Proposal Process and Due Dates
Observing time on the McDonald Observatory telescopes, including UT Austin time on the Hobby-Eberly Telescope (HET), is allocated based on a peer reviewed proposal process. Proposals are solicited three times per year. Details specific to each trimester will be emailed to normal users about two weeks prior to the deadline.
Proposal due dates for HET and the telescopes on Mt. Locke are staggered by one week.
Mt. Locke | HET | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Trimester 1 | (Dec-March) | September 30 | October 7 | |||
Trimester 2 | (Apr-July) | January 31 | February 7 | |||
Trimester 3 | (Aug-Nov) | May 31 | June 7 |
If any of these dates occur on a weekend or University holiday, the proposals are due on the next business day at 5 p.m. central time.
The current Call for Proposals (CfP) provides details of available instruments, observing time (on the HET) and other constraints. Please make sure that you are referring to the appropriate version of the CfP as these constraints and other rules change from trimester to trimester.
NOTE: We acknowledge all proposals via email within a few days of the deadline. If you do not receive this acknowledgment, please email bgandersson@austin.utexas.edu and inquire.
Proposal Forms
Proposals for the telescopes on Mt. Locke are accepted for the 2.7 m, 2.1 m and 0.8 m telescopes. Each applicant provides a scientific proposal justifying the telescope time and providing information necessary to schedule the telescope (requested dates, lunar phase, instrument, etc). Submissions are only accepted during the three week period preceding each trimester due date.
Instructions and submission requirements - Accounts on this system are user assignable.
Hobby-eberly Telescope proposals
Accounts on the system are user-assignable. Proposers for the UT share of the HET must have a UT Austin Principal Investigator.
Important Information
The Principal Investigator is responsible for successful accomplishment of the observing. The institutional affiliation of the PI determines whether the telescope time is counted as UT Austin or as Director's discretionary time.
Evaluation Criteria for Telescope Time
A Telescope Allocation Committee (TAC) reviews the proposals and ranks them based on the importance of the science, the appropriateness of the instrumentation to the task, and the productivity of the PI. Sponsorship of the observing time does not enter into the ranking process. TAC members create their reviews and grades independently and do not review their own, or their close associates' proposals.
Telescope Allocation Committee Policy
Evaluation Criteria for McDonald Telescope Time
Advice for Writing an Effective Proposal
Student-led Proposals
McDonald Observatory encourages student-led research on its telescopes. The level of access and time we are able to provide is unique among observatories of our size, and is a vital part of how we train the next generation of astronomers. That said, getting time (especially on the Hobby-Eberly Telescope) is still a competitive process.
If this is your first time requesting observing time, please use the guidelines below to increase your chances of success.
Ensure Your Proposal Is Realistic
Proposals from students, like anyone else, should be realistic. Large requests are okay – and sometimes encouraged – but they must be justified.
If you’re unsure if your proposal would be considered realistic:
- First, consult your Ph.D. committee
- You may also discuss it with McDonald Observatory’s Director and/or Assistant Director
Make a Convincing, Clear Argument
The McDonald Observatory Telescope Acquisition Committee (TAC) is aware of the challenges of writing your first proposal(s) and proactively allows for this in its reviews. However, that does not change the fact that it is the proposer’s responsibility to write a good, readable, and convincing proposal.
Keep these guidelines in mind when writing your proposal:
- Make a clear, scientific justification for the work. That the observations will contribute to a thesis is not, in itself, enough.
- Ensure your proposal can be read and understood by someone who isn’t an expert in the topic. The TAC are all astronomers, but may not be working in your sub-field.
- Define concepts that may not be commonly known, and spell out abbreviations when first used.
- References should support your statements, but the TAC is not supposed to HAVE to read them to understand your proposal.
- Demonstrate that you have a clear plan and can execute on it. This includes:
- A list of targets
- A contingency plan if those targets aren’t available
- Information on how you’ll successfully process the data
- Show how your proposal builds on scientific knowledge, rather than replicating it.
- If relevant, explain why the McDonald Observatory facilities are uniquely qualified for the work.
Additional Resources that we found particularly useful and clear:
- How to write a good proposal, by Jason Wright at U. Penn
- How the overall proposal process works, by Jörn Wilms at Erlangen in Germany
Advice from Other Observatories
Below are excerpts from some other observatories’ guides on writing effective proposals. As you read them, you will notice the general agreement among the different guideline statements. These recurring themes and recommendations that will help you write successful proposals to McDonald Observatory – or anywhere else.
From the National Optical Astronomy Observatory (NOAO)
- Make a clear scientific justification
- Demonstrate that there is a plan for how to obtain answers to your questions
- Explain how your proposal is different from other work in the field
Excerpt:
Historically, the [NOAO] TAC has focused on a few major areas of concern, virtually independent of changes in committee membership. The first and foremost of these is, of course, scientific merit. Because the committee is rather small and must cover a wide range of astrophysical expertise, it is essential that proposals make very clear just what scientific questions will be addressed by the proposed observations. The committee often wishes to see these goals placed in a larger context; i.e., how these questions relate to major unresolved astrophysical questions. Vague generalities such as "increasing our understanding" is not sufficient; the committee looks for specific questions that will be unambiguously addressed by the observations.
Another issue of concern is the description of a clear path from the taking of the data through the reduction and analysis that will permit answers to be obtained. Other questions that often arise are whether or not similar programs have been done or are being done elsewhere, and if previous observing programs have resulted in the data being published in a timely manner.
