Results for “challenges” — Page 4

NASA NTRS2001

An Overview of the Thermal Challenges of Designing Microgravity Furnaces

Marshall Space Flight Center is involved in a wide variety of microgravity projects that require furnaces, with hot zone temperatures ranging from 300 C to 2300 C, requirements for gradient processing and rapid quench, and both semi-conductor and metal materials. On these types of projects, the thermal engineer is a key player in the design process. Microgravity furnaces present unique challenges to the thermal designer. One challenge is designing a sample containment assembly that achieves dual containment, yet allows a high radial heat flux. Another challenge is providing a high axial gradient but a very low radial gradient. These furnaces also present unique challenges to the thermal analyst. First, there are several orders of magnitude difference in the size of the thermal 'conductors' between various parts of the model. A second challenge is providing high fidelity in the sample model, and connecting the sample with the rest of the furnace model, yet maintaining some sanity in the number of total nodes in the model. The purpose of this paper is to present an overview of the challenges involved in designing and analyzing microgravity furnaces and how some of these challenges have been overcome. The thermal analysis tools presently used to analyze microgravity furnaces and will be listed. Challenges for the future and a description of future analysis tools will be given.

Westra, Douglas G.↗

NASA NTRS2011

Crowdsourcing for Challenging Technical Problems - It Works!

The NASA Johnson Space Center Space Life Sciences Directorate (SLSD) and Wyle Integrated Science and Engineering (Wyle) will conduct a one-day business cluster at the 62nd IAC so that IAC attendees will understand the benefits of open innovation (crowdsourcing), review successful results of conducting technical challenges in various open innovation projects, and learn how an organization can effectively deploy these new problem solving tools to innovate more efficiently and effectively. Results from both the SLSD open innovation pilot program and the open innovation workshop conducted by the NASA Human Health and Performance Center will be discussed. NHHPC members will be recruited to participate in the business cluster (see membership http://nhhpc.nasa.gov) and as IAF members. Crowdsourcing may be defined as the act of outsourcing tasks that are traditionally performed by an employee or contractor to an undefined, generally large group of people or community (a crowd) in the form of an open call. The open call may be issued by the organization wishing to find a solution to a particular problem or complete a task, or by an open innovation service provider on behalf of that organization. In 2008, the SLSD, with the support of Wyle, established and implemented pilot projects in open innovation (crowdsourcing) to determine if these new internet-based platforms could indeed find solutions to difficult technical challenges. These unsolved technical problems were converted to problem statements, called Challenges by some open innovation service providers, and were then posted externally to seek solutions to these problems. In addition, an open call was issued internally to NASA employees Agency wide (11 Field Centers and NASA HQ) using an open innovation service provider crowdsourcing platform to post NASA challenges from each Center for the others to propose solutions). From 2008 to 2010, the SLSD issued 34 challenges, 14 externally and 20 internally. The 14 external problems or challenges were posted through three different vendors: InnoCentive, yet2.com and TopCoder. The 20 internal challenges were conducted using the InnoCentive crowdsourcing platform designed for use internal to an organization and customized for NASA use, and promoted as NASA@Work. The results were significant. Of the seven InnoCentive external challenges, two full and five partial awards were made in complex technical areas such as predicting solar flares and long-duration food packaging.

