Learn about the GrabCAD Platform
Get to know GrabCAD as an open software platform for Additive Manufacturing
Visit our new homepage
Show off your skills and solve real design problems
This NASA challenge is to develop a super heavy surface transportation system for use on both the Moon and Mars. The system should be assumed to be deployed prior to the establishment of surface infrastructure – in a sense it could be the first infrastructure element. It must be capable of transporting the Common Habitat, a large, monolithic payload measuring 15.6 meters in length, 8.4 meters in diameter, and massing just under 100,000 kg. This system will transport the Common Habitat a distance of up to 5 kilometers from its delivery lander to its surface outpost location. This traverse path is unprepared surface terrain with slopes up to 20 degrees.
Technical Background:
The Common Habitat Architecture is a feasibility study for the exploration of the inner solar system using habitats constructed from the Space Launch System Core Stage’s Liquid Oxygen Tank. Just like Skylab in the 1970s, the SLS LOX tank would be manufactured as a habitat and launched as a payload. This habitat has an internal design that allows it to be used on the Moon, on Mars, in deep space, and in other destinations across the inner solar system, though the primary focus will be on the Moon, Mars, and deep space. The Common Habitat Architecture is not part of the current Artemis program but is instead a feasibility assessment of possible future options for space exploration that might follow Artemis.
On the Moon and Mars, the Common Habitat is combined with other elements to form a surface Base Camp. In space, it is combined with other elements to form the Deep Space Exploration Vehicle. Once delivered to the surface and offloaded from its lander (offload is a separate challenge and is out of scope for this challenge) it must be lifted and manipulated to transport it from the landing site to the Habitation Zone of the surface base camp, a distance that is likely at least one kilometer, but may be as many as five kilometers across unprepared surface terrain.
The goal of this challenge is to develop an innovative, low mass, super-heavy logistics Transport system that can Transport the Common Habitat as many as 5 kilometers across unprepared surface terrain. The design must include an initial stowed configuration for launch and delivery to the surface as well as its operational configuration. This system must work on both the Moon and Mars.
One option that has been identified as potentially viable (solvers are NOT required to advance this specific option) is a large robotic crane system that can repeatedly be repositioned by NASA ATHLETE robots, though no design for such a crane exists to date and many design and engineering details would need to be created to enable such a solution. This crane option is a brute force solution that works in conjunction with ATHLETE robots to slowly transport the Common Habitat over the involved distances. It will lift the Common Habitat from one side, translate it a short distance (either by linear transportation or by rotating 180 degrees), and set it down. The net result is to have moved the habitat a few meters in one direction. The crane will then be repositioned by two ATHLETEs to the opposite side of the Common Habitat, where it will reattach and repeat the process. This will continue for hundreds of times, inch-worming the Common Habitat across the surface until it has reached its destination. Alternately, if two cranes are present, the two can hand off the Common Habitat between each other (instead of setting the habitat down), with one performing the short distance translation of the habitat while the other is being repositioned, effectively acting as a bucket brigade, passing the Common Habitat to each other until the destination is reached. If the crane option is pursued, the designed crane must provide a means of lifting, precisely positioning, transporting, and lowering a 100-ton monolithic payload on both the Moon and Mars. (Ton, as used in this challenge, is a metric unit of mass, equalling 1,000 kg. Outside of the United States, this unit is sometimes written as a tonne.) It must also address tip-over concerns and implement a solution (such as, but not necessarily, counterbalances) while remaining under its mass constraints. For this option, reference the conference paper Surface Transportation of the Common Habitat from Lander to Habitation Zone as a starting point, specifically the LSMS-Derived Moon and Mars 90-Ton Transporter, and size a Crane system that can be transported by up to two ATHLETEs and is capable of lifting 100 tons on Mars. It is not, however, required that solvers choose this option. Any solution that meets the requirements is acceptable.
Despite the difference in the state of the art versus needed performance, there are no “laws of physics” showstoppers, and terrestrial examples of systems that manipulate greater than 100 tons on Earth are relatively common. The Kennedy Space Center, for a space-related example, uses large capacity cranes in the Vehicle Assembly Building, which it used throughout the 30-year space shuttle program to lift the 100-ton Orbiter from a horizontal position to attach it vertically to the side of the External Tank. The technical challenge in this project will be adapting such a system to the volume constraints of a lander that will co-manifest numerous other surface elements as payloads, ensuring safe robotic operation, providing for system stability, mitigating tip over concerns, operating on unprepared lunar terrain, and manipulating the 100-ton required cargo mass.
Ground Rules:
Ground Rules are the constraints/boundaries that scope project activity. All work is to remain consistent with the ground rules.
An acceptable alternative may be to lift and translate the habitat a distance of twice its diameter or greater before setting it down.
Assumptions:
Assumptions are initial starting points surrounding the project. These may be changed if justifying rationale emerges as the project unfolds.
Delivering large cargo from Earth to the Martian Surface
Concepts for Loading/Unloading Payloads on Lunar Surface
Additional Common Habitat Background:
Surface Transportation of the Common Habitat from Lander to Habitation Zone
Common Habitat Base Camp for Moon and Mars Surface Operations
A Safe Haven Concept for the Common Habitat in Moon, Mars, and Transit Environment
A Multi-Functional, Two-Chamber Airlock Node for a Common Habitat Architecture
Internal Architecture of the Common Habitat
Graphical Products
Data Product
Report Products
File Format Guidelines
Copyright Stipulations
Eligibility
In order to be eligible for a prize, solutions must originate from either the U.S. or a designated country (see definition of designated country at https://www.acquisition.gov/far/part-25#FAR_25_003), OR have been substantially transformed in the US or designated country prior to delivery pursuant to FAR 25.403(c).
Intellectual Property
The Government is seeking a full government-purpose usage license for the further development of a heavy logistics Transport concept. It is hoped that the winning concepts can be included in the follow-on study.
ENTERING THE COMPETITION The Challenge is open to everyone except employees and families of GrabCAD and the Sponsor. Multiple entries are welcome. Team entries are welcome. By entering the Challenge you: 1. Accept the official GrabCAD Challenges Terms & Conditions. 2. Agree to be bound by the decisions of the judges (Jury). 3. Warrant that you are eligible to participate. 4. Warrant that the submission is your original work. 5. Warrant, to the best of your knowledge, your work is not, and has not been in production or otherwise previously published or exhibited. 6. Warrant neither the work nor its use infringes the intellectual property rights (whether a patent, utility model, functional design right, aesthetic design right, trademark, copyright or any other intellectual property right) of any other person. 7. Warrant participation shall not constitute employment, assignment or offer of employment or assignment. 8. Are not entitled to any compensation or reimbursement for any costs. 9. Agree the Sponsor and GrabCAD have the right to promote all entries. If you think an entry may infringe on existing copyrighted materials, please email challenges@grabcad.com.
SUBMITTING AN ENTRY Only entries uploaded to GrabCAD through the "Submit entry" button on this Challenge page will be considered an entry. Only public entries are eligible. We encourage teams to use GrabCAD Workbench for developing their entries. Entries are automatically given the tag "NASAHEAVYLOGISTICS2023" when uploading to GrabCAD. Please do not edit or delete this tag. Only entries with valid tag will participate in the Challenge.
