2005 NASA Grant Recipients Released
 

The list of 2005 NASA Grant recipients was released earlier today. You can find the list here:

http://robotics.nasa.gov/2005_sponsorships.htm

Congratulations to those who received support!

Re: 2005 NASA Grant Recipients Released
 

Aren't these grants meant for first and second year teams to assist in the formation of a team in their start to help "get them off the ground". Now with that said as i glance at the teams who received grants i am wondering why teams 71 and 93 received these grants.



this post is in no way a bash at either team 71 or 93 or NASA, i just thought these grants were designed for first and second year teams as assistance to start and develop a team.

Re: 2005 NASA Grant Recipients Released
 

Yeah... that's what I said too. No offense, but we all know Beatty isn't in need of the money. I have nothing against large, well funded teams, but these grants are for the teams that cant find a way to compete otherwise... to give one to one of, if not THE powerhouse teams in the country is absolutely absurd in my mind.

I can only hope that they recieved it because others didn't apply... if they got it over some rookies or teams that absolutely needed that money, there's something SERIOUSLY wrong with NASA's selection policy.

*awaits the outpouring of negative rep*

Re: 2005 NASA Grant Recipients Released
 

I thought that same thing....as I understood, only first and second year teams were eligible. I could understand how 461 and teams hosting NASA events could get the grants however. Congrats to all teams who won the grants! By no mean was this post meant to "bash" any veteran teams who me too the grants.

-Kyle

Re: 2005 NASA Grant Recipients Released
 

What the heck Cory?
You have specific insight into the funding of team 71?

Personally, I have no clue the financial status of these teams. If they applied for the grants, I'm sure there is a need, or a valid reason.

NASA could have said "no", but they didn't. Obviously the proposal was worthy.

John

Re: 2005 NASA Grant Recipients Released
 

is there two separate grants? one from NASA and on from FIRST?

Re: 2005 NASA Grant Recipients Released
 

Congrats to all the teams who recieved the NASA grants! I have no insight as to why the veter teams may have recieved the grants, but who knows (other than them, of course)- keeping a team alive is a lot of work.

_Alex

Re: 2005 NASA Grant Recipients Released
 

I have nothing against you or team 71 or NASA, John, but when i see a team that can afford 2 regionals (the midwest regional and great lakes regional) and the championship event all ready but get a grant to attend a 3rd regional (that i was advised was a "rookie" grant), which they arent even on the list of competing teams yet (which im guessing means they are wait listed for) it makes me frown. So i am hoping this is either a mix up or NASA had an excessive amount of grants for the Purdue regional which couldnt be used for another event.

Re: 2005 NASA Grant Recipients Released
 

Some grants were given to established teams as an incentive to attend one of the new regionals.

-Kevin

Re: 2005 NASA Grant Recipients Released
 

When it is given as an incentive, is this just "we picked you, we've paid for you completely, so why shouldn't you go?" If it is like that, it seems a bit unfair, but as said time and time again: there must be some reasoning behind it. Although paying for a third regional when many rookie teams are in the red paying for their first and only regional- this brings up some questions. Can anyone provide me with some sort of link to the criteria? I haven't been able to find it yet (ah the wonders of searching the net). What would clear up many doubts is if NASA was able to provide a short summary of their reasonings.

_Alex

Re: 2005 NASA Grant Recipients Released
 

I believe that says it all

Re: 2005 NASA Grant Recipients Released
 

There is a $1,000 FIRST grant, that's seperate from the NASA grant, available to both rookie and veteran teams. However, it will not be awarded to a team that has received the NASA grant or any other FIRST grant. See the "FIRST Team Assistance Grant" on this page: http://www.usfirst.org/robotics/grants.htm

801, 71, 135, 93, 16, 461, 399

These are the only teams under 900 received the NASA grant.

The numbers in bold are teams going to the West Lafayette regional, who received the grant. Entertain the possibility, for a second, that there weren't many teams - let alone many new teams - that applied for the grant, for W. Lafayette regional. Subsequently, the grants were ... granted to the teams who did apply, low numbers and all, so as not to waste the grants and as an incentive, perhaps, for more first and second year teams to apply for the grants next year.

Then why were there hardly any other 'established teams' who received the grant, outside of the West Lafayette regional? There is more than one new regional this year, is there not?

In any case, congrats to both the low and high-numbered teams who did receive the grant.

Re: 2005 NASA Grant Recipients Released
 

My understanding is that Rookies, second year teams, and "High Number" teams seeking their second year of funding take priority. So I think this means that there are not many rookies at the regional that you are discussing.

For example Team 341 has applied for the past 2 years to receive our second year grant at Chesapeake, but have been rejected in favor of rookie teams both years. This is because there are many more rookie teams at Chesapeake.
(and they should receive these funds)

I also would not make assumptions about other teams finances. People often assume that we are well funded because we have big names on our shirts. We however receive only partial (and much appreciated) funding from these companies. The majority of our money comes from our own fundraising ideas.

