Chandra X-ray Observatory: Updates and Action Responses

1. DDT Summary: Oct 2015-Sept 2016 Allocation per cycle: 700 ks Carry-forward (from Cycles 13-16): 894 ks CUC: 27 Sept 2016 Director’s Report

2. Director’s Discretionary Time(most recent first) Slowest rotation (6.67 hr) magnetar known Paper and Press Release CUC: 27 Sept 2016 Director’s Report

3. Director’s Discretionary Time (cont) CUC: 27 Sept 2016 Director’s Report 5*5ks observations: monitor + ID source of TeV flare

4. NASA Senior Review 2016 Proposal: submitted in January 2016: “delta” - 20 page update, companion to SR2014 proposal Panel questions: received and addressed,~ week before review: >20 pages of responses Panel review: OCC, 22-24 March 2016 Program: 3 hours of presentations (core,MP,CSC), OCC tour, discussion and questions Panel report: very positive 6 (of 26) “findings” had associated action Responses to actions: delivered to NASA 29 Aug 2016 CUC: 27 Sept 2016 Director’s Report

5. CXC Response to SR2016 Actions F9: Transfer of Archive to HEASARC: The panel believes that a detailed plan for the transfer of the Chandra data archive to the NASA HEASARC is not warranted at this time but the project does need to look ahead and record their concepts for completing the archive. Response: The CXC is updating to the Chandra Project Data Management Plan (PDMP) that will provide sufficient detail to propose for transfer of the Chandra archive to HEASARC during the close-out period of the CXC extension proposal. Already in progress. F12: Release of Second Chandra Source Catalog: The continued development of the Chandra X-ray Source Catalog with future observations will provide the scientific community with a powerful tool for enhanced scientific return. Response: Production of the second release of the Chandra Source Catalog (CSC2) is in process and is expected to be complete before the next Senior Review. CUC: 27 Sept 2016 Director’s Report

6. CXC Response to SR2016 Actions (cont) F14: Reallocation of time for Large Programs: The CXC team discontinued the X-ray Visionary Programs (XVPs) and increased the minimum amount of time required for Large Programs from 300ks to 400ks. We believe it is important for the Director to continue assessing the effectiveness of the peer review structure and adjust upcoming calls for proposals based on that assessment in consultation with the CUC and input from the community. Response: Assessing the allocation of observing time among the various programs announced in the call for proposals is a standard process for each peer review. MSFC Chandra Program Office and the Chandra X-ray Center will discuss any proposed changes with the CUC and report changes and their consequences to the next Senior Review. CUC: 27 Sept 2016 Director’s Report

7. CXC Response to SR2016 Actions (cont) F24: GO budget: The panel believes that the GO budget is falling behind with inflation and needs to be increased. There should be ways to increase this budget to insure continued high scientific output. Response: We agree that the essentially flat GO budget, which has increased very little in nominal dollars over the mission, has resulted in a substantial erosion of buying power for grantees. We will propose for an increase in the GO budget through the PPBE process. F25: GTO Time: While recognizing the essential expertise and experience provided by the Instrument Teams for maintaining a highly productive and well calibrated observatory, we reiterate the concerns of the 2010, 2012 and 2014 Senior Review panels regarding the continuing allocation of 2.45 Ms/yr of GTO time, now more than 15 years after launch. Response: It is our understanding that, following consideration of a similar recommendation by the 2014 SRC, NASA Headquarters determined that the GTO time was an ongoing commitment to the Instrument Principal Investigator teams. We will provide information or other support to Headquarters in any future consideration of this matter. CUC: 27 Sept 2016 Director’s Report

8. CXC Response to SR2016 Actions (cont) F26: Primary Mission Objectives (PMOs): The PMOs were generically defined and not specific to Chandra; in future reviews, the inclusion of PMOs written with specific metrics to measure success could serve as a useful tool for strategic planning Response: We have developed new, more detailed, PMOs to guide our efforts going forward to the next Senior Review: PMO-1: Continue Chandra’s scientific excellence and impact in accord with top level NASA goals. • PMO-1.1: Conduct community-driven science • PMO-1.2: Enhance Chandra science by optimizing observing and proposal opportunities PMO-2: Enable the science community by providing complete, well-calibrated science data products and analysis tools and by making Chandra data and documentation available worldwide • PMO-2.1: Release an enhanced and expanded Chandra Source Catalog • PMO-2.2: Create, distribute and maintain advanced data analysis software tools CUC: 27 Sept 2016 Director’s Report

9. CXC Response to SR2016 Actions (cont) • PMO-2.3: Provide Chandra data to observers in less than 2 days, and expand the Chandra data archive • PMO-2.4: Maintain the calibration of Chandra’s instruments to better than 5% PMO-3: Ensure the health, safety and productivity of the Observatory • PMO-3.1: Maximize Chandra’s high observing efficiency despite increasing thermal and spacecraft challenges, to maximize the Observatory’s scientific • PMO-3.2: Employ managerial and technical resources to maximize the lifetime of the Chandra Observatory CUC: 27 Sept 2016 Director’s Report