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 three winners based on the results of the judging panel as well as various programmatic considerations.

Technology alignment

To what extent does the proposed payload address an identified capability gap in in-space servicing, assembly, or manufacturing, with robotic manipulation essential to its value?

Rubric

  • 5: Identifies a specific, compelling ISAM capability gap and makes a clear, well-evidenced case that the payload directly addresses it. Robotic manipulation is central to the payload’s function, and the submission explains precisely why on-orbit manipulation is required to realize its value.
  • 4: Identifies a clear ISAM capability gap and connects the payload to it credibly. Robotic manipulation plays a significant role, though the submission could be more explicit about why it is essential rather than beneficial.
  • 3: Identifies a plausible ISAM capability gap but the connection to the payload lacks specificity or relies on unsubstantiated assumptions. Robotic manipulation is present, but its role is not clearly distinguished from other mission functions.
  • 2: Identifies a capability gap that is broadly related to ISAM but the link to the payload is tenuous or unclear. Robotic manipulation appears in the design but is not meaningfully integrated into the value proposition.
  • 1: Does not clearly identify a specific ISAM capability gap, or the payload does not address the gap identified. Robotic manipulation is peripheral or absent, and the submission does not make a case for why on-orbit manipulation is essential.

Potential impact

To what extent would successful on-orbit manipulation of this payload advance the field of in-space servicing, assembly, or manufacturing, and to what extent does the submission define clear success metrics for demonstrating that advancement?

Rubric

  • 5: Makes a compelling case that a successful flight test would produce substantial ISAM advancement. Success metrics are specific, measurable, and directly tied to field-level advancement, with a clear sense of how results would be validated.
  • 4: Makes a strong case for meaningful ISAM advancement, with most success metrics well-defined. The pathway from flight test results to field impact is largely articulated, with minor gaps in how outcomes would be measured.
  • 3: Presents a reasonable case for advancing ISAM, though the scope of impact may be limited or not fully generalizable. Success metrics are included but may lack precision or not fully connect to demonstrating field-level progress.
  • 2: Makes a limited or speculative case for ISAM advancement. Success metrics are present but vague, inconsistent, or not clearly tied to what a successful flight test would demonstrate for the field.
  • 1: Does not make a convincing case that the payload would advance ISAM in meaningful ways. Success metrics are absent, poorly defined, or disconnected from field-level advancement. Little basis exists for evaluating whether a successful flight test would constitute meaningful progress.

Technical design

To what extent is the payload design technically sound, compatible with the mission’s physical and operational requirements, and built on best practices for systems engineering?

Rubric

  • 5: Design is technically rigorous, with clear understanding of mission constraints and the on-orbit operational environment. Best practices for systems engineering are prominent in the design. Key design choices are validated, and technical risks are identified with credible mitigation strategies.
  • 4: Design is technically strong and demonstrates solid familiarity with mission requirements. Best practices for systems engineering are included in the design. Most technical risks are identified, though one or two mitigation strategies could be more fully developed.
  • 3: Design is generally sound, but some technical choices are not fully substantiated or carry unaddressed risk. Best practices for systems engineering are limited within the design. Risk mitigations are present but underdeveloped in places.
  • 2: Design raises some technical concerns, including choices that are not well-grounded in systems engineering best practices. Mission constraints are acknowledged but the design may not fully account for them. Risk identification is incomplete.
  • 1: Design raises significant technical concerns, including apparent incompatibilities with mission constraints, unvalidated choices, or insufficient grounding in established engineering principles. Technical risks are not adequately identified or addressed.

Project plan

To what extent does the project plan describe a feasible path to payload development and flight readiness within the competition timeline, demonstrating the requisite capabilities, experience, resources, and margin?

Rubric

  • 5: Presents a credible, detailed path to flight readiness within the timeline, with milestones, dependencies, and resource requirements clearly articulated. Team demonstrates all required experience, and the budget is realistic and aligned with scope. Key risks are identified with actionable mitigations and margin.
  • 4: Presents a strong, largely detailed path to flight readiness. Milestones and resources are well-defined, and the team demonstrates relevant experience. Budget is reasonable. Minor gaps in risk mitigation, margin, or timeline specificity do not undermine overall confidence.
  • 3: Outlines a reasonable path to flight readiness but lacks detail in key areas such as milestone sequencing, resource planning, or risk mitigation. Team demonstrates some relevant experience, though gaps exist. Budget is present but may be incomplete or insufficiently justified.
  • 2: Path to flight readiness is outlined but raises some feasibility concerns. Milestones or resource requirements are underdeveloped, and the team’s relevant experience is limited or not clearly demonstrated. Budget estimates are present but misaligned or unrealistic in areas.
  • 1: Does not present a credible path to flight readiness within the timeline. Key elements—milestones, resource requirements, or risk identification—are absent or inadequate. Team experience is insufficient or not demonstrated. Budget, if present, is unrealistic. Little confidence the team could successfully deliver a flight-ready payload.

Phase 2: Final Design and Initial Build

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. The scoring criteria for Phase 2 are as follows:

Criteria description
Points awarded
Evidence that a finalized payload design has been completed and documented, including key design decisions, trade studies, and rationale for the chosen approach.
25
Evidence that the payload design is mechanically, electrically, and dimensionally compatible with the assigned FFR interface, ORU dimensions, and FFR software architecture.
25
Evidence that a credible development and testing plan is in place with clear ties to system requirements and flight test objectives proposed by the team. Test plan should verify and validate interface compatibility, design functionality, and system safety, with milestones and resource allocation clearly defined.
25
Evidence that the team has conducted sufficient analysis and early prototyping to validate critical design assumptions, including structural integrity under launch loads and functionality under expected on-orbit conditions.
25
Total points:
100

Phase 3: Complete Build for Integration

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 payload with the host spacecraft. Winners must receive at least 80 points in order to receive the additional $100,000 prize for this phase. The scoring criteria for Phase 3 are as follows:

Criteria description
Points awarded
Evidence that the payload build is complete and the payload is on track for on-time delivery to flight provider and integration into host spacecraft.
25
Evidence that the payload has been built to the requirements of the host spacecraft and robotic arm interactions.
25
Evidence that testing and analysis for the anticipated flight conditions have been completed and results indicate that payload is ready for flight.
25
Evidence that potential risks for the flight have been considered and mitigation plans have been developed and can be put in place prior to the flight.
25
Total points:
100