5^th Responsive Space Conference Questionnaire Results

It looks like we are outgrowing the facilities.

Would have been nice to have it in a location of LA that had more interests within walking distance.

LA Airport location convenient but not very enjoyable.  Not that its’ critical, but a more scenic location would be nice.

Change the conference location from LA to other places such as the STRATCOM, DC or near Vandenberg to attract other attendees.

The location and meals were excellent.

I’d like to stay elsewhere in LA, Westin is great, but Westin LAX would not be my choice.

The hotel was cold.  The front desk was not aggressively responsive.

Good conference, some issues with the hotel. Room was noisy with street noise, and free internet would be beneficial.  Free internet is competitive perk at competing hotels.

Coffee was cold for the p.m. breaks.

Westin Hotel is looking a little run down.

They charge for parking, internet, receiving overnight packages, making 800 calls etc.

Conference room was very cold, also a bit dark-other than facility issues nothing to comment on.

Pre-negotiate hotel package to include internet/wireless internet access.

It looks like we are outgrowing the facilities.

The reception food is fine.  Would like a free bar.

Free beverages as part of reception.

Recommend lighter lunches and definitely not chicken 2 days in a row.

The food is the same every year, please try for some variety in the meals.

Too much food, lighten the menu.

Lunch meals were way too big.

As is typical lunch and dinner are heavy in calories.  Please inquire about lightening lunch-make it less like dinner in the middle of the day.

Cost of drinks and need to pay for all drinks at receptions is excessive.  I would propose 1-2 tickets to everyone for the first 1-2 drinks.

Food was great but too much of it.  Do not need reception and dinner.

Hot breakfast-those of us on East Coast time were hurting for the protein that didn’t come until 3:00 p.m. our time (lunch).

GENERAL COMMENTS

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

Low (1)       14            Typical (2)          85              High (3)      16            Average 2.02

Overall, how was the conference?

Very good.

Very well run, very informative

Poor

Very stimulating, would like to see more time devoted to payload, RF/comms aspects.

Excellent

Well organized.  Panel discussions were excellent.  Better if we have CD (papers) in advance.

Very good exchange path to ORS.

Good coverage of RS topic.  Some disappointment with late changes of featured speakers.

Great technical agenda and papers.

I thought it was very good. 

The conference was well prepared and well organized.

I believe the conference went well but would have but would have put launch and tacsats on Friday.  Need section on commercial space, what role can consumers play to drive down cost.  Also, overall not too many college students.  Need to cater to them to provide fresh innovative insights.

Great experience.

Perhaps too long 1 or ½ day.

Very good.

Excellent overall.  Maybe a little to focuses on the warfighter this year, but that is a major part of the goal and what seems to be driving access to funds.

Excellent primarily because of the progress.  However, there’s much more work to be done.  I believe these sessions have provided a framework and gone a long ways towards identifying fault lines.

It is generally good and helped me to realize the responsive space field and know what ORS is.

Probably ran ½ day too long.

This is a good conference.

Very informative, well organized and kept on schedule.

Another outstanding conference.  It gets better every year.

Remarkable.

Interesting but would have liked more new material.

Very interesting conference. Some technical discussions were less interesting, but most very good.  Overall very informative, good time management, well done.

Excellent mix of military and industry presenters.

Excellent conference very worthwhile.

I thought this was a great conference.  I especially enjoyed the panel discussions specifically the warfighter panel.  I also thought the technical presentations were well done.

Good conference.

The briefings were not a high level and didn’t go into the details explaining what the benefit is.  I found the morning panel to be excellent and very informative.

Excellent food, great speakers organized into very logical order and impressive list of keynote speakers.  Price of conference, without a doubt, should have included parking.

Conference sessions were very good.  Podium and panel table lighting should be brighter.

Good overall.

Very good.  Try to reserve a bigger block of rooms.  Some people had to stay elsewhere.  Continue to invite dynamic speakers and gov’t “decision makers”.

Ok. Good networking, fair analysis, good discussions.  Many speakers offered little.

Thorough conference on subject.  Agenda was too compacted.  Should have fewer presenters and give more time to the speaker.  On Wednesday presentations most speakers gave highlights of their topics and more time should have been given discussing topic.

It was well organized with a good, efficient use of time.  The panels were informative and the presentations were well chosen.

Great, well run.