Although we seem very together and organized, we barely make our budget each year. In fact last year we had to beg in our community to make it to Nationals.

Anyway this is my way of saying congrats to anyone that can manage to get a grant. It is a tough road for the majority of teams out there.

Re: 2005 NASA Grant Recipients Released
 

I saw this thread, and I don't know Beatty's financial status either, but I will agree with OZ_341 about not assuming about team's finances. For example, my team, #16, received a grant, and in the past we'd never really considered the possibility we'd need one. This year however, our financial situation is... vastly different, and we greatly appreciate the NASA money, which has now made it possible for us to attend two regionals.

Re: 2005 NASA Grant Recipients Released
 

I am assuming that the selections were made based on a regional by regional basis. For instance there were probably a high number of teams who applied for Chesepeke, which made it more difficult for a team with a low number to gain favor...as where the competition that Beatty and Hammond applied for must have had a low number of applicants, allowing for Beatty to attend even with the number of regionals they had already registered for.

At least I hope this would be the case...


With that said, I really wish that some company would come up with some form of aid to help dying teams who have been around for a long time. It seems like we are running into more and more of these teams every year...its a shame to see such traditions falling apart because resources just can't hold up anymore.

I'm not trying to sound bitter, but it just seems like everyone is throwing money at the newer teams and the old dogs who have paid their due are now forgotten.

Congrats to all the teams who recieved the grant, make us proud by showing why you earned that money!

Re: 2005 NASA Grant Recipients Released
 

The FIRST grant is a good place for the older teams to go, but that only covers 16% of the cost now. In a best-case scenario, these NASA grants would be able to expand from the 'developing' regions to all regions of the world.

There are many more regions out in the world that need help with funding to keep themselves alive. Who knows what can happen in the future- maybe more companies can join into donating funds to develop new regions. One such place that I believe could use some assistance for survival is the Israeli region. But, we have to be reminded of the positives of these grants, no matter who receives them: They greatly benefit to the sucess of a regional by allowing many more teams to be there to participate. Congrats again to all recipients

_Alex

Re: 2005 NASA Grant Recipients Released
 

Funny. I hear these people employed by NASA seem to be pretty darn smart. I'm pretty sure they know what the words 'first' and 'second' mean.

Therefore, I assume they must have some pretty good ideas as to why they gave the teams that they did the money that they did. I know why. Do you? Did you know before you posted? Did you ask anyone?



Well gee shucks golly!
I heard that that 71 team gets a dump truck full of $20 bills every time they get a medal. I heard that team 461 lied on their application and said they were a second year team and those gosh darn silly NASA people didn't check. I heard that Baxter 16 team wanted to cheat a few rookies out of some money. I always did know those 93 Apple folks were a bunch of cheaters.

I also heard that this thread is pretty disrespectful, rude, inconsiderate, misguided, and proves, truly, the outstanding ignorance that abounds on these message boards when a controversial issue comes up.

Re: 2005 NASA Grant Recipients Released
 

Well said Amanda. GP was not very evident on this thread. Just remember folks that even with disclaimers you ARE representing your team on these threads.

Re: 2005 NASA Grant Recipients Released
 

While I feel that its important that people maybe think a little and check facts before making posts...I also feel that demeaning or talking down to those who made the mistakes isn't appropriate. Please everyone...including those on both sides of the line...use some respect for others opinions.

I'm not trying to single your post out Amanda, I would have PMed you had it been just you involved, but I've just about heard enough from everyone on this subject for the day.

Sorry

-Andy Grady

Re: 2005 NASA Grant Recipients Released
 

Andy,

I didn't post what I did because any certain team was involved, or because of any particular person that replied. I stand by what I said - this thread, and a lot of the replies involved, are indeed disrespectful, rude, inconsiderate, and misguided. Moreover, I have made my share of ignorant posts on CD, and because of being corrected I certainly learned my lesson.

Any team singled out - especially these seven - should certainly feel defensive. I know I would, should I be publicly reminded of how much money is in my bank account. The basis on which the teams are being judged is pretty ridiculous.
Amanda

p.s. - don't say 'sorry'. Even if someone doesn't agree, you should never been sorry for your opinion (that goes for everyone on ChiefDelphi or otherwise). :)

/edit - I'll rely on someone else to clarify, and I'll now take the role of the ignorant FIRSTer. I believe NASA allows a set amount for each regional's grants. And I believe that if rookies or underfunded teams in their first or second year had applied for the Boilermaker Regional, they would have gotten funding.

Re: 2005 NASA Grant Recipients Released
 

Congratulations to those who made it!

It is unfortunate that these Grants will take several teams to an additional events when teams that applied like 1368 (Countryside High, Clearwater, FL) will fall through the cracks this year and not be able to attend even one event. How sad....I feel bad for them.

Good Luck everyone this year!

