RE: Reality Check Time

[Gail Leatherwood]

Yes! I'm told that a working model is a giant step forward toward a grant. Even the money mavens want to see something they can hold in their hot little hands; better yet if they can play with it while sitting around the conference table--dunk it in a tank of water, watch it bore its way through a block of ice, that kind of thing. Go, go, go! Gail   -------Original Message-------   From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Monday, November 11, 2002 02:55:25 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Reality Check Time   I’ll let you know when I need money. Probably won’t be real soon though. The model I have in mind, I can do on my own for the most part. What I can’t afford to make with stainless steel, I can fabricate from fiberglass and resin from Wal-Mart. Looking for a grant is a ways off just now. Got to at least have a working model first. Ooh, I just remembered I have those wooden rocket nose cone molds…   Robert Crawley Elite Precision Fabricators, Inc. Programming (936) 449-6823   -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Gail Leatherwood Sent: Monday, November 11, 2002 4:29 PM To: Europa Subject: Reality Check Time   OK, gang, here it comes--reality check time again. 1. It just so happens that I work for a grant writing expert, work down the hall from another, and am acquainted with yet a third. Grant writing experts are easy to find, so that's not a problem. I've even written a successful one myself, but that was a while back, so I don't consider myself a pro. As I often say, "I know just enough to be dangerous!" 2. Grantees don't just give away money. They want to see concrete evidence that their money is going to be well spent and administered properly (snide remark: Not like NASA!) 3. So-o-o:     a. Who is going to speak officially for this group?     b. Do we have an organization with enough credibility to convince the grantee that we can do what we say we're going to and account for their funds accurately and honestly?     c. Hate to say this, but do we need to do something legal to establish ourselves? John, you're the lawyer, what do you think?     d. If we are successful in getting a grant, paperwork will be required. We will need to make periodic reports on progress and expenditures. This will be necessary whether we go for a couple thousand $$ or several millions. Who's going to do this?     e. Grantees want to see a business plan. More paperwork, but without it we don't stand a chance.     f. Grantees, or commercial lenders, want to see what the organization or individuals is/are putting in themselves. What collateral can we show? Anyone willing to mortgage their house, wife/husband/significant other, their dog? We have to put something in the pot; like the business plan, without it we don't stand a chance. We need to develop answers just like journalists: Who, what, why, where, when, and how. Bottom line: Is the Europa discussion group (a) a collection of armchair theorists, or (b) are we willing to coalesce into a real organization working toward a real working prototype of a machine that may discover the secrets under the ice of Europa? If the consensus is (a) then we need not expend any more time on doing what is needed to secure funding. If it is (b), then we need to develop real answers to my questions--and probably some I haven't asked. What shall it be, group? Gail (the guy) Leatherwood