Guide to NuSTAR Cycle 8 Proposers
This NASA Research Announcement (NRA) solicits General Observer (GO) proposals for NuSTAR. Approximately 8.5 Ms of time will be available in the observing period June 1, 2022 - May 31, 2023, depending on the outcome of the NASA Astrophysics Senior Review process in 2022. It is anticipated that approximately $4M in funding will be made available to support the analysis of targets accepted at priority L, A, B or C. Priority C targets will be observed on a "best-effort" basis. Target proposals will be considered from both US and foreign PIs. NuSTAR data from approved GO program observations (including peer review approved ToO observations) have a nominal six-month exclusive-use period commencing at the time of receipt of the processed data by the observer. Only PIs affiliated with, and located at, a US institution will be eligible for funding for accepted NuSTAR proposals through NASA. As part of the NuSTAR Cycle 8 program, up to 1.5 Ms of XMM observing time, up to 300 ks of Swift observing time, and up to 250 ks of NICER observing time will be made available for coordinated observations with NuSTAR.
Proposals are due no later than January 28, 2022 4:30pm (EST).
Note that the last day to request assistance for pointings with potential stray light to NuSTAR SOC is January 26th, 2022.
PIs can ask for a one-year exclusive-use period. Such requests are expected to be infrequent and they will be granted on a case-by-case basis, requiring compelling justification in the expertise document, e.g., protecting the timely completion of a graduate student's thesis. PIs may also opt for the observation(s) to be placed directly into the NuSTAR public archive. Proposal merit is evaluated without regard to whether an exclusive-use period change is requested.
Reminder: Dual-Anonymous Review ProposalsThe phase-1 proposal review will be done in a dual-anonymous fashion.
Dual-anonymous peer review (DAPR) means that not only will the proposers not know who their reviewers are, but the reviewers will not know who the proposers are, at least not until after they have evaluated the scientific merit of the proposal. This implementation of DAPR will be based on that employed by STScI in the evaluation of Hubble Space Telescope observing proposals in recent cycles, in that the names of team members will ultimately be revealed to the peer review panel after all of the proposals have been reviewed for scientific merit. At that time the peer reviewers will have the opportunity to comment on the qualifications and capabilities of the team. The selection official will take into consideration the assessment of the team's qualifications when making the selection.
The primary motivation for reviewing proposals in a dual-anonymous fashion is to minimize unconscious bias in the review process. PIs should consult the Guidelines for Anonymous Proposals document in the "Other Documents" section of the NuSTAR solicitation on NSPIRES for instructions on writing proposals appropriate for a dual-anonymous reviews.
Additional details concerning Cycle 8 are given in the NuSTAR NRA. There will be a two-phase proposal process. Phase one is for observing proposals. Phase two is for budget proposals for successful phase one proposers who were awarded priority L, A or B targets. Only observing proposals will be accepted at this time.
Proposal submission is done via the HEASARC ARK/RPS on-line system. Hard-copy submission is not required. The following elements are required:
The following should not be submitted:
We provide below some key details for NuSTAR Cycle 8. For further details, consult the ARK/RPS help file.
After completing all fields for a proposal in ARK/RPS, use the Verify button to confirm that all required entries exist and conform to the expected format. Forms that pass verification can then be submitted. ARK/RPS allows PIs to continue to modify submitted proposals until the deadline, so there is no penalty for submitting the proposal form early.
The LaTeX, PostScript, and PDF buttons of ARK/RPS can be used to generate formatted versions of the proposal forms. Although it is often useful for the PIs to keep formatted copies of the forms for the record, it is not a required part of the proposal submission process.