Документ взят из кэша поисковой машины. Адрес оригинального документа : http://www.stsci.edu/institute/org/ins/files/Cycle13PhaseII Дата изменения: Fri May 28 17:30:14 2004 Дата индексирования: Sun Dec 23 00:47:57 2007 Кодировка: Поисковые слова: http astrokuban.info astrokuban

Proposal Processing
INS Phase I reviews: · 3 out-sourced cal programs reviewed (Sparks, Gilliland, Bohlin) - coordinated with GSFC (Carpenter, Jeletic) - 1 accepted (STIS) -no issues


Proposal Processing
· GO programs (~45/950) Large + Treasury
- coordinated Phase I reviews with ODM - some changes to clarify review template - primarily scheduling issues (e.g. ToO activations, etc.) - INS/ODM overview (Duccio, Blades, Taylor, Workman, Williams, Blacker) - vetted TAC comments


Proposal Processing
· Director's Office review (SPD) · TAC review · INS provided remote support (worked well) - Saturday coverage not required · Prime Instrument assignments based on Phase I instrument usage (health+safety) · CS assignments made (10 ToO, 9 large, 1 Treas, 13 Moving Target, 1 Out-sourced Cal)


Proposal Processing
· Phase II review deadline (May 14) · cron jobs are running:
- weekly SI review status reports, Verification reports (weekly now) - Thinking of making ACS/SBC and STIS/MAMA secondary reports weekly? - Many PI questions? - Many program changes or verification issues?


Problems Encountered / Lessons Learned
1. Phase I proposal access for INS · accepted proposals made available too widely - problem corrected, lapse of 1/2 day - Tar files will be provided next year with phase Is selected by instrument group


Lessons Learned
2. DD Technical reviews ­ 1 missed - SPD failed to ask for technical review in haste to accept program for limited window-of-opportunity observations - Problem was identified + acknowledged - Process was reiterated to all involved (SPD, STIS team, CS Leads)


Lessons Learned
3. CS Assignments of multi-instrument props - 1 CS allowed; from prime instrument - Some cases (3) of overwriting the CS assignment - Was addressed in CS training - No software safeguard - Approach is to re-assign CS and email PI


Lessons Learned
4. Program Change Policy - PC letter to Change_Lead and Verification_Lead is misleading - CS should not authorize program changes - Policy was clarified in memo to CS Leads - Denise will file PR to fix letter for Cycle 14


Lessons Learned
5. Outsourced cal program lamp availability - GO program was re-assigned as CAL/STIS in APT - Program will occur in internal orbit counts in group reports, will have to be singled out in Director's review of cal program. - rare case


Upcoming Schedule
· Currently: PCs doing check-in and verification · ODM will identify early reviews (uncomplicated programs) · CS Leads will be notified · Deadlines from June 11 (2 wks) to July 16 (7 wks) · Final deadline for reviews: July 16 · Cal plan deadline: Aug 6 · Cal program approval: Aug 9


Documents
· Data Handbook (mid-end June)
- inputs are coming in; a few startup delays

· CP + Primer (early Oct) (Reid, Karakla)
- announcement letter to go out later this week? - both will require changes for 2-gyro mode

· Instrument Handbooks (early Oct)
- Rose (TS) working with INS to set schedules - will require pointers to 2-gyro mode info - Who in INS will review all instrument handbooks? (Sparks, Jenkner?)


Documents (TS group)
· 2-gyro-mode web page
- movie of visibility vs RA and DEC (5d steps) as function of time. TS will release site soon (Younger, Downes) - pull-down menu for plots for selected RA and DEC (e.g. # minutes visibility per orbit for both 2gyro and 3-gyro mode)

· New web page for institute web page usage stats. TS will release shortly.


CS Documents and Training
· User Support Procedures Manual updated for Cycle 13 · CS training provided 5/7/04 · Viewgraphs available at CS reference page: http://www.stsci.edu/ssd/CS


APT Items
· Next calibration release is 8/2/04 APT 13.4
- code freeze 6/28

· APT group requires software changes with a minimum 2 months advance of deadline · P2PI APT examples text: Shall we provide examples on INS web sites, proposal numbers, or nothing?