National Academies Press: OpenBook
Suggested Citation:"Letter Report." National Research Council. 2004. Letter Report from the Panel for the Review of Proposals for NASA's Intelligent Propulsion Systems Foundation Technology (PSFT) Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11132.
×

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES

Advisers to the Nation on Science, Engineering, and Medicine

Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences

500 Fifth Street, NW Ninth Floor Washington, DC 20001 Phone: 202 334 3286 Fax: 202 334 3373 www.national-academies.org/deps

August 31, 2004

Dr. Carolyn Mercer

Ultra-Efficient Engine Technology Project Office

NASA John H.Glenn Research Center at Lewis Field

Mail Stop 60–2, Code 2100, Bldg. 60, Room 105 21000 Brookpark Road Cleveland, OH 44135–3191

Dear Dr. Mercer:

Please find attached the panel grades and associated discussion for the August 10–11, 2004 meeting of the National Research Council (NRC) Panel for the Review of Proposals for NASA’s Intelligent Propulsion Systems Foundation Technology (IPSFT) Program held at the Keck Center of the National Academies. The meeting was chaired by Dr. Alan Eckbreth, Vice President, Connecticut Academy of Science and Engineering; Dr. Karen Harwell of the Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board served as the study director. This activity was supported by Contract No. NASW-03009 between the National Academies and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and was performed under the direction of the Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board.

SELECTION OF PANELISTS

Panelists were selected on the basis of their expertise in the fields represented by the proposals; they came from universities, industry, and government laboratories. Panel members were screened before nomination regarding their present relationship with NASA. See Attachment A for the panel roster.

PROPOSAL EVALUATION PROCESS

All reviewers were asked to provide general comments regarding a given proposal and were asked to answer the following specific questions in order to promote discussion:

  • What will the results of this work be and how novel are they?

  • How will the results advance the state of the art and how significant will the advancement be?

  • Will the proposed approach produce the desired results? What are its strengths and weaknesses?

In addition to the principal questions above regarding the scientific and technical merit of each proposal, the reviewers were asked to provide opinions on the key personnel’s qualifications, capabilities, and related experience; the adequacy of facilities, hardware, simulation tools, etc.;

Suggested Citation:"Letter Report." National Research Council. 2004. Letter Report from the Panel for the Review of Proposals for NASA's Intelligent Propulsion Systems Foundation Technology (PSFT) Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11132.
×

and the realism and reasonableness of the proposed project cost. These comments play a minor role in the evaluation process but have proven to be useful to program managers for other NRC proposal reviews, particularly when the proposal emanates from a source unfamiliar to them.

The merits of all proposals were discussed by at least three panel members. Most proposals were reviewed in detail by two panel members. For each proposal, a “lead” reviewer was selected based upon his or her degree of familiarity with the technical area. Each lead reviewer was provided with all the other reviews of a given proposal which were used during the discussion during the meeting.

GRADING PROCESS

Proposals were evaluated based on their scientific and technical merit. Written reviews by panelists were used as information by the panel to assist it in its task of assigning a consensus grade (adjectival rating) to each proposal. The grades reflect the overall quality of each proposal relative to the state of research in the field of the turbine engines and to the state of research, as possible, in the foundational areas being considered in the proposals (i.e., flow control, sensors, combustion, smart materials).

The grades apply to the totality of the proposal, not just to its favorable (or unfavorable) aspects. The grades are not conditional on making suggested changes to the proposal; such suggestions are meant only to aid the author in preparing a better proposal in the future. The grading system used for this review process is as follows:

Excellent:

A comprehensive and thorough proposal of exceptional merit with one or more significant strengths. No deficiency or significant weakness exists.

Very Good:

A proposal having no deficiency and which demonstrates overall competence. One or more significant strengths have been found, and strengths outbalance any weaknesses that exist.

Good:

A proposal having no deficiency and which shows a reasonably sound response. There may be strengths or weaknesses, or both. As a whole, weaknesses not offset by strengths do not significantly detract from the offeror’s response.

