The Team UTD submission for the 2011 Reduced Gravity Student Flight Opportunity Program (RGSFOP) was rejected. The reasons why are listed below. Along with each opportunity, I have included why the team is weak in this area and what I plan to do to fix the issue. Also included are my thoughts on how each opportunity can lead to a better experiment, a stronger team, and an enhanced undergraduate experience for each of Team UTD's members.
As a preface, I'd like to say that I am extremely proud of our team and what we managed to do with almost no resources. I realize that I am responsible for the content and layout of the proposal, but I would have it known that all members of the team contributed. Though I was proud of our submission, I was also highly unsatisfied. I knew that it was deficient in several areas. There was a dearth of calculations. The images were sub-par. The final proposal felt amateurish. I figured our chances were no better than even.
This, of course, does not make the feedback we received from NASA's reviewers sting any less.
We'll start with what needs to be fixed. Overall, there were four broad categories of opportunity: quantitative analysis, safety, expected outcomes, and community outreach. Each of these will be addressed, followed by possible solutions.
The primary complaint from every reviewer was the lack of qualitative analysis regarding the experiment. I included no formulas, did no real calculations, and did not identify which calculations could be used by the experiment in the future. This was primarily due to the fact that I have a very limited knowledge of fluid dynamics and the math involved. The references used included potentially all of the equations needed to adequately describe what was going on. Unfortunately, I don't understand them well enough to choose the correct ones for the task at hand. I in no way wanted the proposal to be disqualified on the basis of trying to deceive the reviewers (who know much more about this than I). I didn't know what to include, so rather than include everything and risk penalization, I included nothing (and risked penalization, but honestly).
Next time, we'll involve a member of the faculty early on in the process to help with the calculations. I didn't think to reach out to the professors until it was too late. Moving forward, Team UTD will partner with a faculty member who has experience in fluid dynamics. I think that one reviewer mentioned that we needed to have another reference book or two. Those will be included, along with more current research. The new proposal will include inline references to the research.
The next most common item to be called out in the reviewer's comments was the integrity of the seals. Almost everyone seemed to be concerned about how well the seals would hold up to the pressure of the experiment and what would happen if they were to fail. Along those lines, there were several requests for more extensive instrumentation, both for the purpose of better quantifying the results and to help ensure that the experiment remained within nominal parameters.
I'm not sure that I see a problem with the design of the sealing mechanism. It would seem to me that a better qualitative analysis of the experiment up front would allow us to spec a seal in a more confident manner. This would go a long way toward alleviating concerns about the experiment's structural integrity.
Moving forward, the team will be sure to perform more extensive qualitative analysis focused primarily on the seals in order to provide a safe and properly functional experiment. We shall also look into increased instrumentation. These instruments and sensors will allow for a greater understanding of what's happening in the flow tube as a function of time.
Something that was pointed out to me in the reviewer comments was a lack of purpose or an unclear hypothesis. What I believe the reviewers wanted to see was a purpose statement along the lines of "Based on the data, we feel the experiment will behave in such-and-such manner and return such-and-such data." Looking back now, I can see where I was unclear in the expression of what we thought would happen. Apparently pointing out that we don't know what will happen is insufficient.
I am not entirely sure how to take this, since several of those same reviewer comments mention that there is indeed no research in this particular application of fluid dynamics. However, we will make sure that there is a very clear hypothesis outlining what we think the results will be. We will also tie the hypothesis, purpose, and outreach sections together via a common theme. What this theme is remains unclear at this time.
Finally, the reviewers picked apart our outreach section. The biggest complaint was that there was a lack of a concrete lesson plan and that we had not already begun the outreach component via letters of intent with other schools. The reviewers wished to see concrete examples of what we were already doing, who we were doing it with, how we were approaching the problem of disengagement in schools, and what our results had been to that point. One reviewer requested quantitative data on school ranking versus outreach programs already in place. Another requested a concrete lesson plan for the science we proposed to do. Many reviewers complained about what they felt was a lack of vision for our plans. The list goes on.
I will admit that the outreach section was the weakest part of the proposal. I wrote it under tremendous pressure in a very short time without having clearly defined what we were trying to do. The goals of the program were unclear. I did not fully demonstrate that we were trying something different than the traditional lesson-centered program. We wanted to create a framework around the project that would allow educators to frame several lesson blocks around what the team was doing at the time. I also left out completely any metrics we had intended to use to keep track of our success in outreach.
Looking back, I realize that I really should have let our outreach member run with her ideas. We may have had a better shot at being selected then.
Reflecting on the majority of comments about this section, I have to wonder just how invested we are meant to be in partnering with schools and mobilizing significant resources for outreach efforts when there is no clear indicator that we will be allowed to proceed. In other words, why would we start working with the schools when we are not sure that we will be selected to participate in the program ourselves? Getting everyone moving in the same direction only to pull the proverbial rug out from under them would both be self defeating and would also preclude our team from working with these schools in the future.
Moving forward, I will make sure to marshal the resources needed for effective outreach long before the proposal is due. Additionally, we will make sure that a concrete plan is in place for all aspects of the outreach program. This will actively demonstrate how Team UTD will add value to the education of the students targeted for our program.
Now, our successes (and we had several).
Many reviewers felt that we had a good understanding of the problem at hand. Some commented that they were confident in our abilities to construct a functional experiment Others noted that the research is timely and vital. One reviewer said that our proposal was "really close to being a great proposal." A few people saw the clear need for microgravity, and some reviewers pointed out that the design was "well thought out" and "logical". Indeed.
These and other positive comments weren't enough to tip the balance of opinion in our favor. I firmly believe that we will be successful next time if we work to integrate the recommendations presented by the fine folks at NASA. In the meantime, I have a few ideas on how to proceed.
One of our number offered his services as a pilot to fly a small-scale version of the experiment. This would allow us to gather baseline data to compare to the full scale tests on NASA 932. Design issues could be identified and addressed. Systems could be tested under real world conditions. Most importantly, our design and fabrication processes could be refined, producing a stronger resulting experiment.
I wuold like to find a faculty member versed in fluid dynamics to use as a mentor for the team. This person could point us toward appropriate resources and serve as a sounding board for our ideas. Additionally, this person could check our math for accuracy.
Our outreach program should probably begin now. I'd like to connect with our education team member and discuss ways to implement the recommendations put out by the reviewers. If we can have a solid framework in place before we submit the proposal, I believe that the resistance expressed by the NASA people will disappear.
One last thing for our team to do is to take on projects of any size that fit in with what we're trying to do. We probably need a mission statement of some kind, and we should probably form a student organization. This will increase our talent pool and allow us to leverage any resources available from the school.
Though Team UTD was not selected for the 2011 RGSFOP, I am confident that we will be selected for the 2012 year. Along the way, I foresee our team accomplishing great things. Stay tuned for more developments, likely once a week.
Thanks for reading along. I know it was a bit wordy.
Cheers,
-- Zach
No comments:
Post a Comment