Insights from and future directions for a nationwide science and engineering education collaboration in stratospheric ballooning

The Nationwide Eclipse Ballooning Project (NEBP) engaged 53 teams of students from across the United States to fly experiments on high-altitude balloons for the 2023 annular and 2024 total solar eclipses. By many measures, NEBP was a successful project. However, the teams did encounter challenges. To better understand what could be improved for similar future projects, this study engaged project partners in examining strengths, challenges, and recommendations across four topics: project structure, education and research approach, broadening participation, and funding. Analysis of the topics was completed through written comments followed by remote focus group discussions. The project director and evaluator then synthesized the written and focus group comments to provide the results shared here. Identified strengths included a project structure facilitating regional-scale collaboration within a national network and a focus on providing undergraduate students with innovative, mission-based experiences. Partners also identified challenges including, for example, making in-depth engagement with analyzing project data and drawing scientific conclusions accessible to undergraduate students. Key recommendations include the need for real-world interdisciplinarity, a leadership group that reflects team types, a robust communication platform used at all levels, a modular approach for participation levels and time lengths, and flexibility in funding choices.

1 Introduction

The Nationwide Eclipse Ballooning Project (NEBP) is a student-centered, scientific research initiative funded by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the National Science Foundation since 2015. This paper shares reflections regarding the implementation of the most recent phase of the NEBP and recommendations for similar future collaborations. The project director and project evaluator convened partners as co-authors to gather broad perceptions concerning strengths, challenges, and recommendations related to four themes: project structure, education and research approach, broadening participation, and funding.

1.1 The Nationwide Eclipse Ballooning Project

The mission of the recent NEBP phase was to 1) increase real-world science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) experiences and opportunities; 2) advance (mostly undergraduate) learner outcomes related to scientific and engineering knowledge, practice, confidence, identity, and interest; and 3) grow and sustain a network for broadening participation in STEM. The NEBP design operates on the idea that engaging in the project’s team-based mission activities can provide students with an on-ramp to continuing STEM studies and careers.

To that end, the most recent NEBP phase has engaged 53 teams of students from a wide range of educational institutions in the United States in an innovative NASA-mission-like experience with academic stratospheric ballooning during the October 2023 annular and April 2024 total solar eclipses. Of the 75 participating institutions, more than 30% were minority serving institutions (MSIs), and 15% were community colleges (CCs). Most of the participating education institutions were institutions of higher education (IHEs), though five high schools also participated (Covitt et al., 2024).

Within the landscape of STEM competitions and projects designed to engage students (e.g., NASA Lunabotics, MATE ROV, The American Solar Challenge), the NEBP offers a tested model for long-term, mentor-intensive, enduring efforts that strive to engage students in collaborative, unparalleled real-world, mission-based STEM experiences. The scientific research conducted by the NEBP teams, investigating the atmospheric effects observed during solar eclipses, could only be done with a large group of people (i.e., more than 500 individuals) to cover many sites with high temporal resolution.

The NEBP approach is similar to professional atmospheric research programs that have recently addressed questions about severe weather at large spatial scales by employing multi-institutional collaborations (i.e., involving up to about 100 individuals) of scientific/engineering researchers and (primarily graduate) students to synchronously measure and process large data sets of in situ boundary layer observations using uncrewed aerial systems (UAS) and radiosondes, along with remote sensing platforms (de Boer et al., 2020). The NEBP strategically brought together practicing scientists and student scientists to collaborate on innovative research at high altitudes over a large geographic area. The students carried out in-depth hands-on practice, two field campaigns, and subsequent data analysis (Saad et al., 2023).

While the authors have not undertaken an exhaustive review of projects, the literature concerning STEM competitions appears to provide mostly program descriptions and reports of impacts on students. Examples include publications from The American Solar Challenge (Mills and Stumpges, 2013), MATE ROV (Zande et al., 2005), The Microsoft Imagine Cup (Mahmud, 2016), NASA Lunabotics (Mueller et al., 2021), and the Student Steel Bridge Competition (Pieper et al., 2021).

Further, the authors view the NEBP to be distinct from citizen science and other large community participatory science efforts in several respects. Distinctions include that the student participants in the NEBP are viewed by the project as scientists (rather than non-scientists), that the project is highly technical and requires complex and expensive equipment that could not easily be made available for use by public participants, and that joining an NEBP team is not open to members of the public beyond students at participating educational institutions (NASEM, 2018; Vance-Chalcraft et al., 2022). While the NEBP is distinct from citizen science, this article does address relevant recommendations in the 2018 NASEM report on citizen science including, notably, engaging stakeholders in design.

Given its unique characteristics, the NEBP benefits from being conducted through formal education institutions and under the direct guidance of knowledgeable mentors. Insights from the implementation of the NEBP model may have potential to be applied to other STEM research topics as representative of a collaborative multi-institution effort providing an alternative to typical competitions or participatory science efforts (some possible science and engineering topic suggestions are provided in section 4.3). Overall, this study offers a new contribution in the form of an in-depth synthesis of many project partners’ insights concerning design and implementation of an ambitious multi-institution STEM education and research collaboration.

1.2 Academic stratospheric ballooning

Since the early 2000s, hundreds of teams from various academic institutions have been flying experimental payloads, typically weighing less than 12 pounds, on helium- or hydrogen-filled latex weather balloons to altitudes near 30,000 m (100,000 feet) (Des Jardins et al., 2019). At these altitudes, above 99.5% of the atmosphere, payloads experience a space-like environment, characterized by cold temperatures and low pressure. From these heights, in situ cameras can capture the Earth’s limb and the blackness of space (Figure 1).

Figure 1

Figure 1. View during the 8 April 2024 total solar eclipse from an Insta360 camera over Carbondale, IL. Most of the curvature in the image is from lens effects. Image credit: University of Hartford & CT State Community College - Tunxis team.

Each NEBP team engaged in one of two types of ballooning, designated as “atmospheric science” ballooning and “engineering” ballooning. In this distinction, the 19 atmospheric science teams flew latex rubber weather balloons carrying radiosondes, which are small, standardized, commercial off-the-shelf sensor suites with a mass of less than 190 g. Radiosondes transmit high-resolution location, temperature, and humidity data to a ground station by telemetry so that balloons do not have to be recovered (Figure 2). Radiosonde pressure and wind data are determined from GPS location information. To ensure data standardization, the NEBP used the Graw DFM-17 radiosondes employed by the U.S. National Weather Service and flew them with the same procedures. For both eclipses, each atmospheric science team was equipped with a surface-based weather station and flew 30 radiosondes, launching one per hour, starting 24 h before the eclipse peak and continuing until 6 hours after. The pre-eclipse sampling provided context for identifying eclipse impacts at campaign locations.

