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

[Michelle Thompson]

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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openresearch.institute/pipermail/ground-station-openresearch.institute/attachments/20210331/05f43ec3/attachment.html>