AWARDING THE WINNERS The sum of the Awards is the total gross amount of the reward. The awarded participant is solely liable for the payment of all taxes, duties, and other similar measures if imposed on the reward pursuant to the legislation of the country of his/her residence, domicile, citizenship, workplace, or any other criterion of similar nature. Only 1 award per person. Prizes may not be transferred or exchanged. All winners will be contacted by the GrabCAD staff to get their contact information and any other information needed to get the prize to them. Payment of cash awards is made through Checks mailed to the Winners. All team awards will be transferred to the member who entered the Challenge. Vouchers will be provided in the form of Stratasys Direct Manufacturing promo codes. We will release the finalists before the announcement of the winners to give the Community an opportunity to share their favorites in the comments, discuss concerns, and allow time for any testing or analysis by the Jury. The Jury will take the feedback into consideration when picking the winners. Winning designs will be chosen based on the Rules and Requirements schedule.
$3000
$2000
$1000
$750
$250
Robert Howard
Dawn Martin
Scott Howe
Julia Cline
Iok Wong
Christopher Hisle
Sepehr Bastami
This contest supports the NASA NASA - Exploration Systems Mission Directorate - Strategy and Architectures - Lunar Architecture Team - Lunar Site Planning Team.
Have an awesome idea for this competition? Want to win cool prizes? Sign-up now to upload your entries.
If you don't receive the email within an hour (and you've checked your Spam folder), email us as confirmation@grabcad.com.
118 comments
Senftus 9 months ago
A very interesting challenge. Are there special lifting or attachment points at the Common Habitat or can the load be lifted at will?
DropelCAD 9 months ago
mmm yea this is a challenges but let i see what i can do with this given info.
Tommy Mueller 9 months ago
Great challenge! Just a few questions about the challenge requirements:
…
1] Payload Grapple and Release Mechanism: Could you provide more details on the specific requirements for the payload grapple and release mechanism? Understanding the precise method for securely attaching and detaching the Common Habitat is crucial for designing this system.
…
2] Integration with ATHLETE Robots: If the crane/ATHLETE option is pursued, how will the system integrate and collaborate with the pre-deployed ATHLETE robots? Clarifying the roles and responsibilities of the ATHLETE robots during the transportation process would help refine the overall system design.
…
3] Internal Energy Capacity: To ensure my solution of self-sustainability during continuous traverses, could you provide more information about the available internal energy capacity, the source of this energy, and how it can be replenished if necessary?
…
4] Environmental Conditions: While the challenge mentions that the solution should be designed to operate on both Mars and the Moon, could you provide more specific details about the key differences in environmental conditions between the two bodies? Understanding the unique challenges each environment poses will aid in designing an adaptable system.
…
5] Teleoperation from Earth: How will teleoperation from Earth be facilitated? Will there be any communication delay or limitations that should be considered in the design?
Thanks in advance!
Alfred Mugglesworth 9 months ago
does it need to be designed to support 100,000kg mass, so in effect only the weight in the environment? roughly 38,000 kg on mars?
TARUN KUMAR DUTTA 9 months ago
Thanks you many much for this New Challenge
Dirga Riwanda 9 months ago
can those of us who take part in the challenge get certificates for finalists and winners? because if you can, it will be highly appreciated for those who enter as finalists
Nazarii Vareshchuk 9 months ago
Thank you for the task.
It will be an interesting competition.
The main question. The task mentions a weight of 100 tons. But on Mars and the moon, these will be smaller weights. So 100tons is the equivalent in earth gravity, or would it be the weight in gravity of the place of transportation?
Siddhant Diwaker 9 months ago
Interesting
Reid Hardy 9 months ago
Will additional dimensional data, interface control documents, or models be provided for the ATHLETE?
Thank you
Robert L. Howard, Jr., Ph.D. 9 months ago
Great questions, everyone! I will reply individually.
Robert L. Howard, Jr., Ph.D. 9 months ago
Senftus
The lifting/attachment points are not defined in detail, but they would be located on ring frame segments that lie at the intersection between the barrel and dome segments of the Common Habitat. (Look up what you can on the space shuttle external tank's construction and consider its ring frames as representative.)
Robert L. Howard, Jr., Ph.D. 9 months ago
Tommy Mueller
1. I'm leaving those intentionally undefined. Because they have to attach and release autonomously, you will need to think outside the box a bit.
2. Remember that you are not required to use the crane/ATHLETE option. But in it, the ATHLETEs serve only to transport the crane. They never interface directly with the Common Habitat. The idea is a crane can lift an object and rotate it. If it has performed a 180-degree rotation, it has transported the habitat a distance roughly equal to twice the length of the crane arm. If that crane is then picked up by ATHLETES, moved to the opposite side of the habitat, it can repeat the process and it has now moved the habitat four times the length of the crane arm.
3. The internal energy capacity must be your design solution. Examples include batteries, regenerative fuel cells, etc. However, this energy can only be replenished in the form of electrical energy. This would be in the form of a power cart that would periodically rendezvous and dock.
4. You'll need to look up Mars and the Moon. Some key things to take note of is the Moon has highly abrasive regolith. Mars has dust storms. The Moon has severe temperature extremes (focus on the Moon's south pole region). Mars is cold, but not nearly as cold as the coldest temperatures on the Moon. The Moon has long periods of darkness. Mars has a day-night cycle close to that of Earth. The Moon has 1/6 the gravity of Earth. Mars has 3/8 the gravity of Earth. Mars has a thin atmosphere. The Moon has essentially no atmosphere. I'm most concerned with how you address the Martian gravity and secondarily with how you address thermal management.
5. Yes, there are definitely delays in communications. You'll need to do some research to understand the communications delays for the Moon and Mars. Mars is by far the worst, with one-way communication taking up to 22 minutes (and can be even longer if relay satellites are used).
Robert L. Howard, Jr., Ph.D. 9 months ago
Alfred
Mass and weight often get confused. I used kilograms, which is a unit of mass, not weight. Mass is the same no matter where you are. 10 kg on Earth is 10 kg on the Moon and is 10 kg on Mars. It is not mass, but force (and weight) that changes with local gravity. 10 kg on Earth yields 98.1 Newtons of force (weight). (F = m x a, or 10 kg x 9.81 m/s2) So, on Mars, 100,000 kg yields 100,000 kg x 9.81 m/s x 3/8 = 367,875 N. I often find it easier to work in units of kilograms and Newtons to avoid getting confused working with kg-force or lb-force units.
Robert L. Howard, Jr., Ph.D. 9 months ago
Dirga
I'm not certain as to whether GrabCAD can provide certificates or not. That would be a question hopefully the GrabCAD officials can answer.
Robert L. Howard, Jr., Ph.D. 9 months ago
Nazarii, please see my response to Alfred. I recommend working in SI units to avoid confusion.
Robert L. Howard, Jr., Ph.D. 9 months ago
There was a question from a Marcelo prior to the site being down for maintenance that I no longer see, but I will post the response I prepared:
6. Interior components will have been packaged for dynamic flight, but it's probably still a good idea to limit the rotational accelerations during surface transportation. I think up to 10 degrees in roll, pitch, or yaw during transportation. However, it should be able to zero out any angular offsets to within 1 degree prior to releasing its load at the end of transportation.
7. We don't have the detailed terrain maps of Mars to have precise terrain data, but I kind of softened things a bit here. Assume that the maximum height of any obstacle relative to the terrain average slope is less than 5 meters.