Re: 2005 NASA Grant Recipients Released
 

I just want to say congratulations to all the teams that received the grants. :)


Second,
(I took this from the link in Amanda's first post in this thread.)

The truth is there aren't enough grants to go around for all the teams. Also some teams, veteran or not, may not have applied for them. NASA first made sure the teams that applied met their elegibility requirements and then had to decide which teams would get them. I'm sure they had some tough decisions to make and no matter what they did they could NOT make EVERYONE happy.

Jason

Re: 2005 NASA Grant Recipients Released
 

Exactly.

Noone accused those teams of being cheaters or liars.

We had a legit concern and wanted to know why well established teams who are obviously getting by (You can tell me all you want that I don't know about their finances, and you're right, but I highly doubt that a team going to 3 regionals and nationals is having financial problems) were recieving money when there are many, many teams who are struggling to scrape together enough cash to compete in one event.

Until your post, Amanda there were no personal attacks or insults. I resent the fact that everyone who questioned why these teams got the grant were labeled as "ignorant", "rude", or "disrespectful"

-Cory

Re: 2005 NASA Grant Recipients Released
 

This thread has irked me somewhat. NASA generously donates a few truckload of money to FIRST every year. Instead of people coming out and thanking NASA for helping our program grow, people are immediately complaining about the allocation funds.

I'm not suggesting that anyone should blindly accept things, but maybe we could give NASA the benefit of the doubt. I think I'm safe in my assumption that NASA has a detailed approval process, and that every team that received a grant is deserving of the money.

Being a member of a team that often gets criticized for our budget, I do take offense to some of the comments in this thread. A team's financial information is private, and they don't need to justify their spending to anyone. Also, just because a team is a "powerhouse" doesn't mean that their pockets are overflowing. Success in this game comes from a wealth of ideas and good engineering, not deep pockets.

So yeah, congratulations to all the teams who earned grants, and a huge thank you to NASA for their generous sponsorship.

Re: 2005 NASA Grant Recipients Released
 

I'm fairly certain it's possible to both be grateful to NASA for the grants while still offering positive criticism. I haven't noticed that much complaining going on, really. To say that we cannot question what NASA does with its money because they're giving us that money seems a very odd statement to me.

I think the point of the critical people in this thread is to question the methodology of the NASA grants. If NASA truly does allocate a set amount of money to each regional, then it can obviously result in some odd grant awards like it has this year. It could also conceivably result in allocated money not being given to any teams at all if enough teams at a regional don't qualify. This could leave other teams at other regionals hanging even though there was money left over. I believe that's the point being made here.

Re: 2005 NASA Grant Recipients Released
 

It seems like these threads are popping up more and more here on Chief Delphi. Almost always, they follow this same format.

1. Person from team X notices that a team/teams who appear very financially stable are receiving extra money/grants and wonder why they should be receiving such when so many other teams aren’t able to cope with the financial demands FIRST.
2. Your normal banter occurs
3. Someone believing that it’s nobody’s business to address the financial well being
of other teams comes on and makes a bold and often insulting post.
4. More people jump on the bandwagon and add their rude posts to the mix
5. Nothing happens. Nothing is resolved and people learn that it’s
not worth it to point out such issues.

I think both sides of this issue really need to think before they post. I’m going to be bias here in slanting to those pointing out these financial incidences. To me, nothing rude, insulting, inconsiderate or misguided was originally posted. Simply the issue was brought to light that teams who did not fit the qualifications of the scholarship award were recipients. This, as many people have not liked was most likely pointed out by someone on a team who is financially struggling. They have pointed out things such as the recipient teams being signed up for multiple regionals and quite apparently being some of the most financially sound teams in FIRST. One may challenge this statement asking “How do I know their financial situation”. Though it is not everyone’s business, I am sure if you were to see their level of sponsorship it would far surpass the amount many teams are dealing with, barely being able to afford another year.

The main factor that bothers me is this. In all fairness, how many veteran teams found it appropriate to apply for a 1’st or 2’nd year teams financial help? I’m sure there would be swarms of other teams applying for these scholarships if they were open to everyone. Do you really think 461, 93 and 71 are the only teams who would like to attend multiple regionals? Many teams out of their 1’st or 2’nd year that are facing the prospect of folding due to financial concerns may have seriously considered these regionals if they knew this was a possible way for them to stay alive.

I personally don’t think that the level of financing of many of these teams is my concern, but many people, myself included, are obviously wondering why these financially sound teams were the ones recieving the financial help.

Congratulations to all who got the awards.

This thread can be constructive…people have to realize that the views of others are not insults directed at them and should be civil when posting.

-Ryan

Re: 2005 NASA Grant Recipients Released
 

I believe that what NASA does or does not do with their money is their business. Whether they choose to support several regionals (like they do) or just one team, that is their business.

It is not for us to question or even offer 'constructive criticism' - it is NASA's choice.