Davis, Jeffrey R.↗

NASA NTRS2013

Challenges of Integrating NASAs Space Communication Networks

The transition to new technology, innovative ideas, and resistance to change is something that every industry experiences. Recent examples of this shift are changing to using robots in the assembly line construction of automobiles or the increasing use of robotics for medical procedures. Most often this is done with cost-reduction in mind, though ease of use for the customer is also a driver. All industries experience the push to increase efficiency of their systems; National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the commercial space industry are no different. NASA space communication services are provided by three separately designed, developed, maintained, and operated communications networks known as the Deep Space Network (DSN), Near Earth Network (NEN) and Space Network (SN). The Space Communications and Navigation (SCaN) Program is pursuing integration of these networks and has performed a variety of architecture trade studies to determine what integration options would be the most effective in achieving a unified user mission support organization, and increase the use of common operational equipment and processes. The integration of multiple, legacy organizations and existing systems has challenges ranging from technical to cultural. The existing networks are the progeny of the very first communication and tracking capabilities implemented by NASA and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) more than 50 years ago and have been customized to the needs of their respective user mission base. The technical challenges to integrating the networks are many, though not impossible to overcome. The three distinct networks provide the same types of services, with customizable data rates, bandwidth, frequencies, and so forth. The differences across the networks have occurred in effort to satisfy their user missions' needs. Each new requirement has made the networks more unique and harder to integrate. The cultural challenges, however, have proven to be a significant obstacle for integration. Over the past few decades of use, user missions and network personnel alike have grown accustomed to the processes by which services are provided by the NASA communications and navigation networks. The culture established by each network has created several challenges that need to be overcome in order to effectively integrate the networks. As with any change, there has been resistance, an apprehension to explore automation of existing processes, and a working environment that attempts to indirectly influence change without mandating compliance. Overcoming technical and cultural challenges is essential to successfully integrating the networks and although the challenges are numerous, the integration of the networks promises a more efficient space communications network for NASA and its customers, as well as potential long-term cost savings to the agency. This paper, Challenges of Integrating NASA Legacy Communications Networks, will provide a brief overview of the current NASA space communications networks as well as the an overview of the process implemented while performing the SCaN Trade Studies and an introduction to the requirements driving integration of the SCaN Networks. This paper will describe in detail the challenges experienced, both technical and cultural, while working with NASA space communications network-specific personnel. The paper will also cover lessons learned during the performance of architecture trade studies and provide recommendations for ways to improve the process.

Reinert, Jessica M.↗

NASA NTRS2013

Challenges of Integrating NASA's Space Communications Networks

The transition to new technology, innovative ideas, and resistance to change is something that every industry experiences. Recent examples of this shift are changing to using robots in the assembly line construction of automobiles or the increasing use of robotics for medical procedures. Most often this is done with cost-reduction in mind, though ease of use for the customer is also a driver. All industries experience the push to increase efficiency of their systems; National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the commercial space industry are no different. NASA space communication services are provided by three separately designed, developed, maintained, and operated communications networks known as the Deep Space Network (DSN), Near Earth Network (NEN) and Space Network (SN). The Space Communications and Navigation (SCaN) Program is pursuing integration of these networks and has performed a variety of architecture trade studies to determine what integration options would be the most effective in achieving a unified user mission support organization, and increase the use of common operational equipment and processes. The integration of multiple, legacy organizations and existing systems has challenges ranging from technical to cultural. The existing networks are the progeny of the very first communication and tracking capabilities implemented by NASA and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) more than 50 years ago and have been customized to the needs of their respective user mission base. The technical challenges to integrating the networks are many, though not impossible to overcome. The three distinct networks provide the same types of services, with customizable data rates, bandwidth, frequencies, and so forth. The differences across the networks have occurred in effort to satisfy their user missions' needs. Each new requirement has made the networks more unique and harder to integrate. The cultural challenges, however, have proven to be a significant obstacle for integration. Over the past few decades of use, user missions and network personnel alike have grown accustomed to the processes by which services are provided by the NASA communications and navigation networks. The culture established by each network has created several challenges that need to be overcome in order to effectively integrate the networks. As with any change, there has been resistance, an apprehension to explore automation of existing processes, and a working environment that attempts to indirectly influence change without mandating compliance. Overcoming technical and cultural challenges is essential to successfully integrating the networks and although the challenges are numerous, the integration of the networks promises a more efficient space communications network for NASA and its customers, as well as potential long-term cost savings to the agency. This paper, Challenges of Integrating NASA Legacy Communications Networks, will provide a brief overview of the current NASA space communications networks as well as the an overview of the process implemented while performing the SCaN Trade Studies and an introduction to the requirements driving integration of the SCaN Networks. This paper will describe in detail the challenges experienced, both technical and cultural, while working with NASA space communications network-specific personnel. The paper will also cover lessons learned during the performance of architecture trade studies and provide recommendations for ways to improve the process.