Robert L. Howard, Jr., Ph.D. 9 months ago
Reid Hardy
Unfortunately, our project team does not have authority to release CAD models of the ATHLETE (or of other NASA hardware). Be reminded it is not required that you use the ATHLETE in your solution. However, if you choose to do so, there are a number of technical papers on the ATHLETE at https://ntrs.nasa.gov. You can use those to build the basis of a CAD model. There will be no penalties for errors in participant-created CAD models of ATHLETE, LSMS, or the Common Habitat. (In all cases, you would need to modify any existing models anyway, so you do not need models of current hardware.) If you develop an ATHLETE model, scale its limbs to a 6-meter length. For the Common Habitat, the structure has a length of 15.6 meters, a dome height of 2.65 meters, and a diameter of 8.4 meters. You do not need to model it in detail, but you can use the references under Additional Common Habitat Background for context.
Marcelo Valderrey 9 months ago
Thank you very much Robert for your answers. I rushed to ask before reading everything carefully and therefore deleted my questions (I reiterate them now to give context to your answers):
...
Hello everyone! Thanks for this new challenge.
I'd like to add two queries to Tommy Muller's list, related to this requirement: "Common habitat must be shipped in a level, horizontal orientation."
...
6] Angular tolerances: What angular tolerances would be allowed for pitch and roll during transportation and any other operations required before or after transportation?
...
7] Heights of the terrain: it is indicated that there are slopes of up to 20°, but what maximum heights can the unevenness of the terrain have?
...
PS: At first glance I can't justify the leveling requirement, considering the conditions in which the habitat takes off from planet earth (vertical position, gravity, and accelerations), lands on the Moon or Mars, and is finally unloaded from the spaceship. This requirement could create design restrictions that disqualify certain types of innovative solutions and/or induce the use of more classical solutions.
Marcelo Valderrey 9 months ago
I am sharing a PDF version of the questions and answers in this forum, which I will update to facilitate the review (at least in my case, seeing each answer after the question makes it easier for me to read).
Q&A_NASA_summary
Marcelo Valderrey 9 months ago
8] External silhouette of the habitat: can the external measurements of the habitat be specified?
I am not clear if the diameter of 8.4 and the length of 15.6 meters correspond to a "bounding cilinder" (and therefore include the stiffening rings and other elements that protrude) or not.
In the same link above I added some images with identifiers for their measurements and a simplified model of a tank with semi-elliptical caps. I think the rings with their dimensions should be confirmed as they are the most probable fixing areas.
Adam Kooperman 9 months ago
I have a question that says in the description that: " The Super Heavy Logistics Transport will lift the Common Habitat from a position to the left or right of the habitat’s longitudinal axis." Is it possible to stand over it with a bridge crane and lift it like that?
Nazarii Vareshchuk 9 months ago
This is not the first time I participate in these contests, but I have noticed a certain trend in the way entries are published.
So there are the following questions:
1. Are the entry release time taken into account and are the dynamics of entry changes analyzed?
2. Is the analysis of the mutual influence of entry carried out in the time dimension.
3. What do you recommend? Publish the entry as early as possible, or do it on the last day to avoid copying?
Some of my comments and suggestions:
1. I noticed situations when users publish incomplete entries and over time supplement them based on the entries of other users. Thus, it turns out that their entry has a lot of borrowed technologies and formally the publication date is very early.
2. In my opinion, it would be better and fairer if the entries were publicly available after the contest was over.
(The appropriateness of comments and suggestions depends on your answers to the questions.)
Thank you.
Marcelo Valderrey 9 months ago
I fully agree with Nazarii on the advisability of not making the proposals visible until the closing date. There would be more expectation among GrabCAD users and their feedback would be more spontaneous.
Looking at other entries makes it more difficult to keep your ideas fresh, as well as raising suspicions or accusations of plagiarism that are really hard to resolve.
The early publication of vague ideas is a way of saying "anything similar to this will be plagiarism" but in reality many things can look like something that is not perfectly defined.
I think of the challenge as a brainstorm where choosing the best ones, as well as their possible combinations and upgrades, is something that needs to happen after you're done.
jos groot 9 months ago
I support Marcelo's idea of a brainstorm with a lot of ideas and creativity. If you post early you will contribute to the solution (open sourse like spacex). For me its all about fun, creativity and the ideas Who is winning is not so important it is more the fun of solving the puzzle. and to learn things from each other
Mikel Iturbe 9 months ago
Hi,
it would be nice if NASA in collaboration with GrabCad could get in contact with the winners of the contest for the delivery of official certificates as Dirga mentioned in a comment before. Perhaps addressing the topic of the contest and the prize obtained.
Is this possible?
Robert L. Howard, Jr., Ph.D. 9 months ago
Marcelo
The external measurements of the habitat are the rough dimensions of the basic profile and do not include any elements that protrude. At the current fidelity of the Common Habitat Architecture Study, a detailed design has not been completed. So various interfaces remain to be designed. What you have represented in your model is close enough. Those ring frames should be considered the only element that lifting fixtures could be welded onto. (I don't want you to spend a lot of time on those - model/specify what you need them to be and assume the Common Habitat can incorporate them into its design.)
Robert L. Howard, Jr., Ph.D. 9 months ago
Adam
Yes, it is possible to stand over the Common Habitat with a bridge crane and lift it in that manner. (That is not the only allowable alternative - if you come up with other approaches you may try them, too.)
Robert L. Howard, Jr., Ph.D. 9 months ago
Nazarii
We do not consider how the proposals change prior to the deadline for final submissions and we do not track when they are first entered into the system. We only evaluate the final version. It is up to you as to whether you publish early or wait for the last day. There are pros and cons either way. How GrabCAD administers the process is up to them, but I agree with jos groot in that my main purpose is to include the entire world in the process of helping NASA to explore options to extend humanity into space beyond the Earth. I appreciate all of you and it really is a team effort. Plus, I hope you have fun in the process!
Vince S 9 months ago
Just to clarify your answer to Marcelo item 6, are you saying the load could encounter a 5m diam bolder as it is going up a 20 degree slope? Multiple at once? Is there an inference that such obstacles would be so frequent that steering around them would not be possible? If it is, do you have a feel for a turn radius that could work to allow sufficient navigation of the actual terrain / route plotting before-hand? Is there going to be an accurate route survey able to be made and available to inform transport route at the beginning of the transport stage rather than simply being able to handle all things that are in the way?
Please clarify about the criticality or otherwise of level transport. Do you mean parallel to the surface, or actually mean level? If you mean the latter, within what tolerances for tilt, pitch and possibly yaw?
Is it safe to assume there will be no unconstrained inertial loads from items moving around within the load? Similarly, is there an inertial load limit that could be imposed on the load, ie a needed cotton-wool effect? Which would somewhat dictate the damping / travel of the attachment system.
Thank you.
Kamen Rusev 9 months ago
Just as an ideas to think about :
1. Good time to build the first railroad at the surface of other celestial body. Easy to assemble by robots and manage the movement.
2. The whole think can be rotated to position and then in arrival to be installed in the correct position. For this scenario protecting "wheels" will be needed.
Scott Frash 9 months ago
Hi question about the ATHLETE robots. It is mentioned that there will be (eight) pre-deployed robots that can assist if needed, however an earlier bullet point states "no assistance from other human or robotic surface assets". I was wondering if you could provide more clarity on the assistance allowed by these robots. Also, it is stated that we are allowed to bring an additional two robots to assist, if the design is a crane. Does this mean we have 8+2 = 10 robots that can assist in total... or does it mean only 2 can assist, and the other 8 cannot, if the design is a crane?
Robert L. Howard, Jr., Ph.D. 9 months ago
Vince
Yes, the load could hypothetically encounter a 5m diameter boulder as it is going up a 20-degree slope. I suspect this would be rare, not the norm. Remember this comes from your assumptions, not your ground rules. You must comply with all ground rules. You can specify rationale to change an assumption. You gave a good example – go around the boulder instead of over it.
