RASC-AL 2016 Questions and Answers November 13, 2015 3-4 PM.

RASC-AL 2016Questions and Answers

November 13, 2015 3-4 PM

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Welcome and Introduction

Pat Troutman NASA Langley Research Center

Stacy DeesNational Institute of Aerospace (NIA)

RASC-AL Program [email protected]

757-218-8313

Shelley SpearsNational Institute of Aerospace

(NIA)RASC-AL Program Director

[email protected] 757-325-6732

Christopher JonesNASA Langley Research Center

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]


Agenda

• Welcome/Introductions

• Roll Call

• Context for themes

• Questions from teams• Begin with questions received in writing• Additional questions

• Reminder of upcoming deadlines

National Aeronautics and Space Administration Your Title Here 4

General Programmatic Questions

How will we be evaluated? Do we compete only with those under the same theme, or do we compete with all the themes?• All teams are evaluated against each other, regardless of

theme. At the 2016 RASC-AL Forum, the judges will select the top 2 overall winning teams, but they usually also award/recognize the top winner in each theme during the awards ceremony.

What are the limits on length for the abstract and the mid term papers?• Please see the Requirements and Forms page for guidelines on each

deliverable.• Abstract – 5 pages maximum (including figures, tables,

and references)• Mid-Term Review - 1 page of information graphics and/or

calculations 2 pages of text maximum



Does it matter if our slides are in standard (4:3) or widescreen (16:9) format?• The projector used for the Forum will display your

presentation in standard (4:3) format, regardless of which format you use. For the best display, please put your presentation in standard.

Is there a limit on how many universities can join together to assemble a team, as long as there is a U.S. team with at least 2 students and an advisor?• There is no limit to the number of different universities

that can work together for a joint RASC-AL submission. Feel free to form your team as you see fit. But, if a multi-university team is selected, we will send funding to the lead institution's faculty advisor. It is their responsibility to share that funding with students from other universities who may want to attend the Forum in June.

I have submitted the Notice of Intent and put in the information of our partnering international university on the form. Does the international university need to submit a separate Notice of Intent as well?• No. We only require one NOI per university, and the US-based

university should submit all deliverables on behalf of the team.



Members from our international team would like to travel to the forum. With higher travelling costs, will RASC-AL/NIA cover the travelling costs for international students? Can the international students receive funds from their university or outside sponsorship sources?• NASA/NIA have limited funds (maximum = $6000 per team) to help

facilitate full participation in the RASC-AL Forum. Teams are encouraged to do as much additional fundraising as is needed in order to participate in the RASC-AL Competition.

If my advisor cannot attend the Forum, what are our options to compete?• Another faculty/staff member from your university may

attend in his/her place. Preferably an advisor who has been working with the team.

When will the 2016 Compliance Matrices be released?• Next week. We will email the teams and post on the website

when they are ready

Will there be a utility/mechanism for future Q&A?• Send any future questions to [email protected] and we will

respond to you via email. We will also post all questions/responses on the FAQ section of our the website. Check the FAQs frequently for updates.


General Questions

Is the abstract more like a preliminary design proposal or a technical paper abstract? • Closer to a preliminary design proposal, but technical detail should be

included if available. You want to make the case that your proposed solution is applicable to the theme, innovative, and feasible.

What are the key points you are looking for in a winning project? • A winning project should lay out the context of the problem being solved,

how the solution was developed, what the solution is (concept of operations, configurations, quantitative data, etc.), and what potential challenges have to be overcome to implement the solution (e.g. cost, schedule, technology development, reliability). We are looking for understanding and innovation, NOT ideas pulled from the internet and inserted into a different context.

Do the judges look more at quantity (every possible scenario and solution thought about) or quality details (calculations of pressure loss, friction coefficients, and drags in the liquid transport pipes)? • The judges value the correct combination of depth and breadth

associated with finding a solution for each particular problem. If an in-depth analysis is done on an aspect of the solution that is not a driver compared to other contributors, you may get dinged. If you wave your hands at a key enabler of your solution without any understanding or explanation of how it can be realized, you WILL get dinged.


General QuestionsTo what depth should out structural systems be analyzed? How much FEM should we provide with out report? • Detailed FEM is probably not needed unless for some key enabling

infrastructure. What do you need to assess to develop accurate technology development road maps and associated costs? If it’s not KEY to the concept, we don’t need to see it.