Very enjoyable.  Extra credit:  radio broadcast and dual sided name tags.  Extra, extra credit:  warfighter panel.

Generally good.  Need more variety year to year.  A lot of the same people.

Very well organized and great speakers.

Pretty good.  Would have liked to see more sessions on the ORS strategy and CONOPS, as well as the “other” (i.e., non-JFC) users how that’s envisioned to work.

Continues to be excellent.

Excellent organizers did a super job of getting speakers and panel participating who were very knowledgeable with “hands on” experience with ORS.  Keep up the great work!

Useful well organized and friendly. 

Very interesting and useful.

A few areas to improve.  Slow check in process on first night.  Crowded on first day for seating-chairs alone made for more overall space.

Good conference learned a lot.

Great conference.

Very good.  I learned a lot.  Days were long though, more breaks needed.

Very informative.  This was my first RS conference and I was able to quickly come up to speed on ORS due to the high quality of the presenters and attendees.  I look forward to attending again.

Excellent

It is a well organized conference.  The topics presented are relevant to ORS.  I would like to see more technical topics in other segments of the space domain such as responsiveness in ground systems, integration and test, advanced technologies, and challenges of ORS.

Very good networking, good status.

Super.  Double panel sessions Thursday morning was too much at one time and it couldn’t stay on time you lose audience and don’t support the whole premise of responsive (i.e., timely).

Good, if the papers are on the CD or on the website.

Good, nice size, nice location, not too big, good speakers. 

Very good conference, first time significant progress for ORS enterprise (120 day study delivered to Congress, budget, strong Congressional support).  Very exciting time for ORS.  The audience was almost shell shocked with the progress.  The conference is a great venue to network in the ORS enterprise.

Very informative.

Generally, good.  However it would be useful to jump into Tier 1 & 2 issues of ORS, not just focus on small sats at Tier 3.

Good, improves each year.  Panels were especially good.

Good conference well organized and well executed.  Good mix of speakers.

Excellent program.

It was a welcomed dialogue on ORS.  I was pleased with the balance between technical and policy discussion and presentations.

Good with single track and easy to manage sessions attended. Allow single day cost so smaller (responsive) companies can attend.

Good overall.  Wide range of topics is challenging.  Suggest a two track approach to provide forum for highly technical and non-technical audiences.  Might consider “lunch on your own” approach.

Great interaction with others gov’t and industry folks.

Good-clearly a challenge to make it a priority in the eyes of the presenters as evidenced by the many substitute speakers.  Maybe that will change as ORS matures but will probably never take priority over “big space” issues.

Good and improving with content and substance.

Excellent information.  Facilitators did an excellent job of keeping multiple presentations and lots of attendees on track.

Conference was very well run and organized.  Things flowed nicely.

Well done!

Glad I attended.

Great opportunity.

Very informative with a lot of networking time-not on a rushed schedule.

Worthwhile!

My first time attending-excellent and informative, excellent networking.

Audio visual support is best I have ever seen.

Responsive Space is improving every year which is all that can be asked.

Good forum for government industry interaction.  Having General Kehler at conference was excellent.

Overall scope and technical content seemed to be below standards of prior years.  I understand that this year has been difficult for many companies, but still—as always, networking opportunities are the primary reason for attendance.

More of a networking opportunity than a “technical” conference.  Break up into multiple sessions to allow in-depth discussion.

Same as last year.  Need new ideas/topics/people.

Kudos to Dr. Wertz and his team in putting this together.  It is definitely a worthwhile conference especially since the ORS office is about to be a reality.

ORS plan/report to Congress made this conference much more relevant.  Although space oriented, also need to address data distributions to warfighter and how that is being planned.

Overall organizations was one of the best I’ve seen for any technical conference. 

Very good, however, there was very little on launch vehicles, and nothing on range issue, both key elements of responsive space.

I thought it was very good overall. It is useful to have meetings and exhibits in a hotel where I can stay at a reasonable cost.

The strongest aspect was attendance/networking.

I have been to Reno for the past two years-it pales in comparison to quality and opportunity.  I really like the setup-multiple projector screens, Q&A panel with speakers after each session, invited panel discussions.  I feel like there is an open atmosphere-the ways and means are not set in stone-which is good if you want to be “responsive” to changing needs and changing venue.  Thank you for providing the laptops/internet to check email and print boarding passes.

Good conference overall.  Level of details in the paper should be higher unless you start doing break out sessions.  Cut out repetition.  Would be good to set industry perspective.