Systems Integration↗

NASA NTRS2018

NASA's Centennial Challenge for 3D-Printed Habitat: Phase II Outcomes and Phase III Competition Overview

The 3D-Printed Habitat Challenge is part of NASA's Centennial Challenges Program. NASA's Centennial Challenges seek to accelerate innovation in aerospace technology development through public competitions. The 3D-Printed Habitat Challenge, launched in 2015, is part of the Centennial Challenges portfolio and focuses on habitat design and development of large-scale additive construction systems capable of fabricating structures from in situ materials and/or mission recyclables. The challenge is a partnership between NASA, Caterpillar (primary sponsor), Bechtel, Brick and Mortar Ventures, and Bradley University. Phase I of the challenge was an architectural concept competition in which participants generated conceptual renderings of habitats on Mars which could be constructed using locally available resources. Phase II asked teams to develop the printing systems and material formulations needed to translate these designs into reality. Work under the phase II competition, which concluded in August 2017 with a head to head competition at Caterpillar's Edward Demonstration Facility in Peoria, Illinois, is discussed, including the key technology development outcomes resulting from this portion of the competition. The phase III competition consists of both virtual and construction subcompetitions. Virtual construction asks teams to render high fidelity architectural models of a habitat and all the accompanying information required for construction of the pressure retaining and load bearing portions of the structure. In construction phase III, teams are asked to scale up their printing systems to produce a 1/3 scale habitat on-site at Caterpillar. The levels of the phase III construction competition (which include printing of a foundation and printing and hydrostatic testing of a habitat element) are discussed. Phase III construction also has an increased focus on autonomy, as these systems are envisioned for robotic precursor missions which would buildup infrastructure prior to the arrival of crew. Results of the phase III competition through July 2017 (which includes virtual construction level 1) are discussed. This Centennial Challenge enables an assessment of the scaleability and efficacy of various processes, material systems, and designs for planetary construction. There are also near-term terrestrial applications, from disaster response to affordable housing and infrastructure refurbishment, for these technologies.

Prater, T. J.↗

DOE OSTI2020

Revisiting the Terawatt Challenge

Richard E. Smalley, in 2003, defined the Terawatt (TW) Challenge as “Adapting our energy infrastructure to simultaneously address diminishing oil resources and rising levels of atmospheric CO 2 .” Smalley, best known for the discovery of C 60 , for which he received the 1996 Nobel Prize in Chemistry, continued to address the challenges of anthropomorphic and natural global energy flows until he passed away in 2005. Smalley challenged the world to transform the energy sector. He envisioned electricity transmitted by high-voltage direct current (DC) lines from massively deployed solar plants in sunny areas and remotely sited nuclear plants. He also envisioned using advanced batteries for local storage of energy. To meet the needs of ~10 people in a world with a dwindling oil supply, Smalley asserted that the world would need to transform its fossil-fuel-driven 14-TW (average power) energy used in 2003 to a largely renewable-energy-driven 30–60 TW (average power) in 2050. This would be possible only if solar-electricity costs could be drastically reduced. The challenges associated with this transition have been called the “Terawatt Challenge.” Fifteen years later, solar-module costs have been reduced by tenfold and annual deployment of solar photovoltaic (PV) modules has grown by a factor of 100,from ~1 gigawatt (GW) in 2004 to ~100 GW in 2018, with a total of 500 GW installed worldwide, producing 2% of the planet’s electricity. As global installed solar generating capacity approaches1 TW, we revisit Smalley’s TW challenge to identify what has changed and quantify the TW Challenge for a baseline scenario and for two scenarios designed as upper and lower bounds determined by the degree we implement electrification and storage. In this paper, we show that the energy choices we make today will dramatically affect the magnitude of future global energy requirements.

