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
2/16/24 UPDATE: NASA and the Deep Space Logistics team would like to express our genuine appreciation for each of you who took the time to develop entries to the NASA Lunar Gateway Cargo Packing and Storing challenge. Thank you for participating and contributing to the contest’s dynamic atmosphere. We thoroughly enjoyed reviewing and discussing your submissions. Dedication, determination, and creativity like yours will continue to advance the exploration of space. Our passion for space unites us! See the Artemis Accords, at https://www.nasa.gov/artemis-accords/
Thank you again for the amazing participation in this challenge!
NOTE: Challenge winners should expect to receive their payment within approximately 60 days.
2/5/24 UPDATE: The NASA evaluation team would like to thank everyone who entered the challenge. The overall quality of the submissions was excellent, particularly in the area of technical feasibility. Many entries had interesting facets or components within their concept that we will continue to examine. The high quality of the entries made it very challenging to select the 10 finalist listed below. The finalist provided an excellent level of detail while managing the difficult balance of the competing factors of volume optimization, crew access, and system mass. The judges are working hard to finish the final round of evaluations and expect to have the results soon.
Entry Name: Lunar Gateway Cargo Packing and Storing (1)
Entry Link: Lunar Gateway Cargo Packing and Storing
Entry Name: Radial Sliding Shelving System
Entry Link: Radial Sliding Shelving System
Entry Name: THE PINEAPPLE
Entry Link: THE PINEAPPLE
Entry Name: RolHEX
Entry Link: RolHEX
Entry Name: Supercharged LEGO
Entry Link: Supercharged LEGO
Entry Name: Lunar Gateway Sliding Shelves Concept
Entry Link: Lunar Gateway Sliding Shelves Concept
Entry Name: Nasa Challenge: ANT Module
Entry Link: Nasa Challenge: ANT Module
Entry Name: Lunar Gateway Hambar L.M. CTPE 410
Entry Link: Lunar Gateway Hambar L.M. CTPE 410
Entry Name: QASIS--Quick Access Storage in Space
Entry Link: QASIS--Quick Access Storage in Space
Entry Name: Lunar Gateway Cargo Packing and Storing (6)
Entry Link: Lunar Gateway Cargo Packing and Storing
1/9/24 UPDATE:: A system error caused the challenge to expire earlier than planned. We are extending the deadline until 11:59 eastern time tomorrow, 1/10/24, to provide an opportunity for those who were not able to submit their entries last night. We apologize for the situation.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Background: NASA is working on a Gateway outpost that will orbit the Moon and serve as a small space station to support Artemis missions to the lunar surface. The Orion capsule will launch on a Space Launch System (SLS) rocket and deliver astronauts to Gateway. A Human Lander System (HLS) will take the crew from Gateway to the surface of the Moon and back. To support this exciting exploration of the Moon, an uncrewed Logistics Module (LM) will be needed to deliver cargo, science experiments, and supplies to Gateway (https://beta.nasa.gov/mission/gateway).
Mission Scenario: A crew of four will launch on an Artemis mission in the Orion capsule atop an SLS rocket headed to the Moon for a three-week mission at Gateway. Two crew members will spend one-week on the surface of the Moon. One month prior to the crew arrival, an uncrewed Logistics Module will launch with a load of supplies and travel six days before autonomously docking at Gateway.
Brief Challenge Summary: We are seeking an internal stowage system that will organize, support, and secure the cargo and supplies in the Logistics Module for launch and while in orbit at the Moon.
Gateway needs:
Gateway is much smaller (~one bedroom apartment) than the International Space Station (ISS) (~six bedroom house) and is not large enough for the crew to unload cargo from the Logistics Module after arrival. Cargo will remain in the LM, and the crew will access and use the supplies as needed. The LM will function as both a delivery vehicle and as a pantry, active storage room, and trash collection area.
Launch phase: For launch, the module will be used as a delivery vehicle, and the critical factors are securing the cargo (primarily stored in flexible cargo bags) against launch loads (6 g axial) and vibrations, maximizing use of module volume, and minimizing the storage system mass (to preserve cargo up-mass capability).
Docked phase: Once the LM is docked at Gateway and the crew arrives, the LM hatch will be opened, and the crew will use the LM like a pantry, closet, and active storage room. Heavy duty securing and restraining systems required for launch are no longer needed in zero-gravity, but items must be restrained to prevent them from moving around the module. In this phase, providing quick, easy crew access to the cargo is critical because crew time is incredibly valuable and limited.
Disposal phase: Throughout the mission, the cargo volume will be gradually repurposed for trash stowage. A solution for trash is not a goal of this challenge.
Historical ISS examples are shown in The Historical Sections PDF, but the pantry/active storage room for the Gateway LM requires a new stowage concept. There are four key stowage system factors requested for this challenge (judging criteria):
System Feasibility (25%): The system must be based on currently available materials, technology, and engineering principles and must be able to withstand launch loads and have a very high reliability.
Cargo Access (35%): The on-orbit system must provide quick, easy access to the astronaut crew to save extremely limited and valuable crew time. Balancing volume optimization (packing densely) vs easy access can be challenging. The ideal system would provide an efficient approach for accessing items packed at deeper layers, not directly accessible to the crew. The use of tools to operate the system would require time and should be minimized or avoided completely.
Volume Optimization (20%): The system must include a cargo layout that makes maximum use of limited module volume. Structural components of the cargo system must be included in the total volume. Accommodating additional cargo beyond the required minimum will improve your score. Areas that require crew access must have the minimum specified translation path cross section (specified in Provided Data PDF).
System Mass (20%): An estimated mass of the stowage containment/restraint system (excluding the module and the cargo masses) is beneficial but not required. If no estimate is provided, an approximate mass on a scale of 1 to 5 will be assigned. The stowage system must be able to withstand launch loads (7 g axial, 4 g lateral) but should be as light as possible to preserve limited launch mass capacity for cargo. A more complex stowage system could help organize and provide access to cargo but may reduce the cargo mass that can be delivered by the LM. These competing factors must be balanced. A structural assessment is optional but may help prove feasibility of the design.
Optional tasks:
Animation/Simulation: Could include videos showing the function of mechanisms, crew interaction, walkthroughs, or other material that would help showcase the concept.
Team Logo: An artistic depiction of your concept or a team logo would be welcome. This could be the theme of your choice, such as a NASA mission patch, movie poster, ad, infographic, etc.
