% NOAOPROP.TEX -- template for NOAO STANDARD telescope proposals.
% Revised for the 2003B observing semester (Aug 2003 - Jan 2004)
% For later semesters, the current form may be obtained from our Web
% page at http://www.noao.edu/noaoprop/noaoprop.html

% DEADLINE FOR SUBMISSIONS: 11:59pm MST MONDAY MARCH 31.

% This LaTeX template has been returned to you upon request through
% our Web-based proposal form.  The template has been customized for
% you based on the run information that you entered via the Web form.
% As an option you may complete this form locally and submit it by
% email following the instructions below.  If the run information is
% incomplete you should go back to the Web form, complete all the
% suggested run information and then obtain another customized template
% before proceeding.  In particular, Gemini run information including
% targets and guide stars must be completed through the Web form.
%
% We encourage Web submissions but if you prefer to submit this
% template by email, follow the instructions below.
%
%   1. Where/how/when to submit this form electronically:
%      Send THIS file (NOT the PostScript version) to
%      noaoprop-submit@noao.edu.  The proposal and any figures
%      must be submitted as separate email messages.  Figures can be
%      submitted only AFTER the proposal ID has been sent to you via
%      email. See the end of this file for further submission details.
%
%   2. Before submitting this form electronically, run it through latex
%      and print it out to make certain that it looks the way that you
%      wish the review panel to see it.
%
%   3. If the proposal is a thesis or if the principal investigator is
%      a graduate student, the student's faculty advisor must send a
%      letter citing the graduate student's observing experience and,
%      if the program is a thesis, how this particular observing
%      proposal fits into the overall thesis plans.  This letter must
%      be sent by the faculty advisor to noaoprop-letter@noao.edu
%      BEFORE the proposal deadline.  Graduate students proposing
%      thesis observations should consult NOAO policies concerning
%      thesis programs and travel support.
%
%   4. If you are planning to bring a Visitor Instrument, you must
%      send a separate letter or email (noaoprop-letter@noao.edu) prior
%      to Oct 15 to make sure we fully understand what will be involved
%      in interfacing your equipment to our telescopes.
%
%   5. QUESTIONS?  If you have questions about submitting your proposal
%      send email to noaoprop-help@noao.edu.  Information about
%      instrumentation and observing facilities at Gemini, CTIO, KPNO,
%      Keck, MMT, and the HET can be found at the NOAO Web site at
%      http://www.noao.edu/noaoprop/noaoprop.html.  Specific questions
%      about instrumentation or facilities at CTIO, KPNO, Keck, MMT or HET
%      can also be sent to the respective sites at ctio@noao.edu,
%      kpno@noao.edu, keck@noao.edu, mmt@noao.edu or het@noao.edu.   
%      Gemini questions can be emailed to the US mirror scientists 
%      at usgemini@noao.edu.
%
%   6. When your proposal is received at NOAO you will be sent an
%      automatic email message verifying its receipt along with a
%      proposal ID number.  If you do not receive this message within
%      15 minutes of the time you sent your proposal send email to
%      noaoprop-help@noao.edu for assistance.  You may track your
%      proposal processing by the proposal ID number at the following
%      web page:   http://www.noao.edu/cgi-bin/noaoprop/propstatus
% ___________________________________________________________________
% THE FORM STARTS HERE
%

% Please do not modify or delete this line.
\documentstyle[nprop27,11pt]{article}


% Please do not modify or delete this line.
\begin{document}

% Uncomment the following line and enter a previous semester and ID
% (e.g. 01B-0987) if you wish to flag this proposal as a resubmission
%\pastid{}

% Please do not modify or delete this line.
\proposaltype{Standard}
% Do not delete the following uncommented line which is required for Gemini 
% proposals.  This line indicates whether or not the proposal is being 
% submitted to multiple partner countries - only "yes" or "no" is valid.
\geminidata{mpartners}{no}

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

% SCIENTIFIC CATEGORIES
%
% Please select a "scientific category" that best describes your
% program by uncommenting only ONE of the selections below.  Your
% \sciencecategory selection will be used to assign a review panel to
% your proposal.  DO NOT MODIFY THE SELECTION YOU UNCOMMENT.  A
% description of each of these categories is available on our Web page
% at http://www.noao.edu/noaoprop/help/scicat.html

% EXTRA-GALACTIC LIST (do not uncomment this line)
%\sciencecategory{Active Galaxies}
%\sciencecategory{Cosmology}
%\sciencecategory{Large Scale Struc.}
%\sciencecategory{Clusters of Galaxies}
%\sciencecategory{High Z Galaxies}
%\sciencecategory{Low Z Galaxies}
%\sciencecategory{Resolved Galaxies}
%\sciencecategory{Stellar Pops (EGAL)}
%\sciencecategory{EGAL - Other}

% GALACTIC/LOCAL GROUP LIST (do not uncomment this line)
%\sciencecategory{Star Clusters}
%\sciencecategory{Stellar Pops (GAL)}
%\sciencecategory{HII Reg., PN, etc.}
%\sciencecategory{ISM}
%\sciencecategory{Star Forming Regions}
%\sciencecategory{Young Stellar Obj.}
\sciencecategory{Massive Stars}
%\sciencecategory{Low Mass Stars}
%\sciencecategory{Stellar Remnants}
%\sciencecategory{Galactic - Other}

