OK : I got the whole thing. There were specialist panels, public
meetings etc, resulting in a priority high,medium,low -- where low
means that NASA investment would have little impact on the field.
(Ignoring the fact that a NASA endorsement could have a big impact on
other funding).
The details are in Appendix F -- particularly Figure F1.
The rating scale is curious and nonlinear , eg steps 1/2/3/9 -- and
in some cases is negative. eg -9/-3/-1/1
Overall benefit was 0/3
Fit to needs was OK, at 3/9 (three categories)
Technical Risk was 1/9
Sequence was -9/1
Effort was -9/0
and then THOSE are re-weighted to a final ranking.
Result : -39 (Max was 406 : Solar)
