Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “prize competition”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

29 records · Page 2

NASA Green Flight Challenge: Conceptual Design Approaches and Technologies to Enable 200 Passenger Miles per Gallon

The Green Flight Challenge is one of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration s Centennial Challenges designed to push technology and make passenger aircraft more efficient. Airliners currently average around 50 passenger-miles per gallon and this competition will push teams to greater than 200 passenger-miles per gallon. The aircraft must also fly at least 100 miles per hour for 200 miles. The total prize money for this competition is $1.65 Million. The Green Flight Challenge will be run by the Comparative Aircraft Flight Efficiency (CAFE) Foundation September 25 October 1, 2011 at Charles M. Schulz Sonoma County Airport in California. Thirteen custom aircraft were developed with electric, bio-diesel, and other bio-fuel engines. The aircraft are using various technologies to improve aerodynamic, propulsion, and structural efficiency. This paper will explore the feasibility of the rule set, competitor vehicles, design approaches, and technologies used.

Wells, Douglas P.↗

2010 NASA Exploration Systems Mission Directorate: Lunabotics Mining Competition Systems Engineering Paper

A fast growing approach in determining the best design concept for a problem is to hold a competition in which the rules are based on requirements similar to the actual problem. By going public with such competitions, sponsoring entities receive some of the most innovative engineering solutions in a fraction of the time and cost it would have taken to develop such concepts internally. Space exploration is a large benefactor of such design competitions as seen by the results of X-Prize Foundation and NASA lunar excavation competitions [1]. The results of NASA's past lunar excavator challenges has led to the need for an effective means of collecting lunar regolith in the absence of human beings. The 2010 Exploration Systems Mission Directorate (ESMD) Lunar Excavation Challenge was created "to engage and retain students in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, or STEM, in a competitive environment that may result in innovative ideas and solutions, which could be applied to actual lunar excavation for NASA." [2]. The ESMD Challenge calls for "teams to use telerobotics or autonomous operations to excavate at least 10kg of lunar regolith simulant in a 15 minute time limit" [2]. The Systems Engineering approach was used in accordance with Auburn University's mechanical engineering senior design course (MECH 4240-50) to develop a telerobotic lunar excavator, seen in Fig. 1, that fulfilled requirements imposed by the NASA ESMD Competition Rules. The goal of the senior design project was to have a validated lunar excavator that would be used in the NASA ESMD lunar excavation challenge.

Source record↗

A Review of Lunar Regolith Excavation Robotic Device Prototypes

The excavation of lunar regolith is desirable for use as a feedstock for oxygen production processes as well as civil engineering purposes and for the fabrication of parts and structures. This is known as In-Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU). More recently, there has been mounting evidence that water ice exists at the poles of the Moon, buried in the regolith where thermally stable conditions exist. This means that regolith excavation will be required to mine the water ice which is believed to be. mixed in with the regolith, or bonded to it. The mined water ice can then be electrolyzed to produce hydrogen and oxygen propellants which could form the basis of a cis-lunar transportation system using in-situ derived propellants. In 2007, the National Aeronautics & Space Administration (NASA) sponsored a Lunar Regolith Excavation Competition as part of its Centennial Challenges program, The competition was not won and it was held again in 2008 and 2009, when it was won by a university team. A $500,000 prize was awarded to the winning team by NASA. In 2010, NASA continued the competition as a spinoff of the Centennial Challenges, which is restricted to university participation only. This competition is known as the "Lunabotics Mining Competition" and is hosted by NASA at Kennedy Space Center. Twenty three American university teams competed in the 2010 Lunabotics Mining Competition. The competition was held again in May 2011 with over 60 teams registered, including international participation. The competition will be held again in May 2012 at Kennedy Space Center in Florida. . This paper contains a thorough review of the various regolith eX,cavation robotic device prototypes that competed in these NASA competitions, and will. classify the machines and their methods of excavation to document the variety of ideas that were spawned and built to compete at these events. It is hoped that documentation of these robots will serve to help future robotic excavation designers and provide a historical reference for future lunar mining machine endeavors.

