proposals

NSF Deadline Approaching!

by Danny Barringer October 15, 2014

As we’re sure many of you know, the deadline for all things NSF, including the NSF Graduate Fellowship, is fast approaching (some faster than others!), and will be on us before we know it. To make your lives easier, we would like to remind you of the resources the AstroBetter Wiki has at your disposal. […]

{ 0 comments }

Read more →

Honing your Hubble Application

by Guest August 20, 2014

This is an anonymous guest post from two past members of the Hubble Fellowship committee. The Hubble Postdoctoral Fellowship among the most prestigious awards in our field and is worn as a badge of honor throughout an Astronomer’s entire career. About 10–20 are awarded each year to applicants from around the world to fund a […]

{ 15 comments }

Read more →

Top 10 Ways to Improve Your NSF Astronomy & Astrophysics Postdoctoral Fellowship (AAPF) Proposal

by Guest August 13, 2014

Joan Schmelz is a solar physicist at the University of Memphis. She works with EUV and X-ray images and spectroscopy in order to address the coronal heating problem. She is also the chair of the Committee on the Status of Women in Astronomy and is currently serving as a rotator in NSF’s astronomy division. The […]

{ 5 comments }

Read more →

Starting your own non-profit organization

by Guest February 3, 2014

This is a guest post by Travis Metcalfe who founded White Dwarf Research Corporation while he was a graduate student. In 2008 he initiated a non-profit adopt a star program that funds an international collaboration doing exoplanet science with the Kepler space telescope. He is also the author of an AstroBetter post about crowdfunding research. […]

{ 12 comments }

Read more →

A tale of three proposals

by Guest November 20, 2013

This is a guest post from Dr. Joseph Harrington, a Professor at the University of Central Florida. The post is written in response to an earlier AstroBetter guest post, The Inside Scoop  on NSF Review Panels. A recent guest post on AstroBetter, The Inside Scoop  on NSF Review Panels, is an excellent writeup of the facts, […]

{ 9 comments }

Read more →

Learning to Accept Rejection, the Likely Outcome for Most of our Proposals

by Jane October 28, 2013

The other day a postdoc told me that his big telescope proposal was rejected. He’d also gotten a rejection letter for a scientific fellowship he’d applied for.* He seemed really bummed out. I felt bad for him — rejection is a bummer. As a co-I on the proposal and one of his letter-writers, I was […]

{ 9 comments }

Read more →

ADS: How to find author names and affiliations

by Guest July 22, 2013

This is a guest post by Alessondra Springmann. The original article can be found here. The astronomy and planetary science communities have a fantastic tool for finding scientific papers previously published: the Astrophysics Data System, or ADS, supported by NASA and run out of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.  The main feature I use is […]

{ 2 comments }

Read more →

The Inside Scoop on NSF Review Panels

by Guest July 8, 2013

This is a guest post by an anonymous contributor. There has been a lot of talk recently about the effect that sequester cuts have had on the funding situation in astronomy (and science in general).  Our field depends greatly on federal grant money (jobs! job! jobs!) and the pot is shrinking.  This means that every […]

{ 4 comments }

Read more →

Crowdfunding Astronomy Research

by Guest February 22, 2012

This is a guest post from Travis Metcalfe, astronomer at the National Center for Atmospheric Research and former chair of the AAS Employment Committee. In 2008, with a grant from Google, he established the Pale Blue Dot project, a non-profit adopt-a-star program that funds an international collaboration supporting the Kepler mission. Motivated by a perfect […]

{ 8 comments }

Read more →

Revised NSF Merit Review Criteria

by Kelle June 21, 2011

The NSF has been reviewing the merit review criteria (i.e., Intellectual Merit and Broader Impacts). Based on the largely consistent input of 5,100 individuals, they have now drafted revised review criteria (below). To me, the criteria are actually the same, it’s just the wording has been changed to clarify the intent. In addition, they have […]

{ 1 comment }

Read more →