Congratulations to all the selected teams, and thanks to NASA for their continued support of FIRST and FIRST programs. :)

Re: 2005 NASA Grant Recipients Released
 

I'll wander off topic for just a second to note two things:

First, my team was founded off one of these NASA grants, and would not be in existance without them. I am quite definitely grateful that they were and are around to help out 1st and 2nd year teams get off the ground and get their financial feet under them and running. So I feel I have to speak for those teams that I feel might be more in need of these grants.

Second, I think it's almost our duty to bring these points to NASA's attention. The presumed goal of these grants is to get regionals and teams off the ground in areas where there aren't any regionals or teams. If my assumption is wrong, then I'm obviously arguing in error and should be ignored. If my assumption is right, then NASA deserves to know if its grants program is achieving its goal. Obviously criticism on this point would let them know that there might be something wrong with their methodology. I think good sponsor-recipient relationships need two-way communication.

Re: 2005 NASA Grant Recipients Released
 

OK,

Just to clarify any misconceptions, what 71 and 93 did was exactly the same thing 103 and other veterans did in 2002-03. It was the first year of the Chesapeake Regional and we (103) were registered to go, looked at the NASA grant and saw it was primarily for rookies and second year teams. However, it was November of 2002 and we were at Ramp Riot and found out that the number of rookies/second year teams that applied was far less than the number of NASA grants available. With the grant underserved, FIRST was not going to be able to reap the full NASA benefit and we and other vets were encouraged to apply. It's also important to know that 103 applied again in 2004 along with other vets and none of those teams received second year NASA money because more rookies stepped up once the regional and the grants were more well known. My guess is that in 2006, in this new regional's second year, the grants will be fully exhausted by rookies and second year (this year's rookies) teams.

On the second point of why NASA money doesn't transfer between regionals, understand that it's not one "account" the money comes from. NASA Ames is separate from NASA Glenn is separate from NASA ... and so on. The grants are to support individual regionals from individual NASA offices.

Please, before anyone makes any assumptions, spend some time understanding the process. I've had the opportunity to have many conversations with Mike Wade personally about NASA grants and he's been very gracious. I'm sure those NASA officials making decisions elsewhere are doing just as good of a job. And if you still question NASA and its overall commitment, please go to white papers, download my testimonials and read Dave Lavery's detailed description of how their millions are spent on us.

EDIT: I also forgot to mention that if all of the grants at a regional aren't used in a given year, the possibility that NASA management takes that money away for the following year exists. These veterans are most likely ensuring money for 2006 rookies. I'm quite sure that none of us would envy the job of people like Lavery, Wade, and others. We have no clue what it takes for them to convince management for gobs of money in the face of an iffy economy, budget cutbacks, and shuttle trajedies.

Re: 2005 NASA Grant Recipients Released
 

Forgive me if my agreeing with Amanda offended anyone. When I read her post I believe that she is being a little sarcastic to get her point across. What my take was from her post is that there are too many people willing to slam other teams. I am going to take a little liberty with Team 1114 so please don't jump on me yet. Karthik if I offend PM me and I will fix it.

Team 1114 is a Canadian team sponsored by GM. They are able to attend multi regionals and Championships. They must be loaded. Look at their robot. Unlimited funds and resources.

Now let's be real. I know (and poke fun at) members of that team. I know that they don't have unlimited funds. I know that they are a very generous team with helping others with time and parts. I also know that they came to us to do part swaps so that they could manage their funds better. In reality I don't know their financial state. I do know and others that have met them know that this team, because of their funding, is able to have a large impact on FIRST and a ton of other teams. I sometimes wish that we had more money just as EVERY team in FIRST does. This is reality!!! I am really happy for the fact that they are in FIRST and at no time do I look down on them because of their funding. They have big problems, well one anyway (KARTHIK) and they can keep their money IF they keep him.

Let's rejoice in the fact that there are sponsors out there that give us money. Let's look positively for solutions that can help some of the less financially sound teams. We have seen on these threads lately that some of the older teams have been having a hard time. Every team will go through good and bad spells and how we emerge tells what type of team we are. What that means is that we must do our best and keep our heads up and always try to move forward.

Being Canadian we have no access to NASA funding but we do reap some of the benefits. More GREAT regionals, great engineers and great support for FIRST. Let's look at all of the good. If I were running a regional and I had a chance to bring Team 71 or any of the other "powerhouse" teams, I would sure try, for the sake of FIRST and putting on a good regional, to both inspire and promote.

Please understand that this post is meant to be a bit humorous as well. :D

Re: 2005 NASA Grant Recipients Released
 

I really like NASA a lot and I'm sure that everyone on Team 341 feels the same way after we were able to make it to Chesapeake a couple of years ago with the help of a generous NASA grant.

However, I do feel really sorry for the members of Team 1368 who apparently won't be going to a single official event this year. :ahh: I feel that when used properly, threads like this can be quite important. Without constructive criticism, who knows where we would be in the world today?

Things like Team 1368's situation should be brought to NASA's attention so that teams like this can receive some more funding.