Figure 2

Figure 2. The University of North Dakota atmospheric science team gathers before releasing a radiosonde sensor package on a small balloon. Image credit: University of North Dakota.

The 34 engineering teams flew student-designed payloads on either closed or vented larger latex rubber weather balloons. Common payloads included tracking systems, a safety payload cut-away system, atmospheric sensors, and live-streaming and Insta360 cameras. For the NEBP, most engineering teams also flew at least one payload they designed locally. Flights with vented latex balloons were floated for up to 2 hours and then released, allowing the payloads to descend under a parachute for recovery. For this iteration of the NEBP, the engineering teams were encouraged to vent helium from their balloons at a critical altitude, allowing the balloon to enter a stable float at 75,000–90,000 feet during the eclipses. Figure 3 shows a team pausing for a photo after recovering an engineering balloon, parachute, and payloads.

Figure 3

Figure 3. The Nebraska engineering team recovers a vented balloon after the April 2024 total solar eclipse. Image credit: Stacy Skidmore.

1.3 NEBP design

To facilitate networking and effective communication, the 53 NEBP teams were grouped into nine regional pods: four atmospheric science track pods and five engineering track pods. The NEBP leadership team and pod leads were established by drawing on team leads from earlier 2017, 2019, and 2020 total solar eclipse ballooning projects, as well as engaging experts in stratospheric ballooning and atmospheric science. Following a planning period in 2021–2022, the NEBP solicited proposals in fall 2022, and teams officially began in January 2023. The primary project period was 15 months, concluding in April 2024. Encouraging applications from institutions with fewer resources was prioritized in the recruitment phase, and the solicitation specified that teams from such institutions would receive additional financial support.

The NEBP provided essential resources to help assure team success, which would have been cost-prohibitive to acquire otherwise. Each atmospheric science team received three Graw ground station units and three connecting laptops; one Lufft WS502-UMB surface weather station along with a Campbell Scientific CR300 data logger with enclosure, solar panel, and battery; general ballooning supplies; and radiosondes for practice and the eclipse campaigns. Each engineering team received a tracking ground station, a rugged laptop, tracking systems, a live-streaming camera system, an Insta360 camera, an atmospheric sensor package with precision GPS, general ballooning supplies, and balloons for practice and eclipse campaigns. In addition to this equipment, which teams kept, the NEBP allocated funding for travel to the eclipse paths (travel funding was adequate for some teams, especially Minority Serving Institutions and Community Colleges that received additional support, but did not cover all travel costs for some of the NEBP teams). Budget constraints did not allow for funding student or mentor compensation, though project leadership encouraged teams to collaborate with their state Space Grant Consortium to request funds for additional needs.

In addition to core ballooning mission activities, NEBP offered resources and opportunities to help bridge the gap between learning theoretical knowledge and developing real-world problem-solving capacity. Examples included 1) regional training workshops organized by pod leads to prepare mentors and student representatives for team leadership; 2) NEBP online course materials that teams could use to implement credit or noncredit bearing courses, or in an informal learning context (NEBP, 2025; Taylor, 2025); 3) guidelines and responsibilities for teams to carry out eclipse and ballooning related educational outreach; 4) instructions for team participants on how to create a career portfolio; 5) a STEM professional speaker series highlighting career possibilities and facilitating professional connections; 6) NEBP community-building activities such as all team webinars and an online discussion forum; and 7) instruction and assistance addressing Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations (Covitt et al., 2024).

1.4 Important outcomes and impacts of the NEBP

Each NEBP team submitted three assessment reports to the project leadership. The first two reports were collected before and after the annular eclipse, and the final report was collected just after the total eclipse. The reports documented teams’ demographics, their chosen approach to background learning, reflections on the project, and future preparation (Saad et al., 2023). Highlights include:

• NEBP engaged 857 students, 63% of whom were underrepresented in STEM (i.e., underrepresented minority or gender, attending an MSI or CC, first generation in family to pursue a college degree, and/or family experience of financial hardship).

• The majority of NEBP teams engaged undergraduate students (96.2% of teams) and higher education faculty (71.2% of teams). Twelve NEBP teams (23%) engaged high school student participants, all of whom were at least 16 years old.

• The team effort produced a publicly available, valuable dataset that will be analyzed far into the future (Des Jardins, Saad and Smith, Nationwide Eclipse Ballooning Project: Atmospheric data from the 2023 annular and 2024 total solar eclipses 2025), (Des Jardins et al., 2025a; Des Jardins et al., 2025b).

• As of mid-2025, team members have published three scientific papers (Patel et al., 2024; Shetye et al., 2025; Wang et al., 2024), and several more are imminent. They have also given more than 50 science conference presentations. The NEBP team members convened a special Union session at the 2024 AGU meeting, focusing on eclipse-related outreach.

• Students gained hands-on experience in designing, assembling, and launching high-altitude balloons, requiring critical thinking, problem-solving, and technical proficiency.

• The project fostered teamwork and improved communication skills, with students often working closely with peers from different backgrounds and institutions and stepping into leadership roles that enhanced their confidence, technical skills, and career readiness.

• Many students used their experiences to secure internships, research positions, and further educational opportunities, often resulting in a newfound enthusiasm for STEM careers.

• Participation in the NEBP generated dozens of media stories, including several in national-level outlets, resulting in positive coverage for the institutions involved, as well as educating and exciting the public about scientific research.

• Most teams plan to continue ballooning activities, leveraging the experience and equipment gained from the NEBP to support future projects and educational initiatives.

• Both students and faculty described the NEBP as a transformative experience, providing unparalleled opportunities for growth, learning, and professional development.

• The project instilled a sense of pride and accomplishment, both at the individual and institutional levels, showcasing the potential of collaborative scientific endeavors.

NEBP evaluation adopted a participatory approach with regular coordination and communication between the evaluation team and the project leadership team (O'Sullivan, 2004). Customized survey forms were administered with core partners, team mentors, and student team members at three key time points: 1) project teams’ start, 2) after the 2023 annular solar eclipse, and 3) after the 2024 total solar eclipse. Highlights include (Covitt et al., 2024):

• The final project survey included a retrospective pre-post query concerning team members’ confidence that they could get the job they desired after graduating. 44% of respondents expressed that they were confident or very confident just before they joined the project, while 78% expressed that they were confident or very confident at the time they completed the final project survey (after the April 2024 eclipse).