Important Downloads
Provided Data PDF
CAD Files
CAD Files
Judging criteria: the stowage system must address these four key stowage system factors:
System Feasibility: must be technically feasible and based on current materials and technology.
Cargo Access: secure and organize the cargo for launch and then provide the crew with quick and easy access in orbit.
Volume Optimization: maximize use of the limited volume within the module.
System Mass: sustain launch loads while being lightweight and highly reliable.
Executive summary:
A brief description of the solution using images, drawings, annotations, and notes to depict the basic solution concept.
Provide “Cargo Deliverables Summary Table” as described in Provided Data PDF.
Three page maximum in pdf format.
Detailed submission:
Additional images, annotations, and descriptive material can be provided to address each of the Judging Factors as described in the Challenge.
Please provide the information in the order listed in the sections above.
Animations are appreciated but not required.
loads
Submission Format:
May be in the form of slides (e.g. PowerPoint presentation) with bullets or a more formal writeup, whichever effectively conveys the concept.
All images should be included within the same file.
Animations can be serpate.
CAD files: should be delivered in neutral format; step or Parasolid formats preferred.
Include a few Images that can be used to verify the CAD model imports properly.
Compressed data: must be in .zip or .7z files.
Eligibility
Solutions from countries listed as Type 1, 2, or 3 on the NASA Designated Countries List are Not eligible for prizes.
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 "NASALUNARGATEWAY" 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.
Schedule
This Challenge ends on November 28th 2023 at 11:59 Eastern Standard Time. Any Changes after the date will be considered as disqualifications.$7000 in Total Prizes
$3000
$2000
$1000
$750
$250
Top submissions may be given the opportunity to brief NASA and receive feedback on their concept in a virtual meeting.
May be awarded for additional submissions that have special merit.
Most innovative concept
Most cargo by volume
Best crew access
Best graphics, simulation, or animation
Best team name, logo, or mascot.
This challenge is sponsored by NASA Deep Space Logistics (DSL) at the Kennedy Space Center and is funded by NASA’s Space Technology Mission Directorate. The DSL team is working with commercial suppliers to delivery logistics services, including cargo supplies and science payloads, to the Gateway outpost which will orbit the Moon. SpaceX’s Dragon XL was selected as the first provider of logistics services through the Gateway Logistics Services (GLS) contract. Gateway is a vital component of NASA’s Artemis program and will serve as a multi-purpose outpost orbiting the Moon. It will provide essential support for long-term human presence on the lunar surface and serves as a staging point for deep space exploration. NASA is working with commercial and international partners to design, deliver, and operate Gateway.
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.
127 comments
TARUN KUMAR DUTTA 6 months ago
Thank you many much for your challenge posting
Adam Kooperman 6 months ago
The description of challange is very clear and detailed. That's great!
Marcelo Valderrey 6 months ago
Good morning!
I have a question about CTBs 2.0, 3.0, 4.0 and 6.0:
Do they always store 2, 3, 4 or 6 CTBs 1.0 inside, as shown on page 2 of the "Cargo Packing Checklist - Provided Data.pdf"?
That is to say, are they mere means of "grouping of CTBs 1.0" and, therefore, theoretically separable in a hypothetical automatic system based on CTBs 1.0? or can they contain objects larger than a CTB 1.0 and therefore not be divisible?
Randy Gordon 6 months ago
@Marcelo, Good question. The larger sizes are often used to store larger objects that will not fit in the 1.0 CTB. They are not only used for grouping the 1.0 CTBs. Thank you!
Marcelo Valderrey 6 months ago
Thank you Randy
Jose C A Noriega 5 months ago
Hello greetings, thanks for the opportunity.
Should there be a minimum amount per storage volume category?
Jose C A Noriega 5 months ago
Should the front label of the bags always face the front?
Gregorius Giga 5 months ago
Page not found for Designated Country link
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/designated_country_list_1.26.2022.pdf
Tauqeer Ahmed 5 months ago
here you can find the list and if your country is not 1,2,3 section then you are eligible.
https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/designated_country_list_6.10.2022.pdf
Randy Gordon 5 months ago
@Jose,
1. The target minimums are noted in the attachment titled "Provided Data PDF". On page 7, see section 3.5, Required Manifest and Summary of Deliverables. The "target" minimums are listed by CTB size in the first table.
2. Good question about the labels! You do not need to have the front label facing in any particular direction. The bags actually have multiple labels.
Thank you for your interest!
Paul S. 5 months ago
Good morning,
On the ‘Pressurized Cabin’ there are the Docking end and the Blind end.
During the takeoff, which end is facing forward ?
Thank you.
Randy Gordon 5 months ago
Paul,
For launch, the docking end would be forward/up and the service section (with fuel, thrusters, etc.) would be aft/down.
Thank you for your question and interest.
Gabino Barrera 5 months ago
interesante !
MysteriousH 5 months ago
Hi, interesting challenge! I was wondering about the access aisle, would that always have to be clear or could it be blocked temporarly while astronauts access items? Assuming that the mechanism would be designed such that, should it fail and block the aisle, the astronauts would still easily be able to force it.
Randy Gordon 5 months ago
Hi MysteriousH,
As you anticipated, the crew must have an emergency egress path to the hatch at all times. A rigid or mechanical obstruction cannot block that path. An easily movable obstruction, such as a loose cargo bag, could be between the the crew member and the hatch. The image I have of a "mechanism" brings to mind things that would not be acceptable as obstructions; however, for the purpose of this challenge we can be more flexible. We would consider it if there is an exceptionally easy way to defeat it that is simple, requires minimal force, and only take a few seconds.
The aisle can be blocked on the side of the crew member that is away from the hatch. This is a much better option.
Thanks for your question.
Kesa 5 months ago
Due to the Holidays the judges have extended the challenge end date to Jaunuary 8th of 2024. More time for you to work on your designs. Thank you for understanding.
-GrabCAD Team
Edem Kokou 5 months ago
Hi @Kesa, can you update the date in the rules? It still says Nov 28th
ROBTECH 5 months ago
Does the timing of submitting an application affect the final decision? In similar designs, does it matter who submitted it first?
Shepherd Choeni 5 months ago
What is the Current holding capacity using traditional Packing Methods( in terms of CTBs)
Atif Ahmed 5 months ago
Cargo capacity is given in the cargo packing checklist which is 295 CTBE
Atif Ahmed 5 months ago
295 CTBE is the minimum limit
Marcelo Valderrey 5 months ago
295 CTBE + 8 SCIENCE PAYLOAD
Primo Secondo 5 months ago
You moved the deadline to 52 days, so what does January 10, 2024 mean!?
