********************************************************************************
             |                                            |
             |              CCC  XX   XX    OOO           |
Chandra      |             CC     XX XX    OO OO          | CXC
Electronic   |            CC       XXX    OO   OO         | Number 56
Bulletin     |             CC     XX XX    OO OO          | November
             |              CCC  XX   XX    OOO           | 2006
             |                                            |
********************************************************************************
Welcome to the Chandra X-ray Center's Electronic News Bulletin Number 56.

CXC Web site: cxc.harvard.edu

If you would like to unsubscribe from this alias, simply reply to this message
to let us know.

Please use this website to update your address or email:
 http://cxc.harvard.edu/cdo/udb/userdat.html
	      

Contents:

1.   Extremely Large Projects



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Item 1.  Extremely Large Projects: Chandra ELP
=============================================


SUMMARY

Part 1 of this message describes the parameters of a possible program
for Extremely Large Projects which we are considering for Chandra. Once
every three years, one such program ranging from 3 to 5Ms exposure
time could be selected if we establish the ELP program.

Part 2 of this message describes a call for brief white papers which
will be used to assess the potential scientific merit of a Chandra ELP
program. The deadline for submission of these white papers is February
1, 2007.


Part 1 - Parameters for Chandra ELP

1. We are contemplating the establishment of Extremely Large Projects
(ELP) for Chandra. The purpose of such a category would be to
enable science programs which can not be accomplished within time
allocations currently available for Guest Observer, Large, and Very
Large Projects (GO, LP, and VLP).

2. If ELP are established, we envision a solicitation once every 3 years,
with 5Ms for ELP allocated from the 6Ms which would otherwise have
been available for LP and VLP in that year/cycle. The remaining 1 Ms
would be allocated for a reduced LP program for that year. If we
proceed with ELP, we anticipate including them for the first time in
the Call for Proposals (CfP) for Cycle 10 to be released in Dec 2007.
Subsequent ELP opportunities would be placed at 3 year intervals.

Proposals for ELP would be solicited with no restriction or
pre-selection of science topics. The review process would be embedded
within the Chandra Peer Review with nominally 2 topical panels
reviewing each ELP (and LP in the same cycle) and forwarding their
recommendations to the Big Project Panel (BPP) for final evaluation
and ranking of ELP. For cycles involving ELP, we intend to involve
additional relevant expertise by increasing the number of "pundits" on
the BPP. The CXC Director remains the formal selection official for
ELP as well as other Chandra proposals.

Current VLP programs can request up to the 3Ms, so ELPs would cover
the range from 3 to 5Ms, with at most 1 selected per review
(once every 3 years). 5Ms represents approximately 3 months of
Chandra observing time, so the amount of time contemplated for ELP
is quite substantial. The plan to solicit, review, and potentially
select 1 ELP once every 3 years was structured so as to limit the impact
on the ongoing LP and VLP programs and to have no impact at all on GO
proposals. Given the exposure time for an ELP, the scheduling constraints
associated with Chandra, and other programmatic considerations,
we intend to carry out approved ELP over a nominal period of up to 2
years, compared to the nominal 1 year for other categories of Chandra
programs.

3. If ELP are established, the Peer Review process through the BPP
would be permitted to recommend the rejection of all proposals
if in their judgment none merited the allocation of this large block
of Chandra time. They could also recommend reduction in time from
that requested if based on a sound scientific argument. However, the
general intent would be for them to recommend implementation of 1 ELP and,
if merited, for the full time requested. The instructions to the Peer Review
would reflect this intent. While a modest amount of any unallocated
ELP time might be returned to the GO and/or LP pool for that cycle, it
is unlikely that much time would be reallocated in such a manner
should no ELP be selected. The CXC will be charged with establishing
a process for time allocations which will ensure continuity in the Chandra
observing program whether or not an ELP is selected.

4. Teams proposing for ELP would be required to provide a modest
management plan as part of their proposal. They would also be expected
to identify special data products or other appropriate deliverables as
part of their proposal, and possibly a preliminary cost estimate.
Funding for ELP would be drawn from the funds nominally available for
VLP plus 2/3 of the LP for a given cycle. Based on recent years,
this would provide ~$1.5M to support a selected ELP. Some
fraction of this funding (perhaps 1/2 to 2/3) would be the nominal
"fair share" for the successful proposing team with the actual
allocation to be decided as part of the Chandra stage 2 cost review
process. The remaining funds would be available to investigators
chosen from a separate competitive review of proposals to exploit the
data for different or complementary science objectives, to apply
novel analysis methods, to obtain corollary or ancillary data including
those at other wavelengths, and to provide theoretical expertise in
interpreting the observations. This separate competition would take
place after the successful ELP is announced and  before the
observations actually begin.

At present Chandra VLP do not carry proprietary rights and the data
are released as they are acquired, processed, and certified. As a
baseline we anticipate handling the ELP data in a similar way, but we
invite feedback from those potentially interested in proposing for ELP
as part of the process described below.