Can we include technology and advancement concepts that have not been tested or implemented yet, but are planned to be a reality by the time we utilize them? • Yes, but you must consider the impact of the development and

implementation of those technologies (added cost, schedule risk, etc.). A good concept to embrace is that if has no one else has paid for getting it to that point yet…you need to assume that YOU will need to pay for it out of your budget.

What should be included in our final technical report: calculations, drawings, CAD models, experimental data? We are asking about required information supporting our up to 15-page Technical Paper to be submitted by June 2, 2016 (if we would be selected to compete). • 15 pages isn’t a lot of space, so be economical in how you present your

concept. Think about ways to boil down a complex set of calculations into a key equation or a large quantity of data into a central insight. Your paper should present the context of the problem you’re trying to solve, how you solved it, the solution itself, and what challenges it faces to implementation, along with the necessary figures and data to support the point you’re making. Boil down to the crux of the matter; be comprehensive but efficient. Judges won’t read past 15 pages (including appendices).


Questions: Crew-tended Co-orbiting ISS Facility

Is this facility meant to be a smaller replacement for the current ISS with the possibility of expansion in the future? Confusion is about the budget: the current ISS is a $100 billion project, while the budget for the new facility is only $3 billion.• Crew-tended implies a significantly smaller facility

within the budget cap. There won’t be crew on it all the time. The $3 B is just to get it up and operational – it does NOT include the cost for continual operation.

• Special Note: If you use commercial facilities (i.e. Bigelow) – talk about how it will be capable of dormant operations to be the next stepping stone to MARS. That is the overall goal of this facility.


Questions: Lunar Ice-Trap ISRU Mining, Processing, and Storage Infrastructure

Does 100t refer to metric tons (1000 kg) or U.S. customary tons (2000 lb. = 907.18 kg)?• 1000 kg

Should we also consider alternate uses for the H2 and O2 such as potable water or oxygen for human consumption? Would these values then be included in the 100t?• Focus on the delivery of the 100t of propellant.

Does the first 10 years of planning allow for the launching of an informational payload, for instance a satellite or a rover? • Yes

Are the boundaries of the permanent infrastructure limited to surface operations, or would it be within the scope of the project to have orbiting/non-grounded components like satellites and docking stations? • Emphasis is on the ground systems that acquire resources and

convert to propellant. Can address off-the-surface assets that support that, like comm satellites or survey equipment, but do not focus on the transportation elements that transport or use the propellant. We’re looking for that ‘magic number’ about what will it will take (mass and technology requirements) to process that 100 tons.



We assume that ice particles are trapped in lunar regolith in permanently shaded areas with temperatures below sublimation with average concentration of 5-6% from total material mass. Is this correct or we may expect compact chunks or large deposits of ice that we need to identify in these areas, to extract and to process subsequently. Do we need to take into account issues of managing waste from our production process? • You may make either assumption, but be explicit about what

your assumption is, and how you justify it (e.g. previous measurements, anticipated expectations published in the literature). Don’t just say, “there will be plenty of ice”, and leave it at that. If you expect waste management to lead to significant quantities of mass to handle (e.g. regolith), you should have some idea of how you will deal with that.

What data on physical properties can we use for lunar regolith to design our robotic mining system? • Consider looking at the NASA Technical Reports Server

(NTRS) for previously published information on the properties of lunar regolith.



Do you have recommendations for particular electrolysis technologies and, probably, for potential vendors? • Several concepts have been previously described in the

literature; search the NASA Technical Reports Server for terms like in-situ resource utilization, lunar regolith, electrolysis, lunar volatiles, etc.

Do you have recommendations on technology for hydrogen liquefaction that can be used on this Moon station? • Several concepts have been previously described in the

literature; search the NASA Technical Reports Server for terms like in-situ resource utilization, lunar regolith, liquefaction, cryocoolers, lunar volatiles, etc.


Questions: Crewed Mars Moons MissionMust we create and deliver all of the tele-operated Mars assets, or will we have access to existing vehicles already on Mars such as Curiosity or other rovers?• You do not need to create/deliver the tele-operated Mars assets.

Assume they are already in place.