• The team mentor and project partner surveys included questions about the extent to which these groups reported that participation increased their institution’s capacity in key areas. Most mentors and partners agreed to a great or very great extent (>71%) that participation increased their institution’s capacity in all areas about which they were queried. Particularly strongly endorsed were the capacity to carry on stratospheric ballooning activities in the future, to undertake multi-institutional ballooning collaborations, and to offer inclusive and equitable STEM education experiences.

• Students also responded to a retrospective pre-post item about STEM professional identity overlap (McDonald et al., 2019) in the final evaluation survey. On average, NEBP participants reported a shift from a moderate overlap in identity to a large overlap in identity over the course of their participation in the NEBP (Figure 4).

Figure 4

Figure 4. Retrospective pre-post overlap between self and image of a STEM professional, among 312 student respondents.

To better understand the NEBP’s strengths, challenges, and future recommendations, the authors undertook the study reported here, which collected written ideas and engaged partners in discussions on four topics: project structure, education and research design, broadening participation, and funding. Section 2 describes the study methods. Section 3 provides the results in concise tables and more detailed text, integrating exemplary quotes. Finally, Section 4 discusses the nuances of some findings and considers implications for future efforts.

2 Methods

In this study, the authors drew on principles of participatory evaluation (Guijt, 2014) and empowerment evaluation (Fetterman and Wandersman, 2005) to engage a group of NEBP partners in collaboratively reflecting on lessons from the project and recommendations for future efforts.

2.1 Study design

Participatory evaluation approaches involve participants in significant aspects of the evaluation process (Guijt, 2014). Applied in the context of NEBP, partners, including pod leads, team mentors, subject matter experts, and student leaders, were invited to join the evaluation effort as co-authors of this article. While the project director and evaluator developed the initial study goal (i.e., to identify strengths, challenges, and recommendations in key project areas), opportunities for the full group included sharing perspectives through written comments and focus group discussions; identifying missing topics in the framework; and reviewing, editing, and approving the study manuscript for submission.

Utilizing a participatory approach can yield benefits including improving 1) accuracy and relevancy of findings, 2) understanding of project implementation, and 3) future performance through adaptive implementation (Guijt, 2014). Empowerment evaluation shares similarities with participatory evaluation and highlights important principles that can guide work. Empowerment principles that were particularly relevant here included focus on 1) improvement, 2) inclusion, 3) community knowledge, 4) capacity-building, and 5) organizational learning (Fetterman and Wandersman, 2005). Centering these principles while working on the NEBP evaluation aligned well with the project’s mission, and in particular, the project goal of growing and sustaining a network for broadening participation in academic stratospheric ballooning.

2.2 Study procedure and participants

This study was largely completed within the first half of 2025. The invitation to participate as a co-author was emailed to 136 NEBP team mentors and partners in February 2025. The message indicated that participation would involve a commitment to:

• Write initial comments about strengths, challenges, and recommendations concerning focal topics of project structure, funding, education approach, research approach, broadening participation, evaluation, and topics for future collaboration.

• Join an online focus group discussing the topics.

• Review, provide comments and editing suggestions, and give approval to be included as an author on a manuscript to be submitted.

Initially, 43 individuals agreed to participate in the collaborative study. Several individuals subsequently did not complete the required commitments by stated deadlines or did not participate in a focus group, leading to the eventual inclusion of 32 co-authors in addition to the project director and evaluator on this paper. The study design was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the evaluator’s institution, and co-authors indicated their interest in participating through completing an online form that also served as consent to participate.

In addition to the project director and evaluator, the study co-authors include five pod leaders, 23 team mentors, and four student team leaders. The co-authors are from institutions that include high schools, community colleges, minority serving higher education institutions, and other colleges and universities in 19 states.

2.3 Data collection and analysis

During February and early March 2025, co-authors submitted written comments concerning project strengths, challenges, and recommendations for identified focal topics and signed up for one of six focus group sessions. The 90–120-min recorded focus groups were led by Des Jardins or Covitt, and each included between four and eight participants. Before the focus groups were held, the evaluators synthesized the co-authors’ written comments into a summary table for each focal topic, highlighting prominent ideas about strengths, challenges, and recommendations. These tables were integrated into a Google slide deck to guide the focus group discussions. Each focus group was organized to include an introduction and time for discussion of each topic. During the focus groups, the co-authors were encouraged to consider the topic tables and talk about 1) what they agree/disagree with, 2) what is missing, and 3) recommendations about the topic for future collaboration. There was also time allotted to discuss new ideas for future collaborations (e.g., potential science questions and engineering problems to pursue as a ballooning network).

After the focus groups were completed, the project director and evaluator undertook a qualitative analysis of the data to synthesize the written and focus group comments. This qualitative review revealed that the bulk of commentary addressed four key areas: project structure, education and research approach (these were combined due to the extent of overlap in comments), broadening participation, and project funding. Using prominent ideas from the focus group tables and adding new ideas as necessary, the director and evaluator created a summary document for each of the four key areas.

Each summary document for a key area included three tables (one for strengths, one for challenges, and one for recommendations). An example idea that was noted as a strength under project structure was the creation of the project tracks and pods. For each idea, the table included relevant written and spoken comments from the co-authors. In this way, the four summary documents provided a set of organized data that facilitated the reporting of results. The summary documents could easily be “harvested” for examples and quotes, provided a rough measure of the relative prominence of different ideas (i.e., number and extent of comments about each noted idea), and were used to inform the writing of the results section presented below. The tables are organized by the prominence of the ideas. Similarly, given that the ideas shared by the co-authors were extensive and detailed, it is important to understand that the results represent common rather than comprehensive ideas. In addition, the recommendations are not limited to those directly related to the challenges; the authors sought to convey a broad scope of ideas by not always repeating recommendations that were implied in the challenges column.

3 Results

The study participants provided detailed comments and discussion related to the NEBP’s approaches to structure, education and research, broadening participation, and funding. For each topic, partners analyzed what worked well, the challenges they encountered, and recommendations for potential future projects. The subsections below report on the prominent themes that were discussed.

3.1 Project structure

Considering the configurations of other STEM experiential learning opportunities, the partners generally found the NEBP pods and leadership structure to be advantageous for collaboration and training. There were challenges, however, with the large demands on mentor time, the highly technical nature of the project, and some aspects of communication. Partners had several recommendations for future networks, spanning from big picture goals to participation time blocks. Table 1 summarizes the most mentioned ideas.