Re: 2005 NASA Grant Recipients Released
 

We received a NASA Grant (JPL) for the So Cal regional in years 2002 and 2003, however our rookie year was 2001. I remember other teams shocked in 2003 to find out we had a NASA Grant in our third year. They simply thought the NASA grants were only open to rookie teams, that is a misunderstanding - read the grant qualifications more closely. KUDO's to those veteren teams for taking advantage of the grant and for writing a GREAT grant (you do have to spend a bit of time to convey your program and reasoning to NASA, it's not like you just put your name down and they give you money!).

Let's use this experience to remind ourselves to read carefully and pursue all avenues of funding.

Re: 2005 NASA Grant Recipients Released
 

Well, at the risk of playing both sides of the fence. I don't think there is anything wrong with expressing your concerns about the grants. Feedback to NASA is a good thing.

But lets try to be gracious and express our appreciation in the process. Our one year of funding (2003) came in a year when we lost our major sponsor. So I can be nothing but appreciative.

We are all capable of multi-dimensional thinking on the issue. I am simultaneously dissappointed that we didn't get a grant this year, happy for any team that got one, and concerned for those rookie teams that need one.

So yes! It is possible to discuss the potential flaws in the process, while focusing on all of the good that these grants are doing.

You people are just that good!! :D

NASA gives out money- it is a good thing.
 

I think this is part of the reason why teams like 71 and 93 are still around. By surviving this long, they have demonstrated the ability to find sponsors. By excelling at the competition they have demonstrated the ability to find engineers and all sorts of help. It is not an easy thing to do. I was involved in a grant process at my church, and it was a very difficult thing to write.

We look at 71 with admiration for their robot. We look to them for how to do things, but stop at the engineering. Why not look at this as another way to emulate them? This shows that they are out there actively looking for more funding, and you should be too. This is not a six week competition, it is a six week production time, with the rest of the year being time for building the business side. Organization and funding are crucial to being able to hit the ground running and start engineering the day of kickoff.

As Doug G pointed out, reading the fine print is a very important thing to do. Those that do tend to see things that everyone else passed by. Those little things add up.


Wetzel

Re: 2005 NASA Grant Recipients Released
 

I’ll add my voice to the thread, echoing what many have already said. It may not be public knowledge to all teams in all areas of the country, but for the past few years NASA personnel have been surprised that not very many teams have applied for their grants. Each year there are a handful of perceptive, and well intentioned veteran teams who apply for some of these grants and get them. This 16, 71, 93, 135, 399, 801 thing this upcoming year is nothing new. Everyone who’s upset (because they’re also a 3rd year or older team, and didn’t apply) should keep this in mind, read the fine print, and do some legwork next season and, if you can, sign up for a NASA Regional and apply for a grant, yourself. This is a learning from mistakes thing, not a “let’s [cry] and moan about how we didn’t read the guidelines for grants” thing. While you’re at it, look at things like Team Ford FIRST.

<edit>
I would also like to thank NASA for their support of FIRST. I (along with countless others) would most definitely not have been exposed to FIRST had NASA not been sponsoring teams and Regionals. Thank you so much everyone!
</edit>

Re: 2005 NASA Grant Recipients Released
 

First off, I would like to say thank you to NASA for the tons of money that they put into FIRST. FIRST would not have half of the teams it has today if it weren't for NASA. They sponsor several teams, several regionals, and provide many talented engineers to help us all.

[Humor]Well, I don't think they knew the difference between metric and standard a few years back...sorry Dave.[/Humor] Edit: I stand corrected that it was not NASA's fault.

[Speculation inside]I am not sure exactly on much of the statistics and money flow within NASA and the government, but isn't this a lot of our tax dollars? I know that the tax we pay is a very small percentage of the U.S. gov. budget, and an even smaller percentage of NASA's budget, but don't we have some say in where it goes? At least some input, even if they don't like our ideas? I may be way out of here with this idea, but I do think that we should be allowed to voice our opinion and that the decision makers should try to listen if possible. I am not saying that we should all be making NASA's budgetary decisions, but they should not be spending all their money on something that a single person wants.[/Speculation]

Re: 2005 NASA Grant Recipients Released
 

Congratulations to all the teams who successfully received a NASA grant whether it be some rookie teams trying to gain some ground against all of us novices, or a couple novices who just needed some extra funding in these times of financial uncertainty.

Also a big Thank You should go out to NASA for helping these teams.

Re: 2005 NASA Grant Recipients Released
 

OK, that one was the last straw. First off, NASA does indeed know the difference between metric and standard measurements. Unfortunately, Lockheed-Martin doesn't. Go check your facts. I'm really tired of taking the rap for this one.

With regard to the selections for the NASA Challenge Grant awards, I was the approving official for the full set of selections. The selections were made under my authority, and I signed off on the full list. I have final responsibility for every one of the selections, and responsibility for every choice not to award a grant. If you don't agree with or don't understand the selections, you can complain to me.