From the NASA/Keck Observatory
NASA/KECK
Key takeaways:
- Make a clear scientific justification
- Demonstrate that your goals can be attained in the time requested
- Proposals should be thorough, specific, and well thought out
- Someone who isn’t a specialist in the topic should be able to understand the proposal
Excerpt:
The scientific case for observing time should establish two things:
- It should outline the scientific problem(s) or question(s) toward whose solution the observations are requested, and place these questions in the larger scientific context.
- It should show how the measurements requested will be used to illuminate these questions or problems.
The technical case should demonstrate that the proposed measurements are technically feasible, given the performance of the proposed instrument(s), in the time requested. The number of target objects required should be justified.
Applications must include complete lists of the objects to be observed, their magnitudes and their approximate equatorial coordinates (or, in cases of surveys, a clear description of the selection criteria AND a limited list of example targets). Applications without such lists will be rejected.
Specific points which must be addressed:
- How the proposed observations relate to the applicant’s previous work, and to other work in the field.
- Why the Keck Observatory and its site on Mauna Kea, are particularly important or even essential for the proposed observations.
- The spatial, spectral and temporal range and resolution required.
- Estimates of the signal-to-noise required and expected, and justification for the number of nights requested for the entire program.
- If new or unusual techniques are to be used, make clear how observations and calibrations will be obtained.
- Brief description of the status of large telescope time that has been awarded during the past 2 years, such as progress with data reduction and publications.
- Any other information which may assist the TAC in evaluating the scientific merits of the proposal and its suitability for the Keck Telescopes.
The presentation should be aimed at someone who is not a specialist in the area of astronomy under study. A specific scientific case, rather than a broad general one, is usually more successful.
From the European Southern Observatories (ESO)
Key takeaways:
- Ensure your proposal can be read and understood quickly
- Be specific and realistic about your goals
- Demonstrate that you’re capable of processing the data
- Proposals should be well thought out, including targets and contingency plans
Excerpt:
The members of the panels must make their decisions in a limited amount of time and based on a limited amount of information. It is incumbent on the proposer to provide the panel with as much relevant information as possible, in a form which can be digested rapidly. Write clearly and concisely. Check that the order of the text follows the logic of the proposal. Make sparing use of emphasis, bold face, and exclamation marks.
A possible structure of an observing proposal is as follows. The first few sentences sketch the general area in which the proposal belongs, and the important questions of current research in this area. As the panel members will be knowledgeable in this area, this sketch can be very brief, and should serve mainly to indicate to the panel the general interest of the proposer in his/her field. For example, if you write a proposal on M dwarfs, X-ray binaries, or an S0 galaxy, you may safely assume that the panel members know what these are, but you should indicate what you think are the important questions that current research on M dwarfs, X-ray binaries, or S0 galaxies tries to answer.
The second part of the proposal zooms in on the specific subject of the proposed observations. Which specific question do you want to tackle with your proposal? The third part gives a brief non-technical description of the proposed observations (the technical part is addressed later) and explains how these observations answer the goal of the proposal. It is important here to be both specific and realistic. Thus, to state that a measurement of the B-V color of the target will determine the amount of dark matter in the Universe will not impress the panel unless you are able to specify through which steps you can do this. It is this part of the proposal which will to a large extent determine your standing with the panel. A realistic assessment of the expected results will show the panel that your scientific judgment is sound; an exaggerated claim will not.
If the method of analysis and/or interpretation has been described in an article, you may limit yourself to a brief outline, and provide a reference for the full detail. If the article only exists as a preprint, provide a web site or an ftp address where the preprint in question can be obtained. The panel should be provided with enough information to assess how reliable your proposed methods are.
Points of interest
When writing a proposal, it is advisable to keep in mind the following points.
- Who will be interested in your results?
- Maybe only the proposer... but maybe all astronomers working on the same object, on the same class of objects, and indeed maybe many astronomers in different fields of interest. It is useful if you assess this in the proposal. The wider the possible interest in your results, the higher the ranking of your proposal.
- Do you have theoretical backup?
- If so, the value of your proposal is enhanced. For example, if your proposal aims to determine the element abundances in an M dwarf or an S0 galaxy, it will be useful if you can show that you have the ability to obtain theoretical line strengths as a function of abundance. If you wish to determine the amount of dark matter in a cluster of galaxies, it helps if you can show that you have simulations which indicate that the proposed data will suffice to do this.
- Are you capable of handling the data?
- An indication of this is always useful; it is mandatory if the data analysis is complicated and not straightforward. The best way to show that you can do the job is to refer to your track record in the form of earlier publications. If this doesn't exist, because you are embarking on a new field, you may wish to propose a pilot study first so as to be able to show your mettle.
- Statistics
- You should show awareness of the statistical aspects of your proposed observations. For example, if ten similar systems have been observed, and you propose to observe number eleven, you must assess how much can be learned from the one new system that hasn't been learned yet from the previous ten. If a hundred systems have been observed, and you propose to observe ten more, you cannot claim that the statistics will be improved dramatically, unless you show that the proposed targets cover a range of parameters that is not well covered by the earlier observations.
- Target selection
- It is useful to explain why you selected your specific target(s). For example, if you wish to determine the amount of dark matter in the galaxy cluster Abell A2218, explain why this cluster is a better target than other clusters. Possible answers to explore include
- the galaxies in this cluster are bright and can be observed in relatively short exposures
- many velocities have been measured already, to which your data can be usefully added
- simulations show that the galaxies in this cluster are well distributed to determine the dark matter distribution
- the amount of dark matter has already been determined with another method, to which our results can be compared usefully.
- It is useful to explain why you selected your specific target(s). For example, if you wish to determine the amount of dark matter in the galaxy cluster Abell A2218, explain why this cluster is a better target than other clusters. Possible answers to explore include