How did you hear about the conference?

33 – Word of Mouth

41 – Email

27 – RS5 web site

14 – Another Conference

10 – Space News

19 – Other (explain)

5 – Company bulletin board/web site

0 – Bulletin Board

While planning each year’s conference attendance noted this one.  Have been tracking it and ORS itself.  This is the first time able to attend.

Military

Members of my company attended and presented papers last year.

Supervisor.

Co-worker

From Dr. Wertz re: his being on The Space Show.

Previous ORS conference

Attended RS4 and knew it would be held.

Announcement at various meetings.

Internet search on subject of “Responsive Space”.

Agency reps always attend.

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

We have heard from several speakers-Small sats are not the only solution.  Let’s not make this a competing smallsat conference but continually focus on all facets of operational responsive space.

Much of the theme was repeated ad nauseum, when new info could have been offered.

Nothing I can think of.

Post names of panel members on slides so we can better identify with them (Names/org).

Set up committees for specific ORS technology areas and select papers submitted to review by each committee.

Better chairs.

Panel discussions were really just viewgraph presentations, not interactive discussions.

More advance advertising.

Seating was tight in conference room.

(1) The Warfighter user panels were the most important part, that was underscored by the full audience.  Do more!  (2) You need to hear from the critics more.  If you don’t have more speakers like Tomme, ORS will hear from them.

The conference was very well run, with great attention to detail, effort and meeting the needs of the attendees.

Spread out the seating.

Compared to most conferences, this was very well managed with a good program.  I would suggest having quality wireless available in the conference room.

Focus of ORS is DoD Air Force, was hoping this could be expanded to MDA and NASA. 

Might want to offer something outside the hotel 4 days indoors, eating, sitting is too long.

Two track approach.

Send email to all previous attendees on announcement of RS conference.

Ground track-mode emphasis on ground systems too.

Shorter days, better time management, set up networking sessions-encourage sponsors to host them.

As the conference grows, more small business and academic players will get included so hopefully there will be even more technical presentations.

Have more debate.  In some ways this conference seemed like a “RS Love Fest”.  Very few persons presented ideas that might suggest RS isn’t all it is presented as.  If anyone did suggest that, they were not well received (note: Ed Tomme talk).

Suggest moving the NASA/JPL function to Monday or Tuesday night.

Technical contents of most papers are lacking.

Maybe shorten slightly.

Encourage more vendor participating (i.e., booths).  Power outlets at conference tables.

Too much “sales” from evolving ORS-will one relatively small USAF office solve all issues in developing and operating space assets responsively.

Location.

Put a light on the presenter and get the VTC (video telecom) capabilities more stable.

Better advertising and support through AIAA National Website, calendar, other publications.

Position the presentation screens higher.  When you’re past the third row, it’s difficult to see the bottom of the screen.

Most real military user presence-the warfighter panel consisted mostly of staff level reps from Stratcom, SMC, 14^th AF etc.

Panel discussions led to the most interesting content.  Need to allow more time for panel Q&A as some will generate more questions.

Try to present material (that is new to the group-many attendees have been to earlier conferences.

Probably not possible-but try to get the Congressional staffers to attend the conference.

Needed better lighting in conference room.  Would be nice to see more exhibits. 

Reduce the length of the program by ½ day.

Maintain the same good quality.

Rather than a CD, you might just have a zip file on the website to quickly get papers and it could be updated, uploaded at end of conference.

Warfighter panel was great but could have been even better to include enlisted personnel with recent development experience.

Mini-panels at end of tech sessions added little.

More flag level participation.

Video conferencing is good but technical difficulties diminished effectiveness.  Improve.

Section on commercial participation as a customer, outsourcing.

All good.

Long days are stressing on staffs, not sure if you need exhibits on Thursday, minimal value.

More papers in the area of space segment.

Did not see as much emphasis on comm. aspects, i.e. servicing a theater with limited resources (power, BW etc.).

Reduce registration fee a bit.

Would you be interested in attending another Responsive Space Conference?

                                                Definitely          83           Maybe          34           No    1         

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

Stratcom requirements.

Industry perspective, conops def. operations.

Big space ideas that use ORS to augment or maintain the assuredness of their capability.

Roadmap for ORS next 5 yeas.

How ground systems may contribute to ORS mission area (sat C2, data processing, mission planning effects visualizations, effects-based operations) data liaison.