But when you call to complain, the very first thing that I will do is ask five simple questions:

1 - did you read (and I mean really READ) the grant application and eligibility criteria to find out if your team was able to submit an application?

2 - if you submitted a rookie application, then I will ask, "did you satisfy all the required criteria for a rookie team?" (e.g. Did your application answer ALL the questions? Was it submitted on time? Did you supply ALL the required information? Do you have official, documented support from your school or parent organization? Did you pay attention and make sure that you submitted an application for an event where rookie grants were available? [this was not the case for all events] Did you make a valid case for why NASA should want to fund you? You are responding to a legally binding Federal Government procurement solicitation - does your application indicate that you are taking this seriously and have given the application the appropriate amount of time and effort that it deserves?)

3 - if you submitted a second-year application, then I will ask "did you satisfy all the required criteria from your rookie year for continuation funding?" (i.e. Did you send NASA the required copy of your Chairman's Award submission? Have you made arrangements to mentor a rookie team? Did you submit the application on time? Did you raise $6000 in matching funds from another sponsor? And by that, we mean $6000 Not $3000. Not $5500. Not $5999. Did you get a rookie grant from us last year? Did you actually show up at the competition event for which you were funded, and participate? These are all binary items - you either did them or you didn't. Again, you are choosing to participate in a Federal Government procurement action, and you have to satisfy the qualification criteria - close doesn't count.)

4 - did you bother to read this message?

5 - did you make any effort to find out the specifics of the situation about which you are calling to complain? Is all your information based on hearsay and miscellaneous posts by other people that don't know what they are talking about? Or have you taken the trouble to actively seek out and discuss the methods, procedures, criteria, and philosophies under which that NASA Challenge Grants are evaluated and selected with one of the seven people who actually run the system (and don't you DARE say that you can't find out who they are - if you ever wanted to know, all you had to do was ask)? Do you really have factual information regarding the situation associated with a team's application, including how and why they applied? In other words, do you have a serious, well-researched concern, or are you just rumor mongering?

After we have discussed these questions, we will go back through the five questions again. Because the answers to all the issues are right there. Just where they have been all along.

-dave

Re: 2005 NASA Grant Recipients Released
 

Agreed.

It really makes me sick to see people fighting over another team's funds. It's a personal team issue, and should remain that way. It's not any of our business to contradict who the grants were given to. What we should be doing is congratulating the teams who got them.

Congrats teams.

Re: 2005 NASA Grant Recipients Released
 

Ok maybe i should reiterate what i was trying to say in my first two posts and maybe i didnt get my point across. I was not trying to single out any team at all and i was not trying to insult NASA or their decision process. I was merly trying to bring up a point that was never brought to my attention before. As i was under the impression that these NASA grants were for rookie and second year teams as a help to get off the ground, i was asking if that was the case.


In that post i was asking more of a question that has been brought up before in other cases. If the money is going to be in excess, why doesn't it get used for other NASA regionals where the money may be in more of a demand or why isn't it used to help out the volunteers of that regional.

Now i don't want to sound like a cynical person but some people in this thread should step back please and take a look at the starting posts of the thread, i never meant in any way to insult anyone, any team or any organization, i was just asking some questions and Dave Lavery answered most of them. I am sorry if i did insult anyone and if you have an issue with this i would be more then willing to talk to you about it in private.

Re: 2005 NASA Grant Recipients Released
 

Thanks Dave! (You're pimp!) Thanks NASA! Thanks taxpayers! Thanks FIRST!

Thanks Plexus! Thanks Appleton Area School District! Thanks Fox Valley Technical College!

Thanks Team 93 mentors! Thanks Team 93 parents! Thanks Team 93 members! Thanks Team 93 alumni!

That should about cover it for now.

Sean

p.s. Remember a long time ago (or for some of you not so long ago) when mom sat you on her knee and said "if you don't have anything nice to say about someone, don't say anything at all"? The simple wisdom that comes with age is something that should not be dismissed or taken for granted.

Re: 2005 NASA Grant Recipients Released
 

Just because you say "with all due respect" doesn't mean you're showing it.

Just because you say "I don't mean to offend" doesn't mean you're not.

Just because you say "This isn't a bash on anyone" doesn't mean it isn't.

Just because you say "I'm not singling anyone out" doesn't mean you aren't.


Disclaimers are meaningless.

Re: 2005 NASA Grant Recipients Released
 

Dave, Rich K., and everyone else who has contributed facts to this thread:

Thank you very much for the information. I have always greatly respected NASA for their immeasurable contributions to the growth and expansion of FIRST. None of us are really in the position to question how they choose to distribute their grant money to teams. NASA's selection process is obviously quite thorough and their application procedures are well-defined. Also, good job to those veteran teams who have done their homework and have tapped into this funding source. They have done absolutely nothing wrong. However, based upon what I've read in this thread, I think there IS a problem with this process, one that is causing a lot of unnecessary anger/uncertainty among teams and also a big ginormous headache for Dave and Co. So what's the problem?...