Is any of the architecture used to achieve this mission intended to be reusable? (ie. a moon base, interplanetary transport vehicle, etc.) Should we be planning for the future possibility of the Martian moon base being used by future crews? • You can examine the benefits and drawbacks associated with

reusability, and make a case for one or the other based on your findings. While not necessary, it is beneficial if you can demonstrate reusability.

Can you clarify what is meant by: “must include tele-operating Mars surface assets (i.e., rovers, ISRU production plants, infrastructure cameras, small Mars flyers, deployment of power and support systems, etc.) while the astronauts are not conducting Extravehicular Activities (EVAs).” Does this mean assets on the surface of Mars or on a Martian moon?• Assets on the surface of Mars; In your spare time, you WILL be

doing activities to operate things on Mars. Plan on making time in your schedule for this.

What is meant by “infrastructure cameras”? • Cameras on the surface of Mars used to observe the operation of

teleoperated or autonomous systems.


Questions: Crewed Mars Moons MissionShould the mission be aimed at providing infrastructure for a future, long-term manned presence on Mars/a Martian Moon, or should it only work to support its own immediate goals of putting a crew on a moon? • The most important part of the theme is to achieve the initial

goals of sending a crew of 4 to either moon for at least 300 days. You can look at the tradeoff between designing the systems to be extensible to longer missions vs the investments required to enable that.

Does the crew need to be on the surface of the moon for 300 days or more, or can some of that time be spend co-orbiting with the moon? • 300 days is the target, and if orbital mechanics changes that by

plus or minus 50 days then explain why. Its also OK to leave the surface for a short while to shuttle supplies or something similar, but the total duration on the surface of the moon should be around 300 days. Looking for long duration missions (+/- 50 days) - HUNDREDS of days, on the order of 300.

Where did the theme originate from? Are there significant known advantages to exploring the moons of Mars as opposed to Mars itself, or is the goal of the project to explore the cost benefits of a moon outpost? • The moons of Mars could offer an opportunity to explore the

Martian system without having to solve the challenges of landing on and ascending from Mars itself. Thus, it allows for the achievement of ambitious exploration goals without having to overcome those additional challenges. Investigating 2 bodies we know little about.


Questions: Earth Independent 1G Space Station

Where will the station be located? • Choice of location for the station is up to each team. If your goal

is to be a biosphere near Mars, put it near Mars. If not, put it wherever you want, but justify why.

What is the required lifetime of the station? • Ideally, the station has an indefinite lifetime. Obviously, things

wear down and have to be replaced, but the design should be long enough for multiple generations to use (rule of thumb is a generation is ~20 years). Things are going to start wearing out in 10-15 years. Figure out how to patch/fix/replace those.

Can we assume NASA launch vehicles are immediately available? The RFP sets the start date as 2015; however, NASA launch vehicles (SLS/SLS heavy) will not be prepared to launch for several years. Can we assume that NASA launch vehicle are available at the start time of the mission? The first SLS is scheduled for 2018. Be realistic in your launch

expectations (i.e., don’t expect to get 10 launches in 2018).



The ISS was an international effort. Is there any possibility we could collaborate on our station with other countries and consider their contributions in budgeting?

Yes, we expect that you would use commercial and/or international partners in any of the 2016 RASC-AL themes, and consider them in your budgeting. But remember that historically speaking, most international collaborators will not contribute funding toward a NASA initiative. They will, however, bring resources to the table in a truly collaborative scenario for their portion of the project. Do not plan to use them as a magic answer to your budget.

Similar question: May the participation of other space agencies be considered or is the station exclusive to NASA?• See answer above

Is developing a lunar base allowed within the mission design? • If you feel it necessary to support the space station (e.g. to produce

resources to ship to the space station), it is allowed. But the station itself cannot be on a planetary body.

• However, if the purpose is to use raw materials from the moon and schlep it to the 1 G Space Station, go for it! Just be sure to include all of that in your budget.


Questions: Earth Independent 1G Space StationThe 1g space station theme it states that, "the facility will be completely independent from Earth resupply after 5 years of operation." Does this mean that it will have to produce its own food after these 5 years? • Yes

To what depth may “Earth independence” be interpreted in terms of other station functions, such as communications (must Earth be able to establish communication with the station at all times?), vehicle docking (for non-resupply purposed missions) and crew exchange? • We’re not assuming Earth goes away in 5 years…just that you won’t NEED

anything from Earth after 5 years. The goal of the station is to be able to operate without resupply from Earth; however, in other functions, it can and should still have capabilities that allow it to interact with Earth. So, maximizing communication time is ideal, but if the location of the station necessitates blackouts, explain why. It should be capable of docking and crew exchange, if nothing else from the pre-independence missions.

