[Ground-station] University work, VT Advisory Board Spring Meeting, call for comments

[Leffke, Zachary]

I’ll keep this response relatively short, wearing my VT researcher hat here (though I certainly don’t speak for all of VT, so this is just my two cents and IMHO).  I am very much looking forward to this.  While I’m possibly one of the lowest ranking members of ‘faculty’ at VT and therefore have very little power or ‘agency’ to provide sweeping fixes personally for the issues Michelle highlighted……I am very much interested in looking for paths forward to provide a better ‘impedance match’ for ORI/University partnerships.   We’ve had some success on this front in the past at VT (Fox Cameras, successful approval for an Amateur Payload on an experimental Air Force GEO satellite…..even though that overall effort fizzled), but certainly a few false starts and some flat out failures.  I do think there is solid opportunity for both communities to support each other and value for both sides, but we need to figure out how to do it in a way that works for both sides.

All that said, as just one low ranking University Researcher, I sincerely appreciate Michelle taking the time to think through this and bring it up to both folks on this list, and eventually to our Space at VT faculty and other advisory board members.  Hopefully, some useful strategies and lessons can come out of the exercise not just for VT, but for general university partnerships for ORI.  I look forward to comments on this thread (and love Bruce’s input…..more on that later though).

There is a lot more I can say/write on this topic….but I think there will be time for that later, for the moment, I just wanted to say thanks.

-Zach, KJ4QLP
--
Research Associate
Aerospace & Ocean Systems Lab
Ted & Karyn Hume Center for National Security & Technology
Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University
Work Phone: 540-231-4174
Cell Phone: 540-808-6305

From: Ground-Station <ground-station-bounces at lists.openresearch.institute> On Behalf Of Bruce Perens via Ground-Station
Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2021 2:33 PM
To: Michelle Thompson <mountain.michelle at gmail.com>
Cc: Michelle Thompson via Ground-Station <ground-station at lists.openresearch.institute>
Subject: Re: [Ground-station] University work, VT Advisory Board Spring Meeting, call for comments

So, to state the problem succinctly, the universities own the process and ORI is a supplicant.

Turn that around. Own the process.

Internships in space communications are desirable. People want to work for SpaceX, etc. when they get out of school. Directly solicit to the students for internships, outside of the university, and let the students get their advisor to approve. Start out unfunded, and once the program can show some success, apply for grant funding and give them stipends and paid supervisor. Lots of folks want to fund students. Not just ARDC.

Don't violate the ORI charter. We promised the state we would not be an educational organization. We do research. These are internships, we aren't teachers. The universities have their own processes for giving credit to their students for working in internships.

    Thanks

    Bruce

On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 10:34 AM Michelle Thompson via Ground-Station <ground-station at lists.openresearch.institute<mailto:ground-station at lists.openresearch.institute>> wrote:
The next Virginia Tech Space Industry Advisory Board meeting will be in April. I am looking for topics to bring to the meeting! Please send them to me.

So far, I have 1) regulatory progress and 2) stating our expectations as a 501(c)(3) on cooperation with the University.

The first is straightforward. We have ITAR and EAR results and have an opinion in progress. These are all great things for open source in space and really help education.

The second is based on the experiences so far with presenting projects to Universities. We have done this nine times so far. None of these projects have worked out, so far.

All were funded. In NONE of the cases, were we simply showing up expecting the school to foot the bill.

All got a good or very good initial reaction/review. All had a phone conference, some email, and a set of slides.

And then, in most of these cases, nothing was heard at all. I had to ask “what happened” and in each case “the students didn’t pick it”. In some cases, I was told there was some sort of “day” or “show” or “showcase” where “students would pick projects”.

I should have asked “how many projects are there?” and “how many of those are in excess of student, staff, and faculty resources?”

And, from now on, we will be asking those questions.

If it’s a question of marketing, then not being there at the “game” or “showcase” means… who exactly is pitching our project? When we’re limited in some cases to a single slide, who benefits? I can see where non-profits like ORI can be used as fluff to give the students an improved illusion of choice.

This is lopsided. These aren’t throwaway projects for ORI. To be super clear, I don’t know if this is what is happening, but putting myself into the position of essentially a PM for a rapid-turnover population of “workers” this would ease my workload. There may be a mismatch of assumptions here that we should do whatever we can to address and change. If the project is a “must do” for us and a distant “also ran” for the school, then we have to rethink the approach.

In other words, if we’re going to package up parts of what we do, recruit people and spend time on proposals, and commit money, and if there really is a low or zero probability of getting “picked”, then we should stop doing it until we understand what the probability of “being picked by a student” means and how to influence it. We should also figure out really fast how to improve our chances, since getting the work done obviously means much more to us than it does to any of these Schools.

I already know that insiders always win. Safe choices always win. Prior relationships seem to win every time, even when those partners fail to deliver, are not open source, or have other significant deficiencies. Life is not fair, etc. etc. etc. This is not the problem, this should not deter us. We need to figure out what we do not know that might be holding us back, that we can control. There are many factors that we do not control. I can’t do anything about those except know when to give up and spend time and money in other ways.

Turning the lens onto ourselves: Is the work too ambitious? Is the non-commercial nature simply of no interest at all to Universities in any way? Is the work too boring? Badly described? Are the volunteers the wrong “type”? I’m going to be trying to get this sort of honest feedback and then present it back here.

To me, bringing 1) funding and 2) real problems to be solved meant the core issues with doing work with Universities was addressed. There is a widespread misunderstanding about working with Universities. Over and over again, from amateur radio and open source and well-meaning individuals, I hear “free labor” or “get student help” or “students are desperate for this work” or “this is perfect for students” as if they will just magically perform for anyone that asks.

Well, students are not free labor. Professors are not free labor. Ideas are cheap and plentiful. An idea on its own is nearly worthless. Bringing advisors, money, and application-oriented open source problems should have shown that we respect the time of our potential partners. But, so far, that hasn’t worked. We have to figure out why and adapt.

The next step is to try to find out exactly why and then decide if it’s something we need to keep doing.

If you have insight and advice here, then share it. Please refrain from directly negating the advice given by others, at least until everyone has had a chance to weigh in? This is a case where there are many viewpoints from very different starting points. A difference in base assumptions can result in dramatic differences. This isn’t a link budget, rooted in physics. It’s trying to figure out how we can get things done faster. Direct the advice to me. Any failures here are my responsibility.

We have a limited window of opportunity here and we are doing the right things. If we had gotten traction with some of these University proposals, we’d be much further along, and there’d be some nice published student work. I am ready and willing to improve my skills here, delegate, promote others, and take direction and advice. This seems like something we’d be a good match for (working with schools), and the feedback for us in many cases has been amazingly positive… but seeing each attempt evaporate into nothing has me deeply concerned that I’m doing something fundamentally wrong.

As soon as the VT Advisory Board meeting is scheduled, I’ll share the date and I will share the presentation in advance.

-mdt


--
Bruce Perens - CEO at stealth startup. I'll tell you what it is eventually :-)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openresearch.institute/pipermail/ground-station-openresearch.institute/attachments/20210402/5e887aec/attachment-0001.html>