NASA Suspends STEM programs!

[Levansic]

I posted this in the NASA discussion at the bottom, but this is important enough that I am also posting this here in the General Discussion.

Unfortunately, NASA's STEM outreach programs have become a political football.

This article spells out what the sequester has brought. I'm not sure what this means for NASA home teams, but it can't be good.

-- Len

[Cory]

I wouldn't get too worked up without knowing the details of how it affects NASA's involvement with FIRST. No need for fear-mongering.

[Levansic]

The article I linked to had the full memo, and an update to some specific guidance. It doesn't appear that any FIRST involvement was specifically exempted, although the one mentioned cutoff date of April 30 for waivers may have been to avoid explicit mention for exemption.

I know that there are many NASA people here, who may have more information than what was leaked. My team is a NASA home team, and we are extremely grateful for the support that has been provided to us by NASA. I also know that many people from NASA attend regionals as part of their outreach mission. My reading of the memo and the specific guidance memo, is that this support is now pulled for the remainder of FY 2013.

-- Len

[Tristan Lall]

I wonder how they're planning to handle existing contractual obligations, especially if they involve sunk costs or penalties for non-performance. After all, for some activities, the fiscal costs, social costs, or both might actually be higher in case of cancellation. (If they're on top of things, those would have been identified already, and waivers decided upon before the issuance of the memorandum.)

Also, does "mission critical" have a special meaning in NASA jargon? And what's the scope? If an organizational unit's mission is to perform STEM outreach, is all STEM outreach "mission critical"?

[Hoover]

The problem with the sequester is that what the are cutting is everything which interfaces with the public like (possibly) STEM. National park services and other *non-essential* services. The politics is as to teach the public, 'this is what you get for asking us to spend more wisely, so don't ask us to do this anymore'. Its an outrage. <political rant off>

[jds2001]

Originally Posted by Hoover

The problem with the sequester is that what the are cutting is everything which interfaces with the public like (possibly) STEM. National park services and other *non-essential* services. The politics is as to teach the public, 'this is what you get for asking us to spend more wisely, so don't ask us to do this anymore'. Its an outrage. <political rant off>

Nah, as the OP said, it's a political football. I think that they want to cause the most visible harm to programs that people care about, but aren't "essential", and to make that fact very visible. I think it's more to teach the politicians "hey look, we did what you asked, now the public hates us! See what you did?"

They could cut completely invisible and unnecessary spending, but instead they choose to do things this way.

</political rant>

[tsaksa]

Let's at least try to look for a bright side in this otherwise bad news. We do have a serious budget problem in this country, and while painful, this could help to address it. This may not be what some of us would chose to do, but then again just about every program has proponents who argue it is essential. Perhaps having teams work to design complex systems with very few resources can be a great lesson in how to deal with real world problems. I believe that FIRST is certainly strong enough to weather a small setback like this.

[fb39ca4]

Originally Posted by jds200

Nah, as the OP said, it's a political football. I think that they want to cause the most visible harm to programs that people care about, but aren't "essential", and to make that fact very visible. I think it's more to teach the politicians "hey look, we did what you asked, now the public hates us! See what you did?"

They could cut completely invisible and unnecessary spending, but instead they choose to do things this way.

</political rant>

Agreed. They are doing this to get a reaction out of the people, so they then pressure their lawmakers to reinstate the funding.

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by tsaksa

I believe that FIRST is certainly strong enough to weather a small setback like this.

A small setback? Since when is losing the single biggest sponsor of a program a small setback? Since when is losing a sponsor who funds hundreds of teams, including over 100 rookies each season, a small setback?

IF NASA really is stopping sponsoring FIRST, it is not a "small setback." It is a truly monumental blow to the program.

[nobrakes8]

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

I wonder how they're planning to handle existing contractual obligations, especially if they involve sunk costs or penalties for non-performance. After all, for some activities, the fiscal costs, social costs, or both might actually be higher in case of cancellation. (If they're on top of things, those would have been identified already, and waivers decided upon before the issuance of the memorandum.)

Also, does "mission critical" have a special meaning in NASA jargon? And what's the scope? If an organizational unit's mission is to perform STEM outreach, is all STEM outreach "mission critical"?

So far those contractual obligations have been playing a role on which programs and get cancelled in 2013. My *hope* is that NASA already had booked the financial support for FIRST for the remainder of 2013. Also, mission critical likely means the bare minimum to keep programs like the ISS and Curiosity running safely.

I think 2014 is going to be a tough year for FIRST and many teams --we'll just need to band together as a community and get through it. I won't be surprised to see the major prime contractors scale back support considerably (Lockheed, UTC, BAE & Boeing all have difficult decisions to make including laying off employees).

[Moriarty]

I saw the same article and contemplated posting this on Chief, but after rereading it a couple times, the wording and what was being targeted did not seem to include FIRST. If it did, I was under the impression that this was more targeted at many minor events that NASA would normally attend (such as smaller events like NASA employees traveling to schools or something).

I interpreted this as three things:

1. Journalistic Overstatement: The writer of the article interpreted the memo (in the usual journalistic negative and overblown way by entitling it "Sequester Cancels NASA Outreach". This was a memo not a public statement saying "We are stopping all outreach"

2. Targeted at NASA run projects, not NASA funded ones --

In terms of scope, this includes all public engagement and outreach events, programs, activities, and products developed and implemented by Headquarters, Mission Directorates, and Centers across the Agency, including all education and public outreach efforts conducted by programs and projects.

3. Misinterpretation of a memo outlining possible steps of actions to be taken by NASA, not a statement of actions that will be done:

all education and public outreach activities should be suspended, pending further review.

[Moriarty]

In addition, if you read the updates further down in the article, it is not "a cancelling of STEM programs"

“There’s a waiver process in place and there will be exemptions for mission activities…most activities will continue, I am confident of that,” Bob said. “But there are always things you can do better or more efficient, and these cuts are going to force the entire government to reduce services.”

Read more: http://www.universetoday.com/100949/...#ixzz2OQQZZ7yY

All they are trying to do is eliminate unnecessary spending -- I don't think FIRST falls into unnecessary spending.

[synth3tk]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

A small setback? Since when is losing the single biggest sponsor of a program a small setback? Since when is losing a sponsor who funds hundreds of teams, including over 100 rookies each season, a small setback?

IF NASA really is stopping sponsoring FIRST, it is not a "small setback." It is a truly monumental blow to the program.

While I'm at the conclusion that FIRST probably won't be losing any (or much) funding, I have to agree with Lil' Lavery. Let's say that they were to actually cut their FIRST support. That's a crapton of money, countless mentors, and significant funding for some regionals. It would cripple much of the program, and definitely stunt growth.

[F22Rapture]

All I can say is, I hope this passes fairly quickly and NASA is able to continue funding FIRST in 2014.

I'm rather disappointed that Congress has handled the entire thing with the maturity of a high school freshman procrastinating on an essay. One would think that we would have voted them out once they became so dysfunctional that they had to deliberately tie themselves to a metaphorical timebomb to get anything done. Except even with the timebomb they still failed to be remotely productive and pressed the metaphorical snooze button for a year while they got themselves reelected. And when the year had passed and 90% were in their same desks, they hit snooze and presumably watched Jersey Shore for another 3 months before finally just letting the bomb explode.

[JaneYoung]

Young people, and their parents, need exposure to visionary thinkers and doers. So do our politicians. NASA provides much more than just the important funding to the program. It provides inspiration and opportunities for self-discovery, exploring possibilities, innovation, and practical applications. It sets the bar in a way that cannot be duplicated or measured.

Jane