The theme states that the space station must be "independent from Earth resupply after 5 years of operation." When it says "5 years of operation," does that mean 5 years after the first pieces are sent up, after the first people are sent up, or after the entire structure has been completed? • 5 years AFTER the entire structure has been completed before it needs to be

Earth Independent.



Does the facility need to be Earth-independent in terms of the expansion of the infrastructure of the space habitat to accommodate an increasing population over time and completely rely only over non-Earth ISRU for that? • After 5 years of operation (same as above)

What is the definition of “Earth independent” station? Does it only mean noncritical resupplies are prohibited? Could we Earth resupply if absolutely necessary? (i.e. if resources are unavailable or prohibitively expensive through ISRU). • This is where the revolutionary part comes in. Yes, after 5 years of operation

NOTHING comes from Earth (other than CNN and NetFlix – i.e., communications), but it can come from moons, Mars and asteroids…

If another mission per-chance happens to be planned near the destination we have chosen or if we figure out a flyby for mission to other places through our destination, would sending supplies to our space station through that mission be considered as non-Earth ISRU? • So long as the “supplies” did not originate from Earth. If it says “Made on

Earth” – that is rejected!

After the resupply window closes can we still rely on Earth support for things like culture, entertainment, and computing? • Yes, the goal isn’t to cut off all communication with Earth. However, there

should be adequate computing capability on-board to operate the station.



If a lunar base is permitted, can components be delivered prior to the beginning of “operation” (as stated in the proposal)? • Any development of a lunar base (or other supporting location to the

space station) must be accounted for in the budget and schedule constraints as given.

The FAQ’s state detailed FEM is probably not necessary, to what detail is recommended for the proposal of structural systems? • You need to be able to justify why your systems are sufficient within

the 15 page limit of the technical report. Think about how to condense more detailed analysis into key insights. Focus on those KEY ENABLERS

As far as budget, do launches using SLS count towards our budget? • Yes, look at NASA FY16 budget for SLS and assume you can get two

launches a year for that annual budget

Is it a requirement that the station is sustaining 1G upon the arrival of first crew?• No – but the sooner the better… certainly by year 5

Does the station necessarily have to be in 1G when the first people are sent up to the station? • See above



What is included in the statement, “derive an architecture” in 2030 year timespan? Does operation date mean the date a crew arrives? Or the date of launch? Should we emphasize crew activities (i.e. science goals)? • An architecture includes the system concept for the space station (mass,

size, location), as well as the systems, launches, and technologies required to build towards the desired end state.

Could you give an example of a design aspect that addresses the following: "The architecture will convey a series of missions (campaigns) over the 20-30 year period that shows the gradual buildup of capabilities, infrastructure and risk reduction?” • Example: the station might require in-space assembly of multiple

elements, so the buildup would include the sequence of launches, what the size of each element is, how much it costs and how it fits under the budget curve, etc. How are you going to accommodate everything you need to do on your campaign?

By 16-24 people, should it be able to operate at nominal levels for 24? Or can it support 24 for reduced periods of time and have a nominal crew of between 16 and 24? • 16 is the minimum crew it must support, but having the ability to support

more is an important goal as well (especially given the objective of allowing humanity to reproduce on the station). Anywhere between 16-24 at any given time is acceptable



For the space station, it states that it needs to be capable of providing 1G, however, does it have to maintain 1G at all times? Can it maintain less than 1G? Does the entire station have to simulate 1G? Are variable gravity levels allowed if proved acceptable to a human crew (is the simulated 1G a strict parameter)? • The station must provide habitable volume that is constantly at 1G, as

the premise for this theme is that long term survival and reproduction in lower levels of gravity is not possible. Not all of the station has to be in 1G.

While the theme says that we have to provide 1g environment continuously to the crew but for some things that we have planned we may need to occasionally temporarily shut down the systems providing 1g environment (for short intervals). Would that be acceptable as continuous 1g environment? • Yes, but explain why. A good system would accommodate for going

between 1 G to 0 G. (i.e., a week or two per year is probably expected).

