Montana Space Grant Consortium
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Montana Space Grant Consortium
Education Enhancement Proposal Evaluation
PI: Ronald Tobias, Montana State University
Title: Dive into Flight: An informal education film project aimed at unraveling the connections between space flight and undersea diving
Requested Budget: MSGC: $18,259 State Match: $55,360
Evaluation:
Impact on students: (consider both size of potential audience and impact per student):
Poor (1) Fair (2) Good (3) Very Good (4) Excellent (5)
Probability the proposed activity will be sustained without further MSGC funding:
Poor (1) Fair (2) Good (3) Very Good (4) Excellent (5)
Suitability of proposed budget: (Is the amount requested justified? Is it realistic to accomplish the stated goals? Is this a good investment?)
Poor (1) Fair (2) Good (3) Very Good (4) Excellent (5)
Suitability of the proposal team (PI + any other personnel): (Is the team qualified and experienced in the area of the proposed work?)
Poor (1) Fair (2) Good (3) Very Good (4) Excellent (5)
Relevance of the proposed activity to MSGC and NASA:
Poor (1) Fair (2) Good (3) Very Good (4) Excellent (5)
Overall Merit:
Poor (1) Fair (2) Good (3) Very Good (4) Excellent (5) Tobias Commentary:
Reviewer (please print name; will be kept confidential): ______Montana Space Grant Consortium
Education Enhancement Proposal Evaluation
PI: Joseph Shaw, Montana State University
Title: Education Enhancement for Remote Sensing Systems
Requested Budget: MSGC: $42,310 State Match: $10,460
Evaluation:
Impact on students: (consider both size of potential audience and impact per student):
Poor (1) Fair (2) Good (3) Very Good (4) Excellent (5)
Probability the proposed activity will be sustained without further MSGC funding:
Poor (1) Fair (2) Good (3) Very Good (4) Excellent (5)
Suitability of proposed budget: (Is the amount requested justified? Is it realistic to accomplish the stated goals? Is this a good investment?)
Poor (1) Fair (2) Good (3) Very Good (4) Excellent (5)
Suitability of the proposal team (PI + any other personnel): (Is the team qualified and experienced in the area of the proposed work?)
Poor (1) Fair (2) Good (3) Very Good (4) Excellent (5)
Relevance of the proposed activity to MSGC and NASA:
Poor (1) Fair (2) Good (3) Very Good (4) Excellent (5)
Overall Merit:
Poor (1) Fair (2) Good (3) Very Good (4) Excellent (5) Shaw Commentary:
Reviewer (please print name; will be kept confidential): ______Montana Space Grant Consortium
Education Enhancement Proposal Evaluation
PI: Penny Murray, Children's Museum of Bozeman
Title: Walk-in Wind Tunnel Project
Requested Budget: MSGC: $12,570 State Match: $16,000
Evaluation:
Impact on students: (consider both size of potential audience and impact per student):
Poor (1) Fair (2) Good (3) Very Good (4) Excellent (5)
Probability the proposed activity will be sustained without further MSGC funding:
Poor (1) Fair (2) Good (3) Very Good (4) Excellent (5)
Suitability of proposed budget: (Is the amount requested justified? Is it realistic to accomplish the stated goals? Is this a good investment?)
Poor (1) Fair (2) Good (3) Very Good (4) Excellent (5)
Suitability of the proposal team (PI + any other personnel): (Is the team qualified and experienced in the area of the proposed work?)
Poor (1) Fair (2) Good (3) Very Good (4) Excellent (5)
Relevance of the proposed activity to MSGC and NASA:
Poor (1) Fair (2) Good (3) Very Good (4) Excellent (5)
Overall Merit:
Poor (1) Fair (2) Good (3) Very Good (4) Excellent (5) Murray Commentary:
Reviewer (please print name; will be kept confidential): ______Montana Space Grant Consortium
Education Enhancement Proposal Evaluation
PI: James Manning, Museum of the Rockies
Title: The Astronomy of "Big": A Planetarium Program on the Size and Character of the Cosmos
Requested Budget: MSGC: $24,420 State Match: $34,710
Evaluation:
Impact on students: (consider both size of potential audience and impact per student):
Poor (1) Fair (2) Good (3) Very Good (4) Excellent (5)
Probability the proposed activity will be sustained without further MSGC funding:
Poor (1) Fair (2) Good (3) Very Good (4) Excellent (5)
Suitability of proposed budget: (Is the amount requested justified? Is it realistic to accomplish the stated goals? Is this a good investment?)
Poor (1) Fair (2) Good (3) Very Good (4) Excellent (5)
Suitability of the proposal team (PI + any other personnel): (Is the team qualified and experienced in the area of the proposed work?)