You can assume that an accurate route will be available to inform transport prior to the launch of the Common Habitat, but after the design of this surface transportation system. In other words, the more capable this system is, the more options Mission Control will have. A viable, but not very capable system will be able to complete the transport, but will often have to detour around obstacles, resulting in a longer total route that takes more time to traverse. A highly capable system will be able to negotiate its way around any obstacles, but might be more massive, more expensive, perhaps even less reliable. You will need to make a design trade regarding your system’s ability to handle boulders in its path.
Level is perpendicular to the gravity vector, but I am not levying an exact tolerance. Just like a car provides level transportation but will not be perfectly level when going up or down a hill, this system can deviate from perfectly level. It is safe to assume there will be no unconstrained inertial loads from items moving around inside the habitat. Everything that can move will have been tied down before launch from Earth. The main point is you should not have the habitat suspended such that it is swinging around like a pendulum.
Robert L. Howard, Jr., Ph.D. 9 months ago
Scott
You slightly misunderstood. There are only 8 ATHLETE robots, not 10. If the design is the crane, 2 of those 8 ATHLETEs are made available to assist by transporting the crane. If you come up with other ways to use those 2 ATHLETEs, you can do so. I did not make it entirely clear in the description what the other 6 are doing. In general, they may have limited availability for tasks such as scouting the route prior to habitat landing and positioning power stations for recharging the surface transportation system, but for active transportation they are not available to assist. (They are mainly needed/used to build up other portions of the surface basecamp.)
Marcelo Valderrey 9 months ago
Q&A_NASA_summary
I update the file every time Robert answers some questions.
fer 9 months ago
Is the center of gravity of the habitat at its geometric center or is it displaced? If so, how far from the center is it?
Vince S 9 months ago
Can you please explain what this assumption means "The Super Heavy Logistics Transport can also be used in the surface Habitation Zone to attach and detach Logistics Modules and the Two-Chamber Airlock Node from the Common Habitat."?
Do you have any basis to assume a sustainable ground bearing pressure? Eg 150kPa would be used for a mining vehicle traversing sandy areas on earth.
Vince S 9 months ago
Could you please describe the space shuttle external tank ring frames, as public info of these is very sketchy.? Or just describe the nature of the mounting points? Eg is it say a pair of 25mm flange plates which will be able to be extended to accommodate a welded on support base.
Are you ruling out any form of attachment to the cylinder, eg guy rope points / whatever?
Robert L. Howard, Jr., Ph.D. 9 months ago
ALL: I just noticed there are some broken links on the challenge page and I'm working with GrabCAD to get them corrected. One is very important. It links to the paper Surface Transportation of the Common Habitat from Lander to Habitation Zone. The link should be: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20220018787. Please review this paper before developing your concepts further. A number of concepts were explored in this paper and were found to have technical difficulties. If you pursue a concept similar to one of these it is very important that you solve those difficulties. Otherwise, your submission may simply revisit an idea that already appears to be non-workable without making any improvement to the idea.
Robert L. Howard, Jr., Ph.D. 9 months ago
fer, at this point the Common Habitat design is too immature to have a clearly defined center of gravity. But for purposes of this project, assume it is at the geometric center of the habitat.
Robert L. Howard, Jr., Ph.D. 9 months ago
Vince, you have hit on a key challenge with respect to ground bearing pressure. Some references you should look at are https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20200003046, https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20220014634, and https://www.lpi.usra.edu/publications/books/lunar_sourcebook/pdf/Chapter09.pdf. It is also important to consider how the surface is disturbed once something traverses over it, especially if you have multiple wheels or feet traversing the same path.
Robert L. Howard, Jr., Ph.D. 9 months ago
Vince, unfortunately there appears to be very little public information on the ring frames. But I don't need you to reproduce them directly. For your purposes, they are structural frames that other structures can be welded to and that can carry the load of the entire habitat's weight. You cannot assume that the barrel and dome sections are designed to take similar loads. I won't completely rule out any forms of attachment to the cylinder, though. It can take some loads, but not the entire habitat's weight. Guy ropes would probably be fine, especially if they line up with one of the habitat decks.
未来可期 9 months ago
我感觉探索未知 需要资源或者说能量最大化利用 在现有实际生活中 大吨位重物多选用平移或者高出移动 充分利用有限能源 有效做功 阿基米德都已经给讲过了 一个支点可以撬动地球 这让我想起来小时候一个DIY小玩具 很是有灵感 近期我会建模一下大体思路 让各位评判
Marcelo Valderrey 9 months ago
Important update
Q&A_NASA_summary
Paul S. 9 months ago
Good afternoon Mr. Howard,
There appear to be several payload platform concepts (‘Blocks’) adaptable to the SLS launcher.
Kindly provide the dimensions of the payload fairing, mainly the internal diameter and height of the cylindrical space, available for cargo.
Thank you,
Paul S.
Azhar Khan 9 months ago
i don't know if Pakistan is eligible or not the website is quite lengthy and only few countries are mentioned total 10 approx. update me if anyone know
Robert L. Howard, Jr., Ph.D. 8 months ago
There is a question or comment posted in a non-English language. Please everyone make sure that all communication is in English.
Robert L. Howard, Jr., Ph.D. 8 months ago
Paul, we are using the SLS LOX tank as the primary structure for the Common Habitat (our payload that we need to transport on the surfaces of the Moon and Mars), but the launcher is a modified Starship, not SLS. So, you would need to use the SpaceX Starship Users Guide for cargo dimensions: https://www.spacex.com/sites/spacex/files/starship_users_guide_v1.pdf.
未来可期 8 months ago
Sorry for some sentence errors due to lack of proficiency in language and grammar. I apologize for submitting the conceptual structure
Vince S 8 months ago
Correct link for the SpaceX Starship Users Guide (for ride-share opportunities, gotta love that!) is https://www.spacex.com/media/starship_users_guide_v1.pdf
Flaviano Crespi 8 months ago
In the statement of the challenge it is said that the common habitat has a mass of 100,000 Kg. The testing of the Super Heavy Logistic Transport will be carried out on Earth using the entire mass, and therefore exerting a weight force of 981,000 N, or the mass will be reduced in proportion of 3/8 to simulate the reduced gravity of Mars, i.e. 367.875 N? Obviously these values are very important for calculating the stability of the system and therefore consequently generating more or less robust structures staying below the permitted mass limit of 20,000 kg.
Robert L. Howard, Jr., Ph.D. 8 months ago
Flaviano, Earth testing would use the Mars reduced gravity. Very important question indeed.
Marcelo Valderrey 8 months ago
Could you please clarify the details of the challenge schedule?
In previous challenges there were problems and misunderstandings with the day counter (currently it indicates 13 days to send design), and for this reason the detailed schedule in the form (Example) was very useful:
"Schedule
This Challenge ends on September 18th, 2023 (23:59 EST.) Finalists will be announced on ----, 2023 and Winners will be announced on -----, 2023"
Thank you so much!
yakin hamdi 8 months ago
i'm from tunisia a country in north africa and according to the website you provided tunisia is not a designated country does that mean that i can't subit ?
Paul S. 8 months ago
Hello Mr. Howard,
I think that the “rings”, close to the welding seams between the cylindrical section of the “LOX Tank” and the domes, have the function of a mating flange for the attachment of the tank assembly to the “Forward Skirt” at one end and to the “Intertank” cylinder, at the other.
