4^th Responsive Space Conference Questionnaire Results 

Specific Topics and Comments 

Hotel in closer walking distance to restaurants (or a hotel with more restaurant options).

The Hilton LAX would be a better location.  Some rough characters outside of the Westin.

Might need a newer hotel-rooms were dusty.

Move to new location so it doesn’t get stale.

Negotiate a deal with the hotel regarding parking.

Include parking in cost.

Larger block of rooms.

Extend time for conference rate at hotel.

Meals were superb!

Very good.  Top notch speakers and good opportunity for networking. 

You need speakers who can challenge the people to think differently those who are leaders (movers & shakers) in gov’t.-not bureaucrats

 or unimaginative speakers – and you had many.  Please invite Pete Rustan again.  How about Pete Worden.

Think about having a classified or US personnel only portion of this conference.  Need to ask customers (gov't.) hard questions about

 what they really want.

We need papers from the warfighters.  Too much overlap between papers. Papers need greater topical focus.  Numerous irrelevant

 papers: [that]- have nothing to do with ORS.

Some talks really need more than 15 minutes and questions.  Build in a few longer slots for the session chairman.

Awesome list of guest speakers and participants.  Good job!

This was a great conference with well together lunch and dinner speakers.  Great job! For next year, I recommend session on “What
have we accomplished?”

Technologies than can enable responsive space- a glaring omission.  I heard many speakers say we don’t need new technologies-let’s

just see what’s out there

How to transition technology to operations-Gov’t perspective.

Breakout session for TacSat discussion.

Need more technical “meat” in tech sessions.  Most panels poorly organized and convoluted, too little time for questioning.  On positive

side lunch speakers (Pete Rustan) were good.

More technical topics in plug-and-play, standards, system architectures.

Need inputs, maybe a panel, in RS5, of warfighters.  Special forces A-team leaders, OPS/intel staff, marine or army brigade. Tactical

intel officers, Ops intel, tactical fighter wing etc.

I found the panel discussions to a better format than paper presentations.

Good broad overview of ORS; excellent organization.  I wish the panel discussions were actual discussions and Q&A sessions and not

 a chance for the panelists to present more powerpoint slides.

Need to address how current systems can be made more responsive, e.g, EELV, launch ranges, spacecraft check-out, launch, on-orbit

check-out and turnover to operator.  Many systems inherently can be made more “responsive”.  Finally-invite Bill Jones back for RS5 to

 give us all a reality check.

Real budgets from DoD and IRAD on ORS.

The conference organization is wonderful.  The committee is very helpful and responsive.

Well organized and efficiently run.  Broad coverage of many topics.  Provides a good opportunity to network with other members
of industry.

Very good and worth the effort.  A little more structure in the sessions might be beneficial.

Good value and well worth time and $$ (expense).  Recommend marines be here also.

The conference was very informative.  Not working in aerospace, it’s a good way to get a status of the activity.  Organization is one of
the best in which I have participated.

It is very organized and on schedule.

Keep the single track format, do not go to multiple tracks.

Consider moving RS-N to occur 6 months away from USU Small Satellite Conference.

You might extend it to another day or half day.  Tuesday & Wednesday were really packed with speakers.

Consider having two simultaneous tracks.  This would permit a little more time for speakers or other agenda items.

30 minutes per speaker.

Provide for concurrent sessions of tutorials.

GENERAL COMMENTS

How was the cost of this conference, relative to other comparable conferences?

Low (1)       4              Typical (2)           52              High (3)      6              Average 2.03

Overall, how was the conference?

Very good.  Focus the discussion about the debatable issue.

The conference was well run and the participation from senior gov’t/military speakers were impressive.

Excellent – one of the best things I’ve done this year.

It was a good introduction to issues involved in responsive space as well as a nice chance to establish and continue relationships.

Enjoyable, seems like an excellent way to push ORS forward even though it’s clear there is still much confusion as to what ORS
is/where it’s going.

