NOTICE OF INTENT GUIDELINES

Interested teams are encouraged to submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) to compete by the deadline in order to ensure an adequate number of reviewers.

The following information will be requested on the NOI submission form:

• College/University name
• Partnering universities (if any)
• Contact information for the faculty advisor
• Contact information for the team lead

Note: We understand that NOI’s are due early in the development process and teams will still be in the process of fleshing out many of the details of their concepts. We fully expect that teams’ concepts will change and evolve between the NOI and Proposal submissions, as in-depth research and analysis is conducted. Teams have the flexibility to change ideas as they work over the course of the semester, and the idea submitted in the NOI does not need to match the proposal submission.

NOIs are non-binding. If a team submits an NOI and then later decides not to participate in the competition, no further action is required.

PROJECT PLAN GUIDELINES

Teams are responsible for the formatting and appearance of their Project Plan Proposals. Figures and tables must be in digital format. We recommend that teams use image files with a minimum dpi of 150.

• 8 pages maximum (including figures, tables, and charts)
  • Cover page, references and appendices are excluded as a part of your 8-page total limit. They do not count toward the minimum or the maximum page limitations.
  • Appendices do NOT count toward the maximum page limit and are limited to references only. The judges are not obligated to read appendices, nor will the content of any appendix be considered in the overall Project Plan Proposal evaluation.
  • A table of contents is unnecessary
• Project Plan Proposals should be single spaced and single column
• Please use fonts common to Macintosh and PC platforms, i.e., Times, Times New Roman, Helvetica, or Arial for text; Symbol for mathematical symbols and Greek letters.
• Font size can be either 11 or 12 pt.
• Margins should be a standard 1” (2.54 cm) all the way around (top, bottom, left, and right)
• Project Plan Proposals should be submitted in PDF Format
• File size cannot exceed 80 MB

Cover Page must include:

• College/University name
• Title/name of prototype
• Full names of all team members along with their respective specialties and/or team role, major course of study, and academic level (undergraduate or graduate)
• Faculty/industry advisor’s full name(s)
• Graphic/Image of proposed system

Special note from the judges about Project Plans:

The Moon to Mars Ice & Prospecting Challenge is focused on ways to assess subsurface depth and density profiles, mine through those layers and into ice deposits beneath, harvest water from that ice and collect it in a container. Whatever designs teams come up with to accomplish that goal, the technology should be designed as if it would be feasible for use off-Earth, and then modify it for the Earth-based technology demonstration at Langley next summer. NASA sponsors are looking for concepts that realistically demonstrate a system that could be used on the Moon or Mars. For example: even though the competition will take place here on Earth, please do not propose a concept with a ‘blow-dryer and a shop vacuum’, which would not be effective on the moon or Mars.

Teams must submit a detailed Project Plan outlining:

• Team’s design of the following systems:
  • mechanical
  • electrical
  • programming
  • control
• The physical characteristics and functional capabilities of the proposed water extraction and prospecting system (including filtration solutions)
• A 3-D view drawing or solid model representation and dimensions of the overall system
• A description of how the proposed prototype will mount to the lid/mounting platform.
• A description of how the proposed system will successfully accomplish the competition tasks, including contingency plans
• A detailed timeline including development, testing, and integration of all required systems (integration must be conducted prior to technical paper submission deadline)
• The relevant past experience and capabilities of the team’s systems leads and facilities available for development of the water extraction and prospecting system
• A brief discussion on the concept’s anticipated paths-to-flight on a mission to the Moon and Mars. Through this challenge, NASA sponsors are looking for concepts that realistically demonstrate a system that could be used on the Moon or Mars. Based on significant differences between on- and off-Earth operations, the paths-to flight description must address the critical modifications that would be made to the design if it were trying to: (1) extract water on Mars, and (2) prospecting for a digital core on the Moon. This includes, but is not limited to, considerations for temperature differences, energy/power limitations, and atmospheric pressure differences (i.e., challenges with sublimation). Several paragraphs will suffice.
  • The paths-to-flight description should be broken into two distinct sections:
    • Water Extraction on Mars: teams will discuss the significant differences between Mars and Earth operation environments and describe essential modifications that would be required for extracting water from subsurface ice on Mars.
    • Prospecting on the Moon: teams will discuss the significant differences between the Moon and Earth operational environments and describe essential modifications that would be required for prospecting for a digital core on the Moon.
• Teams are also asked to propose suggested methods/mechanisms/approaches for making their individual testbeds a more accurate analog for better proof-of-concept testing (i.e., more “flight-like,” conditions). This could include, but is not limited to pressurizing your hole, adding vibration isolators to simulate a mobile platform on a rover, etc.
  • Note: these are theoretical proposed improvements to the analog testing environment only. If selected as finalists, teams will NOT be required to implement the improvements.
• Clear adherence to the Design Constraints and Requirements
• RETURNING TEAMS ONLY: Teams who are re-competing may use any of their previous design concepts for water extraction and/or prospecting for the digital core, but are asked to document any improvements, upgrades, enhancements, approaches, and modifications made to the overall design.
  • A returning team is defined as “returning” if they are using any part of a design their university previously used during an on-site technology demonstration for a previous RASC-AL Special Edition Challenge.
  • This section of the proposal is limited to 2 pages max and will not count toward the 8-page limit.