Poor (1) Fair (2) Good (3) Very Good (4) Excellent (5)
Relevance of the proposed activity to MSGC and NASA:
Poor (1) Fair (2) Good (3) Very Good (4) Excellent (5)
Overall Merit:
Poor (1) Fair (2) Good (3) Very Good (4) Excellent (5) Manning Commentary:
Reviewer (please print name; will be kept confidential): ______Montana Space Grant Consortium
Education Enhancement Proposal Evaluation
PI: Robert Maher, Montana State University
Title: Stimulating the Next Generation of NASA Engineers: Teaching and Learning Robotics in the Freshman Year
Requested Budget: MSGC: $36,826 State Match: $17,929
Evaluation:
Impact on students: (consider both size of potential audience and impact per student):
Poor (1) Fair (2) Good (3) Very Good (4) Excellent (5)
Probability the proposed activity will be sustained without further MSGC funding:
Poor (1) Fair (2) Good (3) Very Good (4) Excellent (5)
Suitability of proposed budget: (Is the amount requested justified? Is it realistic to accomplish the stated goals? Is this a good investment?)
Poor (1) Fair (2) Good (3) Very Good (4) Excellent (5)
Suitability of the proposal team (PI + any other personnel): (Is the team qualified and experienced in the area of the proposed work?)
Poor (1) Fair (2) Good (3) Very Good (4) Excellent (5)
Relevance of the proposed activity to MSGC and NASA:
Poor (1) Fair (2) Good (3) Very Good (4) Excellent (5)
Overall Merit:
Poor (1) Fair (2) Good (3) Very Good (4) Excellent (5) Maher Commentary:
Reviewer (please print name; will be kept confidential): ______Montana Space Grant Consortium
Education Enhancement Proposal Evaluation
PI: Ulrich Hoensch, Rocky Mountain College
Title: Enhancement of Mathematics Classes Through the Use of "Mathematica"
Requested Budget: MSGC: $2,327 State Match: $2,327
Evaluation:
Impact on students: (consider both size of potential audience and impact per student):
Poor (1) Fair (2) Good (3) Very Good (4) Excellent (5)
Probability the proposed activity will be sustained without further MSGC funding:
Poor (1) Fair (2) Good (3) Very Good (4) Excellent (5)
Suitability of proposed budget: (Is the amount requested justified? Is it realistic to accomplish the stated goals? Is this a good investment?)
Poor (1) Fair (2) Good (3) Very Good (4) Excellent (5)
Suitability of the proposal team (PI + any other personnel): (Is the team qualified and experienced in the area of the proposed work?)
Poor (1) Fair (2) Good (3) Very Good (4) Excellent (5)
Relevance of the proposed activity to MSGC and NASA:
Poor (1) Fair (2) Good (3) Very Good (4) Excellent (5)
Overall Merit:
Poor (1) Fair (2) Good (3) Very Good (4) Excellent (5) Hoensch Commentary:
Reviewer (please print name; will be kept confidential): ______Montana Space Grant Consortium
Education Enhancement Proposal Evaluation
PI: Ted Hodgson, Montana State University
Title: Robotics for Reservation Students
Requested Budget: MSGC: $20,633 State Match: $33,715
Evaluation:
Impact on students: (consider both size of potential audience and impact per student):
Poor (1) Fair (2) Good (3) Very Good (4) Excellent (5)
Probability the proposed activity will be sustained without further MSGC funding:
Poor (1) Fair (2) Good (3) Very Good (4) Excellent (5)
Suitability of proposed budget: (Is the amount requested justified? Is it realistic to accomplish the stated goals? Is this a good investment?)
Poor (1) Fair (2) Good (3) Very Good (4) Excellent (5)
Suitability of the proposal team (PI + any other personnel): (Is the team qualified and experienced in the area of the proposed work?)
Poor (1) Fair (2) Good (3) Very Good (4) Excellent (5)
Relevance of the proposed activity to MSGC and NASA:
Poor (1) Fair (2) Good (3) Very Good (4) Excellent (5)
Overall Merit:
Poor (1) Fair (2) Good (3) Very Good (4) Excellent (5) Hodgson Commentary:
Reviewer (please print name; will be kept confidential): ______Montana Space Grant Consortium
Education Enhancement Proposal Evaluation
PI: Richard Donovan, Montana Tech of the University of Montana
Title: Creating a Blended Wing Body Technology Curriculum Thread
Requested Budget: MSGC: $40,000 State Match: $46,320
Evaluation:
Impact on students: (consider both size of potential audience and impact per student):
Poor (1) Fair (2) Good (3) Very Good (4) Excellent (5)
Probability the proposed activity will be sustained without further MSGC funding:
Poor (1) Fair (2) Good (3) Very Good (4) Excellent (5)
Suitability of proposed budget: (Is the amount requested justified? Is it realistic to accomplish the stated goals? Is this a good investment?)
Poor (1) Fair (2) Good (3) Very Good (4) Excellent (5)
Suitability of the proposal team (PI + any other personnel): (Is the team qualified and experienced in the area of the proposed work?)
Poor (1) Fair (2) Good (3) Very Good (4) Excellent (5)
Relevance of the proposed activity to MSGC and NASA:
Poor (1) Fair (2) Good (3) Very Good (4) Excellent (5)
Overall Merit:
Poor (1) Fair (2) Good (3) Very Good (4) Excellent (5) Donovan Commentary:
Reviewer (please print name; will be kept confidential): ______