Considering the “SLS Block 2 Vehicle Configuration”, I would presume that the “Habitat” cylinder, filled with cargo, will be launched, attached to a “Payload Adapter” on top of an “Exploration Upper Stage”, itself attached to the “Forward Skirt” on top of the “Core Stage” of the SLS.
And that there would be a Conical or cylindrical adapter, also equipped with a mating flange, on top of the “Habitat”, for connecting to a Fairing or a Module of some kind.
(Ref.: “ Space Launch System (SLS) Mission Planner's Guide “ - Figure 3-10. Representative SLS Block 2 Cargo Configuration)
A mating flange pair needs an unobstructed access on both sides to accommodate the bolted connection.
An earlier instruction in this stack stipulates : « The lifting/attachment points are not defined in detail, but they would be located on ring frame segments that lie at the intersection between the barrel and dome segments of the Common Habitat. ».
That would only leave the surface at the outer diameter of the ring for the “Attachment points” with a penalty of the asymmetrical aerodynamic drag if the weldment(s) protruded beyond the allowance for insulation (which doesn't seem much).
Alternately, a 10 m Dia Payload Fairing could be used for this mission, but that would needlessly add to the drag and thus reduce the launcher’s useful acceleration.
The dome caps are likely to be as thick as is the cylinder, but they appear not to be equipped with stiffening ribs (re: photo of a welding procedure inside the tank).
It would make sense to properly stiffen the dome at its periphery (if that was actually needed, as the unpressurised dish head might be plenty strong, away from the maximum bending and twisting sections) and use that curved surface, at a diameter around or slightly below 8m, for the welding of the attachment points.
During space travel, such structural additions would be inside a covered space, likely capable of accommodating the additional structural parts.
If I am right, then it would be fair to allow additional time for the contestants to review the fitness for the purpose of the attachment method included in their proposal and update their designs accordingly.
I hope that you don’t mind that I brought this up.
Best regards,
Paul S.
Vince S 8 months ago
to Paul S: there are very clear answers to your questions in responses to others above.
ALC Systems, LLC 8 months ago
Pardon me if there's something obvious that I missed - when is the actual, exact due date and time? Couldn't find it in the description. The "deadline" countdown isn't very precise.
yohann Chabanne 8 months ago
Hi Robert, Power Point, Word and AVI files are not alowed when i submit my entry. Is there another way to send you those files ? Thanks.
Robert L. Howard, Jr., Ph.D. 8 months ago
Yohann, double check to make sure your files are .docx and .pptx and not macro-enabled files. If that doesn't work, then save them as .pdf. For the .avi, try converting to .mp4. But also reach out to GrabCAD. I'm not sure what their contact information is for customer support, but they would be the ones to specifically address this question (as well as what time the system will stop accepting entries).
Vince S 7 months ago
I too have attempted to submit an entry and found .docx and .xlsx files are rejected, as are Solidworks .p2m appearance and various FEA file extensions. The latter not so important as the .stp uploads, but a very detailed Word report has been compiled to go with our submission and there needs to be a way to submit it. I have requested a method to deal with this from GrabCAD, and that they post it here too; no response to date.
It is of note that many of the requested scratch and other files are also not going to be able to be provided. The only reliable way to handle this would be to allow the submission of a .zip file, then structure and content remains intact. Some time back, GrabCAD removed .zip capability, quite possibly that policy should not apply to Challenges, if it is possible to do this?
Gregorius Giga 7 months ago
Is that possible for competitors to update or edit their model after deadline? It seems that it few people did it and i don't know about that.
Thank you!
Mhmd Bsl 7 months ago
I have the same question !
Marcelo Valderrey 7 months ago
Hello Gregorius and Mhmd!
I have seen in other challenges that many colleagues continued to modify their models after the closure. I guess the jury saves the models at the deadline and then ignores any subsequent modifications. But I would think it would be better if GC locked the models after the deadline instead of leaving them editable.
Germano Pecoraro Designer 7 months ago
Marcelo Valderrey - If your comment refers to me, I only added two randers of my Selenic cableway; while I was unable to load a large 135 Mb .3DM file with the cableway pole.
Marcelo Valderrey 7 months ago
No Germano, I'm talking about previous challenges in which I was struck by the fact that the models continue to be modified after the deadline.
Gregorius Giga 7 months ago
Hi Marcelo,
Thanks for your responses, it helps a lot!
I think so that is better for GrabCAD to lock all the entries after deadline time OR give a clear guidance about the deadline and submission terms. So all the competitors can manage their time better!
Goodluck!
Germano Pecoraro Designer 7 months ago
Marcelo Valderrey - I also noticed that some of the "last minute" entries are too similar to some previous projects.
Marcelo Valderrey 7 months ago
Hello Germano!
I warned about this two months ago... and explained why it's not a good idea to "share ideas early" during a group creative exercise.
Augustine Uyah 7 months ago
Does anyone know if the judges have started judging or of any available timeline?
Marcelo Valderrey 7 months ago
Hello Augustine, I didn't know that the judges took into account submissions after the deadline (which, then, would no longer be such) and it would be fair for everyone to know it from the beginning.
Donald Jacob 7 months ago
I don't think there's any point judging incomplete submissions, especially if a lot of research was put into it and time wasn't on their side or something. I've always believed in cutting people some slack. If you submitted everything before the deadline, then congrats to you, but if you took more time to make your presentation, then luck might be on your side that the judges are empathic and graceful to allow for a redownload; your just completed work might just be the solution they desire. I wish you all the best.
Kesa 7 months ago
Finalists List is currently up!
Marcelo Valderrey 7 months ago
Congratulations to the finalists and all the colleagues who participated by contributing their proposals for this interesting challenge!
Adam Kooperman 7 months ago
Congratulations to the Finalist!
Muhammad Isra 7 months ago
How can people who upload on the 24th become finalists?
I think the main challenge in this challenge is the maximum mass of 20 tons.
When I analyzed it using basic SolidWorks analysis, there were designs from the finalists that exceeded 20 tons. there may be an answer to this question. Thank You
Mhmd Bsl 7 months ago
Thank you for this challenge and all the ideas behind it
I may have some comments about some points I would like if the respected jury to clear it so we can pay attention to these points next time.
1-there were some entries I was very sure would be the first 3-5 winners but I was surprised didn't see any, I wish if there will be like a brief for the Pros and Cons for the top 15 projects for example, or at least what are the points that make this idea non-working, that will be useful as experience and also for anyone who have some concerns they will understand what happened.
2-some of the projects in the final lists are very low details or just a concept that looks like they were made without taking into consideration any of the huge mass and weight that the challenge is all about also no information about the details in docking or power or actuators, meanwhile, there are some ideas with very specific details and covering all the points but they didn't make it .
3-And I am talking about me now, same as point 1 I appreciate if the respected jury could brief me what is the negative points that made my entry not work.
When I started working on this I had a good sense of the huge size and mass of the mission and thought about how to power it and how to manufacture it,
and I even invested too much time building two prototypes for two different designs ( I wanted to make 2 entries first but then I saw it could be in one entry )
so I simulate the process in real life with heavy duty and heavy load relatively to be realistic as possible to the real mission,
So it will be very useful to my experience to know what makes it a nonworking idea.
thank you again for your time and congratulations to everyone because the important win here is the experience ,,,,, and some money would be good :D
未来可期 7 months ago
Congratulations, congratulations on the infinite potential of public wisdom
Vince S 7 months ago
Hi Mhmd, what you have made is a truly beautiful labor of love and is to be admired for the effort and thought you have put into it. I have ZERO connection with the running of the comp, but 40 years engineering experience, having led teams / personally built many world firsts in this time. I suspect the simple answer to your question is about a designated country issue, as I don't see Bahrain on the official list. However, the q you care most about is function of your proposal, which I will comment on. This is my PERSONAL view, nothing more, and I am trying to be helpful, given the effort you have put in, I think you deserve to hear from others on it.
