We use deep \textit{Hubble Space Telescope} spectroscopy to constrain the metallicities and (\editone{light-weighted}) ages of massive ($\log M_\ast/M_\odot\gtrsim10$) galaxies selected to have quiescent stellar populations at $1.0<z<1.8$. The data include 12--orbit depth coverage with the WFC3/G102 grism covering $\sim$ $8,000<\lambda<11,500$~\AA\, at a spectral resolution of $R\sim 210$ taken as part of the CANDELS Lyman-$\alpha$ Emission at Reionization (CLEAR) survey. At $1.0<z<1.8$, the spectra cover important stellar population features in the rest-frame optical. We simulate a suite of stellar population models at the grism resolution, fit these to the data for each galaxy, and derive posterior likelihood distributions for metallicity and age. We stack the posteriors for subgroups of galaxies in different redshift ranges that include different combinations of stellar absorption features. Our results give \editone{light-weighted ages of $t_{z \sim 1.1}= 3.2\pm 0.7$~Gyr, $t_{z \sim 1.2}= 2.2\pm 0.6$~Gyr, $t_{z\sim1.3}= 3.1\pm 0.6$~Gyr, and $t_{z\sim1.6}= 2.0 \pm 0.6$~Gyr, \editone{for galaxies at $z\sim 1.1$, 1.2, 1.3, and 1.6. This} implies that most of the massive quiescent galaxies at $1<z<1.8$ had formed $>68$\% of their stellar mass by a redshift of $z>2$}. The posteriors give metallicities of \editone{$Z_{z\sim1.1}=1.16 \pm 0.29$~$Z_\odot$, $Z_{z\sim1.2}=1.05 \pm 0.34$~$Z_\odot$, $Z_{z\sim1.3}=1.00 \pm 0.31$~$Z_\odot$, and $Z_{z\sim1.6}=0.95 \pm 0.39$~$Z_\odot$}. This is evidence that massive galaxies had enriched rapidly to approximately Solar metallicities as early as $z\sim3$.

The Astropy Project (http://astropy.org) is, in its own words, "a community effort to develop a single core package for Astronomy in Python and foster interoperability between Python astronomy packages." For five years this project has been managed, written, and operated as a grassroots, self-organized, almost entirely volunteer effort while the software is used by the majority of the astronomical community. Despite this, the project has always been and remains to this day effectively unfunded. Further, contributors receive little or no formal recognition for creating and supporting what is now critical software. This paper explores the problem in detail, outlines possible solutions to correct this, and presents a few suggestions on how to address the sustainability of general purpose astronomical software.