A Phase 1 proposal contains three parts which are all submitted simultaneously from HSpot, but can be updated separately. These are:
The proposal 'cover sheet'
The scientific justification file
The observations as prepared with HSpot
The AORs and the cover sheet information are entered directly into HSpot while the scientific justification is a single PDF file which is generated with the HerschelFORM PDFLaTeX package and submitted as an attachment to the proposal, as explained in Section 6.3, “Proposal submission” below.
The AORs and the cover sheet information created in HSpot can be saved to your local disk as text files and then reloaded in HSpot for further modifications as many times as needed prior to submission.
The proposal cover sheet contains header-type information which is entered directly into HSpot by filling in the appropriate fields within the 'Proposal Submission Tool' window (under the 'Tools' menu in HSpot main window's toolbar).
Select a concise title for your proposal
Select the right programme from the pull-down menu ('OT1' for this AO).
Enter the total amount of time requested (in decimal hours) in the proposal as calculated by HSpot.
Enter, one by one, the names, affiliations and e-mail addresses of your co-I's.
Write a short abstract (no more than 2040 characters including blank spaces) describing the main features of your proposal.
Choose one (and only one) among the science categories offered as a choice in HSpot into which you feel your proposal fits better from the broad Extragalactic, Galactic, or Solar System headings. This information will be used to distribute proposals to the panels for the review.
Add any other text which you may consider convenient to be placed in the cover sheet (otherwise leave it blank).
The 'scientific justification' part of the proposal must be contained in a separate PDF file which is ingested in HSpot as an additional input to the 'Proposal Submission Tool' window above described.
The PDF file must be generated using the HerschelFORM PDFLaTeX style macros following pre-defined templates provided by the HSC. There is one for 'normal' proposals and another one for 'large' proposals, as defined in Chapter 5, 'Large' and 'Normal' Programmes. The class and style files, the template files themselves and a Users' Manual containing all the information required to fill the templates and generate the corresponding PDF files are all made available as part of the HerschelFORM PDFLaTeX package at the HSC web pages.
There is a strict limit in the number of pages allocated for each individual section of the proposal, depending on the proposal class ('normal' or 'large'; see below). Proposals requesting joint Herschel/XMM-Newton observations will need to add the scientific case which explains the need for coordinated observations. Please note that the text entered under a given section exceeding these page limits will not be visible in the output PDF file. Note as well that the maximum size of the resulting pdf file is 5 Mb (including figures). Any colour figure in the proposal should be interpretable even if printed with a black and white printer. The proposal contents and page limits (including figures and tables) are as follows:
Science rationale (max 4 pages for 'large' proposals'; 3 pages for 'normal' proposals)
Scientific goals. Proposals must indicate here the main science goals to be achieved and an explanation of why they cannot be met using other facilities or methods. A description of the relevance of the proposed science to astronomy should be given indicating why the Herschel capabilities are unique in advancing knowledge in the proposed area of research.
Science exploitation plan. This section should contain a brief description of the plans to exploit the data from the scientific point of view in the first year after the observations have been made. The science plan should be readily comprehensible to broad-based scientists.
Relation to observations with other facilities. If applicable, it should be outlined here how the proposed Herschel observations will be complemented by other data (past, present or future - Herschel or other facility), whether such other data are essential for the analysis and interpretation and how the Herschel observations may be followed up. Also details of any linked proposals with other observatories should be mentioned. In particular, the need for coordinated observations with XMM-Newton should be justified here. Joint Herschel/XMM-Newton proposals must include here a detailed description of the observations to be performed with XMM-Newton, indicating clearly the observing strategy and number of seconds requested.
Technical implementation (max 1 page)
Observing strategy. A detailed justification should be given here of the specific observing modes proposed and of the choice of observing parameters made. Arguments should be given here to support the overall observing strategy proposed. Information should be provided about criteria used for target selection, including quantitative descriptions of the expected target flux densities or surface brightness at the relevant wavelengths, required sensitivity, wavelength and coverage strategy (including redundancies).
Observing time requirements. The total amount of time requested in the proposal should be justified here. The numbers provided should be based on the resource estimates calculated by HSpot. For Herschel OT1 proposals the full set of AORs must be submitted in Phase 1. The calculations presented should also demonstrate, if applicable, that the proposers have checked the background and confusion noise expected as derived from the available estimators, as well as the maximum expected flux densities or surface brightness in the fields of view or spectral apertures to be used.