This change is not right, because you have created a disadvantage for those who have already up-loaded their own,
which in the end will still be copied by others.
Joshua Wilhelm 5 months ago
@Randy,
To be clear, will there be access hatches on both ends of the Pressurized Cabin, or will there only be one on the docking end?
Thanks!
Randy Gordon 5 months ago
Hi Joshua,
The LM for this challenge only has a hatch at the docking end.
Thanks!
Angel Chavez 5 months ago
Hello, there's still time to submit the design?
Because in the tittle says "Deadline 41 days". But in the description says "Schedule: This Challenge ends on November 28th 2023 at 11:59 Eastern Standard Time."
I'm confused
Randy Gordon 5 months ago
Angel,
Please disregard the old Nov 28 deadline. The new deadline is January 8.
P.S. Sweet pineapple concept !
WENDPOUIRE LIONEL ELYSEE KIETTYETTA 4 months ago
Hello how are you doing ?
Melville 4 months ago
Greetings Team
I have a query
Is 6mm final thickness of pressurized capsule
My idea is to integrate the luggage fixture into capsule structure
So that final load is transmitted to capsule
My entry is in simulation stage now with final CTB 550
Randy Gordon 4 months ago
Melville,
I don't think we defined the thickness of the pressurized shell. You can define and specify the thickness that you want. You can also assume there are attach points at any locations on the shell that are needed to support your luggage fixture. We prefer your focus to be on the mass and efficiency of your "luggage fixture" as opposed to the structure of module or how your fixture will attach to the module.
Thanks for you interests and submission.
Randy Gordon 4 months ago
*** NOTE TO ALL SUBMITTERS ***
Some entries do not have requested data. Please make sure to include:
1. Cargo bag sizes and quantities.
2. Science payload qty
3. Cargo mass
4. Stowage system mass
5. Translation path dimensions
The deadline is Monday, Jan 8th.
Thank you all for submitting ideas! Our NASA, Deep Space Logistics team is excited to review them and see what we can do to improve cargo delivery for NASA's Artemis missions to the moon!
https://www.nasa.gov/specials/artemis/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmC-FwibsZg
Germano Pecoraro Designer 4 months ago
Randy Gordon - It tell you the truth, I stopped when the deadline was changed.
Melville 4 months ago
Greetings Randy
Thanking you very much for reply
Yes the thickness is defined It is 6mm in CAD model
The capsule can safely withstand pressure of 2 bars
The failure is at hemispherical end
I just gave my opinion because final load is transmitted
To the shell thats why
Emanuel Alberto Martin 4 months ago
Good morning Randy!
I just uploaded an update for my project "Lunar Gateway Rotational Hub." I still need to finish some design issues, but for now, I have the following questions:
1) Is it necessary to develop a materials list with all the pieces that make up the various sub-assemblies?
2) Should we incorporate information from catalogs for bearings, linear guides, motors? (Obviously, in the case that our project includes these items)
3) Do we need to demonstrate with analytical calculations that our structure will withstand service conditions? I was thinking of conducting a static simulation, but perhaps analytical support is necessary.
For now, those are my questions.
Thank you very much in advance, Randy!
I'm excited to see the final results.
Regards!
Marcelo Crestani 4 months ago
@Randy
In provided data says:
"Alternate concepts, that do not use CTBs, can be proposed for up to 75 CTBE for bulk cargo items such as towels, clothing, food, and water."
75 CTB in total for customized packages or just one package?
Can the solution be proposed using only customized packages instead of CTB`s?
Frédéric MILLOT 4 months ago
Bonjour, Le défi est il encore ouvert pour 21 jours ou bien est il fermé depuis le 28/11 ? Merci Cordialement. Fred
Stéphane Gazel 4 months ago
Frédéric MILLOT C'est open encore pour 21 jours .
Randy Gordon 4 months ago
Bonjour Fred,
The challenge is open until January 8th.
Randy Gordon 4 months ago
Hi Emanuel,
Thank you for your questions!
1) Is it necessary to develop a materials list with all the pieces that make up the various sub-assemblies?
Answer: A detailed materials list is not necessary. A list of the primary materials could help your score as we assess your System Feasibility and would ideally be used in your estimate of the Cargo System mass.
2) Should we incorporate information from catalogs for bearings, linear guides, motors? (Obviously, in the case that our project includes these items)
Answer: Detailed information on these parts is not necessary, but please provide enough description so that we understand the nature of the part. Describing them as currently available, off-the-shelf, or referencing an existing source may help your System Feasibility score if a unique part is not familiar to us.
3) Do we need to demonstrate with analytical calculations that our structure will withstand service conditions? I was thinking of conducting a static simulation, but perhaps analytical support is necessary.
Answer: These are optional but, if submitted, may improve your System Feasibility score.
Good luck,
Randy
Randy Gordon 4 months ago
Hi Marcelo,
Good question. A little background: for our cargo deliveries to Gateway, NASA has one contractor that packs the CTBs (like packing suitcases) and another contractor that designs and provides the spacecraft (logistics module), loads the CTBs into the spacecraft, and delivers the CTBs to Gateway. In the optional, alternate concept you ask about, we are proposing that some bulk cargo be delivered to the spacecraft contractor without packing it into CTBs. It would be loaded directly into specifically designed compartments, bags, or systems within the spacecraft that would secure and segregate the cargo in a way so that CTBs were not needed. 75 CTBe is approximately 4 cubic meters and it may be more clear to think of it in those terms. We are saying that up to ~4 cubic meters of cargo can be stored directly in a custom system you propose that does not require standard CTBs. You can propose:
a. a volume of 0 to 4 m3
b. one or multiple custom compartments or customized packages. They do not have to be connected or contiguous.
c. rigid compartments, custom flexible packages/bags, or another concept.
The core idea is that you may be able to fit more of certain types of cargo into the Logistics Module if it is not first packed in CTBs. Please don’t hesitate to follow with additional questions.
Thanks,
Randy
Marcelo Valderrey 4 months ago
Hi Randy: I have two questions about the size of the module access hatch and the space it takes up when opened.
.
In the model provided there is a circular piece with a diameter of 1,700mm (Crew Hatch.stp) that has a square opening (800x800mm) with rounded ends (radius 200mm):
.
Can this square opening change shape (to circular, for example) and/or size (what would be the maximum?)?
.
What space does it occupy during its opening? Does it open "outwards" occupying the docking system tunnel, or "inwards" of the pressurized cabin?
