Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “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.

At least 37 records · Page 2
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2024

U.S. Department of Energy Collegiate Wind Competition 2025: Rules - Phases 2 and 3

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Wind Energy Technologies Office's (WETO) Collegiate Wind Competition (CWC, also referred to as the "competition" in this rules document) invites interdisciplinary teams of undergraduate students from a variety of academic programs to solve complex wind energy challenges. Through the competition, WETO intends to offer students direct industry experience, valuable exposure to wind energy career pathways, and greater knowledge of wind energy's potential to contribute to a clean energy future. The competition will select up to 35 teams to start, making them eligible to compete for a cash prize pool of up to $280,000. Each year, the competition identifies a new challenge and set of activities that address real-world research questions, thus demonstrating skills that students will need to work in the wind or wider renewable energy industries. The Collegiate Wind Competition 2025 challenge requires participants to compete simultaneously in four contests: 1) Turbine Design Contest: Design, build, and present a unique, wind-driven power system. 2) Turbine Testing Contest: Test the wind turbine in a competition wind tunnel at the final event. 3) Project Development Contest: Research wind resource data, transmission infrastructure, and environmental factors to create a site plan and financial analysis for a hypothetical wind farm. 4) Connection Creation Contest: Partner with wind industry professionals, raise awareness of wind energy in your local community, and work with local media to promote your team's accomplishments. The competition does not prescribe a power system market or wind regime. It is expected that each team will participate in all four contests.

Collegiate Wind Competition↗
DOE OSTI2020

Incorporating uncertainty for enhanced leaderboard scoring and ranking in data competitions

Data competitions have become a popular and cost-effective approach for crowdsourcing versatile solutions from diverse expertise. Current practice relies on the simple leaderboard scoring based on a given set of competition data for ranking competitors and distributing the prize. However, a disadvantage of this practice in many competitions is that a slight difference in the scores due to the natural variability of the observed data could result in a much larger difference in the prize amounts. In this article, we propose a new strategy to quantify the uncertainty in the rankings and scores from using different data sets that share common characteristics with the provided competition data. By using a bootstrap approach to generate many comparable data sets, the new method has four advantages over current practice. Furthermore, during the competition, it provides a mechanism for competitors to get feedback about the uncertainty in their relative ranking. After the competition, it allows the host to gain a deeper understanding of the algorithm performance and their robustness across representative data sets. It also offers a transparent mechanism for prize distribution to reward the competitors more fairly with superior and robust performance. Finally, it has the additional advantage of being able to explore what results might have looked like if competition goals evolved from their original choices. The implementation of the strategy is illustrated with a real data competition hosted by Topcoder on urban radiation search.

42 ENGINEERING↗
NASA NTRS2009

Lunar Regolith Excavation Competition

The Lunar Regolith Excavation Competition is a new competition that needs graphics, logos, rules, as well as an arena. Although this is the first year of the competition, the competition is modeled after an existing competition, the Centennial Lunar Excavator Challenge. This competition however is aimed at college students. This makes the challenge identifying key aspects of the original competition and modeling them to fit into an easier task, and creating exciting advertisement that helps encourage participation. By using a youth focus group, young insight, as well as guiding advice from experts in the field, hopefully an arena can be designed and built, rules can be molded and created to fit, and alluring graphics can be printed to bring about a successful first year of the Lunar Regolith Excavation Competition.

Liles, Cassandra↗
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 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 OSTI2022

Integration of Omics into a New Comprehensive Rate Law for Competitive Terminal Electron-Accepting Processes in Reactive Transport Models: Application to N, Fe, S, and Contaminant Transformations in Stream and Wetland Sediments

