How much time is available through this initiative? Is time available on both JWST or HST?
Approximately 200 – 500 hours of JWST time is guaranteed. If HST time is required for your science goals, then make that case in your submission. No HST time is currently committed, but will be made available if required.
Is it required for the JWST DDT time to be bounded to a single cycle or it can be spread across multiple cycles?
Multiple cycles are absolutely fine, suggest whatever you need to accomplish your science goals.
Are suggestions for use of parallel observations also welcome?
Yes, absolutely, you can include parallels in your submissions.
Is some fraction of this DD time set aside for Target if Opportunity observations?
In principle, yes. Nothing has been explicitly set aside for this, but this is one possible use of the time. How the time is ultimately used will be driven by the science.
When are you aiming to start this program?
We anticipate starting to implement this program in Cycle 2, which started on July 1, 2023 and runs through until June 30, 2024. We expect to have the program finalised early in 2024 so the program could start any time thereafter.
How often do you expect to repeat this kind of call?
STScI has convened 7 or 8 of these DD Working Groups in the past 10 years. This specific working group is a one-off and will not be repeated, but there will be other opportunities for other Working Groups and DD programs in future, in many science areas, including areas that overlap with this one.
What level of technical verification needs to be done for submission of white papers?
The submissions should focus primarily on the science proposed, to get the science in front of the WG. If relevant, you may wish to highlight some possible technical considerations, but you do not need to do an in-depth study of those in order to submit.
What happens after the WG receives the submissions?
The WG will review and discuss all of the submissions and synthesize all of that information into a final recommendation (or recommendations) to the Director. The Director will decide the scope of the final program. An implementation team will be established to execute the observations. There will also probably be an external Science Advisory Committee that may or may not include members of the current Working Group.
Will data from the program be public right away?
Yes, as with our other DD initiatives, this program will have zero Exclusive Access Period.
The survey address two components: a high-redshift DD program for transients, and policy ideas to enable transient science. What is most useful format white papers – should they address science or policy?
Either or both! Submissions may focus specifically on ideas for the DD program, or may focus on idea for how we might prioritise long-term science, the latter of which could include ideas of policy or process changes. Multiple submissions are welcome.
For the high-z transient program, are you envisioning a special proposal category?
The JWST DD program is already for high-z transient science. But a special proposal category could be a recommendation for the WG in how to enable long-term science.
Transients and Targets of Opportunity typically need trigger from another observatory. How would that work within this initiative?
You should make recommendations for how best to accomplish this in your submissions. Include what you would need to enable your science goals so the working group can make an informed assessment.
Are monitoring/variability of exoplanets excluded from this group's charter because of the other exoplanet working group?
All science cases are welcome. In particular, long-term monitoring programs may be more relevant for this working group.
How will this impact Cycle 3 programs? What should we keep in mind when preparing Cycle 3 programs, and how will Cycle 3 programs be reviewed in light of this initiative?
The Cycle 3 deadline is October 25, 2023. The proposal review will wrap up in early February 2024. The results of the working groups will wrap up around the same time as the proposal review, and will not be released until after the TAC has met.
This means that proposers will not know the outcome of this WG when preparing proposals, and the reviewers will not know the outcome when reviewing proposals. So Cycle 3 proposers should ask for what they need for their science goals, and reviewers will be instructed (as always!) to focus on the scientific merit of the proposal before them.
Cycle 3 selected GO programs will have priority over observations as part of the DD program.
How is this different from a regular GO call? Should I submit my ideas to the GO call, this WG, or both?
This is an opportunity to suggest something more ambitious or broader in scope than a regular GO call. It’s very likely that submitted GO programs in Cycle 3 and beyond will have synergy with the WG recommendations and vice versa, but the opportunities are largely distinct. Proposals that fit neatly into the boundaries of the regular GO call should be submitted as such. Proposals that don’t fit into the regular GO call are ideal for the WG.
Is it possible for the DD initiative to contribute time to a successful GO program?
No, these are separate initiatives.
Will there be a separate call for Archival support for projects enabled by this DD program, or should one ask for AR support at the regular deadlines?
Similar to previous DD initiatives, you should request AR support at regular deadlines.