SOLAR ENERGY↗

DOE OSTI2024

ARPA-E Grid Optimization (GO) Competition Challenge 3

Synthetic Input Data and Team Results for the GO Competition Challenge 3 for Events 1 - 4 and the Sandbox, along with problem and format descriptions and code to validate data and solutions, are available here. Data for industry scenarios will not be made public. The Grid Optimization (GO) Competition Challenge 3 focused on the security-constrained optimal power flow (SCOPF) problem. It is part of a continuing effort begun with Challenges 1 and 2, to successfully discover, develop, and test innovative and disruptive software solutions for critical energy challenges and to overcome existing barriers. The broader goal of the of the GO Competition is to accelerate the development of transformational and disruptive methods for solving problems related to the electric power grid and to provide a transparent, fair, and comprehensive evaluation of new solution methods. Challenge 3 used multiperiod dynamic markets, including advisory models for extreme weather events, day-ahead markets, and the real-time markets with an extended look-ahead. In Event 4, whose submission window was August 31-September 4, 2023, 14 teams solved for the objective values of 669 scenarios (39 scenarios required solutions both with and without line switching being allowed). The 591 synthetic scenarios from 9 network models (3.6 GB) are available here. Ten teams were funded to participate and 7 won prizes totaling $2,400,000. The largest prize ($550,000) went to Mississippi State University. An additional $600,000 was awarded in Event 3 (6/15-16/2023). No prizes were awarded in Events 1 (1/25-27/2023) or 2 (4/13-14/2023). For more information on the competition and challenge see the "GO Competition Challenge 3 Information" resource below.

ACOPF↗

DOE OSTI2024

ARPA-E Grid Optimization (GO) Competition Challenge 1

The ARPA-E Grid Optimization (GO) Competition Challenge 1, from 2018 to 2019, focused on the basic Security Constrained AC Optimal Power Flow problem (SCOPF) for a single time period. The Challenge utilized sets of unique datasets generated by the ARPA-E GRID DATA program. Each dataset consisted of a collection of power system network models of different sizes with associated operating scenarios (snapshots in time defining instantaneous power demand, renewable generation, generator and line availability, etc.). The datasets were of two types: Real-Time, which included starting-point information, and Online, which did not. Week-Ahead data is also provided for some cases but was not used in the Competition. Although most datasets were synthetic and generated by GRIDDATA, a few came from industry and were only used in the Final Event. All synthetic Input Data and Team Results for the GO Competition Challenge 1 for the Sandbox, Trial Events 1 to 3, and the Final Event along with problem, format, scoring and rules descriptions are available here. Data for industry scenarios will not be made public. Challenge 1, a minimization problem, required two computational steps. Solver 1 or Code 1 solved the base SCOPF problem under a strict wall clock time limit, as would be the case in industry, and reported the base case operating point as output, which was used to compute the Objective Function value that was used as the scenario score. The feasibility of the solution was provided by the Solver 2 or Code 2, which solves the power flow problem for all contingencies based on the results from Solver 1. This is not normally done in industry, so the time limits were relaxed. In fact, there were no time limits for Trial Event 1. This proved to be a mistake, with some codes running for more than 90 hours, and a time limit of 2 seconds per contingency was imposed for all other events. Entrants were free to use their own Solver 2 or use an open-source version provided by the Competition. Containers, such as Docker, were considered to improve the portability of codes, but none that could reliably support a multi-node parallel computing environment, e.g., MPI, could be found. For more information on the competition and challenge see the "GO Competition Challenge 1 Information" and "GO Competition Challenge 1 Additional Information" resources below.

ACOPF↗

DOE OSTI2025

Computationally Selected Multivalent HIV-1 Subtype C Vaccine Protects Against Heterologous SHIV Challenge

Background: The RV144 trial in Thailand is the only HIV-1 vaccine efficacy trial to date to demonstrate any efficacy. Genetic signatures suggested that antibodies targeting the variable loop 2 (V2) of the HIV-1 envelope played an important protective role. The ALVAC prime and protein boost follow-up trial in southern Africa (HVTN702) failed to show any efficacy. One hypothesis for this is the greater diversity of subtype C viruses in southern Africa relative to CRF01_AE in Thailand. Methods: Here, we determined whether an ALVAC prime with computationally selected gp120 boost immunogens maximizing coverage of diversity of subtype C viruses in the variable V1 and V2 regions (V1V2) improved the protection of non-human primates (NHPs) from a heterologous subtype C SHIV challenge compared to more traditional regimens. Results: An ALVAC prime with Trivalent subtype C gp120 boosts resulted in statistically significant protection from repeated intrarectal SHIV challenges compared to the control. Evaluation of the immunogenicity of each vaccine regimen at the time of challenge demonstrated that different gp120 combination boosts elicited similar high magnitudes of gp120 and breadth of V1V2-binding antibodies, as well as strong Fc-mediated immune responses. Low-to-no neutralization of the challenge virus was detected. A Cox proportional hazard analysis of five pre-selected immune parameters at the time of challenge identified ADCC against the challenge envelope as a correlate of protection. Systems serology analysis revealed that immune responses elicited by the different vaccine regimens were distinct and identified further correlates of resistance to infection. Conclusions: Computationally designed vaccines with maximized subtype C V1V2 coverage mediated protection of NHPs from a heterologous Tier-2 subtype C SHIV challenge.

