From bwilkes@head.cfa.harvard.edu Wed Jul 21 21:28:08 2004 From: bwilkes@head.cfa.harvard.edu Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2004 16:27:53 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: batman.cfa.harvard.edu: dmh set sender to bwilkes@head-cfa.harvard.edu using -r To: Mark.Birkinshaw@bristol.ac.uk Subject: Chandra Cycle 6 Proposal 06700647 Cc: grants@cfa.harvard.edu X-Spam-Score: 0.5 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.61 (1.212.2.1-2003-12-09-exp) on sol.star.bris.ac.uk X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,NO_REAL_NAME, SUBJ_HAS_UNIQ_ID autolearn=no version=2.61 Content-Length: 6565 Center for Astrophysics Mailstop 4 60 Garden Street Cambridge, MA 02138 Prof Mark Birkinshaw UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL HH Wills Physics Laboratory Tyndall Avenue Bristol,UK BS8 1TL Re: Proposal 06700647 Dear Dr. Birkinshaw, We have now completed the scientific and technical evaluation of proposals received in response to the CXC Call For Proposals, released 15 December 2003, for participation in the Chandra Cycle 6 General Observer Program. I regret to inform you that your proposal, entitled "The multi-faceted X-ray activity of a complete sample of low-redshift galaxies", has not been recommended for inclusion in the Chandra observing program. CXC received 789 proposals in response to this announcement, and the available observing time will only allow us to accept 218 of them. A copy of the Stage 1 science peer review panel's evaluation is enclosed for your information. I hope you will find these comments helpful in formulating a future proposal to the Chandra General Observer program. The numerical grade assigned is indicative of the relative rank of your proposal among other proposals within the panel that reviewed it. No proposal with a grade below 3.50 was recommended for inclusion in the Chandra observing program. There were, however, cases where two or more highly-ranked proposals asked for the same target, instrument, and time. The panels generally chose the highest ranked of these, leaving the other proposal(s) with no time. There were also strict limits for rapid-response Targets of Opportunity, for constrained targets, and for Large/Very-Large Projects. Some proposals could not be accepted because of these limits. If you have any questions concerning the evaluation of your proposal or the overall review process, you may contact Belinda Wilkes at belinda@cfa.harvard.edu or 617 495 7268. I appreciate your interest in the Chandra mission and encourage you to participate in future Chandra observing opportunities. Sincerely, Harvey Tananbaum Chandra X-ray Center Director Review: Chandra Final Review Form for 06700647 Proposal Number: 06700647 Subject Category: ACTIVE GALAXIES AND QUASARS Joint: HST P.I. Name: Prof Mark Birkinshaw Proposal Title: The multi-faceted X-ray activity of a complete sample of low-redshift galaxies _______________________________________________________________________________ Review Report: Below Avg Tops Good Average or Problem Importance of Science [x] [ ] [ ] [ ] Proposal Science justification [ ] [x] [ ] [ ] Feasibility [x] [ ] [ ] [ ] Use of Chandra capability [x] [ ] [ ] [ ] Clarity of proposal [ ] [x] [ ] [ ] Good proposal, but all targets assigned to higher ranked proposal [ ] Good proposal, but TOO/constrained observations are limited [ ] Comments: This proposal for deep data of the low-redshift part of the 3C radio sample is similar in scope and legacy value to its sister proposal 6700266 (dealing with high-redshift 3C sources). Given the importance of the 3C sample, a deep Chandra legacy survey of the 3C sources will be among the essential observations during the Chandra lifetime that will never again be possible. The observation of low-power FRII sources in the present proposal will help in the interpretation of Chandra observations of similar sources at higher redshift, which cannot be studied in as much detail. More importantly, the study of jet and core properties of such low-power sources with a variety of nuclear emission-line properties (including both high- and low-ionisation objects) will provide important constraints for the study of accretion physics, though this legacy aspect was not mentioned by the proposers. The most important scientific aims given by the proposers are the study of jets, hot spots, and interactions between radio lobes and the environment. This proposal also requests multiwavelength HST imaging, which is crucial for the analysis: the SED of synchrotron sources is the only handle on determining the underlying particle energy distribution, i.e., the only link to models. HST resolution is essential: the information of low-resolution Chandra data can be drastically influenced by the availabililty of higher-resolution radio and optical data. HST imaging is therefore an important part of the proposal. The resulting data will have lasting impact in several fields. The proposers are highly qualified to conduct the described scientific analysis and publish in a timely manner. The 3c catalog is clearly an important sample as demonstrated by the HST observations. But CXO observations would be of much more limited usefulness than the HST data. This is mostly of interest for the study of jets. The proposal does not address the question of how many jets with CXO observations are enough. Also 50% of this sample has already been observed but there is no discussion of what has come out of them and what addition questions will be answered if the 2nd half of the objects are observed. There were three higher ranked large proposals in one reviewing panel. If accepted, enter specific recommendations concerning targets, time, observing conditions: One panel recommended cutting this proposal to the 7 lowest redshift targets to make it affordable under the assumption that it will be resubmitted for the rest of the sample in future cycles. Specify reason why the grade was not higher. Optional if accepted. The only problem the panel had was that the proposal requests standard proprietary rights in spite of a substantial investment of observing time for the brightest sample of radio sources (hence easily generating target conflicts) with immediate legacy value, which the proposers stress. The proposal would definitely have been received more favourably with a waiver of the proprietary period. A minority of the panel felt that the sample size and selection had not been motivated well enough. Incompleteness from a smaller subset might not be severe for the science aims given, though legacy value is maximized by completeness. Degree of effort required to achieve analysis goals (for Phase 2 review): Easy [ x ] Average [ ] Above-average [ ] Grade: 3.64