Surface waters represent important sources of alternate energy and drinking water in the United States, and characterizing the biogeochemical processes that affect surface water quality is relevant to the DOE-BER mission. Sediment biogeochemical processes regulate the release of carbon (C), nutrients, and contaminants to surface waters and thus influence water quality. Sediment biogeochemical processes are dynamic and affected by the deposition and remobilization of solid material and changes in environmental conditions driven by water discharge variations. Wetlands are important natural filters of surface waters which may either trap, metabolize, or mobilize nutrients and contaminants. Despite their importance, biogeochemical processes regulating nutrient and contaminant release and C transformation in stream and wetland sediments cannot be predicted accurately by current mathematical models. These reactive transport models largely rely on detectable changes in geochemical conditions to activate metabolic processes, do not accurately account for the competition between microbial processes, and poorly constrain effects of hydrological perturbations on biogeochemical processes. In this BER-SBR exploratory project, metagenomic and geochemical signatures were combined to identify microbially-mediated redox processes in anaerobic stream and wetland sediments from the Savannah River Site (SRS, ANL SFA) and East Fork Poplar Creek (EFPC, ORNL SFA) that play important roles in C, uranium (U), and mercury (Hg) transformations. In addition, sediment incubations were conducted to examine the competition between anaerobic respiration processes Finally, new rate laws were developed for reactive transport models that rely on complementary metagenomic and geochemical signatures to identify the underlying anaerobic microbial processes in stream and wetland sediments, describe the competition between the dominant metabolic processes involved in nutrient release and U and Hg mobilization, and more accurately quantify carbon transformation and the response of microbial processes to changes in redox conditions associated with hydrological forcing. These rate laws were optimized in batch reactors with SRS wetland sediments, where iron and sulfate reduction dominate. Anaerobic carbon remineralization processes followed the expected thermodynamic sequence of microbial respiration with depth in both sediments, except that geochemical signals indicated that sulfate reduction was inactive in EFPC sediments and moderate in SRS wetland sediments. Estimates indicated that microbial iron reduction contributed to at least half of the production of reduced iron in these sediments. Incubations demonstrated that nitrate reduction, denitrification, and dissimilatory nitrate reduction to ammonium were active in the natural EFPC sediment and activated upon nitrate amendment in these nitrate-rich sediments. In turn, these processes were outcompeted by the addition of either iron oxides or sulfate as alternative terminal electron acceptors. Although geochemical products of sulfate reduction were not detected in the incubations, the abundance of sulfate reduction genes increased with depth in the sediment and was equally more pronounced in treatments amended with either iron oxides or sulfate. Simultaneously, anaerobic sulfide oxidizing bacteria coupling sulfide oxidation to DNRA (and not conventional denitrification) were apparently enriched over time, regardless of the treatments. These findings indicate that sulfate reduction is important in freshwater stream sediments and probably catalyzed by a cryptic sulfur cycle involving nitrogen species, in which the sulfur products from sulfate reduction are immediately removed by side reactions and not detectable by geochemical measurements alone. Similar experiments in SRS sediments, however, demonstrated little interaction between nitrogen and sulfur cycling microorganisms. Sulfate reduction was impacted by the addition of more thermodynamically favorable electron acceptors, suggesting either that iron-reducing microorganisms outcompeted sulfate-reducing microorganisms for organic substrate, depleting the stock of electron donor available for sulfate reduction, or that the cryptic sulfur cycle was shunted by the precipitation of FeS generated as a result of the abiotic reduction of iron oxides by dissolved sulfide. A diagnostic modeling exercise was conducted to further investigate the competition between terminal electron accepting processes. As conventional kinetic models typically do not account for cryptic cycles and used inaccurate formulations to describe competition between microbial communities, new metabolic rate laws were developed that explicitly express the electron acceptor-specific enzyme of each energetically favorable metabolic process based on gene abundance detected in the incubations. The model was tested with the sediment slurry incubation data to determine whether substrate competition could explain the decrease in sulfate reduction observed in the presence of iron oxide competitor. The model was able to reproduce geochemical concentrations really well in each treatment once the model was calibrated with the unamended control, suggesting that microbial competition was indeed driven by thermodynamic considerations. Overall, carbon remineralization processes and rates will be reproduced much more realistically with the new metabolic rate laws.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2025