% SOLAR SYSTEM LIST (do not uncomment this line)
%\sciencecategory{Kuiper Belt Objects}
%\sciencecategory{Small Bodies \& Moons}
%\sciencecategory{Planets}
%\sciencecategory{Solar System - Other}

% KEYWORDS (1-5 keywords are required for Gemini).  Note that the keywords
% are different for the extra-galactic, galactic and solar system lists
% above, so if you change your science catagory you will need to check to
% be certain your keywords are still valid (see the list of keywords at
% http://www.noao.edu/noaoprop/help/keywords.html).
\geminidata{keyword1}{Massive stars}
\geminidata{keyword2}{Wolf-Rayet stars}

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

% TITLE
%
% Give a descriptive title for the proposal in the \title command.
%
% Note that a title can be quite long; LaTeX will break the title into
% separate lines automatically.  If you wish to indicate line breaks
% yourself, do so with a `\\' command at the appropriate point in
% the title text.  Use both upper and lower case letters (NOT ALL CAPS).

\title{Spectroscopy of Hot, Massive Stars in the Magellanic Clouds: Getting the Numbers Right! }

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

% INVESTIGATOR'S (PI AND CoI) INFORMATION BLOCKS
%
% Please give the PI's name (first name first followed by middle
% initial and last name), affiliation, department and complete mailing
% address, as well as an email address.  Also give a complete phone
% number, and a number for a fax machine if you have access to one.
% You must also indicate the principal investigator's status with one
% of the one-letter codes inside the \invstatus{} curly braces, as
% indicated below.
%
% The affil{}, \department{}, \address{} (use a comma separate list as
% needed), \city{}, \state{}, \zipcode{}, and \country{} (for non-US
% addresses) fields will be used together as your full postal mailing
% address.  Please be sure this information is complete.  Note that
% some institutions will not deliver postal mail if a department is
% not included in the postal mailing address.  Non-US addresses should
% include the country and any local postal codes.
%
% The fax number does not print on the form.
%
% For each CoI please include a name, affiliation, email address and
% investigator's status within the \begin{CoI} and \end{CoI} lines.
%
% For each \invstatus{} field, please fill in the appropriate
% investigator status code from the following list.  If the investigator
% is a graduate student, indicate "T" if this proposal is related to a
% thesis project, or "G" otherwise.  This code should represent the
% status of the individuals at the time of the proposal submission.
% This information is necessary to assist us with our required reporting
% to the NSF.
%
% \invstatus{P} % investigator has obtained PhD or doctorate
% \invstatus{T} % investigator is grad student, observing for thesis
% \invstatus{G} % investigator is grad student, not observing for thesis
% \invstatus{U} % investigator is an undergraduate student
% \invstatus{O} % investigator has other status (none of the above)
%
%
% DO NOT remove the \begin{PI} and \end{PI}.  Only one individual's name
% per \name field is allowed.

\begin{PI}
\name{Phil Massey}
\affil{Lowell Observatory}
\department{}
\address{1400 W. Mars Hill Road}
\city{Flagstaff}
\state{AZ}
\zipcode{86001}
\country{USA}
\email{Phil.Massey@lowell.edu}
\phone{928-774-3358x264}
\fax{(928) 774-6296}
\invstatus{P}
\end{PI}

\begin{CoI}
\name{Knut Olsen}
\affil{CTIO}
\email{kolsen@noao.edu}
\invstatus{P}
\end{CoI}

\begin{CoI}
\name{Joel W. Parker}
\affil{Southwest Institute}
\email{joel@swri.edu}
\invstatus{P}
\end{CoI}

%\begin{CoI}
%\name{}
%\affil{}
%\email{}
%\invstatus{}
%\end{CoI}

%\begin{CoI}
%\name{}
%\affil{}
%\email{}
%\invstatus{}
%\end{CoI}



% You can supply more CoI blocks, but only the first six will be
% printed in the main body of the proposal - others will be printed
% in the right margin.  All investigator names will be available to
% the review panel and stored in our database.

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

% ABSTRACT
%
% Give a general abstract of the scientific justification appropriate
% for a non-specialist.  Write the abstract between the \begin{abstract}
% and \end{abstract} lines.  Limit yourself to approximately 175 words.
% Abstracts of accepted proposals will be made publicly available.

% DO NOT remove the \begin{abstract} and \end{abstract} lines.

\begin{abstract}
The SMC and LMC are both nearby and rich in massive stars, permitting
studies which are simply not possible elsewhere.  For many years we have
been involved in characterizing the massive star content of these galaxies
in order to study star-formation processes and stellar evolution.  A recent
run with Hydra produced spectra of $\sim 800$ stars with the goal of
investigating the initial mass function (IMF) 
of relatively isolated massive stars.  Previous studies
have suggested that these ``field" stars comprise a separate and unique
population, with an IMF that differs considerably from those stars found
in OB associations.  But, completeness problems plague this interpretation,
and our new data should confirm or refute the result, and allow us to map
the IMF changes as a function of stellar density.  However, nebular
contamination of about a third of the sample precludes classification, and
long-slit work is now needed to complete this work.  In addition, our
Hydra data include beautiful blue spectra of a
number of early-type O stars; obtaining
data at H$\alpha$ would permit detailed modeling, yielding accurate
values of the stellar
parameters of these very luminous and massive stars.  We also
found a number of interesting evolved massive stars, which require 
confirmation.  Finally, our discovery of several double-lined binaries
allow us a direct way of determining masses if we can obtain mulitiple
observations.