Project Plan Evaluation Criteria:

• Description of how prototype system will accomplish required tasks (Max – 20 points)
• Description of concept’s 2 anticipated “Paths-to-Flight” (Max 20 points)
• Water Extraction of subsurface ice on Mars
• Prospecting on the Moon
• Technical merit and feasibility of project plan (including lessons learned) (Max – 20 points)
• Project plan capability – degree to which team can accomplish tasks (Max – 20 points)
• Adherence to project plan guidelines (Max – 10 points)
• Proposed “flight-like” testbed enhancements (Max 5 points)
• Innovation (Max 5 points)

Please note: all design solutions are subject to review by NASA safety and Center Ops, and as a result, designs may be required to be modified. These reviews will happen immediately following selection of the finalist teams, with mitigations due at the mid-term.

Submitting the Project Plan:

To upload your project plan (.pdf file), please click on the button below to complete the online project plan submission form. Teams are encouraged to review the Design Constraints and Requirements section to better understand what your system must accomplish as a part of the competition.

No revisions can be accepted after the submission deadline, so please proof your project plan file very carefully before submitting. If there are any technical problems with the content of your project plan (for example, your file was corrupted), we will try to contact you immediately, so it is very important that you provide us with up-to-date contact information on the submission form.

Late proposals will not be accepted, and the submission form will close promptly at midnight.

The following information will be requested on the Project Plan submission form:

• College/University name
• Partnering universities (if any)
• Contact information for the faculty advisor
• Contact information for the team lead
• Project Title (Name of team’s prototype)
• File upload for PDF proposal document
• Description of System in 400 characters or less (see Examples)
• Signed MMIP Letter of University Support* from the Dean of Engineering (or appropriate alternative authority from the lead university)
• Mailing address for stipend checks (for use if a team is selected as a finalist in the competition). We can mail stipend checks to the university location of your choice (i.e., Office of Sponsored Programs, Departments of Engineering, etc.)
• Vendor W9 Form* for the lead university (to be completed by the accounting department at the university).
• Note: Teams may receive a pre-filled W-9 form from their institution's accounting department. This form is equivalent to our “Vendor/W-9 Form," and is considered an acceptable substitution.

*MMIP Letter of University Support and Vendor W9 Forms can also be downloaded from the Resources page under “Project Plan.”

MID-PROJECT REVIEW SUBMISSION GUIDELINES

In the second phase of this year’s competition, each semi-finalist team must submit a Mid-Project Report and Video (evidencing timely development and progress) by the March 15th deadline. The purpose of the review is to provide the Moon to Mars Ice & Prospecting Challenge Judges with evidence that the team is on-target to compete at the Moon to Mars Ice & Prospecting Challenge competition in Hampton, VA with a fully functioning water extraction and prospecting system that can complete the tasks outlined in the design constraints and requirements.

Based on the Mid-Project evaluations, one final round of team cuts will be made and 10 finalist teams will be selected to move to the next phase of the 2021 Competition: receiving a second installment of $5,000 to continue building and testing their prototypes. The 10 finalist teams will also be invited to attend the on-site competition at NASA’s Langley Research Center. Final selection notifications will be made on April 2, 2021.

The Mid-Project Review is a Pass/Fail review and will initially consist of two submissions demonstrating prototype functionality:

• A 3-5 page written report
  • The written report should provide a narrative of where you are in the development process, and whether you feel confident that you will have a functioning water extraction and prospecting system at the Moon to Mars Ice & Prospecting Challenge Forum. It should outline:
    • Progress in developing each of the following systems:
      • mounting (for attachment to the mounting platform)
      • control (e.g. laptop computer, sensors on the drilling system)
      • operation of the system excavating through overburden layers and ice
    • Any challenges that have been encountered, and how the team is overcoming them (include how the team plans to address any anticipated challenges)
    • Any significant design changes resulting from further development and testing
    • Detailed integration and operational test plan
    • Tactical plan for contingencies and redundancies
    • Safety Plan (including hazards of operating system and planned mitigations, such as Personal Protective Equipment, if needed)
    • List all chemicals or hazardous materials being used
    • Updated schedule/timeline of tasks and deliverables
• Submission of a video
  • Mounting system (for attachment to the mounting platform)
  • Control interface (e.g. laptop computer, sensors on the drilling system)
  • Operation of the system excavating through various layers of overburden and ice
  • Videos should be uploaded to YouTube as "unlisted" or "public"
  • Videos are limited to a maximum of 4 minutes in length
  • File size is limited to 100 MB

Note: The video is not expected to be a “finished” product, nor to be lengthy. It simply needs to demonstrate the systems identified above.

The judges will review each team’s video and written report to evaluate the team’s progress towards competition readiness. If there are any concerns regarding a team’s prototype or scheduled timeline, that team may be asked to conduct a follow-up “face-to-face” meeting with the judges via Skype or a webinar. At that point, the judges may request that improvements be made prior to moving the team to the next phase of the competition.

Submitting the Mid-Project Review:

Please click the button below to complete the online Submission Form to upload your team's Mid-Project Review Paper (.pdf file) and video file (YouTube link).

No revisions can be accepted after the submission deadline, so please proof your files very carefully before submitting it. If there are any technical problems with the content of your paper or video file (for example, a file was corrupted), we will try to contact you immediately, so it is very important that you provide us with up-to-date contact information on the submission form.