Author Archives:

This month we received 14 proposals and accepted 8 – 5 for GN and 3 for GS.   This was the last month for 21B.  All partner time usage will be reset to 0 for the start of 22A. As a … Continue reading →

This month, we received 17 proposals and accepted 7 for GN and 5 for GS. Proposals for the next cycle are due Nov 30.  Successful proposals will be active for the period Jan – Mar.  The 22A instrument schedule is … Continue reading →

This month, we received 19 proposals and accepted 5 for GN and 6 for GS. Proposals for the next cycle are due Oct 31.  Successful proposals will be active for the period Dec – Feb.  The 22A schedule is not yet available and likely will … Continue reading →

This month, we received 16 proposals and accepted 7 for GN and 4 for GS. Proposals for the next cycle are due Sep 30.  Successful proposals will be active for the period Nov – Jan.  Please  make sure to see the 21B telescope … Continue reading →

This month, we received 13 proposals and accepted 5 for GN and 4 for GS. Proposals for the next cycle are due Aug 31.  Successful proposals will be active for the period Oct – Dec.  Please see the 21B telescope schedules for instrument … Continue reading →

This month, we received 17 proposals and accepted 7 for GN and 4 for GS.  There were a few cases where proposals were not fully anonymized as per the DARP rules (please see the FT DARP rules for more information).  In … Continue reading →

Proposals for the next cycle are due June 30.  Successful proposals will be active for the period August – October.  Please see the 21B telescope schedules for instrument availabilities. As a reminder for reviewers, please be courteous in your reviews.  You … Continue reading →

We have just finished the April FT cycle review process.  We received a total of 20 proposals and were able to accept 5 at Gemini North and 5 at Gemini South.   It appeared that every proposal followed the DARP guidelines this … Continue reading →

As a reminder, this will be the 3rd month of DARP (Dual anonymous review).  This has so far been going well.  Almost everyone has used the correct DARP template. However, there have been cases where proposers have identified themselves within the text with statements … Continue reading →