\end{abstract}

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

% SUMMARY OF OBSERVING RUNS REQUESTED
%
% List a summary of the details of the observing runs being requested,
% for UP TO SIX runs.  The parameters for each run are segregated
% between \begin{obsrun} and \end{obsrun} lines.  Please be sure
% that the information is isolated properly for each run.
%
%   \begin{obsrun}
%   \telescope{}        % For example, \telescope{KP-4m}
%   \instrument{}       % For example, \instrument{ECHUV + T2KB}
%   \numnights{}        % For example, \numnights{6}
%   \lunardays{}        % For example, \lunardays{grey}
%   \optimaldates{}     % For example, \optimaldates{Sep - Nov}
%   \acceptabledates{}  % For example, \acceptabledates{Aug - Jan}
%   \end{obsrun}
%
% The following telescope identifiers MUST be used in the \telescope{}
% field.  Some of the telescope identifiers must include an observatory
% code as well since the same form can be used to submit a single 
% proposal for all facilities available through NOAO.
%
% Keck: Keck-I, Keck-II
% Gemini: GEM-N, GEM-NQ, GEM-SQ
% Hobby-Eberly Telescope: HET
% MMT:  MMT
% CTIO: CT-4m, CT-1.5m, CT-1.3m, CT-0.9m
% KPNO: KP-4m, WIYN, WIYN-2hr, WIYN-SYN, WIYN-TOO, KP-2.1m, KP-0.9m
%
% Select the instrument and detector identifiers from the list on our
% Web page at http://www.noao.edu/noaoprop/help/facilities.html.
% The correct codes MUST be used to ensure your correct
% instrument + detector combination.
%
% \numnights should give the number of nights of the run (for WIYN-SYN,
% WIYN-TOO, YALO, HET, GEM-NQ, and GEM-SQ use 10-hour equivalent nights,
% and 0.25 nights for the WIYN 2-hr queue).  Formats such as 5x0.5 are
% acceptable.
%
% \lunardays should contain the word "darkest", "dark", "grey", or
% "bright", which in turn reflects the number of nights from new moon
% where darkest<=3, dark<=7, grey<=10, bright<=14.  Particular lunar 
% phase requirements dictated by the science program (e.g., "<=12", 
% "+9, -6", or "full moon more than 2 hours away from Taurus") should
% be noted in the "scheduling constraints or non-usable dates" section 
% below.
%
% \optimaldates should contain the range of OPTIMAL months, as shown 
% below.
%
% \acceptabledates should give the range of ACCEPTABLE months (i.e.,
% you would not accept time outside those limits).
% NOTE THAT DUE TO INSTRUMENT BLOCKING RESTRICTIONS YOU SHOULD MAKE 
% THIS RANGE AS GENEROUS AS POSSIBLE.
%
% For QUEUE-SCHEDULED observations, you may set the date range to the 
% full semester range and set \lunardays to the brighest moon your
% observations could tolerate if the program were scheduled classically.
%
% To enter the acceptable and optimal date ranges, please use two
% dash-separated months with 3-letter abbreviations for the month
% (Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr, May, Jun, Jul, Aug, Sep, Oct, Nov, Dec).
% For example:  \optimaldates{Nov - Dec}.
% We appreciate your help in not using vague range specifications
% like "October dark run" or "mid-January" which will require human
% intervention.
%
% FOR LONGTERM STATUS PROPOSALS SPECIFY ONLY THE RUNS FOR THE CURRENT
% SEMESTER, AND NOT FOR ANY SUBSEQUENT SEMESTERS.

% DO NOT remove any of the \begin{obsrun} and \end{obsrun} blocks, 
% even if the blocks are empty.

\begin{obsrun}
\telescope{CT-4m}
\instrument{RCSP + BAS}
\numnights{5}
\lunardays{bright}
\optimaldates{Oct - Nov}
\acceptabledates{Oct - Dec}
\end{obsrun}

\begin{obsrun}
\telescope{}
\instrument{}
\numnights{}
\lunardays{}
\optimaldates{}
\acceptabledates{}
\end{obsrun}

\begin{obsrun}
\telescope{}
\instrument{}
\numnights{}
\lunardays{}
\optimaldates{}
\acceptabledates{}
\end{obsrun}

\begin{obsrun}
\telescope{}
\instrument{}
\numnights{}
\lunardays{}
\optimaldates{}
\acceptabledates{}
\end{obsrun}

\begin{obsrun}
\telescope{}
\instrument{}
\numnights{}
\lunardays{}
\optimaldates{}
\acceptabledates{}
\end{obsrun}

\begin{obsrun}
\telescope{}
\instrument{}
\numnights{}
\lunardays{}
\optimaldates{}
\acceptabledates{}
\end{obsrun}