Range issues and a little more on launch vehicle.

Conference was tier 3, need to address tier 1 ORS.

Data processing and distribution to warfighter.

ORS movement from concept to implementation-conference papers need to reflect this.

Historical review as a sanity check on current plans.  Some of the ORS plans/goals have been the same for 20 years.

None-pretty comprehensive.

The initial programs was well balanced and only cancellations (beyond conference control) led to a few holes.

Transition from TacSat (S&T) through development process to OpSat (full EMD).

Possible a session title “Changing Business Practices”.  I’m not sure what presenters might be available, but this is a topic that is critical, but there wasn’t much presented regarding it.

More discussion on ORS needs in theater and imaging/comm. requirements.

I think you covered quite a broad swath.

Establishment of an industrial base and infrastructure that can support the continuous development and production of satellites that might not be used; that are phased out “expired” and new ones used.

More viewpoints that challenge the norm causing more discussion.

Responsive launch, allied forces collaboration.

Conference missed the overall process to assess current programs/capabilities and how to add ORS to them.  What is approach to make capabilities ORS. 

Warfighter utility-what missions does he need.

IC community representation.

Responsive acquisition-what “requirements” will AF waive.

Conops for Tier 1 examples.

Add longer development flow (more than ground and space based) options (rolling PDR, CDR, etc. logistics, etc.).

More detail on “risk acceptance,” which was mostly tossed around as a buzz word this time.  As the ORS program office gets underway, I think that topic will come to the forefront and demand a quantifiable assessment model.

More discussion of interface standards-electrical (data etc.) evolution of PnpSat to ORS program.

Tier 1 &2 ORS issues-use of existing systems and augmentation.

More comments on report to Congress.

Good job on topics-perhaps you could have a panel on ConOps development.

Need more ground emphasis.

Maybe a panel that covers synergy from/with other platforms, e.g., UAVs, “big space” systems, fixed wing collections ground etc.  More coverage re: development/use of ground systems, TacSat series and lessons learned. Warfighter involvement.

Technology transition plan in a rapid deployable environment.

Focus is very much on current programs and capabilities.  I work propulsion R&D for AFRL (scramjets) and would like to see more discussion on mid to long term ORS launch strategies.

More on hurdles that need to be overcome.

How to overcome inertia of the “big space” community.

As the tiered approach moves forward suggest including efforts from all tiers and show how “big” space is responsive and how new ORS capabilities integrate with the greater whole.

How engineers that used to deal with 1B$ missions can convert themselves to 5M$ missions.

More technical architecture and lessons learned papers.

Good attempt at warfighter panel-could use just a bit more recent/relevant experience.

Senior OSD participation.

Lessons learned thus far/DARPASAT, TopSat, TAc-Sat2, IC integration, etc.) IC panel for RS.  Panel of “other” (non-JFC) users.

Discussion on data formats and metadata standardization for horizontal integration.

More on actual timeline reduction to meet RS.

Aground operations/control interactions.

Risk acceptance vs. risk aversion vs. risk management in the TacSat realm.  Test planning and verification in ORS realm.

More speakers on foreign responsive space efforts.

Space architecture, management, space threat, survivability.

Evolving commercial process that provide the future surveillance of responsive space.

More operations perspective; have real warfighters speak, not acquisition guys.

Information on responsive ground stations.

Technologies that make ORS possible.

The presentations mostly covered mission-level topics, which is great, but I would like to hear a session about progress in enabling technology.

Topic areas were generally well covered.

Strategic planning to get to responsive space age.

More on launch status.

The impact of other programs being developed by DoD on ORS in terms of funding, alternatives, etc.

It would be good to see a more international content.  Perhaps a session dedicated (3-4 papers) would be good, i.e., what is UK, NATO, Germany doing in the field of responsive space.  How they view it?  This would necessarily involve inviting guest speakers from those countries or organization.  Suggested other topic:  A session on coalition ORS would also be very interesting.  There seems to be genuine interest from Americans on an individual basis, but it would be good to hear what senior staff think.  Next year perhaps.

Thought you covered the spectrum pretty well.

The applications microsatellite in responsive space field.

Plug n Play interfaces, responsive electronics and software. 

Requirements process and jointness.

Should or could you have some coverage of near space and other comp tech.

Spacecraft systems, future development plan.