Table 1

Table 1. Synthesis of comments regarding NEBP structure.

3.1.1 What worked well

The most common project structure strength described by partners was the pod structure. Having a regional pod lead who led an initial in-person training and continued connections via monthly discussions facilitated tight-knit communities. The regular meetings allowed teams to build collaborations and troubleshoot issues. Mentors felt supported because they could easily reach their regional lead. One team mentor noted,

Working within pods may have been the most important factor for our success. We had never done balloon launches before so working with others was invaluable.

In addition to the pod communities, teams appreciated the identical equipment and supplies that were provided for each team on the same track. The equipment was provided the summer before the October 2023 annular eclipse to allow for practice flights, and teams were able to keep their equipment after the campaigns, facilitating future ballooning activities. Furthermore, NEBP leadership coordinated a massive effort to deliver helium to all the teams’ campaign sites for each eclipse. This effort eliminated the need for teams to transport pressurized helium tanks across long distances (a safety and logistical issue).

The spirit of being part of something meaningful was important to team members, especially the students. Mentors recognized that it was not possible to undertake a highly technical field campaign on their own, and that the collaboration was more than the sum of its parts. They also appreciated having the flexibility to build a team best suited to their institution(s) and needs. Some teams comprised just one higher education institution, while others included several schools, sometimes of varying academic levels.

3.1.2 What was challenging

While the pod structure was generally appreciated, the large network also faced challenges. The most reported difficulty was managing varying levels of team experience under the leadership of several separate pod leaders. Many of the teams desired a higher level of support than the leadership was able to offer. As one leader put it,

The workshops for this event [did not focus on] how to do ballooning. They [focused on] how to do this very specific, rather high-end type of ballooning. And frankly, I felt bad for the people who were really brand new. I wish we had given them more support and maybe given them a separate workshop or something like that. It's a challenge to come up with a project that is interesting enough to get lots of takers, and interesting enough to get funding, but easy enough for people to jump right in.

Given the scale of NEBP, the fact that the project did not adopt a comprehensive communications platform made some aspects of communications difficult. The core leadership started the project using Slack but found the cost of licensing, the volume of participants, and other limitations to be prohibitive. Leadership sent regular email messages, communicated via an online forum, and teams met regularly with their pods. However, many teams would have appreciated the opportunity to connect more with others. In addition, the sharing of standard operating procedures and documentation for equipment and software could have been more thorough to ensure ease of use and streamlined performance. Some teams also struggled with the data uploading mechanism, which was challenging at certain schools due to varied IT security concerns. Preparing the data for public access was time-consuming. Many of these challenges were more acute for teams from small institutions.

3.1.3 Recommendations for a continuing collaboration

The partners provided several helpful recommendations for a potential future project. As is true for all collaborations, communication is key. In the focus group discussions, the suggestion to use a common online communication platform, such as Discord, was nearly unanimous. Mentors needed clarity about the project’s goals and scientific objectives and would have appreciated even more standardized training and resources. Additionally, some desired detailed directions about the “small steps,” especially for new-to-ballooning teams. One pod lead wrote,

I think future initiatives should be more directed (or at least have more required common steps, before students are allowed to go off in other directions). There were so many options to pursue here, and so many things billed as optional, that the quality of the output suffered.

Logistically, partners recommend that planning should begin as soon as the funding source allows, both for the leadership and the participating teams. To ease the toll on overburdened mentors, many want significant support with campaign logistics. This is especially true for those at small institutions, where faculty members teach large loads and have little to no research appointment time. One suggestion that gained traction in the focus groups was to offer smaller optional opportunities in blocks. For example, one team might choose to participate in the design, campaign, and data analysis phases, while another team might only engage in the campaign. Finally, while some teams appreciated having separate science and engineering tracks, others recommend increased interdisciplinarity. One pod lead wrote,

Decoupling the engineering and atmospheric science tracks, while understandable given the nature of the two disparate objectives, made it seem like there were two separate projects. It also separated two disciplines which actually could have benefitted from some overlap. For example, NASA engineers have to work regularly with the scientists to support the scientific mission and their scientists benefit by understanding limitations imposed by engineered systems.

3.2 Project education and research approach

Given that providing educational experiences encouraging and preparing students for pathways toward STEM studies and careers was the central activity of the NEBP, the partners had many insights to share regarding project education and research design. Partner comments reveal that the NEBP’s focus on undergraduates was simultaneously a key strength as well as a challenge with respect to scaffolding high-quality education and research experiences for students. Table 2 highlights the most common themes.

Table 2

Table 2. Synthesis of comments regarding NEBP education and research approach.

3.2.1 What worked well

Prominent noted education and research approach strengths included 1) the NEBP focus on undergraduate students, 2) the provided resources including education materials and training workshops, and 3) the opportunities offered to students including to share their research at conferences and to interact with and learn from subject matter experts. Many partners commented on the importance of the NEBP’s focus on undergraduate students, often highlighting that it is outside the norm for undergraduate students (especially at non-R1 institutions) to be able to join an in-depth STEM research project. For example, a mentor at a state college noted,

Involving undergraduates was a FANTASTIC aspect of this project. Some of the students on my team had never conducted hands-on research before (some had never been out of the state before), and this project allowed them to feel a great deal of confidence.

One of the ways the NEBP was able to succeed in offering a unique STEM opportunity to undergraduate students was through creating an economy of scale in developing resources, including online course materials and training workshops. Through leveraging expertise across the network of institutions, it was possible to both distribute the onus of developing resources and to share the resources widely, with all 53 participating NEBP teams.

3.2.2 What was challenging

Some challenges that partners noted reflect downsides that arose in a large project engaging many teams representing a diversity of institutions. For example, among the atmospheric science teams, while data collection and sharing procedures were relatively well-defined and straightforward, the procedures and opportunities for analyzing evidence of meteorological gravity waves in collected data were perceived to be less effective. The project science question (i.e., what evidence of meteorological gravity waves can be observed during solar eclipses?) required a level of expertise among mentors and knowledge among students that was not uniformly distributed across the teams. One mentor commented,

I’m not an atmospheric scientist, so, I could give them a hand waving, I understand hot and cold and how it creates turbulence, but that was about the best I could do. Like all community college teachers … I do not have a whole lot of free time to go down a rabbit hole.