% If there are scheduling constraints or non-usable dates for any of
% the runs specified, (i.e., other than the default lunar phase 
% requirements or when your object is up) please give the dates by 
% filling in the curly braces in \unusabledates{}.  Note here if you 
% are requesting runs in an "either/or" situation, e.g. run 1 or run 2, 
% but not both. This is also the place to advise us of any special 
% constraints which affect the scheduling of your observing run (e.g. 
% "schedule run #1 before run #2" or "run dates must be coordinated 
% with HST observations").
% 
% Proposals being sent to multiple Gemini National TACs (e.g. US and
% Canada) should include a detailed breakdown of the requested time in
% this field.  For example: "6 hours US, 4 hours Canada."
%
% Please limit your text to 4 lines on the printed copy.

\unusabledates{If possible, please 
avoid potential conflicts with WIYN time (N042)
}

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

% In the following "essay question" sections, the delimiting pieces of
% markup (\justification, \expdesign, etc.) act as LaTeX \section*{}
% commands.  If the author wanted to have numbered subsections within
% any of these, LaTeX's \subsection could be used.
%
% DO NOT REDUCE THE FONT SIZE, and do not otherwise fiddle with the
% format to get more on a page.  We will reset any changes back to the
% default font.

% SCIENTIFIC JUSTIFICATION
%
% Give the scientific justification for the proposed observations.
% This section should consist of paragraphs of text followed by any
% references and up to three figures and captions.  Be sure to include
% overall significance to astronomy.  THE SCIENTIFIC JUSTIFICATION
% SHOULD BE LIMITED TO ONE PAGE (the review panels have requested that
% we not send them more than one page), with up to two additional pages
% for references, figures (no more than three), and captions. WIYN 2-hr
% proposals are limited to one-half page of scientific justification.

% If you wish to use our "reference" environment, follow the following
% example (journal commands are compatible with AASTeX v4.0):
%
%\begin{references}
%\reference Armandroff \& Massey 1991 \aj, 102, 927.
%\reference Berkhuijsen \& Humphreys 1989 \aap, 214, 68.
%\reference Massey 1993 in Massive Stars: Their Lives in the 
% Interstellar Medium (Review), ed. J. P. Cassinelli and E. B. 
% Churchwell, p. 168.
%\reference Massey \& Armandroff 1999, in prep.
%\end{references}

% Only EPS figures may be included with your proposal.  In order to
% include an EPS plot, you should use the LaTeX "figure" environment.
% The plot file is included with the \plotone{FILENAME} command; two
% side-by-side plot files can be included by typing
% \plottwo{FILENAME1}{FILENAME2}.  Use \caption{} to specify a caption.
% The \epsscale{} command can be used to scale \plotone plots if they
% appear too large on the printed page.  Contact us if you have any
% figure questions or encounter any problems with figures
% (noaoprop-help@noao.edu).
%
% \begin{figure}
% \epsscale{0.85}
% \plotone{sample.eps}
% \caption{Sample figure showing important results.}
% \end{figure}
%
% If you need to rotate or make other transformations to a figure, you
% may use the \plotfiddle command:
% \plotfiddle{PSFILE}{VSIZE}{ROTANG}{HSCALE}{VSCALE}{HTRANS}{VTRANS}
% \plotfiddle{sample.eps}{2.6in}{-90.}{32.}{32.}{-250}{225}
% where HSCALE and VSCALE are percentages and HTRANS and VTRANS are
% in PostScript units, 72 PS units = 1 inch.
%
% Note that the Web form provides several useful and simple figure 
% options.

\sciencejustification

Due to their richness and 
proximity, the Magellanic Clouds (MCs)  
have provided
some of the most fertile grounds for improving our knowledge of
star formation and stellar evolution. 
In recent years these studies have
included the determination of the stellar content of numerous 
OB associations using CCD photometry
and spectroscopy (e.g., Testor \& Lortet 1987; Heydari-Malayeri et al.\ 1987,
Massey et al.\ 1989ab, Parker 1993, Garmany et al.\ 1994, Oey \& Massey 1996; 
see
Massey 2003 for a recent review).
These studies established
that the initial mass function (IMF) 
of the SMC and LMC associations are 
Salpeter, at least for the massive stars ($>20\cal M_\odot$), and 
indistinguishable from that of their counterparts in the Milky Way, despite
the factor of 3 difference in metallicities between these systems.
In addition, these studies have helped determine some of the {\it physical}
properties of massive stars as a function of metallicity, such as mass-loss
rates (Puls et al.\ 1996).
Still, much fundamental work remains to be done.
Specifically we are proposing to address:

{\bf (1) Initial Mass Function in the Field.} 
Massey et al.~(1995)
found that there is a considerable population of ``field" OB stars in the
Clouds.
These stars are far from any obvious associations, and comprise
about 30\% of all known massive stars in the MCs. Some are of spectral
type O3, the hottest, most luminous, and {\it youngest} stars.
With ages less than 1~Myr, these stars are disturbingly isolated, as very
high peculiar motions (hundreds of km/sec) would be needed to explain
their locations if they were born in associations.
The present-day mass function (PDMF) of these field 
stars 
implies a very peculiar IMF, if we assume these
were formed in 
isolated star-forming events (Massey et al.\ 1995, Massey 1998).  
If this result is confirmed,
and not due to completeness problems, it has drastic implications for
interpreting the integrated properties of other galaxies.