Ways to improve processes and optimize bureaucracy that affect us most esp. acquisitions, launch, clearance, NSA security issues.

GNC issues needs to be included in ORS.

Commercial space and human spaceflight roles in responsive space.

More warfighter panel.

Interface standards progress.

Payload design, mission analyst, comms, RF.

Responsive mission planning-optimal orbit selection and population per request type: comm., imaging, ISR etc.

Ground systems TPED.

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?

Great job.

Register on Sunday, start on Monday, let’s you end one day earlier.  Is that helpful to the working employee?  Just an idea because I’m a student and it would be better.

How about wireless network broadcasting the slides/presentations-we could view on our laptops at our tables-helps with reading the small print.

Nothing

Include more NASA perspective/participations.  Internet access great.

Very well organized.

Enable real time downloading (e.g. wifi) slides to laptops.  Then the slide details can be easily seen.

I am not sure how to solve, but strategies for disruptive cancellations should be contemplated.

Several of the presented papers really didn’t belong in their session (e.g. 5005).

You need to re-think the panel discussions.  With the exception of the warfighter one, there were few questions.

Conference was very well planned and run, great job!

Did very well, maybe you can start the conference a little later.

The organization and preparation was all very good.

Not much-good job!

Too many flashlights.

No comments-it was excellent.

Display screens in conference room need to be relocated.  It was tough to see the bottom third of the screen because people’s heads were in the way.  This was worse the further back you sat.

More space in conference area.

Shorter breaks, shorter conference.

ID a POC for little things-like room temperature.

Wireless (or Ethernet) internet connection.

Hand out a “booklet” at the start of the conference with abstracts and place to take notes.

Verify VTC connections.

Very well organized-can’t think of anything.

Have CD Rom or proceedings passed out at beginning of conference of 1^st day.

Other than have a small international focus, nothing needs to change.

Display the names of the speakers and panelist while they are speaking.

There are too many abbreviations, if there is a list explained the abbreviation would be better.

Have side sessions for discussion on narrow topics plug n play, poster sessions to get more opportunities for papers.

Exhibition should entail more related companies.

All good.

Great job, super staff, developed specialized friendships.

NASA involvement will be much more helpful.

Any other comments, recommendations, or suggestions?

Thanks! (Oh and the sponsor gifts were cool!

Advertise the call for papers more widely.

As the conference attendance grows, try to keep that small conference feel.

WRT last question, schedule is tough w/many conferences all in a row; GSAW, Space Symposium, then ORS.

Is ORS a passing buzz word or a real mindset?

Some papers out of synch with session topics.

Seating is tight.

Projector at back of room was a good idea.

I really enjoyed the technical briefs-thought some of the same info. was repeated by almost every presenter.  Did a great job staying on time except for Thursday.

Great job.

Have a place to leave luggage on last day after checkout.

Strict time schedule for speakers worked well.

Thank you for a great conference.

ORS ideas should change the nature of the engineers it should be elaborated more.

None, good job.

Earlier dissemination of presentation material.  Not to detract from the appreciation of last day distribution.

Set screens higher so that bottom of charts are visible.

Provide wifi in conference room and lobby.

Very good conference.  Brings mics to questions-holders, not vice versa (promotes more questions).

Do you think it is appropriate to keep this conference on a restricted level? (with participations from allies with appropriate US clearances etc.).

Get some speakers from the Intelligence Community.

Visual were very small for most presentations.  Suggest having presenters meet minimum font heights.

Have side sessions for discussion on narrow topics-plug n play.  Poster sessions to get more opportunities for papers.

More contents in GEO satellite ORS.  Need more power for notebooks in the conference room.

We are considering moving the Responsive Space Conference to the 1^st or 2^nd week of May.  Do you concur and if so what week?

2^nd week – after school is out.

No preference just try to deconflict with other events.

You are getting into maximum vacation time period (May-Sep).  if the majority rules to move it, I am ok with 2^nd week.

2^nd week still to close to NSS.

May dates conflict with Space Control Conference at MIT/LL.

For two years now, I have missed “Take your kids to work day” and moving this helps.

2^nd weeks conflicts with NRO TechForum.

Late April ok if deconflict with SMC Industry Days.  If, May, 1^st week.

There’s a mid-May JANNAF Conference and 2 major AIAA summer conferences (JPC & Fluids) in June/July.

First week of May is a bad choice for my company.  Last week of April or 2^nd week of May are equal.