2005 NASA Grant Recipients Released

[Cory]

Originally Posted by JosephM

Can't speak for everyone Amanda, but I thought I said that we should focus less on Beaty and AppleCorps getting it and more on why NASA dosn't do it broad based.

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

[Karthik]

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.

[Kevin Sevcik]

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.

[Ryan F.]

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

[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.

[Kevin Sevcik]

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.

[Steve W]

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.

[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.

[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

[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!!

[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.