Up, Down, Top, Bottom, and a bit of Strange

Up, Down, Top, Bottom, and a bit of Strange

Affiliates Meetings are important.  I already knew that, and no matter how much we try to guess what may or may not be on the agenda, something critical always comes up for discussion among our Academic and Outreach Affiliates each April.  Let me say that this year’s meeting on April 12 (yes, Yuri’s Night) at Ball State was a challenge for me, just from a physical standpoint.  I’d only slept one night in my own house this month, after weeks of substantial travel beginning with the National Space Grant Directors’ Meeting in Washington.  Where did my body think it was … Shanghai?  Seattle?  No matter what, it’s time to get up and start the day’s activity in Muncie. 

The podium says Ball State, so I must be in Indiana today.

At one point during the day, we discussed an unfortunate element of life in bureaucratic organizations: “conservation of meetings”.  No matter what, it seems that meetings expand to fill the time allotted, even if nothing important is being discussed.  I don’t like those meetings, and because I appreciate the commitment and dedication of our Affiliates and Board Members, I try to make sure we don’t have them.  With Indiana Space Grant Consortium (INSGC) business, that’s not hard.   As you can see, the Affiliates even want to work through lunch, discussing INSGC stuff, and connecting with each other.

INSGC Affiliates discussing during lunch break

Of course, the first criterion important to avoid those meetings is to ensure we all understand why are we meeting?  There are frequently operational details that we can cover at a meeting, and update elements, such as our award announcements.  However, as Angie Verissimo, our Operations Coordinator, frequently reminds me, there are lots of operational details included in sending out scholarship offers or initial program awards.  Spending time in the bottom-level details is not always the best use of time in our meetings, but it is important for people to know that these details are being addressed.  So, we did make some “First Award” selections of some of our 2013-14 INSGC portfolio.  (Details of those awards will be presented here soon, after the students and investigators have been informed.) 

The top-down view of awards, however, was also an issue of considerable concern among our affiliates.  The national news isn’t good.  Problems in federal funding.  Congressional concerns and surveillance on program activity.  Cascading effects of The Sequester (perhaps a monster from some late night horror movie?) restricting agency expenses.  Fortunately, these problems aren’t affecting INSGC right now (sequestration decisions are directed at employees, not our INSGC award), but as we discussed, we must not ignore these broader concerns as we work to create the best INSGC possible in the future as well. 

How do we do this?  Among our discussions during the day was an examination of what we expect affiliates to be and do, including expectations for what it means for an affiliate to remain in good standing.  Years ago, we put together processes and expectations for how to become an affiliate (voting up)…  but the concerns in 2006 were not about confirming criteria for whether someone could remain an affiliate (voting down).  A working group including Academic Affiliate, Advisory Board, and Outreach Affiliate participants will be working on this important task over the coming months. 

We also discussed how we create and maintain INSGC in the context of the recent headline news stories about a GAO report highlighting duplication of programs and waste, including how multiple STEM education programs might be consolidated across agencies.   In this context, it’s interesting to talk about INSGC as a prototype for a multi-agency, multi-domain affiliate network.  The emphasis here is to highlight our capabilities in an expanded context—across STEM disciplines.  There is an importance that our partners see us as part of a broader engagement of STEM education and applications. One participant mentioned that we can expand this scope, and not even change our acronym—we can be the Indiana STEM Grant Consortium! 

But wait, some might ask (and some did, at the Affiliates Meeting).  Doesn’t “Space Grant” limit what we focus on in terms of STEM?  You know, the aviation technology, the astronauts, the astronomy, the satellite dynamics?  That’s what gets funded by INSGC!  Well, I suppose that some of that is a reminder of the old story about the blind men and the elephant.  If you’re a particle physicist, for example, you think a lot about particle physics, and you notice particle physics applications, and you even pick up particle physics references in the general world.  (Come on, admit it.  You all saw the title of this entry and thought about quarks.  It’s okay.  I wanted you to.)   But in our annual performance data report, INSGC reported on projects for enzyme reduction for biology applications, and nanotechnology camps for K-12 students and their teachers, and a course on groundwater analysis and modeling. 

One of the concerns that became clear is that there is a lot of worry that, in some future INSGC funded by the Smithsonian or NSF to address some expansive view of STEM engagement, everyone would be asked to juggle all of those balls, recognize all of those features, and do all of those tasks.  In other words, “I can’t wrap my head around all of that stuff.”  Well, I don’t think that everyone needs to do that.  When I went in for shoulder surgery, I was glad my surgeon spent most of his time focusing on tendons and supraspinatus muscles and those details.  When the aircraft is descending through storms, I’m glad my pilot is devoting attention to Doppler radar and flight management systems and airspeed indicators.  You want people to work the details of their specialty.  But it’s also valuable to have a broad view, looking forward. What if we helped with undergraduate student retention?  What if we helped support a new framework for K-12 preservice teacher apprenticeships in science museums?  What if we did motorsports?  Actually, we’re involved in all of these—something that we discussed as Engagement for Execution.  Perhaps it requires someone a bit strange to want to connect all of that.  But as this picture indicates, maybe I’m the right kind of strange… or at least different.