.
I apologize if my question is childish, but I am not clear about the limitations for astronaut movement and a large payload (such as a CTB 6.0).
.
Kind regards!
Melville 4 months ago
Greetings Randy
Melville here !
I have one query
Will it be plus or negative points to decrease entry hatch diameter ?
Randy Gordon 4 months ago
Marcelo and Melville,
Your questions on the hatch are good.
1. The shape and size of hatch and hatch opening should not be changed. We want to keep this consistent across all submitted concepts to keep our assessment simple.
2. The hatch opens into the Logistics Module. When open, the space it occupies would have to be clear of cargo; however, we did not make this clear. You may disregard the need for this volume to be clear and depict cargo packed in that space. If some competitors depict cargo in the space while others leave it clear for the hatch, we will account/adjust for that in our assessment.
3. Large bags, such as the 6.0 CTB, can be packed and unpacked inside the LM, so do not worry about it not fitting through the hatch.
Thanks,
Randy
Melville 4 months ago
Greetings Randy
Thanking you very much for reply
Because my entry has 0.5 CTB packages near exit
Thereby causing decrease in entry diameter
But anyways human being can fit thru
Merry Graceful Christmas in advance
Marcelo Valderrey 4 months ago
Hello Randy. Thank you for your answers.
.
I don't know anything about hatches, but I assume they have two basic movements: a lift-off (perpendicular to the hatch) from its watertight seat and then a turn (articulation), a slide (linear guide)or a combined movement (parallelogram or similar) for its full opening .
.
The space occupied changes quite a bit if the hatch is hinged (region of revolution with a section of 800x800) or if it slides linearly (occupying a thin region).
.
I will leave a surface of revolution drawn (as the worst case) with a section of 800x800 and almost 180° of rotation, as a visual aid to analyze possible interferences.
Kind regards!
.
PS: I think it would be useful for GrabCAD to enable images in this chat to facilitate some queries that can be distorted or, at least, complicated only with textual descriptions (especially when English is not the native language of the person making the query).
Kaspars Burbeckis 4 months ago
Hello!
Is this challenge still active?
Randy Gordon 4 months ago
The challenge is open until Jan 8.
Randy Gordon 4 months ago
Marcelo,
There are different styles of hatches on different spacecraft. Most due not have hinges but slide on rails slightly away from the hatch opening (as you described) and then out of the crew aisle staying close to the end cone.
The hatch is not an important factor for the challenge, but I want to share information for those who are interested. Below are links to ISS pictures that should help.
Hatch closing gif:
https://tenor.com/view/nasa-nasa-gifs-hatch-closing-gif-9399469
Hatch partially open:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/nasa2explore/18019303860/
Hatch fully open. This image shows the silver hatch at the top and rails on the left and right of the opening, imbedded in the white panels. There are 4 rollers on the hatch that ride in those rails.
https://scontent-atl3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.6435-9/46480104_2355310161398947_3530220288451018752_n.jpg?_nc_cat=106&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=4dc865&_nc_ohc=02n5VuTV2tAAX-qAVZx&_nc_oc=AQkGpadp_Yz4RrVziPP1NEUhHy29kocj5vP34oNH3FvUgWpV4-KtMJUMVv9OwakyKbk&_nc_ht=scontent-atl3-1.xx&oh=00_AfDw67MVkYrNU_2j8LfvWcQVSI3GYqT_g1CATL90_MfO7w&oe=65ABF894
Melville 4 months ago
Greetings Randy
Sorry for trouble again !!
I researched Rafaello and Leonardo capsules from nasa images
This Lunar gateway capsule has HEMISPHERICAL ENDS
RAFALELLO and LEONARDO stored cargo in cylinderical section
not in conical section ?
Because IT will be difficult to put a cupboard in hemispherical end
Will free arrangement of cargo suffice ? with bungee supports
Thanks for your patience
Melville Menezes
Marcelo Valderrey 4 months ago
Excellent information Randy! Thank you for allowing us to learn a little more and improve the designs.
Kind regards!
Randy Gordon 4 months ago
Hi Melville,
Rafaello and Leonardo were upgraded late in their operational lives to add stowage in their end cones. I would encourage everyone to make use of all available space, including the curved domes at each end. The stowage system in the curved areas can be different than the system used in the cylindrical section if that is what you find most efficient.
Thanks,
Randy
Germano Pecoraro Designer 4 months ago
Hi Randy Gordon - I have some troubles with CTB 0.5 and CTB 1.0.
Should the CTB 0.5 box be considered half of the CTB 1.0 box (or looking at it the other way round, is CTB 1.0 double the CTB 0.5)?
In your dimension sheet CTB 1.0 is slightly less than 2 times CTB 0.5:
42.4 to 50.2 cm,
24.8 to 42.5 cm and
23.5 to 24.8 cm.
Thanks for your feedback.
Marcelo Crestani 4 months ago
Hi Randy!
I have a question.
In historic missions, how are the attachment points attached to the main structure (pressurized volume)?
I'm in doubt if radial fixing rings can support the entire load or is necessary to use the bottom of the container for axial support. (for launch)
thanks
Marcelo Valderrey 4 months ago
Hi Randy,
Regarding the 800x800xR200mm hatch, I think it will be necessary to reconsider its dimensions if we intend to handle objects such as "6.0 CTB" whose dimensions are 897x819x533mm.
.
Even orienting this CTB according to its 819x533mm faces perpendicular to the hatch (800x800mm) there is an interference of 19mm instead of a reasonable clearance to pass through the hatch comfortably.
.
I do not consider the possibility of disassembling the 6.0 CTB inside the LM because (as I have consulted some time ago) it is assumed that large objects can exist in those bags and they are not always a "grouping of smaller bags". This means that these large CTBs should be able to pass through the LM hatch.
.
Best regards and Merry Christmas!
Randy Gordon 4 months ago
Germano,
The order (L x W x H) we listed the dimensions in the table was confusing. This would have been better:
0.5 CTB to 1.0 CTB
23.5 to 50.2 cm
42.5 to 42.5 cm
24.8 to 24.8 cm
Randy Gordon 4 months ago
Marcelo Crestani,
If you look closely at the pictures provided or online images, you will some examples of fittings; however, that is beyond the scope of the challenge. You do not need to define how the cargo system is attached to the module shell.
Thanks,
Randy
Randy Gordon 4 months ago
Marcelo Valderrey,
The hatches cannot be changed. Also, the International Docking System Standard limits the size of objects being transferred between modules to 800 mm. 6.0 CTBs will be packed and unpacked inside the logistics module. Many objects large enough to need a 6.0 CTB will fit through the hatch once removed from the bag and after packing and cushioning has been removed.