{\bf (2)  Effective Temperature Scale.} We
don't know yet to what extent the effective temperature scale for O-type
stars differs in the MCs compared to that of the Milky Way.
Is the $T_{\rm eff}$ of an O7~V star the same in all three galaxies?
The answer to this matters if we are to
trust our interpretation of the upper-end of the H-R diagram, as a small
difference in $T_{\rm eff}$ affects the bolometric correction, which in
turn affects the mass assigned to a star via stellar evolutionary tracks
and isochrones.  

For these reasons we've
started a comprehensive observing program to 
characterize the massive star population of the Clouds.
Carefully
calibrated {\it UBV} CCD photometry covering most of the Clouds were
obtained  by Massey (2002)
with the CTIO Schmidt to address completeness problems with other
catalogs. (The old photoelectric work didn't go deep enough; the new
generation of deep CCD studies saturated too quickly.)
The NOAO TAC kindly granted us 4-m
time with Hydra for the followup spectroscopy, and we obtained spectra of
about 800 stars this past December.

However, long-slit work is now needed to meet these scientific goals.  First, 
about a third of our sample of massive stars cannot be classified, due
to the contamination of nebular emission (Fig.~1).  This is to be 
expected since sky subtraction with fiber instruments is not local.
Long-slit spectroscopy with the RC spectrograph will neatly solve this problem,
allowing
us to classify these stars, and assign masses, in order to complete our
study of the field IMF.
Secondly, we now have a number of very early-type O stars for which
we have beautiful spectra in the blue.
These data allow us to construct H-R diagrams by adopting the
``standard" [Galactic] relation between $T_{\rm eff}$ and spectral types.
However, we can do much more than this.  These data have the resolution
and signal-to-noise to allow detailed modeling using a modern stellar
atmospheres code to help define this relation for the MCs.  
We are using FASTWIND (Puls 2002) as part of a collaborative effort
with Puls and Kudritzki.  These new spectra are ideal for such modeling,
{\it but we require observations at H$\alpha$ to determine the mass-loss
rates} as part of the procedure. 
Finally, our work identified objects crucial to our understanding
the statistics of evolved massive stars in the Clouds (such as 
new Luminous Blue
Variable candidates and Wolf-Rayet stars) that require confirmation.

\centerline{{\bf References: Scientific Justification and Experimental Design}}
\reference Bohannan 1997, in Luminous Blue Variables: Massive Stars in
Transition, ed. Nota \& Lamers, 3
\reference Garmany, Massey, \& Parker 1994, AJ, 108, 1256
\reference Gies 2002, in A Massive Star Odyssey, ed. van der Hucht et al., 
in press.
\reference Heydari-Malayeri, Niemla, \& Testor 1987, A\&A 184, 300
\reference Lamers 1997, in Luminous Blue Variables: Massive Stars in
Transition, ed. Nota \& Lamers, p 76
\reference Massey 1998, in The Sellar Initial Mass Function, ed. Gilmore \&
Howell, p. 17
\reference Massey 2000, PASP, 112, 144
\reference Massey 2002, ApJS, 141, 81
\reference Massey 2003, Ann.~Rev~Astron.~Astrophys. 41, in press
\reference Massey \& Duffy 2001, ApJ, 550, 713
\reference Massey, Garmany, Silkey, \& DeGioia-Eastwood 1989a, AJ, 97, 107
\reference Massey, Lang, DeGioia-Eastwood, \& Garmany 1995, ApJ, 438, 188
\reference Massey, Parker, \& Garmany 1989b, AJ, 98, 1305
\reference Massey, Penny, \& Vukovich 2002, ApJ, 565, 982
\reference Oey \& Massey 1995, ApJ 452, 210
\reference Parker 1993, AJ 106, 560
\reference Parker 1997, in Luminous Blue Variables: Masssive Stars in
Transition, ed. Nota \& Lamers, 368
\reference Puls et al.\ 1996, 305, 171
\reference Puls 2002, in A Massive Star Odyssey, ed. van der Hucht et al., 
in press.
\reference Testor \& Lortet 1987, A\&A 178, 25

\begin{figure}[h]
\epsscale{0.62}
\plotone{bad.eps}
\caption{This SMC star has strong He~II, demonstrating that it is one of the
earliest O-type stars in the SMC, and hence one of the most luminous and
massive.  But the He~I lines are contaminated by nebular emission.  A
long-slit spectrum with the RC spectrograph will allow accurate nebular
subtraction, as we've demonstrated numerous times in the past 
(e.g., Massey et al. 1995).}
\end{figure}


