Evaluation criteria

Phase 1: Application period

Phase 1 submissions will be evaluated by a panel of judges carefully chosen for their specialized knowledge and experience. Each judge will score their assigned submissions on a scale of 1-5 across each of the four criteria and provide qualitative comments. Each valid submission will receive five sets of reviews that will be statistically normalized. The selection committee will review the top-scoring submissions and select up to four winners based on the results of the judging panel as well as various programmatic considerations. Each winner will receive $200,000 and an invitation to advance to Phase 2.

To what extent would the measurements the solution produces serve to support thermospheric density specification and modeling, given the parameter(s) it measures and the altitude range it covers?

Rubric

5 Measures the most valuable input to density models — density together with composition — for a clearly identified and extensive altitude regime. Makes a specific, well-evidenced case for how the data would improve model accuracy or fill known coverage gaps.
4 Measures a high-value input — density directly, or density with composition over a narrower altitude span — with a credible, well-supported case for how the data would serve density models across a meaningful part of the range.
3 Measures pressure or drag as an indirect means of determining density, or covers only a narrow slice of the altitude range. The case for usefulness is plausible but limited by the indirect measurement, the coverage, or unsubstantiated assumptions.
2 Measures a parameter only loosely connected to thermospheric density needs, or covers a very narrow altitude range of limited value. The case that the data would be a useful input to density models is tenuous.
1 Does not identify a measurement or altitude coverage that would serve as a useful input to density models, or does not make a credible case that the data would improve them.

To what extent does the evidence presented — test data, prior development, calibration plan — make a credible case that the solution will meet the performance benchmarks defined for what it measures and the altitudes it targets?

Rubric

5 Presents strong, quantitative evidence that makes a compelling case the solution will meet or exceed the applicable benchmarks for its measurand and altitude regime. Expected uncertainty is characterized and realistic.
4 Presents solid evidence and a credible calibration plan supporting a strong case that the benchmarks will be met. Most figures of merit are substantiated, with minor gaps in the data or in how uncertainty is characterized.
3 Presents some supporting evidence, but the case that benchmarks will be met relies on optimistic assumptions or incomplete data. The calibration and validation approach is described but underdeveloped.
2 Offers limited or largely qualitative evidence. The case for meeting benchmarks is weak or inconsistent, and the calibration and validation plan is vague or missing key elements.
1 Provides little or no evidence that the solution would meet the applicable benchmarks. Figures of merit are absent or unsupported, and no credible calibration or validation approach is presented.

To what extent would the solution be low-cost to produce and fly at scale relative to current instruments, and how credible is the plan to reproduce it in volume, considering the projected unit cost, production rate, manufacturing approach, and ease of accommodation across a broad range of commercial launches?

Rubric

5 Projects a unit cost dramatically lower than current instruments, well-substantiated with quantitative backing. Names a specific, credible manufacturing methodology and a production rate that together make a convincing case the solution can be reproduced at volume.
4 Projects a unit cost well below current instruments with reasonable supporting assumptions. The manufacturing approach and production rate credibly support volume reproduction, with minor gaps in the cost basis or in how the approach scales.
3 Projects a lower unit cost, but the target rests on limited or unsubstantiated assumptions. The manufacturing approach and production rate are described in general terms, without enough detail to judge whether volume reproduction is realistic.
2 Claims a cost advantage that is weakly supported or not clearly better than current instruments. The manufacturing methodology or production rate is vague, and the case for reproducing the solution at volume is thin.
1 Provides no credible cost advantage over current instruments. Target unit cost, production rate, or manufacturing approach is absent, unsupported, or implausible.

To what extent is there evidence that the technology can be made flight-ready and integrated as a hosted payload within the competition timeline, supported by a realistic plan, schedule, budget, and risk register?

Rubric

5 Presents a credible, detailed path to a flight-ready unit within the competition timeline, with milestones, dependencies, and resources clearly articulated. Integration into a hosted payload is realistically addressed, the development budget is aligned with scope, and key risks carry actionable mitigations and margin.
4 Presents a strong, largely detailed path to flight readiness. Milestones, integration approach, and resources are well-defined and the development budget is reasonable. Minor gaps in risk mitigation, margin, or schedule specificity do not undermine overall confidence.
3 Outlines a reasonable path to flight readiness but lacks detail in key areas such as milestone sequencing, integration, or risk mitigation. The development budget is present but may be incomplete or insufficiently justified.
2 Outlines a path that raises feasibility concerns. Milestones, integration requirements, or resource needs are underdeveloped, and the budget is misaligned or unrealistic in places. Risk identification is incomplete.
1 Does not present a credible path to flight readiness within the timeline. Key elements — milestones, integration, resources, or risk identification — are absent or inadequate, and the budget, if present, is unrealistic. Little confidence the team could deliver a flight-ready unit.

Phase 2: Final design and engineering model build

During Phase 2, Phase 1 winners will have four months to finalize their designs and begin building their solutions. During this phase, each team will build an engineering model of the sensing technology identified in their submission and demonstrate that the engineering model can make the required measurement in ground testing. Teams will receive support from NASA subject matter experts as they work toward compatibility with the interface specifications in the technical guidelines. At the end of the phase, field judges will conduct site visits to evaluate each team’s progress, and winners will have the opportunity to receive an additional award of $200,000 each.

At the conclusion of Phase 2, field judges will conduct on-site visits to evaluate the progress each team has made. Winners must receive at least 80 points to receive the additional $200,000 prize for this phase. Phase 2 submissions are scored against the criteria shown here.

Evidence that a finalized design has been completed and documented, including key design decisions, trade studies, and rationale for the chosen approach.

Evidence that the design is mechanically, electrically, and dimensionally compatible with integration as a hosted payload, consistent with the interface specifications in the technical guidelines.

Evidence that a credible development and testing plan is in place with clear ties to system requirements and the schedule the team proposed in their submission, and that the team is on track against their schedule.

Evidence that the team has built an engineering model of their sensing technology identified in their submission and demonstrated that the engineering model can make the required measurement in ground testing.

Phase 3: Complete build for flight readiness

Phase 2 winners will be invited to complete their solutions over the four-month final phase, with support from NASA subject matter experts. Teams will demonstrate operation as intended in a relevant space environment and will prepare a test matrix and operational validation plan ahead of the flight test. Field judges will conduct a final site visit with each team to evaluate the flight readiness of its solution. Teams that successfully complete Phase 3 will receive $100,000 each. In addition, NASA intends to offer each Phase 3 winner an opportunity for a flight test in orbit at no cost.

At the conclusion of Phase 3, field judges will conduct on-site visits to evaluate the progress each team has made and their readiness to integrate their solution with the host spacecraft. Winners must receive at least 80 points in order to receive the additional $100,000 prize for this phase. Phase 3 submissions are scored against the criteria shown here.

Evidence that the build is complete and on track for on-time delivery to the flight provider and integration into the host spacecraft.

Evidence that the solution has been built to the requirements of the host spacecraft interface.

Evidence that testing and analysis for the anticipated flight conditions have been completed, including demonstration that the solution operates in a relevant space environment, and results indicate that the solution is ready for flight.

Evidence that potential risks for the flight have been considered and mitigation plans have been developed, and that a test matrix and operational validation plan is in place ahead of the flight test.