Immunology↗

DOE OSTI2024

DOE Cold Climate Heat Pump Challenge: Development, Metrics, and Early Field Observations

Space heating in residential buildings is a major contributor of Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions in the United States. New, advanced electric heat pumps are poised to provide a low carbon alternative to traditional fossil-based heating, especially in colder climates. Widespread deployment of cold climate heat pumps could help address the significant portion of building emissions and primary energy used in American households, but these gains will require broader acceptance from consumers and decision makers. As part of the “Energy, Emissions, and Equity” (E3) initiative, the U.S. Department of Energy launched the Cold Climate Heat Pump Challenge (CCHP) in 2021 to accelerate the deployment of the next generation of air source heat pumps. The Challenge is currently focused on residential, centrally ducted, electric heat pumps, with a nominal cooling capacity greater than or equal to 24,000 Btu/h (2 tons) and less than or equal to 65,000 Btu/h (5 tons). The Challenge specifications represent a best-in-class heat pump product that provides high-efficiency heating performance in cold climates, employs environmentally friendly low-Global Warming Potential (GWP) refrigerants, and is designed to be grid interactive. Spearheaded by DOE in partnership with the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Natural Resources Canada (NRCan), the CCHP Challenge brings together numerous major heat pump manufacturers and key stakeholders including utilities and state agencies across the country. In addition to performance testing in a laboratory environment, a key component of this research is evaluating the in-field performance of the prototype heat pumps developed as part of the Challenge. This paper will discuss the development of the CCHP Challenge, key performance specifications, and the energy and non-energy metrics that will be evaluated through the field study. The types of data that are being collected from the units installed in homes across North America as part of the field validation will be described, including details about the sensors and data acquisition system. Data cleaning and analysis methodologies will be discussed, along with early observations from the winter 2022-2023, spring and summer performance periods, and an assessment of non-energy metrics through pre- and post-installation homeowner surveys. Challenges uncovered and lessons learned throughout the process will also be discussed. Finally, the paper will discuss next steps for the second winter assessment period, areas needing additional research, and potential applications of the data collected and analyzed through this work.

Mendon, Vrushali V.↗

NASA NTRS1985

The space shuttle launch vehicle aerodynamic verification challenges

The Space Shuttle aerodynamics and performance communities were challenged to verify the Space Shuttle vehicle (SSV) aerodynamics and system performance by flight measurements. Historically, launch vehicle flight test programs which faced these same challenges were unmanned instrumented flights of simple aerodynamically shaped vehicles. However, the manned SSV flight test program made these challenges more complex because of the unique aerodynamic configuration powered by the first man-rated solid rocket boosters (SRB). The analyses of flight data did not verify the aerodynamics or performance preflight predictions of the first flight of the Space Transportation System (STS-1). However, these analyses have defined the SSV aerodynamics and verified system performance. The aerodynamics community also was challenged to understand the discrepancy between the wind tunnel and flight defined aerodynamics. The preflight analysis challenges, the aerodynamic extraction challenges, and the postflight analyses challenges which led to the SSV system performance verification and which will lead to the verification of the operational ascent aerodynamics data base are presented.