Geothermal Collegiate Competition: Evolution and Impact

In 2010, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) announced the launch of its inaugural National Geothermal Student Competition. The competition was open to all colleges, universities, and other post-secondary institutions in the United States, and was labeled as the first-ever to address geothermal education. The GeoVision, published in 2019 by the Geothermal Technologies Office (GTO), stated that improving geothermal energy education and outreach is critical in reducing risks and costs of geothermal technology deployment. The key actions included improving public education and outreach about geothermal energy and providing resources intended to attract and inform a skilled geothermal workforce. Student competitions in particular have the ability to increase awareness of renewable energy fields by engaging multi-disciplinary students in compelling design challenges to prepare them for careers in renewable energy. GTO, in partnership with an administration team at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), currently supports the Geothermal Collegiate Competition (GCC), with the main objective of advancing and cultivating collegiate student knowledge and career interest in geothermal energy. The administrating team works toward growing the number of students and collegiate institutions engaged, as well as diversifying the scope of the student design challenges. The main intentions of this publication are documenting the competition’s evolution, setting a baseline for future GCC impact analysis and serving as a guide to other students’ competition design committees looking for ideas to capture and increase the interest of students in collegiate competitions.

Geothermal Collegiate Competition↗
DOE OSTI2021

Competitiveness Metrics for Electricity System Technologies

The relative economic competitiveness of power generation technologies is a topic of much interest to diverse electric industry participants. However, assessing competitiveness can be challenging as it requires considering both total costs and total system value of each technology, which are complicated by the (1) numerous and diverse grid services needed to operate a reliable power system; (2) variations in the economic value of the grid services with system state and location, and over multiple timescales, due to the challenges of transporting and storing electricity; and (3) the unique characteristics of different electric system assets. Ideally, metrics designed or used to convey technology competitiveness must consider these complexities, but existing metrics often fall short. For example, the levelized cost of energy does not consider the system economic value of the various technologies nor does it consider services beyond electricity production. Various other metrics have been designed with the purpose of more-accurately communicating the economic viability of electric system technologies. In this report, we summarize the primary sources and components of costs and value and review the known competitiveness metrics by presenting their definitions, applications, advantages, and disadvantages. We also introduce a new set of competitiveness metrics, which we refer to as System Profitability metrics, that more-directly applies the economic principles of return-on-investment to electric system technologies. We use conceptual examples to show how the System Profitability metrics better reflect economic viability and relative technology competitiveness compared with existing metrics. We also describe how competitiveness metrics can be quantified using optimization-based models and demonstrate this capability using a U.S. electric sector capacity expansion model.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2022

Construction of Women’s All-Around Speed Skating Event Performance Prediction Model and Competition Strategy Analysis Based on Machine Learning Algorithms

Introduction Accurately predicting the competitive performance of elite athletes is an essential prerequisite for formulating competitive strategies. Women’s all-around speed skating event consists of four individual subevents, and the competition system is complex and challenging to make accurate predictions on their performance. Objective The present study aims to explore the feasibility and effectiveness of machine learning algorithms for predicting the performance of women’s all-around speed skating event and provide effective training and competition strategies. Methods The data, consisting of 16 seasons of world-class women’s all-around speed skating competition results, used in the present study came from the International Skating Union (ISU). According to the competition rules, distinct features are filtered using lasso regression, and a 5,000 m race model and a medal model are built using a fivefold cross-validation method. Results The results showed that the support vector machine model was the most stable among the 5,000 m race and the medal models, with the highest AUC (0.86, 0.81, respectively). Furthermore, 3,000 m points are the main characteristic factors that decide whether an athlete can qualify for the final. The 11th lap of the 5,000 m, the second lap of the 500 m, and the fourth lap of the 1,500 m are the main characteristic factors that affect the athlete’s ability to win medals. Conclusion Compared with logistic regression, random forest, K-nearest neighbor, naive Bayes, neural network, support vector machine is a more viable algorithm to establish the performance prediction model of women’s all-around speed skating event; excellent performance in the 3,000 m event can facilitate athletes to advance to the final, and athletes with outstanding performance in the 500 m event are more likely competitive for medals.

