Hi Ron - 

   I have been having similar thoughts. If the proposals
went to different panels then we would be ahead, but that
seems unlikely. Although there are overlaping panels, it
seems unlikely that they would fail to see the similarity
between the groups and the science in this case. 

   It seems to me that there are four options:

 1 - combine ACS and NICMOS for the GDDS into Abraham et al.
     Propose for the CDFS with NICMOS as Markze or McCarthy et al.
 
 2 - go with the original plan - three proposals written by Bob, me
     and you

 3 - Separate NICMOS proposals for GDDS ACS and NICMOS, skip NICMOS for GOODS/CDFS

 4 - put in one NICMOS proposal that will cover the entire LCIR (including
     CDFS) area and essentialy cover GOODS and GDDS together. The advantage
     here is that we play to our strength - area, the drawback is that the
     GDDS ACS program may not get time.

  
 My worry is that if we skip the GOODS/CDFS that we will wind up with
nothing. The obvious choice for the TAC is to get the science for the
least cost - NICMOS follow-on to GOODS rather than starting a new field
with ACS and adding NICMOS to that. Let me know what you think, if needed
we can talk on the phone tomorrow and try to get Hsiao-Wen in the loop.

Pat