Firstly, we were told we could only attach to the rings. Connecting to the ends is a big departure from that. Secondly, with each lift point needing to take a 20t load, I can't see how the carrier machines will solve the stability issues arising from such a system. It will simply topple the carriers, or the whole lot will spin crazily down any slope with the slightest vibration while traversing (sideways or endways). Your 'practice mass' is not a close to solid steel cylinder, which it would need to be in order to be representative at your model scale size, or you would have found this out already!
Also, to take the load in the ways suggested, will mean a far more robust chassis construction than you have contemplated. Already it is a very large system. Possibly you were looking for a space efficient lightweight structure that could be flat-packed and robot assembled on arrival? But the reality is there is not going to be a way to do that with anything that looks remotely like the proposed concept, and can take the loads to be imposed.
Given what is actually put up has little chance to succeed, the fair question that follows is if the concept could be made to work? That is, to apply your thinking in ways that could get benefit from the concepts presented? When considering other entries, similar concepts have been taken a lot closer to viable solutions, at least one of which is in the finalists list.
I hope you find this commentary useful, and wish you the best in your future endeavours :).
Mhmd Bsl 7 months ago
Mr. Vince thank you so much for your reply I really appreciate every word you said
I just noticed now that L really missed that point about only attach to the rings
I believe now this is my biggest mistake I don't know how I missed it but now it's clear for me that this is enough reason to not work , thank you for this detail .
regarding the designated country, it's UAE and last time I was one of the winners so I hope this is not an issue now ( I am working now also on the next current challenge )
all the points you mentioned it true and I think the jury will say the same
now I know better what my mistakes.
really thank you ( I learned something today )
and congratulation in advance , I see you are one of the finalist
and hope every one to be satisfied and more experienced .
Adam Kooperman 7 months ago
I don't understand that some entry between the Finalist has same mistakes too but I don't see my favorites which I think are really good for examples:
Super Heavy Logistic Transport
SHL Transport 4WD
STRONG TWINS
The Commander
"Enceladus" NASA Challenge: Super Heavy Logistics Transport
S.U.2
Common Habitat Transporter
moon and mars mover new degine
[CAD Concept] SHLT-V1 (Moon Heavy Logistics Transport)
and so on the list is not full.
This is only my opinion I mean the finalist selection looks is a little bit strange, I don't want to judge or insult anybody's work. My entry has some mistakes too. I know everybody had a lots of work in their entry as their time or computer capacity allow it.
Again I don't want to hurt with this anybody just I feel I have to write it.
Thank the GrabCad and Nasa to I have opportunity to participate in this challenge. I like it. It was fun and good experience.
Gregorius Giga 7 months ago
I share the same opinion as all of you. I'm not a proficient engineer or designer, and my knowledge in engineering is limited. However, I did have a few favorite design concepts, and none of them made it to the finalists.
Marcelo Valderrey 7 months ago
Hello Adam and Gregorius!
I appreciate the courage to express yourself knowing that anything said in these circumstances could be misinterpreted, both by the jury and the finalists. It is difficult to give an opinion under this risk!
In my case, I doubt I can take this result as "feedback to do better next time".
It would be fantastic to allow us to learn by expressing what were the most disqualifying errors or omissions that the jury has observed in the group of designs that were rejected.
Adam Kooperman 7 months ago
Marcelo, You're right! It makes us to do better in the future.
Nazarii Vareshchuk 7 months ago
1. As for the mounting ring, it was not a mandatory condition, but only a theoretical desire for a mounting location.
2. Yes, I agree that we would like to receive jury comments on all proposals. It would be very instructive for us.
3. It would be great if you could criticize each other's designs with the developer's consent.
4. I allow my work to be criticized. I will not take it as an insult. Who is brave and will do it sincerely? :)
5. There are 10 finalists, and there will be 5 prize winners. So the process is still ongoing.
Nazarii Vareshchuk 7 months ago
And I also have a question for everyone, as experienced engineers. The question is quite abstract, but I did not find an answer to it on the Internet.
Can hydraulics be used in space since liquids freeze?
There may be special liquids that do not freeze, or other options?
This is only for my future developments.
Thank you.
Marcelo Valderrey 7 months ago
Hello Nazarri!
The concern about hydraulics is something that I share and would like to know about, since I do not know space technology. I know that in aeronautics low temperatures have caused more than one headache due to valve blockage, for example, but evidently it has been overcome in some way (with heating, perhaps). What I do know about hydraulics is that their actuators are compact and efficient, and they solve our lives as designers... but for them to exist we must have a hydraulic power plant, with pumps, motors, valves, filters, pipes and many more. other elements, sometimes very complex and, above all, large and heavy. If a design only shows the hydraulic cylinders, but does not calculate the flows and pressures necessary to size the hydraulic power plant... I would think that it is an important lack.
Marcelo Valderrey 7 months ago
Hello again Nazarii!
Regarding the finalists and their designs, I believe that their evaluation is the exclusive attribute of the jury. For me, as a participant, they are left out of the discussion. However, I would like to know (in a general way) the criteria for discarding other solutions (and relaxing some requirements that seemed vital) to know what has failed because it is the only way to adjust and improve the proposals for the future. . In addition, it is a good way to recognize the effort behind each job and avoid the frustrations and negative feelings that anyone can experience as a human being. Constructive criticism is always preferable to rejection without any explanation.
Muhammad Isra 7 months ago
Hello Nazarii Vareshchuk
I have created a SU2 hydroulic design concept for use on Mars and Moon. but perhaps there are still many shortcomings in that because there are several factors that are difficult to resolve, and perhaps can be developed in the future
Muhammad Isra 7 months ago
Hello marcelo
for example relaxing some seemingly important requirements such as how to carry compact structures even larger than the habitat. I want to know this so that I can develop ideas and perhaps know how to ignore certain aspects of the challenge.
Vince S 7 months ago
Regarding hydraulics, this would be a perfect activation method for the solution we submitted. But it was ruled out as you need to have a fluid that freezes under ~100 deg K (ie minus ~170 deg C). Which means a liquid nitrogen system (63 K), or something like that. Whilst it absolutely is worth exploring and understanding better, and drive fluid related issues are the only ones that will be obviously tricky, we do manage liquid N2 in many ways now so at least a fair chance it could be made to work as all the other issues can be resolved. Maybe Dichlorodifluoromethane refrigerant R-12 could work too, at 115 K... Or something purpose developed...
Hydraulic power would be a boon to many things that need to happen in extra-terrestrial environments. It is a really obvious area for intense effort by NASA, to see if they can overcome sealing issues, lubrication, heat radiation, freezing in transit, boiling in operation, etc. Yep, it goes the other way too - getting rid of the waste heat from the fairly inefficient systems that hydraulics are is a big deal too, given how much work is being done on a fluid to have it then do that work elsewhere. 30% loss is typical in a terra system, and that energy has to go into a heat sink somewhere.
I don't see anything in this logic that is unsolvable. But it is a serious block of engineering endeavour that is not going to be done in the context of a brainstorming GrabCAD competition! And nor could entrants reasonably assume the magic will happen, until it does.
These are the reasons we discarded it. Any proposal could only contemplate hydraulic systems because NASA had done the research and provided the parameters for inclusion of such a power source.