Mueller, Robert P.↗

NASA Centennial Challenge: Three Dimensional (3D) Printed Habitat, Phase 2

The NASA Centennial Challenges: 3D-Printed Habitat Challenge seeks to develop the fundamental technologies necessary to manufacture an off-world habitat using mission recycled materials and/or local indigenous materials. The vision is that autonomous habitat manufacturing machines will someday be deployed to the Moon or Mars to construct shelters for human habitation. NASA and Bradley University, are holding a new US$ 2.5 million competition to design and build a 3-D printed habitat for deep space exploration, including the agency's journey to Mars. The multi-phase 3-D Printed Habitat Challenge, part of NASA's Centennial Challenges program, is designed to advance the additive construction technology needed to create sustainable housing solutions for Earth and beyond. The first phase of the competition ran through Sept. 27, 2015. This phase, a design competition, called on participants to develop state-of-the-art architectural concepts that take advantage of the unique capabilities 3-D printing offers. The top 3 prizes with a prize purse of $40,000 were awarded at the 2015 World Maker Faire in New York. The second phase of the competition is called the Structural Member Competition and it is divided into three levels happening in the spring and summer of 2017. The Compression Test Competition (Level 1) focuses on the fabrication technologies needed to manufacture structural components from a combination of indigenous materials and recyclables, or indigenous materials alone. For Level 1, teams will develop 3D printable materials, build a 3D printing machine, and print two specimens: a truncated cone and a cylinder. The Level 2 Beam Member Competition is the second of three sub-competitions within the overall Structural Member Competition. For Level 2, teams will print a beam that will be tested. The Level 3 Head to Head Competition is the third of three sub-competitions within the overall Structural Member Competition. For Level 3, teams will develop 3D printable materials, use a 3D printing machine, and print three compression specimens of the elected material, three flexural specimens of the elected material, and one dome structure. Tests conducted on the specimens and the dome structure will determine Level 3 scores and awards. On Earth these same habitat manufacturing capabilities could be used to produce housing wherever affordable housing is needed and access to conventional building materials and skills is limited. Terrestrially, it is envisioned that local indigenous materials (dirt, clay, sand, etc.) could be combined with readily available recyclable materials and used to construct semi-permanent shelters against environmental elements for human habitation. The goal of the 3D-Printed Habitat Challenge is to foster the development of new technologies necessary to additively manufacture a habitat using local indigenous materials with, or without, recyclable materials. This paper will summarize the Level 2 results of this NASA Centennial Challenge competition and it will discuss related technology advancement.

3D printing↗

Notes on specifications for French airplane competitions

Given here are the rules officially adopted by the Aeronautical Commission of the Aero Club of France for a flight competition to be held in France in 1920 at the Villacoublay Aerodrome. The prize will be awarded to the pilot who succeeds in obtaining the highest maximum and lowest minimum speeds, and in landing within the shortest distance.