\clearpage

\begin{figure}
\epsscale{0.7}
\plotone{o7s.eps}
\caption{The spectra of two early-type O stars in the LMC are shown, both
of spectral type O5 as judged by the relative strengths of HeI$\lambda 4471$
to HeII$\lambda 4542$.  The presence of NIII $\lambda 4634,42$ emission
is typical for such luminous, hot stars, while the fact that  HeII
$\lambda 4686$ shows slight emission in the lower star is indicative of 
large mass-loss rates.  By the standard 
Galactic calibration, both of these stars would be assigned 
effective temperatures of 43,000$^\circ$K, although others would suggest
much lower temperatures.  Detailed modeling, including the H$\alpha$ profile,
can help establish an effective temperature scale for Magellanic Cloud O 
stars.}
\end{figure}



\begin{figure}
\epsscale{0.48}
\plotone{lbv.eps}
\plotone{wr.eps}
\caption{On the left, we show the spectrum 
of a newly found emission-lined star in the
SMC.  It resembles the classic ``quiescent" phase of a luminous blue variable,
such as S Doradus, with strong emission lines of hydrogen and singly ionized
metals dominating the spectrum (Massey 2000).  
If variability is confirmed, this would be
only the third LBV found in the SMC, and by far the most ``normal" of the 
three.  On the right, we show the spectrum of a newly found Wolf-Rayet
star.  Only the characteristic broad He~II $\lambda 4686$ feature is visible;
better S/N is needed to reach the ``classification" lines of N~III, N~IV, and
N~V, and to look for absorption features.}
\end{figure}
\clearpage




% EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN
%
% This section should consist of text only (no figures).
% There is a limit of one page of printed text.

% Describe your overall observational program.  How will these 
% observations contribute toward the accomplishment of the goals 
% outlined in the science justification?  If you've requested 
% long-term status, justify why this is necessary for successful 
% completion of the science.
%
% NOTE: In previous versions of the proposal form, this section
% requested details about the use of non-NOAO observing facilities. 
% Such information should now be entered in the following "Other
% Facilities" section.

\expdesign

Hydra is a {\it wonderful} survey instrument, allowing 130 objects to be
observed simultaneously within a 40-arcminute field of view.
Without it, we would never
have been able to obtain spectra of 800 or so stars in a single 4-night
run.  However, this multiplexing advantage comes at some cost:
(a) the through-put is about one-third of the RC Spectrograph
(due to slit losses) limiting the signal-to-noise one can obtain in
a 2-hr exposure, and (b) sky subtraction is not local, so nebular
contamination can easily compromise one's ability to classify stars 
embedded in H~II regions.  We have used our four nights with Hydra to
the best advantage, and identified many interesting objects; we now need
the greater through-put and versatility of the long-slit RC spectrograph.
Here's how:
\begin{itemize} 
\itemsep -1ex

\item {\bf Getting rid of nebular lines so we can measure the IMF of the
``field" stars.} About one-third of our sample has been contaminated by
nebular emission.  A good example is shown in our Hydra spectrum of
an SMC star in Fig.~1.  This star shows
strong He~II absorption, making it an early-type O star, and hence one of
the most luminous and massive stars known in the SMC.  But {\it how} luminous
and massive?  H$\gamma$ shows strong nebular emission; weak nebular
emission is present at He~I $\lambda 4715$, and He~I $\lambda 4471$ is
missing.  The latter line is crucial for classifying the star. 
Hydra was necessary for finding this star, but we now need the sky-subtraction
capabilities of the long-slit RC spectrograph to classify it.

\item {\bf Revised effective temperature scale.}  We obtained high
signal to noise data at good resolution of some early O-type stars, as
shown in Fig.~2.  Modern atmosphere models include full line-blanketing,
non-LTE, and the significant effects of mass loss (Puls 2002).  We have
great data in the blue, but require H$\alpha$ observations.  
By doing our blue observations in second order, we can switch to the
H$\alpha$ region easily by simply changing the blocking filter
and re-tilting the grating.

\item {\bf Rare evolved massive stars.} We don't know as much as we'd like about
how massive stars evolve as a function of metallicity.  One of the big 
uncertainties concern Luminous Blue Variables (LBV), stars like Eta Carina
and S Doradus that are near or beyond their Eddington Limits (Lamers 1997).
In particular, a better knowledge of the statistics of these stars is crucial.
In Fig.~3 we show the spectrum on a peculiar emission-line star we discovered
as part of our survey.  This spectrum resembles that of S Doradus during
quiescence, with strong emission lines of hydrogen and singly ionized metals,
primarily Fe~II (Massey 2000).  However, spectral {\it similarity} is not
sufficient to call a star an LBV---one needs to demonstrate spectral
variability (Bohannan 1997).  If confirmed, this would be only the third
LBV to be found in the SMC (Parker 1997).  On the right of Fig.~3 we show
the spectrum of a newly found Wolf-Rayet star.  The broadness and strength
of the He~II $\lambda 4686$ establishes this as a WR. 
Only 12 of these were previously
known in the SMC (Massey \& Duffy 2002).  Higher signal to noise is needed to
classify the star from N~III $\lambda\lambda 4634,42$, N~IV $\lambda 4058$, 
and N~V $\lambda 4603$, none of which are visible in this spectrum.