Thanks,
Randy
Marcelo Valderrey 4 months ago
Muchas gracias Randy.
¡Feliz Navidad!
Melville 4 months ago
Greetings Mr Randy Gordon
Melville here again !!
Wishing You Blessed Seasons greetings
Sorry for troubling your vacation !!
If possible Can you share some wisdom on How to Perform
Load Simulation in free environments like space ??
What is to be fixed ?
If It is a trade secret then feel free to ignore my question !!
Melville 4 months ago
Addition To Previous Comment
I have undergone official training in Ansys Worbench
There is no Space like situation in their training
Augustine Uyah 3 months ago
Hi Randy,
Regarding the target minimums, is it compulsory to match the number of each CTB configuration (i.e CTB 2,3, 4) before we can add surplus to certain CTB configurations as we see fit? Or can one choose not to provide some CTB configurations, say due to packaging inefficiencies of the said configuration, provided they can provide a custom package bag that will be able to contain any size items that the former could have contained?
I am asking this because I intend to completely omit the CTB 3.0 configuration as it does not stack favorably with the rest. However, I would include a larger configuration that stacks better and should contain any items that were planned for the 3.0 CTB.
I also intend to cut down the number of 0.5 CTBs and 6.0 CTBs and increase the number of 1.0 CTBs for similar reasons.
However, the gross CTBE will still meet the recommended minimum.
Is this allowed or will this negatively affect the submission?
Randy Gordon 3 months ago
Hi Melville,
I’m working on an answer for you but need help from others.
Randy Gordon 3 months ago
Hi Augustine,
Yes, you may deviate from the minimums, including having zero of a specific size. Extreme deviations (a module of all 0.5 CTBs) would be penalized. Moderate deviations with good rationale will not be penalized. In your summary table, please note why you did it and how you compensated for the change (as you did above). We included target minimums to avoid getting an excess of any one size, but we are eager to see unique concepts that maximize total CTBe and access.
Good question!
Thank you,
Randy
Melville 3 months ago
Greeting Mr Randy
It is very nice of your reply Anyways Very happy new Year
My entry involves Modification of Stowage of Leonardo and Rafaello
with upgraded Capacity and special-treat
I did not want to provide wrong information with Simulation
Thats why I wanted to know right process
Can You explain "(a module of all 0.5 CTBs)"
Melville 3 months ago
Greetings Mr Randy
Just to be clear
My Entry involves a dome of 150 CTB of 0.5
Will I be penalized ?
Randy Gordon 3 months ago
Hi Melville,
Happy new year! By “a module of all 0.5 CTBs” I meant a module that was designed to carry only that one size and no others. A module with a large number of 0.5 CTBs would not be penalized if it also accommodates a variety of other sizes.
Thanks,
Randy
Melville 3 months ago
Greetings Once Again Mr Randy
So a dome of 150 nos 0.5 CTB is penalized ?
My entry has so !!
Others have fitted well in Modified Stowage racks !!
By the way my file is very large 30 MB stp file
Requesting your patience viewing it
I am working on breaking it Down
By my calculation the dome can freely accommodate
5 nos 6 CTB loads
and 150 0.5 CTB Loads
But 6CTB has well fitted into the stowage racks
Wait for 2 days I will be uploading Simulation results
Also Thanking You for patience and understanding
I have enjoyed the challenge
Melville 3 months ago
Also My knowledge of Sheet Metal Racks was Improved
yohann Chabanne 3 months ago
Hi everybody,
At first i wish a good luck to everyone for this challenge.
I know that everyone is giving the best to help the NASA and i know that sometimes it can be difficult to see that the results seems strange. I have read a lot of bad comments during the selecting winers phase and after the anonciation of the results for the Super heavy logistics challenge thats why i am posting this message today.
I think that the Nasa doesn’t always want to share their choices with the other space agencies.The results of this previous challenge seemed realy curious. As a lot of people i also think that the choosen device doesn’t work at all but this is the jury’ s choice and we just have to respect this and to be humble.
I also sometimes think that the aim announced isn’t exactly the real one, Nasa has to keep a part of secret on the projects, it is obvious. But this is for them a great way to collect ideas.
One more time on the Super heavy logistics challenge, it doesn’t seems logic to consider to use the same device when the environmental datas are that different, even if the cost of develloping is realy high. On Mars you can easily imagine a kind of zeppelin using hot gaz (yes i know, you have to double check the forecast before take of 😊), on the moon the low gravity alows easily to lift heavy loads…
Just think that if your design isn’t retained, it doesn’t mean that it won’t travel in space one day, maybe it will be implemented in another project and it can give ideas for another device in the future.
Your work can also interest other space agencies or companies. I have been approached by another space agency who offers me a job. As there are no information about my interest for aeronotic and astronomy on my linkdin profile, it means that they found me on grabcad at first.
I will not participate to this challenge because this other agency wants to keep my ideas for them even if it will take a few weeks before the contract will be signed. This is the same for the coming challenges, according to the subject they can forbid me to submit a design.
But if i can i will do it with a great pleasure, we have to be honored to have the possibility to help the space exploration and i thank the Nasa for this.
Don’t only think to you personal result, feel that we are a team, we’re all together trying to increase the humans possibilities.
The jury has to do a choice, it is a hard task and some of you will certainly be frustrated.
Just be proud to be a part of this and keep on watching the sky and following the Nasa’s publications, you might see your design in another planet one day, isn’t it the best award ? Beter than winning a challenge…
Thanks again to the Nasa for giving us this opportunity and congratulation to everyone (not only the winners) for the excellent job done.
Melville 3 months ago
Hi yohann
Very interesting comment
Please refer to Video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsZZ_8OsiKg
That why I am modifying an existing Nasa Design with incremental innovation
I also Think my design can work with amazon logistics and lot of plastic Component manufacturers
Melville 3 months ago
Adding to my previous comment
My design school teacher told me
Think beyond patents
Randy Gordon 3 months ago
Melville,
Sorry for the delay in responding to your question about load simulation. It is out of my area and I had to ask for help. Here's what I got:
You can assume any mounting point to the LM is rigid. Computational codes for structural analysis include what is called inertia relief to determine deformations in a free structure undergoing acceleration loading. Information at this link may be helpful:
https://simutechgroup.com/static-analysis-with-inertia-relief-in-ansys-workbench-mechanical/
Thanks,
Randy
Randy Gordon 3 months ago
*** PLEASE SUBMIT ALL REQUIRED DATA ***
—-
*** It is critical that you provide a table of your proposed quantities of CTBs. ***
—-
“Required Manifest and Summary of Deliverables” can be found here:
A link is listed above under “Important Downloads”.