5. The mechanics and guidelines for possible Chandra ELP have been
discussed by the Chandra X-ray Center, the Marshall Space Flight
Center Project Scientist, and the Chandra Users Committee (CUC). The
consensus is that the merits of such a program should be further
evaluated before it is initiated. A process to carry out such an
assessment is described below and formally established via this
communication.


Part 2 - Call for Chandra ELP White Papers

        PLEASE READ AND PLEASE RESPOND IF INTERESTED IN ELPS

1. We solicit brief white papers from the community of maximum length 3
pages describing possible science projects which they might carry out
under a Chandra ELP. The white papers should summarize the anticipated
science objectives conveying a sense of why these are of great import and
worthy of 3-5Ms of Chandra observing time. The white papers should explain
why an ELP is needed to accomplish these objectives (explaining why they
can not be achieved under existing GO/LP/VLP programs). Finally the
white paper should provide a preliminary assessment of feasibility -
via calculations or simulations showing that the required counts,
spatial or spectral resolution, signal to noise, or other appropriate
parameters can be acquired.

The white papers should assume that the readers will be
knowledgeable and should not devote time or space to a lengthy
introduction, background, or other unnecessary information. The purpose
of these white papers is to provide examples of science so compelling
that the establishment of Chandra ELP is warranted. If you are
aware of any special observing constraints which are required for your
conceptual program (along the lines of constraints already applied
to Chandra GO/LP/VLP) please make note of these in your white paper.
As part of your white paper you may make a case (briefly) for why there
should be a period of proprietary time for a successful ELP proposing
team (up to the nominal 12 months accorded to GO programs). You may
also state that you support the current baseline of making such
large data sets public as they are acquired. These inputs will help
us to decide whether we should have a proprietary period for ELP data
(with a similar period then being established for VLP as well).

In principle (and for fairness) if you are opposed to the establishment
of Chandra ELP, you may also submit a white paper indicating the
science which you envision being adversely impacted by an ELP program.


2. THESE WHITE PAPERS ARE NOT PROPOSALS AND SHOULD NOT BE CONFUSED WITH
CYCLE 9 CHANDRA PROPOSALS. THIS CALL FOR WHITE PAPERS IS ISSUED SEVERAL
WEEKS BEFORE THE CYCLE 9 CfP. WHITE PAPERS ARE DUE BY FEBRUARY 1, 2007
WHILE CYCLE 9 PROPOSALS ARE DUE MARCH 15, 2007.


3. These white papers are also not the equivalent of letters of
intent. You are not required to submit a white paper in order to be
eligible to propose an ELP if the program is eventually established.
We do encourage you in the strongest possible way to submit a white
paper with your best ideas if you are interested in there being a
Chandra ELP program. Our decision on whether or not to establish the
ELP will be based primarily on our assessment of the merit of the
science described in these white papers.

We have considered a range of options for review of these white papers.
On the one hand extensive participation by the community at large would
provide wide-ranging expertise for this assessment. On the other hand,
there were concerns that ideas presented in the white papers constitute
intellectual property meriting strong assurances of confidentiality,
so as to encourage people to submit their best ideas for ELP science
in what is still a pre-proposal phase. Ultimately we decided that the
white papers would be read by a small number of reviewers who would
agree in advance not to propose as PI or Co-I for any Cycle 10
ELP. Moreover, the starting position is that the reviewers will come
from a small core of Chandra science leaders - CXC Director
Harvey Tananbaum, MSFC Project Scientist Martin Weisskopf, and
CXC Assistant Director Belinda Wilkes. A few additional reviewers
may be asked to assist in this process but possibly only after the
white papers are received. The names of any other reviewers will
also be publicly released, and they too will be required to opt out
of any Cycle 10 ELP proposals.

Following review of the white papers, we will formulate a recommendation
about ELP and a formal set of guidelines if the intent is to proceed
with the program. These will be posted, reviewed with the CUC, and
eventually submitted to NASA for formal concurrence to proceed.


4. Questions about this notification should be addressed to Harvey
Tananbaum (ht@cfa.harvard.edu) with cc's to Martin Weisskopf
(martin@smoker.msfc.nasa.gov) and Belinda Wilkes (belinda@cfa.harvard.edu).

White papers can be submitted in the format of choice by those
responding (pdf seeming to be a standard for many such submissions
these days). REMEMBER: WHITE PAPERS ARE DUE FEBRUARY 1, 2007.

Please submit your white paper via e-mail to:
Harvey Tananbaum (ht@cfa.harvard.edu) with cc's to Belinda Wilkes
(belinda@cfa.harvard.edu) and Martin Weisskopf
(martin@smoker.msfc.nasa.gov).

Either Harvey or Belinda will acknowledge receipt of your submission
via e-mail within 3 days. If you do not receive an acknowledgment
please inform us via e-mail.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------



This Electronic Bulletin is used for the dissemination of important
announcements and information about the Chandra X-Ray Observatory to members
of the community. If you wish to unsubscribe from the list, simply reply to
this email to let us know.