Marcelo Valderrey 7 months ago
With the greatest respect to my colleagues and the jury, I wonder if I misinterpreted the design requirements, because I note that it was accepted as valid:
* require human help for unpacking and assembly, mooring of the habitat and its transportation;
* exert pressures on the ground of 40, 80 or more kPa (Limit on the Moon: 10 kPa);
* have a mass greater than 20,000 kg;
* rise from the floor much less than the requested 5m; among others...
I assume that I am wrong, that I did not understand the proposals and that my observations are erroneous. In this way I can accept the result, although I don't see how to learn from it to improve in the future!
Adam Kooperman 7 months ago
Marcelo, you are not alone with this. I have participated in the last few challenge and see how many great engineers disappeared, perhaps this reason.
Nazarii Vareshchuk 7 months ago
@Marcelo Valderrey
I think this is due to the fact that in the main task there are specified conditions that involve certain preliminary assumptions regarding execution. That is, it is impossible to create clear requirements for the device if we do not even know how it will work.
In this way, general requirements are formed, and the goal that needs to be achieved with the existing costs of weight, fuel, and time.
And the rest of the conditions may have certain deviations if it has an alternative, or is solved in another way.
For example, if the device can maneuver, then raise it to a height of 5 m. there is no point, it is easier to bypass the obstacle.
Regarding "Moon: 10 kPa", I honestly didn't know about this limitation, but fortunately it can be easily solved in my case by simply increasing the area of the foot, but I won't do it anyway, since the contest is over.
But otherwise, the restriction "Moon: 10 kPa" is quite conditional, and it means that at this pressure there will be some penetration into the soil, but this will not happen through the moon, that is, if the mechanism is resistant to a small penetration into the soil, then this restriction is not is critical.
Marcelo Valderrey 7 months ago
Hello Nazarri!
A colleague started asking about the admissible pressure on the ground, and they responded giving it (in my opinion) quite relevance since they suggested reading one or two papers on the subject (which I did!).
What I understand is that if you exceed the admissible pressure on the floor you generate eventual landslides that can be "catastrophic" when moving something large and heavy like the habitat. I imagined the situation of being on a slope and "losing support" at one or more points if the ground gave way... and the consequences could be serious, such as destabilizing the entire logistics transportation system. Above all, because many designs are sensitive to the loss of one or two support points, especially if this happens suddenly.
It is not a minor issue, at all. It is as if I told a civil engineer to design a building... but not to worry about the admissible pressure in the ground. Do you think it would be appropriate to design the building without taking into account the size and shape of its foundations (which depend of the resistance of the ground), so that it does not sink or tip over?
Muhammad Isra 7 months ago
Hello Marcello. I have seen all the designs that were finalist. I think there is a design that considers all aspects including the energy source used for the module to run before the power source is charged, and also provides details of charging using hydrogen up to 5 km. the design is
Super Heavy Logistic Transport for the Moon and Mars
Muhammad Isra 7 months ago
Other designs are no less good, but many ignore this aspect where it is not clearly stated how the module moves 200 meters without external support, which means the energy source can run the module 200 m without a charger. In my opinion, this problem cannot be ignored. I think if a design that is uploaded late wins, it will be very unfortunate because maybe other participants will see something wrong with this. Maybe other participants don't dare to mention it, but I'm sure many participants think the same thing as me. where the pdf is the main analysis and explanation. it's fine in my opinion to add render after timeout but not with pdf.
omid ghafori dehgolan 7 months ago
If crane cables are freezing and breaking, there are a few possible causes and solutions to consider:
1. Cold weather: Extreme cold temperatures can cause the cables to become brittle and more prone to breaking. In this case, it may be necessary to take precautions such as using heated enclosures or insulating the cables to protect them from freezing.
2. Lack of lubrication: Insufficient lubrication on the cables can lead to increased friction and wear, making them more susceptible to freezing and breaking. Regularly inspecting and lubricating the cables can help prevent this issue.
3. Overloading: If the crane is consistently being operated beyond its weight capacity, it can put excessive strain on the cables, leading to premature failure. Ensuring that the crane is not overloaded and following proper lifting guidelines is crucial for preventing cable breakage.
4. Age and wear: Over time, crane cables naturally degrade due to wear and tear. Regular inspections should be conducted to identify any signs of damage or deterioration in the cables. If significant wear is detected, it may be necessary to replace them before they break.
5. Maintenance practices: Proper maintenance of cranes includes regular inspections, cleaning, lubrication, and addressing any issues promptly. Following a comprehensive maintenance schedule can help identify potential problems with the cables before they result in failure.
It is important to consult with a qualified professional or crane manufacturer for specific guidance on preventing cable freezing and breaking based on your unique circumstances.
omid ghafori dehgolan 7 months ago
Crane cables are typically designed to operate within a specific temperature range, and extreme cold temperatures can affect their performance. While some crane cables may be able to withstand temperatures as low as -40 degrees Celsius, it is unlikely that they would be suitable for use at -100 degrees Celsius. At such extremely low temperatures, the materials used in crane cables may become brittle and lose their flexibility, which could compromise their strength and functionality. It is important to consult with the manufacturer or a qualified engineer to determine the specific temperature limitations of crane cables before using them in extreme cold conditions.
omid ghafori dehgolan 7 months ago
What fluid can be used for hydraulics at a temperature of -100?
At extremely low temperatures such as -100 degrees Celsius, it is important to use a hydraulic fluid that can withstand such extreme conditions. One commonly used fluid for low-temperature hydraulics is synthetic polyalphaolefin (PAO) oil. PAO oils have excellent low-temperature properties and can maintain their viscosity and flow characteristics even at very cold temperatures. Additionally, some specialized hydraulic fluids, such as those based on silicone or perfluoropolyether (PFPE), are specifically designed for use in extremely low-temperature applications. It is always recommended to consult with hydraulic fluid manufacturers or experts to determine the most suitable fluid for your specific operating conditions.
omid ghafori dehgolan 7 months ago
Why did the judges choose the crane cable system with all these limitations?
Marcelo Valderrey 7 months ago
Hello Muhammad and @omid ghafori dehgolan!
Your comments are very interesting and reveal the many complexities of this project.
I think my brain no longer processes information well, hahahaha.... do you know something? I haven't been able to figure out (just looking at pictures) how some designs rotate. That is, how they deviate from a straight line of travel, what their steering system is like.
When I found that I couldn't grasp this detail quickly, I told myself: it's time to drop this topic and rest! Obviously, the problem is me.
Nazarii Vareshchuk 7 months ago
@Muhammad Isra
As for the energy at 200m, my document contains all the calculations that take into account all the factors (as far as we know at this stage of abstraction).
Please don't miss such important information again. :)
Nazarii Vareshchuk 7 months ago
@omid ghafori dehgolan
Thanks for your info on hydraulics. I will study your data more thoroughly.
You also talked about lubricating certain things. But the grease freezes like that, so I think in spacecraft bearings without grease, or what?
What do you think about it?
Vince S 7 months ago
Regarding the 'angst' around late submissions etc, I would like to share my observations that may help people be at peace with it. Firstly is GrabCAD's rules that every entry must go in with an .stp file, via the button, and before the date. That is the must, nothing is going to change there, and every entrant did it.
Next we have the 'spirit' of the competition, eloquently explained by Robert Howard as thus: "my main purpose is to include the entire world in the process of helping NASA to explore options to extend humanity into space beyond the Earth. I appreciate all of you and it really is a team effort. Plus, I hope you have fun in the process!"