While depth of science inquiry and engineering design work varied across students and teams, there was broad agreement that the array of NEBP opportunities ensured that all participating students were able to engage in deeply meaningful activities relevant to STEM studies and career preparation (such as joining a team to plan and conduct a mission involving systematically collecting and reporting data). One other difficulty that was mentioned with some frequency, however, is related to how busy undergraduate students are while they are in college. This was true across different types of institutions, although sometimes for different reasons. Nontraditional students might be juggling academic work with family and job responsibilities, while traditional undergraduates might be taking heavy course loads and/or participating in other activities like sports or campus organizations.

3.2.3 Recommendations for a continuing collaboration

A key recommendation for a future network project would be to work on creating equitable opportunities for students to undertake more complex and expert-level aspects of science and engineering processes. On the atmospheric science side, this could involve 1) deeper intellectual engagement with the theory underlying the science inquiry, 2) better scaffolding and resources to support data analysis (e.g., improved code with accompanying explanatory documentation), and 3) more focus on the later parts of science inquiries (e.g., publication). On the engineering side, this might involve supporting more opportunities for students at non-R1 institutions to take on creative work with designing, prototyping, testing, and improving equipment elements, as well as collaborating on these tasks with students and subject matter experts across multiple institutions.

The partners also shared, however, suggestions that contrasted with the “more and deeper science and engineering experience” sentiment. Given many students’ extremely busy schedules and the project’s goal of providing a meaningful STEM education experience to diverse students, including those who might be interested but not yet committed to further STEM studies and a STEM career, the partners recognized a need to offer participants flexibility in timelines and experiences. Some students might have a year or more to devote to a ballooning project, but for those who do not, how can a project provide a high-quality educational experience over the course of a single semester or one summer? If flexible timelines were built in, though, it would also be necessary to consider how such shorter-term experiences might create an additional burden for team mentors and/or project continuity challenges.

Similarly, partners expressed appreciation for and interest in teams offering different student roles requiring different levels of science or engineering expertise. For example, a technical rather than a theory-driven learning experience might be desirable and appropriate in some instances. Thus, effective research and education design in a future ballooning network will need to create projects and systems that are flexible enough to support both “deep and extended” STEM learning experiences as well as “shorter introductory learning experiences” that are high-quality and place students in good positions to continue down a STEM studies or career pathway of their choice.

3.3 Project design for broadening participation

Broadening participation in STEM was a core goal for the NEBP. The project addressed this aim at two scales of 1) increasing the diversity of institutions (including community colleges and minority serving institutions) engaging in academic stratospheric ballooning and 2) recruiting and encouraging participation of students from groups underrepresented in STEM on teams. The partners and teams were all enthusiastic and supportive of the broadening participation aim of the project. Further, the project was successful at both scales, including diverse institutions and engaging student participants from groups underrepresented in STEM.

The partners noted success with broadening participation in their written and focus group comments, often specifying which aspects of the project design were helpful. These included, for example, intentional recruitment of institutions new to ballooning at the project outset and requiring explicit plans for broadening participation in the application process to become an NEBP team. As might be expected, challenges related to broadening participation were also shared by the partners, including financial limitations and difficulties recruiting and retaining students who were not already on a STEM studies and career track. Based on their own extensive experiences, the partners shared both a continuing commitment to broadening participation and multiple ideas and strategies for achieving this aim in future collaborations. Table 3 highlights frequently shared thoughts.

Table 3

Table 3. Synthesis of comments regarding NEBP broadening participation design.

3.3.1 What worked well

Building strategies for broadening participation into the NEBP from the outset was a clear strength of the project. The plan for recruiting teams to participate in this iteration of the NEBP was particularly successful. While institutions with experienced ballooning teams were invited to submit applications, the project leadership team and the application process itself also emphasized the recruitment of institutions that were new to academic ballooning. This recruitment process took advantage of the extensive Space Grant Consortium affiliate networks that exist in each state, and which include IHEs of all types (not just large, 4-year, STEM-focused, or R1 institutions). The NEBP team recruitment process also encouraged the formation of multi-institution teams that could bring together different IHEs as well as high schools. This strategy yielded collateral benefits, including creating new, multi-institution partner groups and providing opportunities for near-peer mentorship (e.g., of traditional college students with students at community colleges or high schools). Support for broadening participation was expressed both by partners at institutions with established ballooning programs and those new to ballooning. For example, one NEBP partner who had participated in previous project iterations wrote that.

“I very much appreciated the fact that it was suggested that I bring in new-to-ballooning teams along with my team. This was a highlight for me when I first saw the call for the RFP [request for proposals].”

A partner at a Native American Serving Non-Tribal Institution (NASNTI) shared the following perspective during a focus group session.

“I really liked that there was special consideration from the outset for bringing in schools that normally would not have had the opportunity to participate in something like this, and there was thought that there may be needs for additional funding for those teams. In terms of broadening participation, thinking about that at our institution, there may be people who might not have thought of themselves as participating in a project like this and that that might encourage others from their community. To participate in projects like this in the future to me is important. I worry, going forward with the politics of the day, that these opportunities may go away. It’s not just looking at people, but it’s looking at schools like ours that serve certain communities that might have reduced opportunities to participate.”

Perceived project successes with broadening participation also extended beyond the initial planning and recruiting for the project. For example, partners discussed how the project’s online educational materials were designed to be accessible and flexible for use by students and teams with varying abilities and STEM backgrounds, how the NEBP structure of pods and regional teams fostered inter-institution collaboration among teams representing diverse types of institutions, and how requirements for teams to engage in outreach activities encouraged teams to implement educational activities with youth and/or the general public both near their institution and at their eclipse launch sites.

3.3.2 What was challenging

Partners noted a few different types of challenges related to the goal of broadening participation. One commonly mentioned issue was funding, and this issue played out at both the level of broadening the types of institutions participating and broadening participation among students from groups underrepresented in STEM. At the scale of engaging diverse institutions, mentors who were not from research institutions noted that their responsibilities include large teaching loads with little to no time or funding for undertaking extra-curricular research activities like the NEBP. The situation is often similar for students at these institutions as well. A partner from a community college commented that,

The only reason I think we did not have even broader participation is because our students at my college are stretched, many of them, to the absolute limit of what is humanly capable to do in a single day, just going to college and maintaining their job.

Similarly, the extended period (about 18 months) associated with participation in the full span of team activities was a noted challenge for engaging and retaining participation among diverse institutions and students. One pod lead who has been involved in multiple NEBP projects described this challenge as,

The period of performance was way too long. If there is a new project, I hope it’s shorter with how long students were expected to stick around. For 4-year schools it looked good on paper. For 2-year schools it never even looked good on paper; but it was hard for all schools.

