[Katy]

There are some tendencies that are spaceflight specific. The concept of designing with very strict form factor constraints is realistic (there is only so much space in the rocket for your payload). Weight is also very constrained in spaceflight.

While the very literal applications you all are finding may exist I think that if FIRST was meant to be applied that literally to a specific mission and mission objective there would be a stronger cultural emphasis on college students etc eventually moving into projects such as the lunar xprize.

It is unlikely that FIRST is attempting to give you experience in designing something that can be flight hardened and sent to Mars for mission x y or z and that's a gift. It can be a hard thing to hear, most of us are engineers, in our minds if it isn't "applied" it is rare that it is "worthwhile," but there are things FIRST teaches you that probably so much more relevant to NASA than how to lift a trackball.

Missions are planned far in advance. A lot of current prototyping research (which is effectively what a FIRST season is: a prototyping cycle) is scheduled to be launched in about 2017-2020 (I'm using the example of moon stuff for the lunar base). Most people are not employed by NASA until they have finished a bachelor's degree (and in many cases they require more.) That means that if a high school freshman begins work on something now, s/he could be employed by NASA in approximately 8 years to prototype hardware for a mission that will launch 10 years from that time. That means NASA would have to plan out what mission they want to launch nearly 20 years from now to have your lessons that are being designed right now have that sort of direct impact.

Predicting the future 20 years in advance isn't an easy hobby. Any number of old bad science fiction movies can tell you that. To force you into a specific application this far in advance would be foolish.

FIRST is teaching you something better: how to take an impossible challenge on an absurd time line with not enough money and to achieve anyway. That has been a relevant skill set for hundreds of years and is likely to continue to be relevant easily through the rest of your lives. NASA specializes in taking on the impossible (I would put in the joke "as only NASA can" but I fear I would suffer a horrible death at the hands of some excellent NASA employee who has heard those words one too many times) so having a steady stream of employees ready to face challenges like that before breakfast is a dream come true.

There is another important thing FIRST teaches you that NASA (and other employers) appreciate: scientific/engineering work in a team. I personally believe the era of the great single genius is over. Many people disagree with me but here is my reasoning: logically speaking research is more expensive, more complex, and so much is known about our world that by the time a single person was educated properly on all of it they would probably be nearly ready to retire. On a more practical level when most people are asked to name a single great genius of a scientist they name somebody in the 1940's or earlier (Einstein, Edison, Faraday, Tesla...) Famous "big" research and progress is now made in large groups (NASA, Google, Al Gore's little global warming squad...)

Somehow our education system currently doesn't quite express that. Too many extremely bright students do not feel they need group work skills because they are positive they are smarter than the rest of the group. In many cases FIRST helps correct this mistake. I'm sure some kid who thinks s/he is clever will PM me and inform me that s/he runs the entire team singlehandedly but that is missing the point. At some point most students will probably have to learn to work in a group no matter how inherently brilliant [they believe] they might be. FIRST is a very good place to learn. If you want to ignore the lesson that's your own problem.

This tendency to prepare for the abstract over the concrete is, when you think about it, better for you (the students) too. If NASA trained you for a specific mission 20 years before it happened and then you weren't hired for that mission or the mission budget was cut where would you be? Instead with this system you gain a valuable skill set which is perfect for NASA but also can make you employable by other employers.

So yes: robotic exploration vehicles must lift things, move things, drive, communicate, and sense. The FIRST robots do that, but I think to look at the actual physical game pieces as the closest analogue to work at NASA is missing a lot of more important lessons that are being presented.