Wallace, R. O.↗

NASA NTRS2005

Exploration Rover Concepts and Development Challenges

This paper presents an overview of exploration rover concepts and the various development challenges associated with each as they are applied to exploration objectives and requirements for missions on the Moon and Mars. A variety of concepts for surface exploration vehicles have been proposed since the initial development of the Apollo-era lunar rover. This paper provides a brief description of the rover concepts, along with a comparison of their relative benefits and limitations. In addition, this paper outlines, and investigates a number of critical development challenges that surface exploration vehicles must address in order to successfully meet the exploration mission vision. These include: mission and environmental challenges, design challenges, and production and delivery challenges. Mission and environmental challenges include effects of terrain, extreme temperature differentials, dust issues, and radiation protection. Design methods are discussed that focus on optimum methods for developing highly reliable, long-life and efficient systems. In addition, challenges associated with delivering a surface exploration system is explored and discussed. Based on all the information presented, modularity will be the single most important factor in the development of a truly viable surface mobility vehicle. To meet mission, reliability, and affordability requirements, surface exploration vehicles, especially pressurized rovers, will need to be modularly designed and deployed across all projected Moon and Mars exploration missions.

Zakrajsek, James J.↗

NASA NTRS2011

ISS Regenerative Life Support: Challenges and Success in the Quest for Long-Term Habitability in Space

This presentation will discuss the International Space Station s (ISS) Regenerative Environmental Control and Life Support System (ECLSS) operations with discussion of the on-orbit lessons learned, specifically regarding the challenges that have been faced as the system has expanded with a growing ISS crew. Over the 10 year history of the ISS, there have been numerous challenges, failures, and triumphs in the quest to keep the crew alive and comfortable. Successful operation of the ECLSS not only requires maintenance of the hardware, but also management of the station resources in case of hardware failure or missed re-supply. This involves effective communication between the primary International Partners (NASA and Roskosmos) and the secondary partners (JAXA and ESA) in order to keep a reserve of the contingency consumables and allow for re-supply of failed hardware. The ISS ECLSS utilizes consumables storage for contingency usage as well as longer-term regenerative systems, which allow for conservation of the expensive resources brought up by re-supply vehicles. This long-term hardware, and the interactions with software, was a challenge for Systems Engineers when they were designed and require multiple operational workarounds in order to function continuously. On a day-to-day basis, the ECLSS provides big challenges to the on console controllers. Main challenges involve the utilization of the resources that have been brought up by the visiting vehicles prior to undocking, balance of contributions between the International Partners for both systems and resources, and maintaining balance between the many interdependent systems, which includes providing the resources they need when they need it. The current biggest challenge for ECLSS is the Regenerative ECLSS system, which continuously recycles urine and condensate water into drinking water and oxygen. These systems were brought to full functionality on STS-126 (ULF-2) mission. Through system failures and recovery, the ECLSS console has learned how to balance the water within the systems, store and use water for contingencies, and continue to work with the International Partners for short-term failures. Through these challenges and the system failures, the most important lesson learned has been the importance of redundancy and operational workarounds. It is only because of the flexibility of the hardware and the software that flight controllers have the opportunity to continue operating the system as a whole for mission success.

Bazley, Jesse A.↗

NASA NTRS2014

Some Challenges in the Design of Human-Automation Interaction for Safety-Critical Systems

Increasing amounts of automation are being introduced to safety-critical domains. While the introduction of automation has led to an overall increase in reliability and improved safety, it has also introduced a class of failure modes, and new challenges in risk assessment for the new systems, particularly in the assessment of rare events resulting from complex inter-related factors. Designing successful human-automation systems is challenging, and the challenges go beyond good interface development (e.g., Roth, Malin, & Schreckenghost 1997; Christoffersen & Woods, 2002). Human-automation design is particularly challenging when the underlying automation technology generates behavior that is difficult for the user to anticipate or understand. These challenges have been recognized in several safety-critical domains, and have resulted in increased efforts to develop training, procedures, regulations and guidance material (CAST, 2008, IAEA, 2001, FAA, 2013, ICAO, 2012). This paper points to the continuing need for new methods to describe and characterize the operational environment within which new automation concepts are being presented. We will describe challenges to the successful development and evaluation of human-automation systems in safety-critical domains, and describe some approaches that could be used to address these challenges. We will draw from experience with the aviation, spaceflight and nuclear power domains.

systems engineering↗

NASA NTRS2017

NASA's CubeQuest Challenge - From Ground Tournaments to Lunar and Deep Space Derby