3.3.3 Recommendations for a continuing collaboration

A benefit of implementing a network-based project with many teams from across the United States is that the partners bring with them an impressive array of experience to draw upon and learn from as a group. Given that broadening participation has been a topic of general concern in STEM education for decades, the partners could draw on their experience to share actionable strategies for continuing to strengthen this area in future collaborations.

Common suggestions included increasing funding for teams, students, and team mentors with fewer resources; identifying and addressing barriers to participation (e.g., through offering options for shorter participation time commitments); and continuing to develop and offer supporting resources for broadening participation (e.g., creating templates for flyers and social media posts and offering tips like connecting with professional societies of groups underrepresented in STEM).

Partners with deep experience recruiting diverse students to engage in STEM activities had practical strategies they had found worked. For example, several partners talked about how they seek to recruit students who are not already committed to STEM pathways,

Often, it’s the same students who sign up first. I’m a big fan of going out of your way to make sure the news is spread in corners that you would not necessarily spread the news. I generally do not make announcements in major courses. I’m interested in people who are not yet majors. So, I go out of my way to try and spread the word elsewhere, and I rarely spread the word in my own building.

Several partners also noted that including personnel from non-research universities on a future project leadership team could be a good way to strategize project plans that are flexible and work for the contexts and conditions experienced by different teams. In written comments, one partner suggested,

To broaden the leadership team and include representatives from non-R1 universities so that the events and timelines can be better planned for those participants.

Overall, it was gratifying to see how invested all the partners in different roles and from various types of institutions continue to be with respect to the goal of broadening participation. Also, the partners were able to draw on their experience to share actionable recommendations and strategies that can support substantial, meaningful continuing progress in this area in future collaborations, even under challenging conditions.

3.4 Allocating funds across the project collaboration

NEBP teams greatly valued the opportunity to participate in a nationwide collaboration and appreciated that financial support was available. Some teams, however, struggled to meet all the monetary demands for traveling to the eclipse paths and supporting their students. There was no universal agreement regarding where funds should be spent on a future project, but the partners offered several insightful recommendations. Regarding the general opportunity, one team mentor said,

Before COVID, we had almost 30 students launching high altitude ballooning payloads for different schools and so forth. And then COVID killed [our program], and we got to a point where we had NO students fully understanding the whole system. And then NEBP happened, and that was just beautiful to get our students involved again.

Table 4 highlights the frequently described opinions concerning the project funding allocation.

Table 4

Table 4. Synthesis of comments regarding NEBP funding allocation.

3.4.1 What worked well

Teams appreciated that NEBP provided all the necessary equipment and supplies, funds for travel to the in-person workshop and each eclipse path, and helium for the campaigns. Institutions with fewer resources received additional travel funds as well as support for purchasing helium for practice flights. Mentors also appreciated that the equipment was the same across all teams on the same track, which allowed easier collaboration, troubleshooting, and access to replacement parts. Regarding what the project provided, one pod lead wrote,

The equipment and helium distribution worked well and streamlined the training process. The monumental logistical effort involved in getting everyone what they needed in time for it to be used is appreciated and significant.

Project leadership realized that NEBP grant funding would likely not be sufficient to cover all the teams’ needs, so they encouraged Space Grant Consortia to support groups in their state. Many, though not all, Consortia were able to follow through. To reduce the time required to administer distributed funds and pay invoices, subawards were funneled through the National Space Grant Foundation, which is more nimble than many educational institutions.

3.4.2 What was challenging

While many funding aspects worked well, some teams also faced challenges. The primary challenge was the high cost of travel to the eclipse paths. Additionally, mentors found it hard to budget travel costs early in the project, before knowing where they would conduct their campaign or how many students would participate. In several cases, teams had more interested students than they could afford to bring on the campaigns. One mentor noted,

A primary challenge with the NEBP project was the insufficient funding for student travel. While the project itself was well supported in other areas, the allocated budget did not adequately cover the travel expenses for all participating students.

The next most cited challenge was the amount of personnel time required for the project’s success. Some teams received support from their institutions to help offset the extra time, but many did not, resulting in unpaid overloads for mentors. Funding for students was more common than for mentors, often provided by the state’s Space Grant Consortium. Teams that were unable to provide student support, however, often struggled to keep participants engaged as much as they would have liked because many students had to prioritize finances. The teams that were unable to secure Space Grant support tended to be from institutions that are not members of their state’s consortium. Several partners also would have appreciated more logistical support from their pod lead and the NEBP leadership team. This scenario, however, would have required directing additional project funds to pod leads and the leadership team, consequently drawing those funds away from the teams.

3.4.3 Recommendations for a continuing collaboration

In the realm of education initiatives, NEBP was relatively well funded. Of course, larger budgets can enable more engaging activities, and, in an ideal situation, available funding would be sufficient to cover adequate leadership, mentor, and student time. In this iteration of the project, the priority was to involve as many teams as possible. Potential future project leaders might decide that it is better to engage fewer teams and to ensure that all aspects are fully supported. Partners recommended that the funding balance be carefully considered, and that student support (by one mechanism or another) be prioritized for all teams.

Partners had several recommendations for improving funding logistics. First, open the requests for proposals far enough in advance to allow interested parties to negotiate additional funding sources. Second, allow flexibility for budget items so that individual needs can be met. Third, offer a sliding support scale based on teams’ resource levels. Fourth, continue to distribute equipment and supplies directly to teams, reducing the amount of overhead costs. Fifth, communicate early in the project about supplemental funding for paper publications and conference travel. Finally, leave subawards open longer for teams that want to participate in data analysis efforts.

4 Discussion

This article highlights the primary strengths, challenges, and recommendations regarding the NEBP’s project structure, education and research design, broadening participation design, and funding as described by the co-authors. They shared many more helpful ideas that could not be included here, for the sake of brevity. Additionally, each partner had a different experience and therefore had different opinions about the four topics. This is why some of the strengths and challenges might appear contradictory. Nevertheless, the most mentioned sentiments were included in the text to showcase the variety of experiences. This section provides a discussion of the key lessons learned, study limitations, and future directions and implications. The last subsection also elucidates a few nuances in the recommendations.

4.1 Key lessons learned

The first iteration of NEBP, then known as the Eclipse Ballooning Project (EBP), involved engineering and atmospheric science teams that conducted campaigns for the 2017 total solar eclipse. Being the first of its kind, that project encountered numerous challenges related to leadership time, funding, and improving system performance. With the current iteration, the leadership sought to address the lessons learned from 2017. This included creating a better sense of community through the pod structure, acquiring a higher amount of funding to better support teams, starting the planning stage as early as the funding source allowed, delivering well-developed systems, and instituting a comprehensive evaluation plan. Also—not originally planned but ultimately very valuable—the project developed and posted extensive education and training materials to supplement the workshops.