Fair:

A proposal having no deficiency and which has one or more weaknesses. Weaknesses outbalance any strengths.

Poor:

A proposal that has one or more deficiencies or significant weaknesses that demonstrate a lack of overall competence or would require a major proposal revision to correct.

I

Lacks adequate information for determining scientific merit.

Suggested Citation:"Letter Report." National Research Council. 2004. Letter Report from the Panel for the Review of Proposals for NASA's Intelligent Propulsion Systems Foundation Technology (PSFT) Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11132.
×

These grades and their accompanying definitions were established by NASA and were included in NASA Research Announcements NNC04ZPR001N and NNC04ZPR002N soliciting proposals.

CONDUCT OF THE REVIEW MEETING

The panel met on August 10–11, 2004 to discuss the 100 proposals under consideration. The meeting attendance is provided in Attachment B. Panel members participated in a composition and balance discussion. As a result, a few members did not participate in the discussions or final evaluations pertaining to various proposals.

Proposals with related technical content were grouped and then reviewed by subsets of the panel, grouped by areas of expertise, in two distinct types of sessions. In the first session of each small group, the lead reviewer assigned to a given proposal provided a short oral summary of the proposal to the panel and then summarized its strengths and weaknesses. Other small group members then contributed their expertise in the form of questions and/or statements regarding the merits of the proposal. Small group leaders facilitated these discussions to ensure that all group members had an opportunity to contribute and that all proposals had a sufficient airing. These sessions for each group of proposals were attended by NASA representatives as well as NRC small groups and staff. In the second session, a closed discussion was held with only the small group and NRC staff in attendance to reach a consensus on the grade for each proposal following the definitions above. The discussion associated with the grade was recorded by the lead reviewer and group leader. Any questions related to the grading were discussed with a larger subset of the panel. This cycle was repeated several times to thoroughly evaluate the 100 proposals under consideration. Prior to breaking into small groups for the majority of the evaluation process, ten proposals were reviewed using this two-session model and grades assigned. This main session discussion provided panelists with a better understanding of the process and assignment of grades. Following this process, each lead reviewer wrote up the discussion for which he or she was responsible. The write-ups were collected by the study director for review and compilation and were then submitted to the Panel Chairman for final review and approval.

RESULTS

The panel’s consensus grades are provided in Attachments C-1 and C-2. In the former, each proposal is identified only by the NRC number; in the latter, each proposal is identified by the NRC number, the NASA proposal number, title, principal investigator, and affiliation.

The discussion summaries for the panel’s consensus grades appear in Attachment D. The discussions are not intended to systematically cover the criteria and factors involved in the ratings, but aim to advise NASA on ways in which the proposed research might be improved or take better account of other research. Each discussion cites the strengths and weaknesses of the proposal. Even poor proposals contain some good points and rather than de-motivate a researcher by concentrating on only its weaknesses, the panel tried to find something positive to say about all proposals.

Suggested Citation:"Letter Report." National Research Council. 2004. Letter Report from the Panel for the Review of Proposals for NASA's Intelligent Propulsion Systems Foundation Technology (PSFT) Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11132.
×

We hope that you and your program managers will find this information useful as you make important funding decisions and manage your on-going programs.

Sincerely,

Peter Blair

Executive Director,

DEPS

Suggested Citation:"Letter Report." National Research Council. 2004. Letter Report from the Panel for the Review of Proposals for NASA's Intelligent Propulsion Systems Foundation Technology (PSFT) Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11132.
×

National Academies

Division of Engineering and Physical Science

Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board

ATTACHMENT A, to the Letter Report of the

ASEB Panel for the Review of Proposals for NASA’s Intelligent Propulsion Systems Foundation Technology Program

Meeting of August 10–11, 2004 in Washington, DC

Panel Roster

Dr. Alan Eckbreth, Chair

Vice-President

Connecticut Academy of Science and Engineering

Hartford, CT

Dr. Dilip R.Ballal

Hans Von Chain Distinguished Professor & Director, Von Chain Fuels & Combustion Center