The First Flight of NASA's Space Launch System will feature 13 CubeSats that will launch into cis-lunar space. Three of these CubeSats are winners of the CubeQuest Challenge, part of NASA's Space Technology Mission Directorate (STMD) Centennial Challenge Program. In order to qualify for launch on EM-1, the winning teams needed to win a series of Ground Tournaments, periodically held since 2015. The final Ground Tournament, GT-4, was held in May 2017, and resulted in the Top 3 selection for the EM-1 launch opportunity. The Challenge now proceeds to the in-space Derbies, where teams must build and test their spacecraft before launch on EM-1. Once in space, they will compete for a variety of Communications and Propulsion-based challenges. This is the first Centennial Challenge to compete in space and is a springboard for future in-space Challenges. In addition, the technologies gained from this challenge will also propel development of deep space CubeSats.

deep space↗

NASA NTRS2017

NASA's CubeQuest Challenge - From Ground Tournaments to Lunar and Deep Space Derby

The First Flight of NASA's Space Launch System will feature 13 CubeSats that will launch into cis-lunar space. Three of these CubeSats are winners of the CubeQuest Challenge, part of NASA's Space Technology Mission Directorate (STMD) Centennial Challenge Program. In order to qualify for launch on EM-1, the winning teams needed to win a series of Ground Tournaments, periodically held since 2015. The final Ground Tournament, GT-4, was held in May 2017, and resulted in the Top 3 selection for the EM-1 launch opportunity. The Challenge now proceeds to the in-space Derbies, where teams must build and test their spacecraft before launch on EM-1. Once in space, they will compete for a variety of Communications and Propulsion-based challenges. This is the first Centennial Challenge to compete in space and is a springboard for future in-space Challenges. In addition, the technologies gained from this challenge will also propel development of deep space CubeSats.

CubeSats↗

NASA NTRS2017

NASA's CubeQuest Challenge - From Ground Tournaments to Lunar and Deep Space Derby

The First Flight of NASA's Space Launch System will feature 13 CubeSats that will launch into cis-lunar space. Three of these CubeSats are winners of the CubeQuest Challenge, part of NASA's Space Technology Mission Directorate (STMD) Centennial Challenge Program. In order to qualify for launch on EM-1, the winning teams needed to win a series of Ground Tournaments, periodically held since 2015. The final Ground Tournament, GT-4, was held in May 2017, and resulted in the Top 3 selection for the EM-1 launch opportunity. The Challenge now proceeds to the in-space Derbies, where teams must build and test their spacecraft before launch on EM-1. Once in space, they will compete for a variety of Communications and Propulsion-based challenges. This is the first Centennial Challenge to compete in space and is a springboard for future in-space Challenges. In addition, the technologies gained from this challenge will also propel development of deep space CubeSats.

Deep Space↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Overview of NASA’s Break the Ice Lunar Challenge Phase 1

As NASA works to extend human exploration of the solar system, a sustained presence on the Moon will be critical for developing and testing the technologies and systems needed for future missions to Mars and beyond. In situ resource utilization (ISRU)—the use of lunar materials for life support, fuel, energy, manufacturing, and construction—is necessary to limit the delivery of supplies from Earth. One of the most important of these resources is water. Water supports all life on Earth and will be critical to supporting human exploration beyond Earth. On the Moon, water is trapped in icy regolith at the lunar poles, including inside permanently dark and cold craters. Novel approaches are needed to excavate the icy regolith and transport it for processing in support of permanent human missions on the Moon. To accelerate the development of such approaches and to seek diverse ideas, NASA’s Centennial Challenges launched the Break the Ice Lunar Challenge in November 2020. Phase 1 of the challenge was focused on stimulating innovative approaches for excavating icy regolith and delivering water in extreme lunar environmental conditions. The challenge sought to incentivize solutions for maximizing water delivery while minimizing energy use and the mass of equipment required to be transported to the lunar surface. Submissions for phase 1 of the challenge were due in June 2021 and winners were announced in August 2021. This paper provides details about the execution of the challenge, solutions received, criteria used to select winning solutions, and status of the phase 2 of the challenge.

Naveen Vetcha↗