BSC “Rocks Out” when discussing INSGC connections

Coming soon, a brief description of the range of student project and program awards (and student majors) we fund at INSGC.  This description is not just for those other people.  It’s to help us remember how broad we already are, and how many people we can touch around the state. 

All STEM is Local

As I start this entry, the National Space Grant Directors’ meeting is beginning in Washington, DC.  However, I’m on a plane from Indianapolis to Atlanta, not due to arrive at the meeting until approximately 6:00 tonight.  What’s going on?

Over the course of February, we at INSGC have scheduled visits with seven of our nine Congressional representative offices—not in the House Office buildings on Capitol Hill, but in the home district offices.  Normally, an educational visit on Capitol Hill (civics lesson alert) is approximately 10-15 minutes with a staff representative of that House member.  There are people in front of you, and people waiting after you leave.  Sometimes, the “staffer” is from the state; sometimes not.  In any case, you’ve got to be able to speak very directly and with focus on a specific point.  The staffer takes notes, and maybe the House member will hear about it, soon.  You’re one of the issues that day.  

But, what happened when this year?  I’ve made it to Danville and Bloomington and Mishiwaka and Indianapolis (twice) and Terre Haute… and learned a lot.  Most of the meetings have been with district directors; twice I’ve met with the House members themselves.  These people are very tuned in to the local elements of STEM Education in their district—retention among underrepresented males; the need for content and expertise to support a local school planetarium center; the role of internships in workforce development.  These meetings have frequently been 30-45 minutes, or even more.  And in so doing, I’ve re-learned an important lesson famously spoken by another House member, Thomas “Tip” O’Neill. 

I’m an engineering professor and researcher, not a policy wonk.  I can’t even keep straight which political party is supposed to be red or blue.  (This is true—I needed two election cycles and a mnemonic to get it right.)  But, it is evident that STEM is a local issue.  I have heard the topic raised throughout the state, in a variety of contexts.  Schools.  Training programs.  Replacing old manufacturing jobs.  I took a tour of a new aluminum production facility yesterday, where one of the nation’s largest extrusion presses is being installed.  What sorts of employees need to be hired there?  Technical skill sets, maybe not a four-year engineering degree, but competence with programmable logic controllers and the algebra and materials science to understand quench rates and weight per linear foot and requirements for self-monitoring, “quality circle” work environments.  That’s not old-school unskilled labor, either. 

And so, I’m late to DC because I spent much of Thursday morning participating in an Indiana STEM Action Coalition for Today (I-STEM ACT) “leadership workshop” at the Project Lead the Way national headquarters located in Indianapolis.  I now have a list of those STEM disciplines highlighted by the Commission on Higher Education that are tied to Indiana economic growth and focus.  Interestingly, the presenter was asking whether or not this was useful to the attendees.  I said that yes, it’s very good to highlight “This is what STEM means and highlights in Indiana… and it’s all relevant to NASA.”  Well, what about fisheries, the presenter quipped.  As it turns out, I was part of the NASA NSCORT on Advanced Life Support at Purdue about a decade ago, and one of the research projects was about fish as part of a sustainable recycling and life support system for long-duration spaceflight.  Fisheries help us talk about systems engineering, and carbon balances, and energy conversion, and oxygen cycles—all things of critical importance to NASA’s Human Research Program (looking at human spaceflight) and Science Mission Directorate (examining Earth’s climate and ecosystems).  So, yes, even fisheries. 

Stay tuned.  As our motto says, we want to Engage STEM Education for the State of Indiana.  If STEM is local, what does that mean for Indiana STEM, and the Indiana Space Grant Consortium?  We do plan to find out, and we welcome companions on this exploration

Winds and Sails

“The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.”  -- William Arthur Ward

Given the weather right now (it’s about 10 degrees F in Lafayette), the “winds and sails” reference above may be more appropriate to ice sailing, but the overall quote is something that I strongly resonate with regarding Space Grant.  Over the past four years, we have gone from projections of tremendous long-term success to lamentations of unavoidable doom, based on funding levels, attitudes in Congress, or organizational dynamics in NASA Headquarters.  Perhaps one advantage I have is that INSGC has been, for my entire time as Director, in some sort of flux—there’s no gilded past to try to return to, and no sense of perpetual darkness. 