...Inadequate communication from NASA/FIRST to ALL teams that such funding possibilities exist to them.

Based upon prior comments I've read in this thread, I think that all of the following are true:

1. NASA really, really, really wants to give out all the grants it allocates each year.

2. NASA/FIRST would prefer that 1st and 2nd year teams receive the majority, if not all, of the grant money.

3. Sometimes, disappointingly, there aren't enough 1st and 2nd year applicants to snap up all of the available grants.

4. NASA is willing to give "veteran" teams grant money if not enough of the younger teams apply.

5. Some veteran teams are actually in just as much financial need as rookie/2nd year teams and could really use the assistance a grant would provide.

6. The more NASA grants teams receive this year, the better the chances the same or higher quantity of grants will be available to FIRST teams next year.

7. Not all of the veteran teams were even AWARE that this funding possibility was available to them. This causes them to be very surprised when they see other veteran teams receiving these grants. Some people rashly react in an unfortunate manner upon being surprised in such a way.

I believe that effective communication of grant availability to all teams increases the level of awareness, increases the number of grant applications, improves the chances that all the grants will be given out, establishes a level playing field, and removes any hint of special treatment being given to a select few veteran teams. I think we must ask NASA/FIRST (and ourselves) to ponder the following questions based upon the above:

1. Given that NASA is surprised by the low number of grant applications from rookie/2nd year teams, does NASA/FIRST do enough to communicate the existence of these grants to those teams? Why aren't they applying? Are they applying but their applications are incomplete/incorrect? A great deal of rookie teams are very disorganized at first - what more can be done to help them properly comply with all the application requirements? What can members of the FIRST community do to help rookie teams in their area properly complete and submit their applications on time?

2. If NASA grants are being made available to veteran teams, why should those teams have to "do their homework" and "read the fine print" to discover the existence of such funding? Why should they have to be lucky enough to read a single post buried in a Chief Delphi thread to find out about these grants? Wouldn't a more widespread announcement (with periodic follow-up reminders) via the most often browsed communication channels naturally increase the number of grant applications received? Wouldn't this increase the chances that grants are given to veteran teams who are in REAL financial trouble, instead of giving them to more stable teams to do things like "attend a second regional" because the true at-risk vet teams weren't even aware the funding existed?

3. Would a series of FIRST Email Blasts and a major announcement on Chief Delphi regarding NASA grant availability be a more proper, logical, and fair method of communicating this information to everyone? Open communication = no surprises = no backlash or misconceptions when the grant winners are ultimately announced.

I think the NASA/FIRST grant program is an excellent way for the government to spend my taxpayer dollars. However, I feel NASA is obligated to do everything in their power to see that the grant money gets to those teams who are MOST IN NEED OF HELP. For this to happen, it is imperative that all FIRST teams are frequently made aware of these opportunities, and we as a community must do everything we can to see that these teams take advantage of these opportunities. To that end, I would hope that NASA/FIRST re-evaluates their current methods of communicating these funding opportunities to their teams, and asks themselves if any improvement in the process can be achieved. I would also ask that those who may disagree with NASA's current procedures, instead of solely criticizing them for their shortcomings, get involved and see what you can do locally to help get the funds to the teams who need it most. Let's work the problem from both ends until we meet in the middle and achieve the best solution together.

Re: 2005 NASA Grant Recipients Released
 

I don't think I've ever seen an actual discussion on these forums. Just individuals having a bit of ignorance, speaking well before they have even considered any pertinent information; individuals who believe they are more than ignorant and attempt to be the "bigger wo/man," then eventually crumble, yelling out facts that, for all purposes, are as it is (Dave's post, for example); individuals who believe they are more than ignorant and calmly give out information, wishing only to eliminate ignorance from the discussion, but who spontaneously erupt when their additions are seemingly ignored; and individuals who just always have something to say. In any event, all these individuals, from what I have seen, end up yelling, adding not much more than chaos into an already chaotic series of events.

"This is the last straw", "I am fed up", "I'd like to see you take this guff", etc.. Its wonderful to know that we are not all robots here. We each have feelings, they each get hurt at times, and we speak forthright to defend them. Are we still able to remember this throughout, or do we lie to ourselves?

1. NASA, at the end of the day, seems to be donating alot of money to this program. If they were to ever withdraw their support, there would be a noticeable change in the program.
   1. So NASA may think it not fair that we are putting down their system of choosing how to allocate such funds, because the fact still remains that they are donating funds they have no obligation to.
   2. The system to select recipients seems to have been made very objective, because NASA still wants to have some element of fairness in their allocation process, even though it is their money, and they can thus share it however they want.
2. Its definitely a fight for many teams to procure sufficient funds to survive a first season.
   1. So people may feel cheated at times when they see how easily other teams get their money. However, it seems to me that the "easy" is sometimes being confused with a lack of information as to how a team came about acquiring their funds.
   2. Once someone can effectively say that a team received their funding without expending much effort, one has to fall back to the very realistic statement, "life isn't fair." But that can't happen until, again, one can truly say a team receives funding without expending much effort.

