PROPOSAL SELECTION

I. Technical Criteria: In order to achieve the highest possible ranking, it is recommended that the team address the following in each appropriate section of the proposal. For more detail see the guidelines for a proposal.

• propose the investigation of novel or interesting phenomena in a particular field
• introduce an interesting variable, technique, perspective or analysis
• possess meaningful technical and scientific merit
• clearly explain the experiment
• state the hypothesis
• demonstrate the need for microgravity in meeting the experimental objectives
• show that the experiment can be produced within the limitations of a reduced gravity environment aboard the C-9.
• present the team's approach for designing, building and testing the experiment.
• indicate a thorough understanding of the concepts presented in the proposal via design details and supporting background
• address safety concerns
• evaluate whether or not the experiment can be reasonably expected to produce meaningful results during a flight plan which includes two consecutive flights of 30 zero-gravity parabolic maneuvers each
• show an adequate means for measuring results
• ensure that the data collected addresses the research question posed
• if the experiment is a follow-up of one previously flown with the Student Flight Program (maximum three flights,) provide information regarding the results of the initial flight, and justification for the follow-up flight
• if the experiment involves experimentation of human subjects, IT WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED
• cite sources for information presented in the proposal and include a bibliography - no Web sites should be included

Technical Review Weighting - Total points worth 70% of overall score used to rank proposal

• To see a sample of the Technical Evaluation Form that reviewers will use, go to "Technical Evaluation Form" (See Supporting Documents).

Common Technical Omissions

• failure to show a need for microgravity in achieving the experimental objectives
• failure to cite references
• failure to show a clear understanding of the concepts involved in the research
• omitting justification for follow-up flight

II. EXPERIMENT SAFETY EVALUATION CRITERIA:

• adequately address all required sections of the " Experiment Safety Evaluation Guidelines"

Experiment Safety Weighting

• Safety rating SAFE/GO; CONDITIONAL; UNSAFE/NO-GO indicates whether the reviewers determined the experiment, as presented, safe for ground and /or flight operations; approve pending recommended changes are made; or are unsafe.
• An unsafe/no-go will disqualify the experiment

Common Safety Omissions

• failure to address safety concerns adequately

III. OUTREACH PLAN CRITERIA

• Identify the team's educational objective in planning outreach activities.
• Include activities which are specific to your audience (K-12, general public, museum audience, peers, etc.)
• Include plans for developing a team website. Do not include a website URL that is not of the team's own making This means do no use an address for institution or faculty site.
• Include appropriate details and descriptions of outreach plans. Avoid vague descriptions and language.
• Show creativity in the ideas presented.
• State your intentions, if any, regarding media (journalist, media outlets, article in school paper, etc.)

Outreach Weighting - Total points worth 30% of overall score used to rank proposal

• To see a sample of the Outreach Evaluation Form that reviewers will use, go to "Outreach Evaluation Form" (See Supporting Documents).
• Examples of outreach that scored well

Outreach Common Omissions

• failure to include an outreach plan; or including a minimal plan lacking clear details or descriptions
• listing a website URL not of the team's own making

 

IV. ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS

• state your team's willingness and ability to comply with program requirements via attention to program timeline, deadlines and requests to provide information to any of the Program Coordinators involved.
• provide a letter from the university/college president, college dean or departmental chairperson stating knowledge of the team's involvement and endorsement by the institution of the team's participation in the program
• provide a letter from the team's faculty advisor indicating his/her willingness to support and guide the team during program participation
• include a funding plan
• adhere to program guidelines concerning team member eligibility
• Although not scored, per se, failure to include prescribed items may adversely effect ranking of proposal when compared to more complete submissions