This attitude is especially visible to me now as we consider the completion of the 2012-13 program year, the 2013-14 scholarship and program awards competition, and our recent STEM Innovative Pilot proposals on undergraduate student retention and K-12 pre-service teacher training.  These all reflect our changing Space Grant environments, and my hope as your Director is to keep INSGC well positioned to address the challenges of NASA’s role in STEM Education, and the local context of Engaging STEM Education in Indiana.

There are two initiatives that I am especially pleased that INSGC has been involved and invited to participate, both directly related to our focus on Engaging STEM Education in Indiana.  Beginning last fall, a group of industry, education, and non-profits sat down to determine how Indiana can make more progress in STEM Education.  One result of this discussion is the creation of the Indiana STEM Action Coalition for Today (Indiana STEM ACT).  I do look forward to INSGC participation in the areas of STEM strategies and programs, and information and mentoring on STEM careers.  These are things we are expected to do as part of our NASA mission.  A related activity, which also links to Purdue’s role as a land grant institution, involves potential participation in STEM Collaboratory development—a “STEM Mall,” if you will, with afterschool programs,  tutorials, and “artisan labs” where students can work on robotics or other projects.  I can almost see a 21^st Century version of the Ag Extension Service and 4-H. 

As our affiliates are considering participation and project development for our awards cycle, I can point out several important elements for this year.  One piece of positive news is that, since our 2013-14 funds are already in place from NASA, summer 2013 project activities beginning after May 17 can be effectively set up and executed.  I have to remind all proposers that we are strongly directed and encouraged by NASA to demonstrate extensive and increasing levels of cost-effectiveness in addressing Space Grant priorities and INSGC SMART Objectives.  As you read through the guidelines (which have changed since last year), please highlight how your project links to the SMART Objectives, with a particular emphasis on how funds will be used, and what are the measurable outcomes that you will track, should your project be supported. 

We simply do not have the funds, or organizational climate, to allow us to continue to do the projects we did five years ago, the same way we did them.  Even if the program was successful then, NASA Headquarters has been explicit in saying that we must demonstrate innovation and increasing reach and touch.  For these reasons (as well as the fluctuating budget levels), we cannot continue our prior model of “Consortium Priorities”.  Does this mean that INSGC will no longer support robotics, or astronomy, or K-12 programs?  Of course not.  However, we must clearly demonstrate in a competitive context how those programs address current program needs, with modest dollars, to achieve important goals, in a very dynamic environment.  Sponsored Programs requires more specification of activity and budget and periods of work; NASA requires more demonstration of "costs per person served".  We ignore those realities at our peril.

I am thrilled that INSGC is well positioned to respond to some of these changes, with our collection of outreach affiliates and a range of academic institutions.  We are small and large, public and private, comprehensive and specific.  Some of our programs are local and community-oriented; others are of national and international prominence.  While others are crying out how horrible the current environment may be, or demanding a return to some idyll, INSGC continues to adjust and tack and progress.  

Launch Confirmation

Forty years ago this month, Apollo 17 began the last ("most recent") human mission to the moon with a nighttime launch from Cape Kennedy.

Apollo 17 launches from Kennedy Space Center, December 7, 1972, 12:33 AM.  Photo courtesy NASA.

Purdue alumnus Gene Cernan was on board, and helped further reinforce Purdue's place in aerospace history as the last man to walk on the moon.   It would be great fun to just talk about that, but let me focus a bit more on the launch part.  Why was the launch scheduled for just after midnight?  Was it the brilliant illumination opportunities?  Hitting a particular news cycle?  No.  It's orbital mechanics.  In order to get the mission to the moon with the fuel and communications and life support and other technologies available, engineers have to calculate very precisely when you *must go* for launch.  We call it the "launch window".  Miss the window, and you don't go.  Very simple.

We've had a few launch windows here at INSGC the past couple of weeks, the most recent regarding two major grant proposal activities.  Both proposals were in response to the NASA Space Grant Innovative STEM Pilot call--one for undergraduate student retention, and one for pre-service teacher training.  Both projects are two year, $500,000 awards, and NASA insisted on projects that involved a strong cohort of students that remained involved throughout the two-year project period.  The proposals were due on Friday, December 14 (after a "slip" from December 7).  Miss that window, and we lose the opportunity to compete for those funds.  (I apologize to all those friends whom I forgot to wish a Happy Hannukah--things got kind of busy that week.)

