Also on Trial: Success of
Accepted Programs
Once selected, we need to observe the accepted programs. As one (otherwise positive) first cycle participant commented,
”The verdict is out until we see whether the
queue actually collects most of the data for
the approved Fast Turnaround programs.”
Indeed, we have to (sadly) report that the
first scheduled FT observing block (March
9-11) is being wiped out, as this is written,
by a blizzard so severe that even the roadclearing crew can’t reach the summit of
Maunakea. FT observations remain valid for
three months, but still it’s unfortunate to
have lost the first block to winter weather.
At this point, you might be asking why we
don’t simply merge the FT programs with the
regular queue, instead of reserving distinct
nights. There are several reasons for this.
First, unpredictable weather losses mean
that observations pile up at certain right
ascensions as the semester progresses. To
avoid PIs writing proposals for regions of the
sky that already have too many queue programs to complete, we would have to track
this and make the information available for
FT PIs every month. Not only do we not have
appropriate tools to do that, but our data
would always be out of date by the time the
proposals were accepted.
Second, separating queue and FT programs
means that their relative priorities are clear.
A highly-ranked FT program is not competing against an already-started Band 1 queue
program, and vice versa.
Third, we value the transparency the present system provides. We can very clearly
state what happened to the FT programs
during their observing nights, rather than
having them ”disappear” into hundreds of
hours of other programs. We may have to
January 2016
rethink this approach, as we see how things
progress, but for now we’ll simply monitor
and evaluate.
Monitoring the FT program will be an important part of our team’s work. We’ll be
gathering statistics, soliciting user feedback,
and also preparing reports for the oversight
committee’s meetings. Once we have sufficient data for a reliable evaluation, we (in
conjunction with the oversight committees)
will make a decision about the program’s future — should it continue in similar or modified form? Be scaled up and expanded to
Gemini South? Or be stopped entirely?
Figure 2.
Histogram of proposal
scores, separated by
reviewers’ self-declared
level of knowledge of
the subject area.
We will be sure to share our evaluation and
assessment with our user communities.
Meanwhile, regular updates can be found
on the FT blog.
Rachel Mason is an associate astronomer at
Gemini North. She can be reached at:
[email protected]
2015 Year in Review
GeminiFocus
53