Margoulis, W↗

2024 Nasa Lunabotics University Competition: Site Preparation With Bulk Regolith

Introduction: Lunabotics provides accredited institutions of higher learning students (vocational-technical, college, university) an opportunity to apply the NASA systems engineering process to design and build a prototype robot. This robot would be capable of performing the proposed operations on the Lunar surface in support of future Artemis mission goals. Lunabotics features a systems engineering design challenge to engage students in the next phase of hu-man space exploration supporting the Artemis missions. This two-semester event encourages students to design and build an autonomous or telerobotic robot designed to traverse the simulated Lunar surface and complete the assigned construction tasks. The number of teams accepted into this challenge is not predetermined but is based on the scores and overall quality of the Project Management Plans received and other factors. The culmination of the Lunabotics virtual challenge will be the design, build and operation of a functional prototype Lunar robot. Teams are required to submit the following: (1) Project Management Plan, (2) Systems Engineering Paper, a (3) STEM Engage-ment Report, and a (4) Proof of Life Video. This is an optional item, but to qualify for the grand prize a team must also submit a: (5) Presentation and Demonstration. Background: The NASA Lunabotics University Competition was first held in 2010 as a follow on to the NASA Regolith Excavation Challenge [1]. The high level of interest and participation from over 50 universities each year has led to a sustained annual competi-ion cadence: it has been held every May for the past 14 years [2,3]. Over 6,000 students have participated and been inspired to pursue Science, Technology, En-gineering and Mathematics careers (STEM). 2024 Competition: The necessary lunar surface tasks are evolving to meet the NASA Artemis Mission requirements. In the past Lunabotics challenges we gathered data to support Lunar mining for consuma-bles in the Lunar regolith. Now, in 2024, the task is to gather data on Lunar site preparation and construction by designing and building a robot that will traverse the chaotic Lunar terrain and construct a regolith-based berm. The goal is to build a berm structure which would be useful to the Artemis Mission for blast and ejecta protection during lunar landings and launches, shading cryogenic propellant tank farms, providing radiation protection around a nuclear power plant and other mission critical uses. Lunabotics will consist of three separate events this year. The first event is NASA’s Lunabotics Project Development Challenge, where teams submit various deliverables to be scored by judges. The second event will be the University of Central Florida (UCF) Lunabotics Qualification challenge, in the Exolith laboratory, where teams will put their de-signs to the test. The top ten scoring teams from the Qualification challenge are then invited to the third and final event, NASA’s Lunabotics On-Site Challenge at Kennedy Space Center in Florida. This presentation will summarize the results and lessons learned from the NASA Lunabotics University Competition held in May 2024.

Lunabotics↗

ARES Biennial Report 2012 Final

Since the return of the first lunar samples, what is now the Astromaterials Research and Exploration Science (ARES) Directorate has had curatorial responsibility for all NASA-held extraterrestrial materials. Originating during the Apollo Program (1960s), this capability at Johnson Space Center (JSC) included scientists who were responsible for the science planning and training of astronauts for lunar surface activities as well as experts in the analysis and preservation of the precious returned samples. Today, ARES conducts research in basic and applied space and planetary science, and its scientific staff represents a broad diversity of expertise in the physical sciences (physics, chemistry, geology, astronomy), mathematics, and engineering organized into three offices (figure 1): Astromaterials Research (KR), Astromaterials Acquisition and Curation (KT), and Human Exploration Science (KX). Scientists within the Astromaterials Acquisition and Curation Office preserve, protect, document, and distribute samples of the current astromaterials collections. Since the return of the first lunar samples, ARES has been assigned curatorial responsibility for all NASA-held extraterrestrial materials (Apollo lunar samples, Antarctic meteorites - some of which have been confirmed to have originated on the Moon and on Mars - cosmic dust, solar wind samples, comet and interstellar dust particles, and space-exposed hardware). The responsibilities of curation consist not only of the longterm care of the samples, but also the support and planning for future sample collection missions and research and technology to enable new sample types. Curation provides the foundation for research into the samples. The Lunar Sample Facility and other curation clean rooms, the data center, laboratories, and associated instrumentation are unique NASA resources that, together with our staff's fundamental understanding of the entire collection, provide a service to the external research community, which relies on access to the samples. The curation efforts are greatly enhanced by a strong group of planetary scientists who conduct peerreviewed astromaterials research. Astromaterials Research Office scientists conduct peer-reviewed research as Principal or Co-Investigators in planetary science (e. g., cosmochemistry, origins of solar systems, Mars fundamental research, planetary geology and geophysics) and participate as Co-Investigators or Participating Scientists in many of NASA's robotic planetary missions. Since the last report, ARES has achieved several noteworthy milestones, some of which are documented in detail in the sections that follow. Within the Human Exploration Science Office, ARES is a world leader in orbital debris research, modeling and monitoring the debris environment, designing debris shielding, and developing policy to control and mitigate the orbital debris population. ARES has aggressively pursued refinements in knowledge of the debris environment and the hazard it presents to spacecraft. Additionally, the ARES Image Science and Analysis Group has been recognized as world class as a result of the high quality of near-real-time analysis of ascent and on-orbit inspection imagery to identify debris shedding, anomalies, and associated potential damage during Space Shuttle missions. ARES Earth scientists manage and continuously update the database of astronaut photography that is predominantly from Shuttle and ISS missions, but also includes the results of 40 years of human spaceflight. The Crew Earth Observations Web site (http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/Education/ESS/crew.htm) continues to receive several million hits per month. ARES scientists are also influencing decisions in the development of the next generation of human and robotic spacecraft and missions through laboratory tests on the optical qualities of materials for windows, micrometeoroid/orbital debris shielding technology, and analog activities to assess surface science operations. ARES serves as host to numerous students and visiting scientists as part of the services provided to the research community and conducts a robust education and outreach program. ARES scientists are recognized nationally and internationally by virtue of their success in publishing in peer-reviewed journals and winning competitive research proposals. ARES scientists have won every major award presented by the Meteoritical Society, including the Leonard Medal, the most prestigious award in planetary science and cosmochemistry; the Barringer Medal, recognizing outstanding work in the field of impact cratering; the Nier Prize for outstanding research by a young scientist; and several recipients of the Nininger Meteorite Award. One of our scientists received the Department of Defense (DoD) Joint Meritorious Civilian Service Award (the highest civilian honor given by the DoD). ARES has established numerous partnerships with other NASA Centers, universities, and national laboratories. ARES scientists serve as journal editors, members of advisory panels and review committees, and society officers, and several scientists have been elected as Fellows in their professional societies. This biennial report summarizes a subset of the accomplishments made by each of the ARES offices and highlights participation in ongoing human and robotic missions, development of new missions, and planning for future human and robotic exploration of the solar system beyond low Earth orbit.