The processes and analysis conducted for this paper provide a set of lessons learned that, if considered, can improve subsequent collaborative aerial in-situ and remote sensing projects. Lesson highlights include the following.

• Students gain the most from interdisciplinary projects, especially when the connections reflect real-world mission-driven science and engineering efforts. Having separate tracks is useful, but they need to be interconnected. Additionally, the research objectives must be at a level that allows students with a variety of backgrounds to have the opportunity to productively participate in the data analysis.

• The leadership team should reflect the variety of institutions involved. Institutions with fewer resources, where faculty members have large teaching loads and students are generally more overcommitted, need representation.

• An online platform such as Discord, used across all levels for the duration of the project, could provide the communication tools essential for large networks.

• A modular approach would allow both short introductory and extended, higher-level participation. This approach could benefit institutions where mentors believe their students need opportunities that last only a single academic semester or a summer, as well as those that desire a longer, more in-depth experience.

• To help ensure sufficient resources can be gathered, teams need funding flexibility and plenty of time to respond to requests for proposals. Project leaders should consider the balance between the number of students supported (related to the number of teams) and how much funding is provided for each team.

4.2 Study limitations

The findings are limited in several ways. First, while it is hoped that the reflections and lessons learned may be of interest and use to other STEM education collaborations, the authors acknowledge that these are not automatically generalizable beyond the NEBP network. Readers may use the provided study background to judge to what extent the information presented here may be useful for collaborations beyond the NEBP.

In a similar vein, there is a self-selection bias among the group of partners who responded to the call and chose to participate in this study. Partners who had generally positive views of the project, are interested in seeing a collaboration continue beyond the current project, and/or who would like to participate in a next phase might have been more likely to respond to the call than partners who had more negative experiences (although it is also possible that non-responders to the voluntary call for this study were just too busy or not interested in taking part.)

Also, while NEBP student team members completed evaluation surveys throughout the project, only four students who were also leaders on their teams were included in the solicitation for this study—it was not feasible to collect and process data for this study from many students. While acknowledging biases and limits of participation, as noted in the methods section, this study does include voices of partners representing a variety of project roles, types of institutions, and states.

One other limitation to note is that the findings discussed in the article represent prominently shared ideas rather than a comprehensive reporting of all ideas. There were many more strengths, challenges, and recommendations noted by just one or a few partners that could not be included in this article, which is, in essence, a summary report from our inquiry.

4.3 Future directions and implications

The 2022–2025 NEBP was supported by a large NASA grant under Science Activation and the National Space Grant College and Fellowship Program. With the support provided, teams accomplished a great deal, benefiting their institutions and students. Of course, further resources, such as student and mentor stipends and more travel funding, would have been beneficial. To help ensure their proposal would be selected for funding, the project leadership budgeted funds in a manner they felt balanced the funding entities’ goals and the project’s needs. Future project leaders should analyze the funding agency’s desired outcomes to ascertain if a project that fully supports a smaller number of teams and students would make a viable proposal, or if tradeoffs need to be made to accommodate a larger number of participants.

Given that no appropriate eclipses for a similar project will occur in the coming years (the next total solar eclipse crossing several U.S. states will be in 2045), the authors also utilized this study as an opportunity to gather suggestions and ideas for new topics that could be pursued in future stratospheric ballooning network projects. Shared ideas were varied, intriguing, and exciting. A sample of the suggestions includes studies with an astronomic focus (e.g., cosmic rays, meteor showers, solar activity), studies with a weather and climate focus (e.g., severe weather forecasting, atmospheric rivers, urban heat islands, wildfire smoke, machine learning in weather data analysis), studies of air quality chemical transport or flying insects, and an engineering competition focus. The number and diversity of ideas that were shared reflect the enthusiasm and commitment of partners for a continuing collaboration.

The NEBP drew on the knowledge, resources, and capacity of partners to offer deep, extended, and meaningful team learning experiences to students across the country, many of whom may not otherwise have encountered such an opportunity. As noted in the introduction, the NEBP led to numerous positive outcomes related to goals of providing students in diverse contexts with real-world STEM-learning experiences, increasing participants’ interests and intentions toward STEM studies and careers, and growing and sustaining a national stratospheric ballooning network for broadening participation in STEM. Through undertaking this study, the authors were able to reflect on the successes and challenges of undertaking a large project like the NEBP and consider what direction a worthwhile next effort might take.

One key takeaway to note in closing, which is implicit but perhaps not explicit in the findings and lessons shared above, is that investing in STEM education at the national level through collaborative projects like the NEBP can yield outsized benefits. Benefits include advancing scientific knowledge in important domains like atmospheric conditions, building collaborative networks of scientists and engineers across diverse institutions to carry out work that cannot be completed at smaller scales, and on-ramping significant numbers of students toward further STEM studies and careers (helping to create the next-generation of U.S. scientists and engineers). Thus, beyond sharing the achievements and aspirations of this project, the authors hope that this study may offer valuable insights for other projects and organizations with similar goals for building capacity to support participation and collaboration in critical STEM domains.

Data availability statement

The datasets presented in this article are not readily available because they are identifiable qualitative data that reference localized contexts and that, therefore, cannot be easily de-identified. The identified data were collaboratively analyzed and only selectively de-identified as needed for integration into the article text. Requests to access the datasets should be directed to the corresponding author.

Ethics statement

This study involving humans was approved by the University of Montana Institutional Review Board. The study was conducted in accordance with institutional requirements. The participants provided their written informed consent to participate in the study. Written informed consent was obtained from the individual(s) for the publication of any potentially identifiable images or data included in this article.

