***To The Evaluator***: thank you for agreeing to assess student
proposals to the Student Flight Program. Please read the Technical
information provided by the team and give us your evaluation, based on
the questions and points below.

Thank you,

Donn Sickorez

## Technical Evaluation

New Proposals have a total possible score of 75

Re-flights have a total possible score of 95

Administration will adjust the scores to their percentage score for
final ranking. For example, a new proposal with 60/75 has a final score
of 80. A re-flight proposal with 77/95 will have a final score of 81.05.

# Question 1 -- Is the experiment, as proposed, "Good Science"? (15 points)

Student experiments need not be "ground breaking science" but should be
good, solid research studies. Some important points:

-   Does the experiment have a clear hypothesis or research question?
    (**3pts)**

-   Are test parameters clearly identified? (**3pts)**

-   Are all other parameters fixed from test to test? (**3pts)**

-   Are there reference/control tests? (**3pts)**

-   Does this proposal fit the "good science" parameter? (**3pts)**

-   How does it fit (or what might be missing)?

Question 1 Score: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_ out of 15 possible.

Please comment

**Question 2 - Is it obvious, from the proposal, that students have done
enough background research into the concepts and phenomena to understand
what they are proposing and why? (Max -- 5 pts)**

-   What proposal evidence can you cite?

-   Are there any other aspects or features which demonstrate
    "scientific merit" which you would like to highlight for the
    students?

Question 2 Score: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_ out of 5 possible.

Please comment

# Question 3 -- Is microgravity required? (10 points)

-   Is the experiment clearly explained and the need for microgravity
    clearly established? **(5pts)**

-   Can the experiment be produced within the limitations of a reduced
    gravity flight aboard the Reduced Gravity Aircraft? Please explain.
    **(5pts)**

Question 3 Score: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_ out of 10 possible.

Please comment

# Question 4 -- Is the experiment designed well? (15 points)

Please elaborate on any [positive or negative aspects of the
experimental design and approach]{.underline}.

-   Is there a well-conceived approach for designing, building and
    testing the hardware? **(5pts)**

-   If the experiment and procedures work as proposed, are the
    researchers likely to obtain measurable, reliable results?
    **(5pts)**

-   Is there sufficient detail on the design, hardware, research
    question, procedures, etc. to tell what will be done; or is the
    proposal really too vague to judge? **(5pts)**

Question 4 Score: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_ out of 15 possible.

Please comment

# Question 5 -- Data Collection and Analysis (15 points)

Data gathered must ultimately address the research question posed --
please comment on the team's [choice of data to be gathered, collection
methods and analysis]{.underline}.

-   Can the experiment be reasonably expected to generate meaningful
    data during two consecutive flights of 30 parabolas each? **(5pts)**

-   Does the proposal provide adequate means for measuring the effects
    of the experimental treatment? **(5pts)**

-   Can the data collected be reasonably expected to answer the
    hypothesis proposed in the proposal? **(5pts)**

Question 5 Score: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_ out of 15 possible.

Please comment

**Question 6 -- References & Bibliography (15 points)**

The basic question is -- have the students done their homework?

-   Are students using recent references from recognized and reliable
    sources? **(5pts)**

-   Have they located a representative number, or are there well
    established studies which they have missed? **(5pts)**

-   Do they cite ideas from their bibliography in the proposal or is
    their bibliography probably a copied list from somewhere else?
    **(5pts)**

Question 6 Score: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_ out of 15 possible.

Please comment

\*\*\*If the proposal is not a follow-on (re-flight), please skip to
Summary comments.\*\*\*

# Question 7 -- Rationale for Follow-On Flight (10 points)

Some investigations are actually follow-on flights of earlier student
experiments. Students usually designate them as "Part 2" or "Part 3" to
differentiate them from the earlier flight. This is fine as long as the
re-flights DO NOT simply DUPLICATE the earlier flight. We are expecting
a justification for re-flight which clearly explains why the experiment
must be re-flown and describes the differences between this and the
earlier flight(s).

-   Does this proposal adequately address [why the experiment must be
    re-flown.]{.underline} **(5pts)**

-   Does this proposal adequately address and describe the [scientific
    differences between this and the earlier flight(s).]{.underline}
    **(5pts)**

Question 7 Score: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_ out of 10 possible.

Please comment

# Question 8 -- Value of Follow-On Flight (10 points)

If the team encountered problems on their previous flight, are you
satisfied that the team has isolated their previous problem and that it
is likely that the new idea will work?

**OR**

If there was not a problem, are you satisfied that this re-flight is
exploring an important new variable?

Question 8 Score: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_ out of **10** possible

Please comment

# SUMMARY Comments

What strengths do you see in this proposal?

What weaknesses do you see in this proposal? Are any of the weaknesses
show-stoppers (that is, weaknesses so prominent that the experiment
should [not]{.underline} be flown until/unless they are addressed).

Student investigators are NOT required to pursue areas of interest to
NASA and points should not be based on this parameter. However, please
indicate if you see any potential value to the NASA community contained
in this proposal.

Are there any other comments which you would like us to communicate to
the students?