Cover Image

Not for Sale



View/Hide Left Panel

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.;



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 1
Letter Report from the Panel for the Review of Proposals for NASA’s Intelligent Propulsion Systems Foundation Technology (PSFT) Program 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.;

OCR for page 1
Letter Report from the Panel for the Review of Proposals for NASA’s Intelligent Propulsion Systems Foundation Technology (PSFT) Program 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.

OCR for page 1
Letter Report from the Panel for the Review of Proposals for NASA’s Intelligent Propulsion Systems Foundation Technology (PSFT) Program 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.

OCR for page 1
Letter Report from the Panel for the Review of Proposals for NASA’s Intelligent Propulsion Systems Foundation Technology (PSFT) Program 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 cc: Gary Seng Alan Eckbreth George Levin Karen Harwell Attachments: A Panel Roster—Available to the Public B Meeting Attendance on August 10–11, 2004—Available to the Public C-1 Proposals Summarized by Grade and NRC number—Available to the Public C-2 Proposals Summarized by Grade, NRC number, NASA number, Title and Principal Investigator—Not Available to the Public D Discussion of Panel Grades by NRC Proposal Number—Not Available to the Public

OCR for page 1
Letter Report from the Panel for the Review of Proposals for NASA’s Intelligent Propulsion Systems Foundation Technology (PSFT) Program 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

OCR for page 1
Letter Report from the Panel for the Review of Proposals for NASA’s Intelligent Propulsion Systems Foundation Technology (PSFT) Program 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

OCR for page 1
Letter Report from the Panel for the Review of Proposals for NASA’s Intelligent Propulsion Systems Foundation Technology (PSFT) Program 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

OCR for page 1
Letter Report from the Panel for the Review of Proposals for NASA’s Intelligent Propulsion Systems Foundation Technology (PSFT) Program 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

OCR for page 1
Letter Report from the Panel for the Review of Proposals for NASA’s Intelligent Propulsion Systems Foundation Technology (PSFT) Program 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