University of Dayton

Dayton, OH

Dr. Thomas Beutner

Program Manager for Turbulent and Rotating Flows

Air Force Office of Scientific Research

Arlington, VA

Dr. Gregory Carman

Professor, Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering and Director, Active Materials Laboratory

University of California, Los Angeles

Los Angeles, CA

Dr. Fred E.Culick

Professor of Mechanical Engineering and Jet Propulsion

California Institute of Technology

Pasadena, CA

Dr. Richard J.Goldstein

Regents’ Professor and James J.Ryan Professor, Department of Mechanical Engineering

University of Minnesota

Minneapolis, MN

Dr. Steven Gorrell

Aerospace Engineer

Air Force Research Laboratory

Dayton, OH

Dr. Kenneth C.Hall

Professor and Chair, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering & Materials Science

Duke University

Durham, NC

Mr. Ambros S.Hoffmann

Chief Engineer, Advanced Technology (retired)

Honeywell, Inc.

Phoenix, AZ

Suggested Citation:"Letter Report." National Research Council. 2004. Letter Report from the Panel for the Review of Proposals for NASA's Intelligent Propulsion Systems Foundation Technology (PSFT) Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11132.
×

Mr. Robert Luppold

Owner and Chief Engineer

Luppold & Associates, Inc.

West Newton, PA

Dr. Lourdes Quintana Maurice

Chief Scientific and Technical Advisor for Environment

Office of Environment and Energy

Federal Aviation Administration

Washington, DC

Dr. George A.Richards

Focus Area Leader, Energy System Dynamics

Department of Energy—National Energy Technology Center

Morgantown, WV

Dr. W.Melvyn Roquemore

Senior Scientist, Combustion

Air Force Research Laboratory

Dayton, OH

Dr. Klaus Schadow

Consulting Combustion & Propulsion Expert

Schadow Technology

San Clemente, CA

Dr. Mary H.Young

Director, Sensors and Materials (retired)

HRL Laboratories

Calabasas, CA

Suggested Citation:"Letter Report." National Research Council. 2004. Letter Report from the Panel for the Review of Proposals for NASA's Intelligent Propulsion Systems Foundation Technology (PSFT) Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11132.
×

National Academies

Division of Engineering and Physical Science

Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board

ATTACHMENT B, to the Letter Report of the

ASEB Panel for the Review of Proposals for NASA’s Intelligent Propulsion Systems Foundation Technology Program

Meeting of August 10–11, 2004 in Washington, DC

Meeting Attendance

Panelists:

Dr. Alan Eckbreth, Chair

Vice-President

Connecticut Academy of Science and Engineering

Hartford, CT

Dr. Dilip R.Ballal

Hans Von Chain Distinguished Professor & Director, Von Ohain Fuels & Combustion Center

University of Dayton

Dayton, OH

Dr. Thomas Beutner

Program Manager for Turbulent and Rotating Flows

Air Force Office of Scientific Research

Arlington, VA

Dr. Gregory Carman

Professor, Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering and Director, Active Materials Laboratory

University of California, Los Angeles

Los Angeles, CA

Dr. Fred E.Culick

Professor of Mechanical Engineering and Jet Propulsion

California Institute of Technology

Pasadena, CA

Dr. Richard J.Goldstein

Regents’ Professor and James J.Ryan Professor, Department of Mechanical Engineering

University of Minnesota

Minneapolis, MN

Dr. Steven Gorrell

Aerospace Engineer

Air Force Research Laboratory

Dayton, OH

Dr. Kenneth C.Hall

Professor and Chair, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering & Materials Science

Duke University

Durham, NC

Mr. Ambros S.Hoffmann

Chief Engineer, Advanced Technology (retired)

Honeywell, Inc.

Phoenix, AZ

Mr. Robert Luppold

Owner and Chief Engineer

Luppold & Associates, Inc.