Liu, Meng↗
NASA NTRS2003

Material-dependent and material-independent selection processes in the frontal and parietal lobes: an event-related fMRI investigation of response competition

The present study used the flanker task [Percept. Psychophys. 16 (1974) 143] to identify neural structures that support response selection processes, and to determine which of these structures respond differently depending on the type of stimulus material associated with the response. Participants performed two versions of the flanker task while undergoing event-related functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). Both versions of the task required participants to respond to a central stimulus regardless of the responses associated with simultaneously presented flanking stimuli, but one used colored circle stimuli and the other used letter stimuli. Competition-related activation was identified by comparing Incongruent trials, in which the flanker stimuli indicated a different response than the central stimulus, to Neutral stimuli, in which the flanker stimuli indicated no response. A region within the right inferior frontal gyrus exhibited significantly more competition-related activation for the color stimuli, whereas regions within the middle frontal gyri of both hemispheres exhibited more competition-related activation for the letter stimuli. The border of the right middle frontal and inferior frontal gyri and the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) were significantly activated by competition for both types of stimulus materials. Posterior foci demonstrated a similar pattern: left inferior parietal cortex showed greater competition-related activation for the letters, whereas right parietal cortex was significantly activated by competition for both materials. These findings indicate that the resolution of response competition invokes both material-dependent and material-independent processes.

Psychomotor Performance/physiology↗
NASA NTRS2009

Designing the Lunar Regolith Excavation Competition

The project assigned this summer involves designing a lunar regolith mining robotics competition. This process involves consulting several assets available at the Kennedy Space Center. The process involves several steps. The first step is to determine the requirements for the competition. Once these requirements are determined, the dimensions of the playing field are drawn up, first by hand, and then using computer models. After these drawings are tentatively decided upon, the cost of materials must be determined, so as to fit within the allotted budget for the project. The materials are to then be ordered, assembled, broken down, and stored throughout the duration of the competition. We must also design the advertisements and logos for the competition. This is to market and publicize the competition to college level teams. We must also determine the rules for the competition so as to have uniform requirements for all teams. Once these processes are completed, the competition can be finalized and publicized for the public. The contributing parties are Greg Galloway, Robert Mueller, Susan Sawyer, Gloria Murphy, Julia Nething, and Cassandra Liles.

Le, Christopher↗
DOE OSTI2022

Quantifying Value and Representing Competitiveness of Electricity System Technologies in Economic Models

Evaluating competition between electricity technologies is challenging because it depends on both their costs and their values. While technology costs can typically be estimated from projections of the cost components - capital, fuel, and O&M - estimating a technology's value is more complex due to its dependence on its contributions to multiple different grid services, each with prices that can vary substantially over space and time. In this work, using an electricity model of the contiguous United States, we develop relationships between relative value and share of total generation for major electricity generation technologies which, when paired with projections of technology costs, can be used to estimate technology competitiveness. We identify significant differences in the relationship between relative value and generation share for variable renewable energy (VRE) and non-VRE sources, but we demonstrate that all technologies require consideration of their dynamic values (in addition to cost) when evaluating competitiveness. In addition, we demonstrate that relative value of a technology is substantially impacted by not only its own generation share but also other aspects of the system state, in particular the mix of other technologies present in the system. Finally, we use the developed relative value relationships in combination with projections of future technology costs in a coarse resolution model that competes technologies based on a comprehensive competitiveness metric: profitability-adjusted LCOE (PLCOE). We show that this simple representation of technology competition approximately recovers the generation mix from a detailed model, which is not possible using LCOE alone. Such an approach can be used to improve the representation of technology competition in coarse-resolution models such as integrated assessment models, for which simplified metrics are often needed.

electricity model↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Lunabotics Robotic Mining Competition for Universities