Good in the sense that progress has been made since RS3 and was visible from the presentations and discussions.  Also, we can
better see where we need to go.

Nice to see as much high level gov’t participation especially in papers for TacSat session.

Good.  I would appreciate native versions of the actual presentations in addition to PDF versions of the papers.

Like many conferences, interpersonal discussion were the real value, not the presentations/panels.  Also, “preliminary agenda”
was lacking in detail about panels, and participants and subjects.

Excellent source of RS status and opportunities to network in industry.

Good networking, overview of state of the practice in ORS, review of commercial and technologies was good.  Seeing lots of brass attend
was very good!

It was the right site to allow for diversity of ideas but not overwhelming.  Good opportunity to network.

Good we need to involve the IC folks, we are missing quite a bit of perspective on current capabilities etc. If they would talk.

Excellent overview of progress being made.  However; it appears that the government wants industry to fund this activity thus; while
there is a stated need.  One question is the true need without funding to back it up.  In the aircraft weapons area funding is dark.  For
years ($$$) then systems is matured it is released.  Don’t see this in this community.

Most important, what could we have improved and how could we have improved it?

Include cost of parking in the conference fee.

Better, or more simply, define where this thrust is going down the road.

I would like to see more advanced (new) payload concepts.

Large print placards with last names of panelists.  Include Navy/Marines on requirements discussions.  Watch to not schedule
over AIAA sponsored events.

I would like to see two tracks.  One similar to the current rack, and a second that is more technical and system level oriented.

Better vetting of presentations as to their relevance to responsive space.

Get the focus away from just small spacecraft.

Too much on plug-and-play architectures.

We need more attention to policy and implementation aspects-getting the culture changes moving.

Perhaps a poster session would be useful way to do more networking/technical exchange.

Better internet access for email.

Few of us need another leather satchel-can we decline and donate the money to charity?

Need more input and critique from actual warfighters.

Consider parallel non-overlaying sessions to allow more detail.

More ties of how ORS fits in with current systems or how it could improve/change a legacy system.

Real situation scenarios from warfighters and how responsive space could possibly make a difference.

Consider the policy/Congressional aspect.  Perhaps invite staffers familiar with this topic or who have oversight/interest.

Extend to full 4-5 days to enable meeting more people.

Longer breaks.

Add a standards session.

Print the nametags on both sides so when they flip over you can still see them.

Would you be interested in attending another Responsive Space Conference?

Definitely          65           Maybe          28           No    0         

What topics were we missing that we should have tried to cover?

Customer/end user requirements for RS.

Examine responsive space work done by former Soviet Union.

Specific missions in greater detail-go beyond generic “support the warfighter”.

Tutorial sessions for members new to a technology.

Break into customer categories and their needs and key decision-makers working requirements and funding.

What’s good enough? How to streamline. How do we transition from big, long acquisition ($$$) to quick, responsive, relative inexpensive
systems.

More launch and range solutions.

Some coverage of integration and test.

What do the warfighters think about all of this?

Funding of JWS/RS programs current outlook.

More concrete how-to’s.  Most topics were “what” and “why”.

Conops of system of systems, leadership (who will run this?).

RS from a public stand point.  In order to drive demand, we need to talk about all potential customers.

Need more time for the launch as part of responsive space.

More launch vehicle presentations.

Need to address the business case (economics of responsive space) while the Generals are attending.

On orbit servicing-this is an enabling technology for RS.

House/Senate “champions” on RS policy-what’s being done on committees, roadmaps, funding, etc.

A closed session on classified missions and/or payloads.

What else could we have done in terms of organization, preparation, or running of the conference to make it better or more
useful to you?

These topics are difficult to discuss at “Public Release” level.  Sessions that are No Foreign or Classified sessions would greatly
help the requirement discussions.

Make NoForn so that ITAR clearance easier/possible.

Provide sign up sheets for one-on-one opportunities with JWS/ORS decision makers during conference.