rank number.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Every year we contemplate the Hubble Call for Proposals demand curve.
Four years ago we started to quantify the demand curve
the calm rational analysis soon broke into a nerd gambling frenzy
we then started theorizing about proposal scale invariance which annoyingly enough apparently works
by then…
In times past we have lovingly tracked the proposal frenzy as the near annual Hubble Space Telescope proposal deadline approaches.
As was noted by Julianne several years ago, and confirmed over the last half dozen cycles, the shape of the curve of number of submitted proposals as a function of time…
Is approaching 1 per minute and accelerating.
Proposals of course!
Yes, it is Happy, Happy Hubble Proposal Deadline Day!
You've downloaded yer new and improved APT20 (Astronomers Proposal Tool); installed the updated Java; bookmarked the subtly changed Proposal Guidelines, and even written some…
Hubble proposal deadline tomorrow, lest you forget.
How many proposals do you think we will get?
I think I know. You wanna bet?
The Hubble Space Telescope is a fine telescope.
Currently it has very limited capabilities due to instrument failures, but it is, hopefully, getting one more servicing…
Okay, enough conjecture. I have at least partly settled the issue of proposal success as a function of proposal numbering the old-fashioned way, by measuring it, using data from Spitzer proposals. See http://mingus.as.arizona.edu/~bjw/propnumber/
If I don't get an AAS Special Prize for Procrastination for this, it just shows the system is unfair.