Space Mining for resources such as water ice, and regolith, which contain many elements in the form of metals, minerals, volatiles and other compounds, is a necessary step for In-Situ Space Resource Utilization (ISRU). One of the primary goals is to extract propellants from the regolith and water ice, such as oxygen and hydrogen which could then be used for in-space transportation. In addition, the space mining system can be used for various construction tasks that can benefit human and robotic exploration as well as scientific investigations based on excavated exposed topography, such as the side walls of trenches. The National Aeronautics & Space Administration (NASA) “Lunabotics” Robotic Mining Competition (RMC) is a university-level competition designed to engage and retain students in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM). NASA has directly benefited from the competition by encouraging the development of innovative lunar excavation concepts from universities which has resulted in clever ideas and solutions which could be applied to an actual lunar excavation device or payload. The challenge is for students to design and build a remote controlled or autonomous 80 kg mass lightweight excavator, called a “lunabot”, which can collect and deposit a minimum of 10 kilograms of lunar simulant within 15 minutes. In recent years the goal has been changed to excavate a minimum of 1 kg of simulated icy regolith which is found under an overburden of regolith simulant. The complexities of the challenge include the abrasive characteristics of the lunar regolith simulant, the weight and size limitations of the lunabot, and the ability to control the lunabot from a remote mission control center or operate it autonomously. This presentation will summarize the results of the Lunabotics Robotic Mining Competitions held in May 2022. Each year, since 2010, over 50 university teams have attended, resulting in over 500 lunabot designs and subsequent prototypes. Over 6,000 university students have been part of the on-site competition at KSC, and many are employed in the space sector today with thriving careers. Even more students and the public were engaged via internet broadcasting and social networking media. Examples of how this translates to hiring opportunities for commercial sponsors will also be discussed. Overall, this competition has proven to be popular with multi-disciplinary university senior design classes and a valuable tool for NASA and academia in educating and inspiring the next generation of space engineers.

Lunabotics↗
DOE OSTI2021

Radiation Detection Data Competition Report

In FY2018 through FY2020, NA-22, the Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Research and Development Program, funded a Data Science project to develop and implement statistical methodology to effectively host data competitions with the goal of leveraging the opportunity provided by crowdsourcing. By accessing and engaging expertise from a broader research community, there is an opportunity to attract innovative solutions from a variety of different research disciplines to advance the ability to solve important non-proliferation problems. This report summarizes the key results of this project after hosting two data competitions focused on urban radiation detection. The first competition was focused on attracting participants from the U.S. national laboratories, while the second, hosted by TopCoder, was open to the broader international community and awarded prize money to the top 10 competitors. At the start of the project, there was strong interest from NA-22 to explore and develop the capability to host data competitions as a means of leveraging the broader community to solve important nuclear nonproliferation problems. Having a standard data set on which to compare different approaches based on clearly defined criteria was desirable to be able to evaluate the state of solutions for important problems. Initially, it was not clear that it would even be possible logistically and bureaucratically to host a competition with an international field of competitors and to award the prize money needed to attract solutions from top competitors. Happily, a path to host the competitions was ultimately found that allowed this powerful accelerator of improvements to be leveraged.

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗
DOE OSTI2026

In Search of Strategic Advantage: Understanding the Landscape of Technology Competition