Stansbery, Eileen↗

Operations Analysis of Space Shuttle System

The space science program at NASA since 1950's has gone through stages of development and implementation in rocketry and scientific advancement. It has become the nation's largest scientific institution of research and innovation for space exploration and military research, and overall a pride of the nation at an exorbitant cost. After placing man on moon, space shuttle program at NASA is an on-going project with a high success rate at an average cost of about $450m per flight. A future endeavor from both government and private sectors needs to be undertaken for commercialization of this expensive mission. In order to attract private enterprises, it needs to boost up its operations with better technology at lower cost to cope with rapid changes in scientific advancement and economic competition. Thus, a second-generation reusable launch vehicle (2GRLV) will play a major role in future operation of NASA centers. Envisioning this potential way of saving the program by reducing the cost, NASA is currently managing an innovative program called the Space Launch Initiative (SLI) to develop key technologies that will support the development of second-generation reusable launch vehicles (RLV) which will be more economical and safer and reliable than the existing space shuttle system. The selection of which technologies to fund for further development is being based on their likelihood to contribute to providing cost reduction or safety improvements. It is envisioned that in the 2006 timeframe, NASA will make a decision as to whether or not to commit to the replacement of the current space shuttle system with a new RLV. The decision to proceed with a new RLV will be partly based on the likelihood that the new system will be better than the existing space shuttle. Government and private entrepreneurs are currently considering four different types of RLV projects: commercial programs, government programs, international concepts, and X Prize competitors. NASA has already commissioned a series of X-programs to study the future RLV program. Today, NASA decision makers need analytical tools to help determine which technologies to fund the development of this technology. In the 2006 timeframe, these same decision makers will need analytical tools to evaluate and compare various RLV architectures, including the existing space shuttle so as to make the best decision for whether or not to proceed with the development of a new RLV, and if so, then which one. A study is conducted here to establish ground level knowledge from the historical data and expertise experiences of the field personnel. Such information is compiled in the form of mission statement, goals, space shuttle operations, payloads and cargo constraints, resource constraints, and bottlenecks to the enhancement vector.