I want to express my appreciation for the enthusiastic and active participation of the the INSGC affiliates as we worked on both proposals (nicknamed "SKATE" for the pre-service teachers, and "SURE" for the undergraduate retention).  We have solicited, and continue to receive, input from an overwhelming majority of our academic and outreach affiliates--these are truly statewide, collaborative initiatives reflecting the strengths and unique capabilities of the Indiana Space Grant Consortium.  I remain excited and grateful for the supportive offerings and ongoing enthusiasm for the projects.  In some ways, INSGC is working from a sense of service to the consortium as a whole--very little of the funding stays at our Purdue Space Grant Central offices for administration, but instead will be going to support K-12 programs, junior and senior education students, and frosh and sophomore STEM majors. (This is not unlike the weight ratio of an Apollo Saturn V rocket.  Very little of the launch weight is actually the lunar module, command module, or astronauts--it's mostly fuel to attach lunar injection velocities.)

I'm thrilled to say that we met our launch windows--the two proposals were submitted at 5:00 on Friday afternoon.  (Not quite as dark skies, not quite as brilliant launch flames, but still a sense of excitement, relief, and triumph.)  I am glad for the commitment of both Angie Verissimo and Dr. Dawn Whitaker--assisting in bringing the pieces together when anyone else *would have been home in bed, sick* (actually, they had been home sick earlier that week, but roused themselves enough to complete the launch sequence on Thursday and Friday).    With a team like that, the thrill of a successful launch is even more sweet.  Let's hope for a great funding return next Spring.

At this point, it's time for a holiday break.  We at the Indiana Space Grant Consortium office thank you for your participation, support, and unfailing enthusiasm for our STEM Engagement mission.  We strive to be a vibrant Face of NASA in Indiana.  But, time now for some well-deserved rest and recovery.  So, we'll be closed for the end-of-year holidays, starting at 6:12 AM EST on Friday (The December Solstice, of course).  We'll be back on January 3.  Until then, a peaceful and quiet and enjoyable season to you all.

--Barrett Caldwell

Moving towards Crunch Time

This is the time of the semester where students and faculty alike are frequently seen walking around college campuses with expressions ranging from mild panic to steely-eyed determination (and maybe even some nervous tics).  Projects need to be assigned and completed; exams are to be written, and taken, and graded.  There is so much to be done, and not much time before Thanksgiving to do it… and of course, barely any time passes after Thanksgiving before it’s final exam time. 

With those thoughts in mind, and a few facial expressions of my own, I am extremely glad and pleased for the two teleconferences we’ve had this week with our Affiliate Directors and Advisory Board members.  (Incidentally, I am pleased to welcome Kelly Orr, and Angela Diaz, to the INSGC Advisory Board.  Kelly works at Catepillar; Angela is at Purdue’s Global Policy Research Institute.  Some of you may recognize Angela’s name from her time at NASA Headquarters, including a stint in the Office of Education.  She has an intimate knowledge of, and longstanding history with, Space Grant.)  Even with the increasing intensity of the semester, we had nearly all of our 18 Academic Affiliates deeply engaged in the Friday teleconference.  This is in addition to the Wednesday conference, focused on the 10 Outreach Affiliates.  (Though a couple of Outreach folks missed Wednesday due to conflicts, they did call in on Friday.)   In itself, this is fairly remarkable.  Over 80% of our affiliates were dialed in to participate in the work of the Consortium, and made sure that Angie, Dawn and I were busy with notepads from all the great comments brought to the discussion.  I am also highly encouraged by the collaborative and generative style of the discussions as we did something that, like laws and sausage, usually should not really be seen up close.  We were organizing strategies for our INSGC proposal submissions.

Near the end of October, NASA announced a Cooperative Agreement Notice (“CAN”) for Space Grant Consortia to propose projects in two areas:  Undergraduate STEM Education, and Effective K-12 STEM Teacher Education.   Each Consortium is allowed to submit at most two proposals, and the proposals must be kept strictly separate.  This is not why we had two teleconferences—we moved to that model several years ago, when we realized that too large a group, with too disparate a set of interests and challenges, was not a recipe for an effective meeting.  But it just so happens that the two project areas linked well to both segments of our Affiliate interests—INSGC mission emphases on Engage, and Educate, based on Inspiration, and working towards Employment (as STEM workforce, or STEM educators).  Both teleconference sessions worked well, bringing together people who had very valuable suggestions and insights based on their varied experience.  I never heard “my way or the highway” or “not invented here” statements; not only was there clear synergy between the comments, but also a recognition that the different affiliates have a diversity of capability and focus that is one of our strengths. 

It was especially helpful when it was suggested that we incorporate…  hold on.  I may be tired, but I’m not that foolish.  We’re not going to discuss the proposal details in the blog.  But I will brag on the quality of the Affiliate Directors and the strong involvement that is supporting these proposals.  Yes, it’s crunch time, with two large proposals due in mid-December.  (Wow.  Could it be true that I actually have three additional grant proposals due before the Space Grant CAN deadline? )  Well, maybe just a little bit of sleep might be a good thing…