In discussions, even this one, when we react in an uncharacteristic way, are we just relenting against the underlying reality of a give situation, and its deviation from what we see as ideal? Can we say that life wants to be fair? Or is it that we want to make life fair? Shall we further personify such an idea, so we can force it into compliance?

It seems to me that there are facts, the way things appear to be, the way it is desired that things be, and the way things actually are. Maybe we are confusing these? Because as I see it, and as I've said before: NASA's money; therefore, NASA's choice. There are other levels here, and other accusations that seem unmerited, in my opinion, but thats for someone else to argue about. I, for one, will just be happy that NASA sponsors as many teams as they currently do, and that they are continually helping new teams and regionals stand on their own two feet.

I was very serious when writing this post. No sarcasm, implicit ridiculing, nothing like that. If its there, then it is, but was unintentional.

Re: 2005 NASA Grant Recipients Released
 

I'm honestly not trying to spark anything here because i don't really have a set stand point *for myself even after reading everything* but this is where peoples "info" came from regarding the 71 "issue"
http://hammond.k12.in.us/TeamHammond/sponsors.htm
yes it was last updated in February, but that is where people were trying to make a point.

Thinking about this now, i guess i a little discouraged that 71 did get a grant, but on the other hand, they followed everything, and did a great job to receive the grant.

Congratulations to all the teams who received the grants and hope to see you all at nationals.

Re: 2005 NASA Grant Recipients Released
 

I've been watching this thread fairly closely as it developed and, personally, I'm more concerned, not by the topic, but by how everyone is acting on this thread.

When I read the Chief Delphi forums, I tend to see very little malice and take very little offense from anything I read. Occasionally I see something that bothers me but my assumption is that that wasn't the intent of the original post, so I ignore it. I will posit that very few, if any, people post on here with the intention of offending anyone.

Now, offending someone can happen accidentally. It's important to recognize that it was an accident. There are really three ways to handle it when you take offense: you can ignore it (this should be your first choice), you can kindly and graciously point out that you disagree (this should be your choice if you really feel the need to respond), or you can attack someone in response (you really shouldn't ever do this).

Unfortunately, in this thread too many people choose the last choice. Usually all it takes is one person to escalate the situation and it's all down hill from there.

In this case, I was bothered enough by this thread that I choose the second choice. I was debating whether or not to post to this thread for quite awhile but finally decided that I maybe could add something to the discussion.

Of course, none of this absolves the original writer of a post from any responsibility. It's important to be careful about what you write. If something may be offensive, try and write it in a way that won't be offensive. It's not hard, it just requires thought.

So please, think before you post. I rather regularly will have a post all typed up and then realize that it really isn't adding anything to the discussion and close the window.

If you feel that this post was directed at you, it probably was. Even if you don't feel it was directed at you, you can probably learn something from it (or possibly I think too highly of myself). Am I trying to offend? No. Will I? Possibly. I hope that everyone can take this is the spirit in which it was intended; that is constructive criticism.

Matt

Re: 2005 NASA Grant Recipients Released
 

Oh. Wow. I've been away from CD for too long..

BUT! Change of tone/message/whatever (sort of):

THANK YOU SO MUCH to everyone who helped make and approve the selections list for grant recipients. Thanks for taking the time and effort to do something you didn't have to do.

THANK YOU SO MUCH to NASA for providing SO MUCH funding to both FIRST and FIRST teams, for allocating this much money to support something they didn't have to support.

Me.. me.. I'm still elated and shocked and just overly happy because I'd thought it would be impossible for my team to get ANY grant, especially NASA's, seeing as we're a third year team and such. We were $4000 short and would not have been able to participate at ALL this year if we hadn't received the grant... yeah, so what, we now have to raise money for hotel costs - but I'm so, so happy because we get to participate. My friend and I were talking about joining a local team if ours couldn't compete just yesterday (we didn't know about the grant award until this morning) .. we were so worried about not being able to participate in FIRST this year.. but.. yeah.

I've been so excited that I haven't been able to concentrate all day, haha.

Anyway .. yeah. Thank you so much, NASA, for doing this ... and congrats to EVERY single team who received a grant.

Re: 2005 NASA Grant Recipients Released
 

Hey! Good luck to all the teams out there that got the grants. A good infusion of cash will be a great help to teams that need it.

I was curious, who is the main NASA contact for these grants? I had a number of questions I wanted to email them about.

Re: 2005 NASA Grant Recipients Released
 

Read back a bit to Dave's post, which will probably answer most of your questions.

Re: 2005 NASA Grant Recipients Released
 

I'm Russell Wons from one of the teams that received a grant(team 93) and I think I can speak for the team when I say thanks for the luck. We appreciate it and wish you the same.