In an era of seemingly ever-increasing global tensions, technology competition is often mentioned as a pathway for U.S. and allied success. The opening arguments are often very simple. “This is the most important struggle of the 21st century.” “We cannot afford to lose this competition.” “The United States must not fall behind in this race.” “We must be faster, more agile, more committed, more thoughtful than our competitors.” Competition around a particular technology is described as a once in a generational struggle with immense stakes. “This is a Sputnik moment” is a common analogy. The solutions proposed are fairly straightforward – more of everything. We should spend more money. We should build more widgets or more factories. We should innovate more. We should focus more. We should attract more talent. We should file more patents. We should produce more PhDs. If we do more of everything, we will have more technology than our opponents, they will see our technological advantage, they will not challenge us, and therefore we will win. If we fail to do these things, we will lose. To paraphrase Homer Simpson, in national security policy discussions technology competition has become the cause of, and solution to, all of life’s problems. And yet, beyond doing more across the board technology competition is not at all simple. First, it is a concept increasingly muddled together with other big issues such as innovation policy, national defense strategy, great power competition, allied cooperation, public-private partnerships, and a host of other issues. Certain policies, systems, coalitions, and so on may be excellent for tackling one challenge, but far less optional for others. Second, it is inherently dynamic, an action-reaction cycle between multiple players. A brilliant opening move can be squandered or successfully countered in subsequent moves. Third, there are limits to what you can do - limited time, limited financial resources, limited human capital, and limited knowledge of what lies ahead. One is forced to choose.

99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗
NASA NTRS2001

National General Aviation Design Competition Project Report

This report summarizes the management of the National General Aviation Design Competition on behalf of NASA, the FAA and the Air Force by the Virginia Space Grant Consortium (VSGC) for the time period October 1, 1999 through September 30, 2000. This was the VSGC's sixth year of managing the Competition, which the Consortium originally designed, developed and implemented for NASA and the FAA. The seventh year of the Competition was announced in July 2000. Awards to winning university teams were presented at a ceremony held at AirVenture 2000, the Experimental Aircraft Association's Annual Convention and Fly-In at Oshkosh, WIS. NASA, FAA and AOPA administrators presented the awards. The competition calls for individuals or teams of undergraduate and graduate students from U.S. engineering schools to participate in a major national effort to rebuild the U.S. general aviation sector. For the purpose of the contest, General aviation aircraft are defined as fixed wing, single or dual engine (turbine or piston), single-pilot aircraft for 2-6 passengers. In addressing design challenges for a small aircraft transportation system, the competition seeks to raise student awareness of the importance of general aviation and to stimulate breakthroughs in technology and their application in the general aviation market. The Competition has two categories: Innovative Design, and Design It, Build It, Fly It. Awards were given in both categories for this reporting year.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2010

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↗
NASA NTRS2012

Lunabotics Mining Competition: Inspiration through Accomplishment

Space Mining for resources such as water ice, and regolith, which contain many elements in the form of metals, minerals, volatiles and other compounds, is a necessary step in Space Resource Utilization. One of the primary goals is to extract propellants from the regolith such as oxygen and hydrogen which could then be used for in-space transportation. In addition, the space mining system can be used for various construction tasks that can benefit human and robotic exploration as well as scientific investigations based on the exposed topography. The National Aeronautics & Space Administration (NASA) Lunabotics Mining Competition is a university-level competition designed to engage and retain students in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM). NASA will directly benefit from the competition by encouraging the development of innovative lunar excavation concepts from universities which may result in clever ideas and solutions which could be applied to an actual lunar excavation device or payload. The challenge is for students to design and build a remote controlled or autonomous excavator, called a lunabot, that can collect and deposit a minimum of 10 kilograms of lunar simulant within 15 minutes. The complexities of the challenge include the abrasive characteristics of the lunar simulant, the weight and size limitations of the lunabot, and the ability to control the lunabot from a remote control center or operate autonomously. This paper will present an update of the results and lessons learned during the first and second annual Lunabotics Mining Competitions held in May 2010 and May 2011. It will also preview the 2012 competition with a review of the revised rules. In 2010,22 United States (US) universities competed, and in May 2011 the competition was opened to international participation. In 2011, 36 teams actually competed from 26 USA states and 4 foreign countries (India, Bangladesh, Colombia and Canada). This combined total directly inspired an estimated 653 university students. In 2012 more students and the public will be engaged via internet broadcasting and social networking media. The various designs will be cataloged and categorized to provide information to future Lunabotics mining robot designers and competitors. It is also expected to be of value for actual future space missions, as knowledge is gained from testing many innovative prototypes in simulated lunar regolith.

Mueller, Robert P.↗