\item {\bf Double-lined binaries.} The most fundamental way of determining a
star's mass is from its Kepleran motion in a binary system.  Only a handful
of double-lined systems are known (see Gies 2003 for a recent
review), and the masses produce a direct confrontation with stellar
evolutionary theory (Massey et al.~2002).  We discovered several 
new double-lined systems as part of our Hydra spectroscopy 
but now observations over several nights are needed to confirm
radial velocity motion and get a rough idea of the period.  Follow-up
observations will then be carried out by collaborators Morrell (Carnegie)
and Niemla (CASLEO).

\end{itemize}

% OTHER FACILITIES
% 
% This section should consist of text only (no figures).
% Please limit to about a half page of printed text.
% 
% We are interested in understanding how observations made through
% NOAO observing opportunities complement or support data from other
% facilities both on the ground and in space.   We will use this
% information to guide the evolution of the NOAO program; it will not
% affect the success of your proposal in the evaluation process.
%
% Please describe how the proposed observations complement data from  
% other facilities, including private observatories and both ground-
% and space-based telescopes.  In addressing this question, take a
% broad view of your research program.  Are the data to be obtained 
% through this proposal going to help select samples for detailed
% observations using larger telescopes or from space observatories?
% Are these data going to be directly combined with data obtained
% elsewhere to test a hypothesis?  Will these observations have
% relevance to other observations, even though the proposal stands
% on its own?  For each of these other facilities, indicate the nature
% of the observations (yours or those of others), and describe the
% importance of the observations proposed here in the context of the
% entire program.

\otherfacilities

We plan follow-up of our early O-type stars with {\it HST} and {\it FUSE}, 
where observations
in the FUV will allow direct determinations of mass-loss rates.  We, and
others, will also plan UV studies of the new LBV in the SMC, if confirmed.
Hans Zinnecker and the PI may also propose a study of the
relative binary frequence of O-type stars in the field versus that of
the associations in subsequent years using ESO facilities. 


% LONG-TERM DETAILS
%
% If you are requesting long-term status for this proposal briefly 
% state the requirements for telescope time (telescope, instrument, 
% number of nights) needed in subsequent semesters to complete this 
% project in % \longtermdetails (be sure to uncomment the 
% \longtermdetails line below).
%
% If this is a long-term request you MAY ALSO NEED to modify the
% \proposaltype keyword at the top of this form changing "Standard"
% to "Longterm" (where is says "Please do not modify or delete this 
% line!").  It is this keyword that will flag this proposal as a 
% long-term status request, regardless of what may be entered here 
% in \longtermdetails!
%
% If this is not a long-term status request then please ignore this
% section.
%
% Long-term status is not applicable to CNTAC proposals.
%
%\longtermdetails


% PAST USE
%
% How effectively have you used the facilities available through NOAO
% in the past?
% List allocations of telescope time on facilities available through 
% NOAO to the Principal Investigator during the past 2 years, together 
% with the current status of the data (cite publications where 
% appropriate).  Mark any allocations of time related to the current 
% proposal with a \relatedwork{} command.

\thepast
{\bf Recent (2000-2003) allocation of time to the PI:}

\relatedwork{} {\bf 2002B-218:} O Stars in the Andromeda Galaxy, 3.5 nights
MMT Sept 2003.  We lost all but 0.5 nights due to weather; however, data
obtain on our half night were included in Massey \& Holmes (2002 ApJ, 580, L35)
and form the basis for another proposal being submitted this semester.

\relatedwork{} {\bf 2001A-062:} A {\it UBVR} Survey of the Magellanic Clouds, 6 nights
CTIO Curtis Schmidt April 2001: Massey 2002, ApJS 141, 81

\relatedwork{} {\bf 2001B-002:} The Wolf-Rayet Content of IC10, 2 nights Mayall 4-m Sept 2001: Massey \& Holmes 2002, ApJ, 580, L35

\relatedwork{} {\bf 2000B-010:} A Survey of Local Group Galaxies Currently Forming Stars,
on-going survey project.  We are current with all of our data reductions,
and have begun the photometric analysis.

\relatedwork{} {\bf 2001B-227:} The Red Supergiant Content of the Magellanic Clouds, 3 nights
CTIO 4-m Hydra, October 2001. The data are reduced and the paper about 90\%
written; (Massey \& Olsen 2003, ApJ, ``on the verge" of being submitted.)

\relatedwork{} {\bf 1999B-099; 2000B-070:} 
Where Do Wolf-Rayet Stars Come From?
CTIO 1.5-m 5 nights October 2000; 6 nights October 1999:
Massey \& Duffy 2001, ApJ 550, 713; Niemela et al. 2002,
MNRAS, 333, 347

\noindent
{\bf Recent papers (2000-2003) based upon NOAO data:}

\parindent=10pt

Morrell, N. I., Ostrov, P. G., Massey, P., \& Gamen, R. 2003, ``Hodge 53-47:
An Early O-type Double-lined Binary in the SMC", MNRAS, in press

Massey, P., \& Holmes, S. 2002 ``Wolf-Rayet Stars in IC10: Probing the Nearest
Starburst", ApJ 580, L35

Massey, P. 2002, ``A UBVR CCD Survey of the Magellanic Clouds," ApJS, 141,
81

Massey, P. 2002, ``Observational Constraints on Massive Star Evolution"
(invited review), in {\it A Massive Star Odyssey, from Main Sequence to
Supernova, IAU 212}, ed. van der Hucht, Herrero, \& Esteban, 316.