You can take that as a genuine statement of why we are doing anything here at all, regardless of what may be motivating some beyond the altruistic / fun elements.
In our proposal, I too noted that the submissions were editable. One of my personal mantra's that must ALWAYS apply to anything I or a team do, is "What would it (the action) look like if closely scrutinised in the full light of day?" I don't need people to agree with the action, but it must always be seen as totally legitimate.
In this case, I had taken our design a little further post-submission and thought that was worthy of sharing. Whilst I COULD have updated the submitted report, my personal choice was to add a comment to this effect under the submission and provide links from the original Youtube vid to an updated one. Also made a temporary webpage repository to put some updated pics on, in case there was interest in seeing about the later thoughts.
The above actions I took because that kept our submission beyond reproach, and I had no problem being assessed on the first as-put submission anyway. However, I was also aware of the sentiment put in the second para above, and knew there were wise, caring fellow human beings that would soon sort through 'the clutter' to extract the value here.
I personally have no problem whatsoever with anyone that used one of the available methods to update / supplement their entry, not even if that change caused it to move ahead of my own submission. We are principally doing this to make the world a better place, possibly including an uptick to our own piece of it in the process, and you can't (and shouldn't!) keep good ideas down for want of not initially being expressed as well as they could have been.
I hope this lazy Sunday afternoon commentary helps people be at peace with the housekeeping aspects of being in such a competition. Please don't feel a sense of unfairness is at play, such that you don't want to make further contributions to making the world a better place. If you have a good idea, and can properly test it against your best interpretation of what the application needs, and it looks like you got it, you should have a go. For the fun of it!
Muhammad Isra 7 months ago
hello mr. vince S.
I don't think we can assume the reason for the delay because it's a rule. because this is the opinion of the NASA challenge: Positive Connections: A Mechanism to Connect on Contact
"@Muhammad, participants are not allowed to modify files after the deadline. I will be downloading all the files immediately after the deadline, and those will be the files that will be judged. I will talk to the official rule makers about whether or not if someone modifies the files after the deadline, if that disqualifies them. Modifying files after the deadline may result in disqualification (so to everyone out there, please don't do it, you don't want to risk your hard work not being considered )"
Raymond Alex 7 months ago
We must not allow resentment get the better part of us. We are humans, Aha moments are unpredictable, and they mostly come when the pressure is down. Actively discarding solutions that can progress the human race actually seems unfair to the 8 billion of us. I ask for grace for everyone, things happen, and once in a while, with empathy, we understand.
Raymond Alex 7 months ago
We are not dealing with a job application here, we are dealing with the advancement of the entire human race, how far we can reach, every single one of us here is actively progressing the entire human population. Look beyond yourself, look beyond the prize money. I tell you the truth, there is 0 gain, and believe me 0 gain, if anyone holds onto a rule so strictly that it undermines them. When you view it in this light, you will realize that the goal is actually to get the best solution. We are very very very fortunate that we can tender our improvements, and ask for grace from the higher authority: the judges, and I believe they would totally understand, because not one of them would want to conduct a 2-month-long contest, and at the end, nothing works. The goal here is to find one that works, and not 'almost works'. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe we should actively hold back the advancement of the human race because of sentiments. No judge needs to reply, we all understand empathy and grace; we are humans. Have a nice time everyone.
omid ghafori dehgolan 7 months ago
Nazarii Vareshchuk Ceramic bearings can work without grease, but it is generally recommended to use some form of lubrication for optimal performance and longevity. Grease helps to reduce friction and wear between the ceramic balls and the bearing races, improving efficiency and reducing the risk of damage. However, in certain applications where low friction is critical, such as high-speed cycling or certain industrial uses, ceramic bearings may be used without grease by using alternative lubricants or dry lubrication methods. It is important to consult the manufacturer's recommendations for specific guidance on lubrication requirements for your particular ceramic bearings.
omid ghafori dehgolan 7 months ago
Nazarii Vareshchuk On the other hand, by heating the oil, you can transfer the heat like a heart that transfers heat to all parts of the body. I live in a cold area, we controlled the temperature conditions below zero degrees with the equipment.
omid ghafori dehgolan 7 months ago
Do you know about the Mars rover's system and mechanisms, the reason why its wheels are damaged?
Based on the events that caused the wheels of the Mars rover to break due to the negative temperature, I designed a model that has the ability to replace the metal wheels of the carrier itself.
But while none of the designs won, they did not pay attention to this basic point, even the judges did not open the file related to the design due to the large volume of the original solid work file.
Are there any documents that the referees have reviewed the file sent by the participant?
Here is the discussion of ideas and time that problems are predicted.
To work in conditions where there is no one there to do repairs, but the idea is accepted, they need an operator, but the self-driving connection with easy connection mechanisms has not been seen in the winners of the challenge, most of the winning designers who copy the designs presented by the previous designers Giving somehow changed the mechanism and conditions, this is my critical opinion, but the fact that I have seen here, everyone can see the signs, it is not something difficult that no one will understand.
Muhammad Isra 7 months ago
@ Raymond, I understand your concerns, but there is also a need to be fair. I will be downloading all files at the close of the challenge, and those will be the files judged, and not something submitted later. The prize winners will be decided based on this. However, if people want to improve on their ideas, and send me better versions after the deadline, I am happy to consider them with regards to how they could impact our design at NASA, but any late ideas or updates will not impact the prize winner selection. I need to be fair to people who started on this challenge early, and worked on their design long ahead of the deadline.
"This is Jonathan Sauder's answer to Raymond's argument"
Kesa 7 months ago
Winners have been selected and with descriptions. Congratuations to the Winners!
Marcelo Valderrey 7 months ago
Congratulations to the winners and many thanks to the jury for the detailed feedback, which I hope will help us improve our aim next time!
Personally, this case is an example of how far the user's need (however well explained) can be from the designer's interpretation (however thoughtful and enthusiastic). It is a very interesting point to work on to improve the design process.
Again, congratulations to all participants.
Adam Kooperman 7 months ago
Congratulations to the winners. They knew what the judges needed. It was nice!
Ekasapta Agustinus 7 months ago
Thank you to the NASA jury and GRABCAD for this opportunity to participate in the NASA Challenge: Super Heavy Logistics Transport for the Moon and Mars. It was such an exciting experience!
Thank you also for the analysis, I understand need a lot to improve in design and pay attention to the details that are required in the challenge.
Nazarii Vareshchuk 7 months ago
... .... ...! ...... ... .! .......!! ....... ... .!!!!
:)
Thank you all!
I congratulate everyone, and the winners as well.
Nazarii Vareshchuk 7 months ago
Quote from the task text:
"The goal of this challenge is to develop an innovative, low mass, super-heavy logistics transport system".
Kesa 7 months ago
Hello Everyone. If you were any of the Prize winners, I will be informing our payment offices in the next few days. You should recieve an email with the process in the next 2 or 3 weeks. Thank you all for participating
Augustine Uyah 3 months ago
My sincere gratitude goes out to the judges for a successful competition. It was a truly engaging one, and I am pleased that I was able to make it to the winners list.
Massive congratulations to the finalists and all the other winners.
Of course, my heart also goes out to other participants in this competition. We all know how this goes. Putting out a design concept takes weeks to months and that is a lot of hours of hard work put into bringing out our ideas and attempting to implement those ideas into working systems. The effort is not unnoticed, and as a fellow engineer who is always trying to implement an idea for that solves problems, I appreciate that effort.
I just encourage everyone to use this experience to push forward and improve themselves further. That way, everyone would benefit from this contest.
Thank you.
Please log in to add comments.
Log in