Continued from above, to what depth must we consider the social implications for persons on Earth and on the station, in regards to the first space-born people? • This is an interesting area to consider, but the focus of your project

should be on the design of the station itself, and how you build toward enabling it given the constraints. This is an engineering competition, not a psychological one. We’re not looking at sociology stuff.


Questions: Earth Independent 1G Space StationHow far in depth should we go in designing the crew living conditions for the 1G Space Station? Should we describe allowances for sociological and psychological health? Or is the focus on the technical aspects of the station? • Human factors and technical aspects are both important. The design for the

human factors (e.g. large enough volume to prevent claustrophobia) should drive the technical design. Don’t ignore human aspects, but don’t focus on it, either.

To what extent do the structural details of the space station needs to be described in the abstract? • You must make a convincing case that your proposed solution can meet the

goals and constraints of the theme. You can give example calculations, or describe why you expect your eventual design to be able to meet the requirements. Focus on the things that make a difference.

Regarding the habitat modules in which our crew would stay, can we design an original habitat module or do we have to use the already existing habitat modules? If we are allowed to design our habitat module, how much details will we have explain about it in abstract?(We do plan to give a schematic representation and the TRLs but excluding that how much will we have to explain about it?) • You can design your own module(s). In the abstract, you need to make the

case that your design will be capable of meeting the goals and constraints of the theme, but you do not have to have definitively solved the problem. Justify (briefly) what you are proposing.



Since a major concern for the crew survival and the habitat is going to be the shielding from Galactic Cosmic Radiation in deep space, can technologies which currently look promising but have low TRLs like active shielding (e.g. superconductive shielding) be included to serve the purpose? • If you can make a convincing case that such technologies can be

matured to readiness under both the budget and schedule constraints described in the theme, then yes. You can’t just assume they will be with no justification.

Regarding the crew, since the main purpose of sending a space station to deep space is to conduct research, obviously the crew would also comprise of specialists. Besides being a demonstration of resupply independence, should the station pursue a specific scientific mission? How many specialists would the crew have and how much area do we need to devote to research in deep space? • The purpose of this station is to permit humans to survive and thrive

over multiple generations, as opposed to meeting specific scientific goals. It is an independent colony, and as such, you’ll need engineers, scientists, medical folks, teachers, etc.


Additional Questions?


Additional Questions

When we submitted our NOI, we claimed our team as a graduate team (as per earlier criteria if any one student is a graduate student, the entire team will be considered as a graduate team. However, later on we were informed that this criteria had changed, and undergraduate/graduate classification was based on the majority of students on the team. Our team has 6 undergraduate students and 2 students who have graduated. Do we need to submit any notice again about it and which level we will compete now?• No, you do not have to submit a new NOI. Simply select the

undergraduate category when you submit your Abstract in January.

Can you explain what is meant by “Co-Orbiting” Does it mean within space walk distance or just the capacity to move to and from the ISS• Co-orbing means that it is not necessarily within eye shot (i.e., not

within a space walk distance). It means that it is close enough to periodically do a taxi from one destination to another.

We wish to include some specialist as doctors so can we?• Yes, of course. In an independent colony, you will need

many areas of expertise, including medical expertise.


Additional Questions

For the Lunar Ice Trap project - Can the infrastructure be constructed by humans? Is that a requirement? Or can the whole system be constructed autonomously?• What ever you think you can do within the budget.

Robotically or human.

May we make collaborative proposals to offer the use of our theme's design for another team's theme? (e.g. Offering the fuel from our autonomous lunar mine for their 1G Space Station's part launches)• We’ll have to get back to you on that. We like the idea

but don’t know if there’s enough budget wiggle room to share.


Programmatic Reminders

Faculty Advisor participation – required

Deadline for abstract submission = January 17, 2016

Status notification = February 5, 2016

RASC-AL Website http://rascal.nianet.org

Q&A transcript: posted on FAQs page

http://rascal.nianet.org/



National Aeronautics and Space Administration 28

Thank you for participating!

Best of luck as you prepare your abstracts.

We look forward to receiving them!

Date post:	19-Jan-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	donna-osborne
View:	216 times
Download:	0 times

RASC-AL 2016 Questions and Answers November 13, 2015 3-4 PM.

Documents