Slesnick, C. L., Hillenbrand, L. A., \& Massey, P. 2002, ``The Star Formation
History and Mass Function in the Double Cluster h and Chi Persei", ApJ,
576, 880

Snow, T. P., Zukowski, D., \& Massey, P. 2002, ``The Intrinsic Profile of
the 4428\AA\ Diffuse Interstellar Band", ApJ 578, 877

Niemela, V. S., Massey, P., Testor, G., \& Benitez, S. G. 2002, ``The Massive
Wolf-Rayet Binary WR7 in the SMC", MNRAS, 333, 347

Walborn et al. 2002, ``A Giant O2-O4 Spectral Classification
Study", AJ, 123, 2754

Bianchi et al. 2001,``The Massive Star Content of  NGC 6822. Ground-based
and {\it HST} photometry, AJ, 121, 2020.

Massey, P. \& Duffy, A. S. 2001, ``A Deep Search for Wolf-Rayet Stars in
the Small Magellanic Cloud", ApJ, 550, 713.

Massey, P., DeGioia-Eastwood, K., \& Waterhouse, E. 2001, ``The Progenitor
Masses of Wolf-Rayet Stars and Luminous Blue Variables Determined from
Cluster Turn-offs. II. Results from 12 Clusters in the Milky Way", 
AJ, 121, 1050.

Massey, P., Waterhouse, E., \& DeGioia-Eastwood 2000, ``...I. Results from
19 OB Associations in the Magellanic Clouds", AJ, 119, 2214.

Massey, P., \& Foltz, C. 2000, ``The Spectrum of the Nigh Sky Over Mount
Hopkins and Kitt Peak: Changes After a Decade", PASP, 112, 566.

Massey, P., 2000, ``An Unprecedented Change in the Spectrum of S Doradus:
As Cool As It Gets", PASP, 112, 144.


\parindent=0pt

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

% OBSERVING RUN DETAILS - REQUIRED FOR EACH OBSERVING RUN REQUESTED
%
% For each run requested earlier in the \begin{obsruns}-\end{obsruns}
% sections of this proposal form, further run information must be
% specified.  Enter this block of information for each Gemini run.

% The \runid field must contain the run number plus 
% telescope/instrument-detector information as it appears for each 
% run in the obsruns sections. For example, \runid{1}{GEM-NQ/NIRI6}

\runid{1}{CT-4m/RCSP + BAS}


% Describe the observations to be made during this observing run in
% the \technicaldescription section. Justify the specific telescope, 
% the number of nights, the instrument, and the lunar phase requested. 
% Target information is included in the Gemini Target Table later in
% this section and is required for all Gemini runs.  To ensure that
% the target tables are complete, including guide stars, it is required
% that these tables be done through our Web form. 
%

\technicaldescription


We will use the same setup we used so successfully with the RC Spec and
blue air Schmidt in January 1999.  For the nights we work in the blue,
we will use KPGLD (790 l/mm) in second order with a CuSO$_4$ blocking
filter for observations from 3850\AA\ to 5000\AA.  This gives us
0.37\AA\ per pixel dispersion, for a very nice 4-pixel 1.6\AA\ resolution
with a 200$\mu$m wide slit.  For the ``red" night, we will stay with the
same grating and simply re-tilt it to center at $\lambda 6552$, replacing
the blocking filter with a GG420.  This requires no extra support once
we have established both setups on the first afternoon.

Why 5 nights?  We want to reobserve a reasonable fraction of the 300
or so stars whose nebular
contamination precluded classification; our ``favorites" list includes
about 100 stars,
with brightness ranging from $B=14$ to $B=16$.  A S/N of 80 per spectral
resolution element is needed to classify early-type stars (weak lines!).
Our experience shows that we obtain a good classification spectrum in
10 minutes at $B=14$; at $B=16$ we thus require an hour.  We can thus
do about 20 stars a night, and in 4 nights do 80-100 stars.  A fifth night
is needed for the H$\alpha$ observations.

\begin{configuration}
\filters{}
\grating{KPGLD}
\order{2}
\crossdisperser{}       
\slit{}
\multislit{}            
\wstart{3800} 
\wend{4900}
\cable{}
\corrector{}            
\collimator{}             
\adc{}
\end{configuration}

\targetsra{00 to 06}                    % RA range in hours
\targetsdec{-65 to -70}                   % Dec. range in degrees

% Use \specialrequest to describe briefly any special or non-standard
% usage of instrumentation. 
\specialrequest

Note that MANY of our objects are in the SMC, so time in Oct-Nov is
preferred to time in Nov-Dec,
although either would be acceptable.

% If you plan to submit any Target Tables for this run they must be
% entered here.  Target Tables are required for all WIYN-2hr, WIYN-SYN, 
% and YALO runs.
% Please do not modify or delete this line.
\end{document}




