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