2005 NASA Grant Recipients Released

[fred]

Originally Posted by Stephen Kowski

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!

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. 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.

[Doug G]

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.

[OZ_341]

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!!

[Wetzel]

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

[Bill Gold]

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>

[tkwetzel]

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.

Originally Posted by Amanda Morrison

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.

[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.

Originally Posted by Chris Fultz

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.

[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]

[Elgin Clock]

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.

[dlavery]

Originally Posted by tkwetzel

Well, I don't think they knew the difference between metric and standard a few years back...sorry Dave.

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

[Ryan Dognaux]

Originally Posted by Chris Fultz

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.

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.

[dez250]

Originally Posted by Dez250

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.

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.

Originally Posted by dez250

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.

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.

[Sean Schuff]

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.

[JVN]

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.

[Travis Hoffman]

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.

[Joel J]

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.

[Heretic121]

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.