Link/file name: “Provided Data PDF”
On page 7 of the pdf, see Section 3.5, Required Manifest and Summary of Deliverables.
—-
Link to PDF:
https://go.stratasys.com/rs/533-LAV-099/images/Cargo%20Packing%20Checklist%20-%20Provided%20Data.pdf?version=0
CARLOS SEBASTIAN DI GIULIO 3 months ago
Consulta, hasta que fecha continua el concurso? Saludos cordiales
Randy Gordon 3 months ago
The challenge ends Monday Jan 8th. The number of days remaining are shown at the top right of the page under the prize total. The deadline was previously Nov 28 but was extended.
CARLOS SEBASTIAN DI GIULIO 3 months ago
Gracias Randy
MysteriousH 3 months ago
Hey, I noticed that there is a requirement of a maximum of 3 pages in the PDF, is this a strict requirement or may it be longer (to alllow for more readable images etc.)?
Randy Gordon 3 months ago
The 3 page limit was only intended for an executive summary. You can post as many images as you want. We called for that before understanding the format of how entries a done in the GrabCAD system. We value a short summary but are flexible on the format and page count.
Randy Gordon 3 months ago
We are discussing the error that caused the deadline to expire prior to 11:59. Please follow these comments for updates.
Melissa Yearta 3 months ago
::1/9/24 UPDATE::
A system error caused the challenge to expire earlier than planned. We are extending the deadline until 11:59 eastern time tomorrow, 1/10/24, to provide an opportunity for those who were not able to submit their entries last night. We apologize for the situation.
andres 3 months ago
acabo de subir mi diseño y son las 6:40 cali colombia
andres 3 months ago
en este momento estan en la entrada 92 y porque no tomo ni veo mi entrada ?
Emanuel Alberto Martin 3 months ago
Buenas noches Andres, en tu proyecto tenes que utilizar la etiqueta "NASALUNARGATEWAY" para que puedas participar del concurso, así que deberías de agregarla.
Saludos!
andres 3 months ago
Gracias Emanuel Alberto por tu aclaración
andres 3 months ago
Buen dia. Tengo una consulta. Porque la descripción de mi entrada dice que tengo 0 archivos cuando realmente hay 22 archivos que he subido. ?
Marcelo Valderrey 3 months ago
Hola Andres: yo veo que dice "Files (22)" y todo parece estar Ok!
Germano Pecoraro Designer 3 months ago
English !?
Marcelo Valderrey 3 months ago
Germano,
Andres is from Colombia and asked in Spanish. I am from Argentina and I answered him in Spanish because his question was about a very personal situation (not of interest to all participants) and, furthermore, I answered him because I don't think he will get official answers from this chat at the moment.
Germano Pecoraro Designer 3 months ago
Marcelo - I understand your friend Andres' problems,
but at university I was taught to write in the international language which today is English, in the past it was French, in the future perhaps it will be Chinese, Arabic or who knows what else.
To avoid translation problems, because I am not a native English speaker, the original Italian text is uploaded as a courtesy!
If you wish, can I do anything for your friend Andres?
Marcelo Valderrey 3 months ago
You're right.
Adam Kooperman 2 months ago
Congratulations to the finalists and everyone who participated in the challenge!
Emanuel Alberto Martin 2 months ago
Congratulations to all the selected candidates, the level of the projects is very high!
Randy, I wanted to ask if you had been able to analyze my project: Lunar Gateway Rotational Hub.
I was hoping to at least be among the top 10 selected.
Looking forward to your response,
Thank you very much!
Marcelo Crestani 2 months ago
Congratulations to all participants, excellent challenge!!!
A$ma HAFSA 2 months ago
It was an excellent challenge, Congratulations to all participants.
Behrooz.B 2 months ago
Congratulations on the final ten designs and I am impatiently waiting for the first to third designs
Stéphane Gazel 2 months ago
Congratulations to all the participants, it was a lot of fun for me to do. Good luck to the final ten finalists!
Marcelo Valderrey 2 months ago
My sincere congratulations to the finalists and the rest of the colleagues who accepted the challenge!
.
I will say what I think is "always missing" in these challenges: sharing with the contestants (privately or publicly) the score that each proposal has obtained.
.
I think that knowing what was considered good or bad in each design is essential to be able to learn and improve.
.
Submitting a proposal involves a significant effort for any designer and I believe that they deserve to know their score (of course, in a "unidirectional and without right of reply" manner, as information that has already been generated and can simply be shared to provide feedback to their design practice).
.
I assume I could be wrong, but I see it as with my students: if I evaluate one of them with a 10, I congratulate them and tell them everything I liked about their work, turning them into a model to follow for the rest. However, it is more important to tell whoever I rated with a 5, 3, or 0 what was wrong because they need to adjust their design practice. In my experience, imitating the good is a "weak way" to improve, while identifying and correcting the bad is a "strong way" to improve, and both are necessary!
.
Kind regards!
Stéphane Gazel 2 months ago
Great initiative Marcello
Adam Kooperman 2 months ago
I agree with Marcelo.
Emanuel Alberto Martin 2 months ago
Good afternoon!
I also agree with Marcelo.
Preparing a presentation for this type of competition requires a lot of effort and time invested on our part. It would be a nice gesture on your part to provide a rating for each project presented.
Marcelo Valderrey 2 months ago
With only 4 interested in the proposal, it is logical that it will not prosper!
Fer Ivac 2 months ago
First of all, congratulations to all participants. There were really a lot of amazing proposals, and even if not everyone was able to be chosen as finalist, that doesn´t mean the quality of their work wasn´t at a top level.
Even though I love Marcelo's idea (everyone would like to improve their designs), I think is very unrealistic. That would require the judges to make a complete report/analysis of every single design uploaded. For this challenge there were 90+ designs, what happens if a challenge has +2000 entries? We would have to wait more than two years for the results.
In the case that the judges were required just to mention the evaluation points every design had, that would cause a lot of controversies and discussions. In this particular challenge there were 4 well defined evaluation criteria; so, what´s wrong about knowing my evaluation points, right? Let´s not forget that there may be some criteria that somehow wasn´t mentioned. For example: How many of you know how is the exercise bicycle attached to the ISS, and why? Did you take that into consideration in your designs?