Other special requirements or constraints. Time constraints, concatenations, avoidance angles for chopper orientation, specific position angles for maps, or any other special requirement or constraint entered through HSpot should be justified here. In general, constraints are detrimental to overall mission planning efficiency. The lower efficiency is hidden in the longer average slewing times between observations. As already mentioned in Section 4.7.2, “Spacecraft 'slewing' overhead charges and time constrained observations”, time constrained observations are charged for 10 minutes slew overhead instead of the 3 minutes applicable to non-constrained observations. The overheads applicable to every constrained observation entered through HSpot are automatically charged following the rules defined in Section 4.7.2, “Spacecraft 'slewing' overhead charges and time constrained observations”).
Duplication analysis. Indicate clearly here the result of your duplication checks using HROST. If there are potential duplicate observations in the Reserved Observations List please justify here why your proposed observations should not be considered a duplication, or, alternatively, why duplicated observations are requested (e.g. to search for variability).
Data processing plans and archival value (max 1 page)
Data processing and analysis plan: for product generation, validation and delivery. The resources available to the proposers team on this area should be described here. The nature and scope of the data products and software tools will vary from one proposal to another, depending on the nature of the programme. It will be up to the applicants to specify in detail what they propose to provide and the benefits to the community.
Product generation methods. In developing software for their own data-analysis purposes, proposers teams are likely to employ a variety of coding languages, styles, levels of commenting and documentation, and platforms. It is required to provide clear documentation explaining and describing the assumptions, parameters, and algorithmic steps implemented in such a way that someone else could reproduce the results, detailed enough that the results can be independently verified. Use of HIPE, the Herschel specific data processing and interactive analysis software is encouraged in order to make distribution and usage simple to other astronomers.
Archival value (for 'large' proposals only). As emphasised in the concept definition of 'large' proposals, the observational data are expected to have a long-lasting archival value. This means that the proposers will be expected to focus on certain aspects of the data and science case during the proprietary period, leaving other aspects for future exploitation open to the community. The baseline plans for data exploitation by the consortium are outlined in an earlier section. Here the envisaged archival value and long term benefits of the data set should be described. This should be based not only on the immediate data products which the proposers are expected to provide at the end of the proprietary period, but on the final 'mature' products that are foreseen to be available eventually via subsequent more sophisticated data-processing and calibration.
Management and Outreach plan (max 1 page)
Team resources and management plan. This section should include an explanation of the strengths and track records of the team that make it appropriate for the project. It should contain a summary of staff and other resources that will be committed to the programme. Also the proposal should contain the team management and/or organisational structure and a brief summary of the project schedule and management plan.
Outreach activities. This section should outline the team's plans on the publication and dissemination of the science results obtained with Herschel to a wider audience than the Herschel community itself. In particular, any systematic efforts planned on the area of sharing the new scientific knowledge provided by Herschel with the general public through outreach activities will be considered as a bonus in the evaluation process.
The following two sections are also required but not subject to page limitations.
List of team members with associated roles
A list containing names, affiliation, status (i.e. professor, postdoc, student or else) and relevant qualifications (not full CVs!) of all investigators collaborating in the proposal. Particular emphasis should be made on the roles they are going to play in the work to be done, in connection with the management plan presented in the previous section. Here a list can also be given containing a small number of major publications made by the team members related to the proposed research.
Observations summary
A few lines of text containing a high level, schematic description of the proposal observations indicating the kind of data that will be collected including the identification of sub-proposals (if such constituents can easily be identified). The text must be accompanied by a small summary table following the template provided in the HerschelFORM package.
These are the Astronomical Observation Requests (AORs) as prepared with HSpot, containing full details about the observing parameters which completely defines the way in which a given observation will be executed.
The submitted AORs should be the final ones you expect to have scheduled if the proposal is successful. For OT1 proposals the entire set of AORs must be submitted already in Phase 1. No additional AORs, nor changes of targets or observing modes will be allowed in Phase 2, with the exception of those explicitly mentioned as backup targets/strategies in the original proposal. Otherwise, only the observation parameters of AORs already submitted in Phase 1 can be edited in Phase 2, if this is considered necessary by the proposer. Other changes will only be allowed if they have been recommended by the HOTAC, or by the HSC for technical reasons.