Replied: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 18:47:57 -0400 Replied: "John B Rundle" Return-Path: rundle@cires.colorado.edu Return-Path: Delivered-To: fox@csit.fsu.edu Received: from cires.colorado.edu (cires.Colorado.EDU [128.138.136.5]) by mailer.csit.fsu.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id B89FB23A12 for ; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 15:40:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from poincare (doorstop.Colorado.EDU [128.138.136.107]) by cires.colorado.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3/ITS-5.0/standard) with SMTP id NAA16952; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 13:40:45 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <000c01c1311d$efbdf1e0$a98810ac@cires.edu> Reply-To: "John B Rundle" From: "John B Rundle" To: "Illona Lappo" , "Bill Klein (LANL)" , "Dennis McLeod" , "Geoffrey Fox" , "John Rundle" , "Louise Kellogg" , "Marie Rundle" , "Steve Ward" , "Terry Tullis" Subject: Status of our ITR Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 00:35:18 -0600 Organization: CIRES - University of Colorado MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0009_01C130EB.A4CF9580" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.3018.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.3018.1300 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0009_01C130EB.A4CF9580 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear Group, I have still not heard anything official about the status of our ITR = proposal, but I have heard informally that it probably did not make it. My understanding is that we were judged to = be roughly in the middle of the pack. We did, however, get the other GEM proposal originating from JPL (Andrea = was PI ) funded from NASA/IT... which is roughly $3 million for 3 years....this gets us going in a big = way. Now, as you may be aware, there is another ITR program that has just = been announced for this year.=20 You can find the program solicitation at: http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2001/nsf01149/nsf01149.pdf For medium proposals such as we submitted last year, there is no = pre-proposal this year. Deadline for submitting such medium proposals is Nov 13, not too far away. My = assessment of the previous=20 situation is that our group lacked "scientific credibility", since we = had not at that time gotten any large GEM proposal funded. Now we have, through NASA. Thus we now = have an established, officially supported collaboration. Moreover, the quick = turnaround time for this next=20 round of proposals probably means that proposals that didn't make it = last time won't have as much competition this time. So my question is: Do you want to resubmit last years proposal = (after a substantial tuning-up, of course). The proposal is basically already written, the group is in place, and we = can spend the next couple of months devoting our time to fine-tuning and adjusting. =20 I would be willing to go ahead, and I would like your reactions. = Doesn't seem to be anything to lose, possibly much to gain. Cheers, John _________________________________________ John Rundle Professor of Physics Director, Colorado Center for Chaos & Complexity 216 UCB University of Colorado Boulder, CO 80309 (303)-492-5642 (Tel) (303)-492-5070 (FAX) rundle@cires.colorado.edu _________________________________________ ------=_NextPart_000_0009_01C130EB.A4CF9580 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Dear Group,

I have still not = heard anything=20 official about the status of our ITR proposal, but I have heard = informally=20 that

it probably did not make it. My = understanding=20 is that we were judged to be roughly in the middle of the = pack.

We did, however, get the other GEM = proposal=20 originating from JPL (Andrea was PI ) funded from=20 NASA/IT...

which is roughly $3=20 million for 3 years....this gets us going in a big way.

Now, as you may = be aware,=20 there is another ITR program that has = just been=20 announced for this year.

You can find the program solicitation = at:

http://www.ns= f.gov/pubs/2001/nsf01149/nsf01149.pdf

For medium proposals such as we = submitted last=20 year, there is no pre-proposal this year. Deadline = for

submitting such medium proposals is Nov = 13, not too=20 far away. My assessment of the = previous=20

situation is that our group lacked = "scientific=20 credibility", since we had not at that time gotten

any large GEM proposal = funded. Now we=20 have, through NASA. Thus we now have

an established, officially supported=20 collaboration. Moreover, the quick turnaround time for this next=20

round of proposals probably means that = proposals=20 that didn't make it last time won't have as

much competition this = time.

So my question = is: Do you=20 want to resubmit last years proposal (after a substantial tuning-up, of=20 course).

The proposal is basically already = written, the=20 group is in place, and we can spend the next couple of = months

devoting our time to fine-tuning and=20 adjusting.

I would be willing = to go ahead,=20 and I would like your reactions. Doesn't seem to be anything to = lose,=20 possibly

much to gain.

Cheers, = John

_________________________________________

John Rundle
Professor of = Physics
Director,=20 Colorado Center for Chaos & Complexity
216 UCB
University of=20 Colorado
Boulder, CO 80309

(303)-492-5642 = (Tel)
(303)-492-5070 =20 (FAX)
rundle@cires.colorado.edu

_________________________________________

------=_NextPart_000_0009_01C130EB.A4CF9580--