I suppose the judges are going to choose those concepts that are more probable to make it into the final design of the module. It´s very likely that they have a much better understanding of the environment/conditions under which our designs are going to be confronted to, even if among us (the participants) are engineers with expertise in themes like mechanics, phisics, aerospace, etc.
The judges don´t have time to justify any of their decisions. I love the comment “yohann Chabanne” left some time ago. We should take that as motivation even if we sometimes don´t agree with the judges´ decisions.
As a proposal, instead of demanding the judges to spend more time with our projects, why don´t we ask this Grabcad community for some feedback about our designs. (as a golden rule: don´t expect others to spend the time you are not willing to invest in the project of others). Who knows, maybe we even get more information than a 3-15 jury panel may have, and in that way, we can improve our designs in a “strong way”.
Fer Ivac 2 months ago
By the way, before I open a Pandora box, let me explain what I mean about giving feedback to other designs.
We give feedback only to those who ask for it, and we should not compare the designs of others in a negative way. Ideally, we only make observations about the design asked for, and we should try not to use the work of others as a reference (even if it is to show a better example).
This should not be a forum to criticize the work of others, especially if no one (the author) asks for an opinion.
Marcelo Valderrey 2 months ago
@Fer Ivac
I'm not sure if you understood my point. I just said that if the judges use a scoring sheet with certain criteria they could share it without doing any additional work. I do it all the time to grade student projects, evaluate candidates in a teaching competition, etc. I have never asked anyone to do additional work, nor to compare designs with others, nor to open Pandora's boxes, nor to give opinions to those who do not ask for it. I just tried to express "it would be good to have feedback" especially since it is already prepared (even if it is cursory) by the judges as a tool for choosing finalists.
I don't think it's accurate that you say my proposal was "very unrealistic because it would involve...... (things I didn't actually suggest)"
Melville 2 months ago
Greetings
@Marcelo @Fer Ivac
I highly agree with Mr Marcelo......
Because in past competitions my entry was copied and won prize
And I don't think my entry was poor
Fer Ivac is a finalist thats why he is saying 'unrealistic'
Thinking about it
Nasa is big team It should not be difficult to provide feedback for
85 plus entries
In one month they came up with finalists .....
Anyways Congrats to all participants
Fer Ivac 2 months ago
Marcelo, sorry if you felt I was attacking you. To be honest, I wasn´t even able to define a concrete proposal in what you wrote. I agree 100% when you say that “identifying and correcting the bad is a strong way to improve”.
What I don´t think is realistic, is that the Jury is going to share the contestants (even privately) the scores that each proposal obtained. If I´m wrong, I guess everyone is going to get their results.
On the other hand, how does just knowing my score is going to help me to identify and correct the bad if at the end of the day it is just a number? When a student gets a 3, 5, or 8 out of 10, does he/she know automatically what did he/she get wrong?
Fer Ivac 2 months ago
For anyone that thinks that there is/should be a sheet score for every project, you may be right, but let´s think about other possibilities. Imagine you are part of a jury that has to evaluate +90 projects. You open and meticulously analyze each and every project. With your expertise, you realize that some projects (already at first sight) are not even viable. Do you really think that the jury is going to take the time to fill out a sheet score for all those projects just because the author(s) may have invested a lot of time and effort? It is not that the jury doesn´t have anything else to do. What if each jury member only has to pick their 15 favorite projects without having to fill out a sheet score? With the 15 picks of every jury member, there are enough projects to make a preselection and then award points to select the winners. This way the jury doesn´t has to numerical evaluate i.e. the System Mass of every single project.
Now let’s imagine everyone get their scoring results (in private), but someone (for any reason) upload his/her results. Somehow, we get to a point where people start complaining that they should have got better scores because in comparison their project was better. Do you think anyone would benefit from this possible scenario? Do you think Grabcad (including us as a community) or NASA would benefit from this? Not even without giving scores is possible to have people not complaining about the results, so everybody please forgive me if I think it is not realistic. That doesn't mean that I don´t find nice the idea (if there was a way to avoid any conflict).
Marcelo Valderrey 2 months ago
@Fer Ivac
The reason why I disagree that "it is not realistic" is because I have been doing it myself as head of seven engineering chairs for 25 years. In one of these chairs there are 80 students who present between 3 and 4 projects each quarter. In the other, there are about 35 advanced students presenting complex design projects.
.
Furthermore, for each of these corrections there are one or two instances of recovery (students rework and I reevaluate their work, because "learning is an incremental process" and the feedback and opportunity for correction collaborate with said process). What do I and thousands of other teachers do? It's simple (but no less laborious):
.
1. I define a grading sheet with as many items as I think are necessary to evaluate each type of task.
.
2. I stipulate a scale to evaluate each item (not necessarily all of them range from 1 to 5, or from 1 to 10), some of them even admit a qualitative scale.
.
3. I explain to the students the work, its objectives and the way in which it will be evaluated. It's a question of transparency because I don't want them to "have to guess what the teacher likes" but I want them to be clear about "what we're trying to achieve and why."
.
4. Between three juries (professors from each department) we individually fill out our correction forms and then exchange ideas, to try to understand the cases in which there is no reasonable agreement on the scores.
.
5. We share with each student their row of the corrections table including the titles of each item and its expanded description.
.
6. As it is an academic setting, we do more interactions than would be applicable to a NASA challenge, since "we need not only to know the result, broken down into important items, but above all we need to know how to use that information to improve".
.
7. It is not necessary in all cases to review 100% of the project, since there are "disqualifying elements" that cause the review to end quickly and the project to be rejected for a strong reason.
.
PS: What each person does with their score is their problem. You can use it to understand and improve, or to cry like a child and protest (in vain, because in GC no one will attend to you), or share it in a constructive spirit. I don't agree that "to avoid misuse" it is better not to provide a tool. That, in some ways, is underestimating people by suggesting that they "won't be able to handle the truth of a situation," or that they are emotionally unstable and dangerous, or incapable and so "they must be protected and misinformed" to avoid problems.
Randy Gordon 2 months ago
Thank you all for working on this challenge! I have very much enjoyed reviewing the entries. I deeply value the time that was clearly spent and wish we could give extensive individual feedback. We had entries from approximately 35 countries! I love that! Space exploration unites us (https://www.nasa.gov/artemis-accords ). I also admire the kind intentions in the comments above, particularly as people try to communicate in second languages.