Author contributions

BC: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal Analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing. AD: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal Analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing. EA: Investigation, Writing – review and editing. AJ: Investigation, Writing – review and editing. SB: Investigation, Writing – review and editing. KB: Investigation, Writing – review and editing. MiB: Investigation, Writing – review and editing. EB: Investigation, Writing – review and editing. MaB: Investigation, Writing – review and editing. AC: Investigation, Writing – review and editing. NC: Investigation, Writing – review and editing. JD: Investigation, Writing – review and editing. ME-B: Investigation, Writing – review and editing. WF: Investigation, Writing – review and editing. JaF: Investigation, Writing – review and editing. JeF: Investigation, Writing – review and editing. RH: Investigation, Writing – review and editing. EK: Investigation, Writing – review and editing. HK: Investigation, Writing – review and editing. CL: Investigation, Writing – review and editing. WL: Investigation, Writing – review and editing. JaM: Investigation, Writing – review and editing. JuM: Investigation, Writing – review and editing. JP: Investigation, Writing – review and editing. DP: Investigation, Writing – review and editing. CQ: Investigation, Writing – review and editing. JoR: Investigation, Writing – review and editing. JaR: Investigation, Writing – review and editing. JS: Investigation, Writing – review and editing. TS: Investigation, Writing – review and editing. PS: Investigation, Writing – review and editing. SS: Investigation, Writing – review and editing. DS: Investigation, Writing – review and editing. AS: Investigation, Writing – review and editing.

Funding

The authors declare that financial support was received for the research and/or publication of this article. The 2022–2025 NEBP was funded by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Science Activation and the National Space Grant College and Fellowship Program, under grant number 80NSSC22M0003. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Generative AI statement

The authors declare that no Generative AI was used in the creation of this manuscript.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

References

Covitt, B., Saad, M. E., Frank, N., Taylor, S., and Jardins, A. D. (2024). Leveraging eclipses to build a network for broadening STEM participation: an evaluation of the nationwide eclipse ballooning project. Bull. AAS Celebrating Wonder Sci. Shad. II. doi:10.3847/25c2cfeb.7012f88b

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

de Boer, G., Diehl, C., Jacob, J., Houston, A., Smith, S. W., Chilson, P., et al. (2020). Development of community, capabilities, and understanding through unmanned aircraft-based atmospheric research: the LAPSE-RATE campaign. Bull. Am. Meteorological Soc. 101 (5), E684–E699. doi:10.1175/bams-d-19-0050.1

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Des Jardins, A., Saad, M., and Smith, V. (2025a). Nationwide Eclipse Ballooning Project: Atmospheric data from the 2023 annular and 2024 total solar eclipses. Dryad. doi:10.5061/dryad.v15dv426j

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Des Jardins, A., Saad, M., and Smith, V. (2025b). Nationwide eclipse ballooning project: Engineering data from the 2023 annular and 2024 total solar eclipses. Dryad. doi:10.5061/dryad.rv15dv4jh

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Des Jardins, A. C., Mayer-Gawlik, S., Larimer, R., Knighton, W. B., Fowler, J., Ross, D., et al. (2019). “Eclipse ballooning project live streaming activity: overview,” in Celebrating the 2017 great American eclipse: lessons learned from the path of totality ASP conference series, Vol. 516. Editors S. Buxner, L. Shore, and J. Jensen (San Francisco: Astronomy Society of the Pacific), 353–364.

Google Scholar

Fetterman, D. M., and Wandersman, A. (2005). Empowerment principles in practice. New York: Guilford Press.

Google Scholar

Guijt, I. (2014). Participatory approaches. Methodological briefs impact evaluation no. 5. Florence: UNICEF Office of Research.

Google Scholar

Mahmud, S. (2016). Impact of Microsoft imagine cup on youth: a study on microsoft Bangladesh limited. Internship report. Dhaka, Bangladesh: BRAC Business School.

Google Scholar

McDonald, M. M., Ziegler-Hill, V., Varabel, T. K., and Escobar, M. (2019). A single-item measure for assessing STEM identity. Front. Educ. 4 (78), 1–15. doi:10.3389/feduc.2019.00078

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Mills, A., and Stumpges, E. (2013). The American solar challenge 2012. IEEE Potentials 32 (2), 10–16. doi:10.1109/mpot.2012.2223831

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Mueller, R. P., van Susante, P., Reiners, E., and Metzger, P. T. (2021). NASA lunabotics robotic mining competition 10th anniversary (2010–2019): taxonomy and technology review. Earth Space, 497–510. doi:10.1061/9780784483374.047

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

NASEM (2018). Learning through citizen science: enhancing opportunities by design. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Google Scholar

NEBP (2025). Introduction to scientific ballooning: NEBP engineering track. Available online at: https://eclipse.montana.edu/education/engineeringcourse.html (Accessed, 2024).

Google Scholar

O'Sullivan, R. (2004). Practicing evaluation: a collaborative approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Google Scholar

Patel, N., Patel, A., Leonard, D., Ott, C., Pare, C., Ramos, L., et al. (2024). “High-altitude balloons flights on total solar eclipse,” in Academic high altitude conference.

Google Scholar

Pieper, C., Davies, J., and Brian Mahoney, M. S. (2021). “Inheriting a design build project: lessons learned from the 2021 student steel bridge competition,” in Proceedings of the international annual conference of the American society for engineering management. American society for engineering management (ASEM).

Google Scholar

Saad, M. E., Covitt, B., Taylor, S., Jardins, A. D., and Frank, N. (2023). Nationwide eclipse ballooning project: a toolkit for broadening STEM participation, building networks, and bridging education and research. Bull. AAS Celebrating Wonder Sci. Shad. doi:10.3847/25c2cfeb.a8f47e95

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Shetye, J., Vesa, O., Houser, C., Martinez, M., Denney, A., Breadley-Rood, A., et al. (2025). Characterization of atmospheric gravity waves observed during a total solar eclipse in granbury, Texas. Bull. AAS 56 (9). doi:10.3847/25c2cfeb.af234821

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Taylor, S. (2025). Introduction to scientific ballooning: NEBP atmospheric science track. Available online at: https://eclipse.montana.edu/education/sciencecourse.html (Accessed, 2024).

Google Scholar

Vance-Chalcraft, H. D., Hurlbert, A. H., Styrsky, J. N., Gates, T. A., Bowser, G., Hitchcock, C. B., et al. (2022). Citizen science in postsecondary education: current practices and knowledge gaps. BioScience 72 (3), 276–288. doi:10.1093/biosci/biab125

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Wang, J., Dai, A., Yu, C.-L., Shrestha, B., McGuinnes, D. J., and Bain, N. (2024). Characterizing the impacts of 2024 total solar eclipse using New York state mesonet data. Geophys. Res. Lett. 51 (22), e2024GL112684. doi:10.1029/2024gl112684

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Zande, J., Michel, D., and Sullivan, D. (2005). MATE ROV competitions bring ocean science and technology to students and educators across the US and Canada. Mar. Technol. Soc. J. 39 (4), 111–115. doi:10.4031/002533205787465823

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar