FIGURE 2-1 Selection process from receipt of proposals to notification of winners. SOURCE: Modified from NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts, 5th Annual Report (2002-2003) Atlanta, Ga., July 2003, p. 24.

FIGURE 2-1 Selection process from receipt of proposals to notification of winners. SOURCE: Modified from NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts, 5th Annual Report (2002-2003) Atlanta, Ga., July 2003, p. 24.

For Phase II awards, the reviewers analyzed each proposal with respect to the following specific questions:

  1. Does the proposal continue the development of a revolutionary architecture or system in the context of a future NASA mission? Is the proposed work likely to provide a sound basis for NASA to consider the concept for a future mission or program?

  2. Is the concept substantiated with a description of applicable scientific and technical disciplines necessary for development?

  3. Has a pathway for development of a technology roadmap been adequately described? Are all of the appropriate enabling technologies identified?

  4. Are the programmatic benefits and cost versus performance of the proposed concept adequately described and understood? Does the proposal show the relationship between the concept’s complexity and its benefits, cost, and performance?

Reviewers were given forms to evaluate concepts using a numerical rating from 0 (worst) to 9 (best) for all these specific components, as well as written strengths and weaknesses for each of the components. In addition, the reviewers provided an overall opinion as to the viability of the proposal for NIAC funding.



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