Bhaba R. Sarker↗

Cosmic Complexity

What explains the extraordinary complexity of the observed universe, on all scales from quarks to the accelerating universe? My favorite explanation (which I certainty did not invent) ls that the fundamental laws of physics produce natural instability, energy flows, and chaos. Some call the result the Life Force, some note that the Earth is a living system itself (Gaia, a "tough bitch" according to Margulis), and some conclude that the observed complexity requires a supernatural explanation (of which we have many). But my dad was a statistician (of dairy cows) and he told me about cells and genes and evolution and chance when I was very small. So a scientist must look for me explanation of how nature's laws and statistics brought us into conscious existence. And how is that seemll"!gly Improbable events are actually happening a!1 the time? Well, the physicists have countless examples of natural instability, in which energy is released to power change from simplicity to complexity. One of the most common to see is that cooling water vapor below the freezing point produces snowflakes, no two alike, and all complex and beautiful. We see it often so we are not amazed. But physlc!sts have observed so many kinds of these changes from one structure to another (we call them phase transitions) that the Nobel Prize in 1992 could be awarded for understanding the mathematics of their common features. Now for a few examples of how the laws of nature produce the instabilities that lead to our own existence. First, the Big Bang (what an insufficient name!) apparently came from an instability, in which the "false vacuum" eventually decayed into the ordinary vacuum we have today, plus the most fundamental particles we know, the quarks and leptons. So the universe as a whole started with an instability. Then, a great expansion and cooling happened, and the loose quarks, finding themselves unstable too, bound themselves together into today's less elementary particles like protons and neutrons, liberating a little energy and creating complexity. Then, the expanding universe cooled some more, and neutrons and protons, no longer kept apart by immense temperatures, found themselves unstable and formed helium nuclei. Then, a little more cooling, and atomic nuclei and electrons were no longer kept apart, and the universe became transparent. Then a little more cooling, and the next instability began: gravitation pulled matter together across cosmic distances to form stars and galaxies. This instability is described as a "negative heat capadty" in which extracting energy from a gravitating system makes it hotter -- clearly the 2nd law of thermodynamics does not apply here! (This is the physicist's part of the answer to e e cummings' question: what is the wonder that's keeping the stars apart?) Then, the next instability is that hydrogen and helium nuclei can fuse together to release energy and make stars burn for billions of years. And then at the end of the fuel source, stars become unstable and explode and liberate the chemical elements back into space. And because of that, on planets like Earth, sustained energy flows support the development of additional instabilities and all kinds of complex patterns. Gravitational instability pulls the densest materials into the core of the Earth, leaving a thin skin of water and air, and makes the interior churn incessantly as heat flows outwards. And the heat from the sun, received mostly near the equator and flowing towards the poles, supports the complex atmospheric and oceanic circulations. And because or that, the physical Earth is full of natural chemical laboratories, concentrating elements here, mixing them there, raising and lowering temperatures, ceaselessly experimenting with uncountable events where new instabilities can arise. At least one of them was the new experiment called life. Now that we know that there are at least as many planets as there are stars, it is hard to imagine that nature's ceasess experimentation would not be able to produce life elsewhere -- but we don't know for sure. And life went on to cause new Instabilities, constantly evolving, with living things in an extraordinary range of environments, changing the global environment, with boom-and-bust cycles. with predators for every kInd of prey, with criminals for every possible crime, with governments to prevent them, and instabilities of the governments themselves. One of the instabilities Is that humans demand new weapons and new products of all sort, leading to serious investments in science and technology. So the natural/human world of competition and combat is structured to lead to advanced weaponry and cell phones. So here we are In 2012, with people writing essays and wondering whether their descendents will be artificial life forms travelling back into space. And, pondering what are the origins of those forces of nature that give rise to everything. Verllnde has argued that gravitation, the one force that has so far resisted our efforts at a Quantum description, is not even a fundamental force, but is itself it a statistical force, like osmosis. What an amazing turn of events! But after all I've just said, I should not be surprised a bit.

Mather, John C.↗