West Newton, PA

Dr. George A.Richards

Focus Area Leader, Energy System Dynamics

Department of Energy—National Energy Technology Center

Morgantown, WV

Suggested Citation:"Letter Report." National Research Council. 2004. Letter Report from the Panel for the Review of Proposals for NASA's Intelligent Propulsion Systems Foundation Technology (PSFT) Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11132.
×

Dr. W.Melvyn Roquemore

Senior Scientist, Combustion

Air Force Research Laboratory

Dayton, OH

Dr. Klaus Schadow

Consulting Combustion & Propulsion Expert

Schadow Technology

San Clemente, CA

Dr. Mary H.Young

Director, Sensors and Materials (retired)

HRL Laboratories

Calabasas, CA

NASA Program Staff:

Dr. Carolyn Mercer

Ms. Susan Johnson

Mr. John Rohde

Ms. Carol Ginty

Ms. Mary Jo Long-Davis

Mr. Gary Seng

Open Session Attendance:

Mr. Jeff Morris

ASEB Staff:

Dr. Karen Harwell, Senior Program Officer

Mr. Neeraj Gorkhaly, Project Assistant

Suggested Citation:"Letter Report." National Research Council. 2004. Letter Report from the Panel for the Review of Proposals for NASA's Intelligent Propulsion Systems Foundation Technology (PSFT) Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11132.
×

National Academies

Division of Engineering and Physical Science

Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board

ATTACHMENT C-1, to the Letter Report of the

ASEB Panel for the Review of Proposals for NASA’s Intelligent Propulsion Systems Foundation Technology Program

Meeting of August 10–11, 2004, in Washington, DC

Proposals Summarized by Grade by NRC Number

Excellent

NRC-04–036

NRC-04–041

NRC-04–060

NRC-04–061

NRC-04–063

Very Good

NRC-04–001

NRC-04–004

NRC-04–013

NRC-04–014

NRC-04–015

NRC-04–020

NRC-04–023

NRC-04–028

NRC-04–029

NRC-04–030

NRC-04–034

NRC-04–037

NRC-04–038

NRC-04–039

NRC-04–045

NRC-04–047

NRC-04–048

NRC-04–051

NRC-04–054

NRC-04–055

NRC-04–056

NRC-04–059

NRC-04–068

NRC-04–070

NRC-04–075

NRC-04–082

NRC-04–100

Good

NRC-04–006

NRC-04–009

NRC-04–011

NRC-04–012

NRC-04–016

NRC-04–019

NRC-04–021

NRC-04–022

NRC-04–024

NRC-04–025

NRC-04–026

NRC-04–027

NRC-04–033

NRC-04–035

NRC-04–046

NRC-04–050

NRC-04–052

NRC-04–057

NRC-04–064

NRC-04–071

NRC-04–076

NRC-04–077

NRC-04–080

NRC-04–081

NRC-04–083

NRC-04–085

NRC-04–087

NRC-04–088

NRC-04–090

NRC-04–091

NRC-04–092

NRC-04–095

NRC-04–098

Fair

NRC-04–002

NRC-04–003

NRC-04–005

NRC-04–007

NRC-04–008

NRC-04–010

NRC-04–017

NRC-04–018

NRC-04–031

NRC-04–032

NRC-04–040

NRC-04–043

NRC-04–044

NRC-04–049

NRC-04–053

NRC-04–058

NRC-04–062

NRC-04–066

NRC-04–067

NRC-04–069

NRC-04–072

NRC-04–073

NRC-04–074

NRC-04–078

NRC-04–079

NRC-04–084

NRC-04–086

NRC-04–089

NRC-04–093

NRC-04–094

NRC-04–096

NRC-04–099

NRC-04–101

Poor

NRC-04–042

NRC-04–097

Incomplete

Information

None

Letter Report from the Panel for the Review of Proposals for NASA's Intelligent Propulsion Systems Foundation Technology (PSFT) Program Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!