The challenge was complicated for you because we asked for competing factors: pack it full but give good access … and keep it light. It was also complicated to judge because of the same competing factors. Many, many entries were very high quality, and it was hard to choose among them. I will try to develop some general feedback that may be somewhat helpful to you. For example, I wish we had put more emphasis on the extreme need for the system to be light weight. This was our shortcoming, not yours.
Thank you again,
Randy
Adam Kooperman 2 months ago
Thank you Randy!
Fer Ivac 2 months ago
Thank you Randy. I hope NASA and the other space agencies have obtained the necessary inspiration and ideas to develop the best possible space module. It was an incredible challenge and hopefully there will be more of these challenges in the future. I wish you the best of luck with this project.
Marcelo Valderrey 2 months ago
Thanks Randy. Much success with the project!
Augustine Uyah 2 months ago
Hello!
First, Congratulations to all the participants as usual.
These competitions are never easy to partake in as they require a lot of effort on both the sides of the participants and the single judge who keeps answering questions for almost two months. Personally, I am always impressed that the judges are able to keep up with the sheer number of questions, so kudos to the judges for that.
The participants too, really try a lot to transform the requests in their mind to a workable design, and while not all submissions will be chosen, they definitely took a lot of time and effort to complete.
Now, our individual reasons for entering competitions like this will definitely differ, but I'm pretty sure the majority of us enjoy the thrill of engaging in engineering competitions like this and applying our skills (engineering, design, and problem solving) to try to create a solution. As an engineering student, I know I learn a lot from each competition, and I value that above everything else (of course, coming from an academic setting, that's to be expected).
It is on that note that I say that I support Prof Marcelo's idea, just with a little edit. Cos I believe that feedback will help the participants grow, and also understand why the top entries were chosen. The feedback can be given in the form where the jury gives out an ideal scenario for each of the evaluation criteria, with feedback on the ideal scenario. Say, if an evaluation Criteria was "System Weight", it could go like this:
"System weight: Ideal range 1000-1200kg. Deviations were considered where the added weight was proven to result in significantly improved stiffness...etc"
This would allow the participants to Guage their submissions based on how far their entry was from each of the Evaluation Criteria's "Ideal scenarios" and make informed decisions on how to improve their designs.
Of course, if the judges have the time and capacity, they may also send in the score sheets privately as earlier suggested, so the participants may be able to better judge themselves and see how much of an effect each decision they made had on their judgement. Of course this would also help participants gauge if the good decisions they took were effective.
To analyse how this could be effective, in my Supercharged LEGO, I designed the Stowage System mass to be 2500kg, and while I could probably go through multiple cycles of stress analysis, weight trimming, and more stress analysis to see how much structural strength I was sacrificing for less weight, I left it at 2500kg, since I had already designed it from the ground up to minimize weight and I wasn't sure of any weight targets, or system mass to Cargo mass ratio targets.
A general feedback for each evaluation criteria as mentioned could help us know where we excelled and where we fell short, and I believe it would help prevent people from criticizing other works.
Again, congratulations to all the participants for their excellent work done and to all the finalists.
Rocky Jiang about 2 months ago
Congratulations to everyone, taking part in this challenge was an eye-opening experience. Will we be hearing anything about the special-recognition designs soon?
Melville about 2 months ago
Greetings Randy
Any specific feedback about my entry ?
I admit I am not Top 10
I not even a High Level Mechanical Designer but yes I wish to know my weakness to improve
But yes I have completed some extra curricular mechanical design courses
Because I am planning to complete my MS in Entwicklung in German University
I am also planning my PhD in nature inspired bionic mechanical design
I have executed demo or practise projects in sheet metal component design
For 95 percent manufacturability
I want to include this competition in CV to admission commitee
My BS (Bachelor Engineering ) is 75.4% OR (9 CGPA)
Private feedback or Public Feeback both will Suffice
If any payment is required Feel free to quote
Greatly Apology If I Have been rude to other participants I deeply apologize !!
Thanking You for your Time !!
Faithfully
Melville Menezes
Marcelo Crestani about 2 months ago
Hello everyone, I'm very happy with the result. Congratulations to all the competitors. It was a very special challenge. I would like to thank NASA and Grabcad for the proposal. These challenges make us feel important and teach us a lot!!!!
Marcelo Valderrey about 2 months ago
Congratulations to all the winners and participants in general for their excellent work, and to the jury for the difficult task of evaluating and choosing.
Greetings and until the next challenge!
Behrooz.B about 2 months ago
Congratulations to everyone who participated in the challenge and until the next challenge, good luck
Adam Kooperman about 2 months ago
Congratulations to the winners, participants, jury and Grabcad too. It was a very interesting challenge again. Looking forward the next one!
Augustine Uyah about 2 months ago
Congratulations to everyone who participated in this challenge. It was very educating and engaging. Massive thanks to NASA, the jury and Grabcad for bringing us these challenges every year.
We would go at it again in the next challenge.
Stéphane Gazel about 2 months ago
Congratulations to all participants. Congratulations to the finalists and thank you to the GrabCAD team and NASA for this dhallenge.
Kriso Leinfellner about 2 months ago
Hi All, this is really very very exciting!
This open mode of a competition, where all submissions are immediately visible, was new to me, and has helped a lot in understanding and narrowing down the problem.
I am in awe of the incredibly professional and detailed designs and modeling skills behind many of the other submissions. I am not a mechanical engineer myself, so I had to approach the task from a different angle.
I found that a radial structure - although actually very tempting - does not seem efficient for stacking rectangular objects, but only multiplies the "corner problem". I'm glad that the decision to keep the solution light, resilient and simple (ok, I couldn't do it any other way) seemed appropriate to the jury given the complex requirements of a space mission.
A big thank you to the GrabCAD and NASA teams, and especially to all the other participants!
Mustafa ÇOBANOĞLU about 2 months ago
Hello everyone. It was a very exciting and educational process for me. I would like to thank all participants, jury members and NASA team. I will be looking forward to new challenges.
Germano Pecoraro Designer about 2 months ago
Melville - I agree with Melville Menezes, why can't those who participate in these engineering challenges certify participation in these contests?
I also agree about feedback for improvement, I speak as a professional designer!
Fer Ivac about 2 months ago
Congratulations to all winners and participants of this challenge! Also thank you NASA (and all the other agencies involved) as well as GRABCAD for making this possible.
andres about 2 months ago
Veo que no revisaron todos los proyectos incluido mi concepto que considero es de los mejores
Please log in to add comments.
Log in