Action Stations !
Thanks to Marci for spotting the bugs in our plan, and i think we should do things right now (as Marci said).
In my opinion, the first thing is probably announcing the event. Will you all kindly come up and tell how do we announce this event?
In my opinion the options are :
- Option 1: Advt. in SG(A)C WWW.
- Option 2: We will tell in our locality
- Option 3: SG(A)C contact schools/college/universities
Then we need judge as Marci Said.
Marci, since you worked out the judgment structure, I request you to take over the controls of judging, and as you said, we can advt. in above said way.
I request all to come up and make comments/suggestions/corrections.
~ MADMAN (How's my name? :P)
Criteria to be included in the Announcement:
1. How long should the paper be?
-We need this to be short enough we can review all the papers but long enough to get ideas across: under 3,000 words?
2. Do we want to require a specific format?
3. Can the paper have multiple authors?
-Will we sponsor more than one author to attend, or is this an individual competition?
4. When should the be paper be due and what is the timeline for judging?
-We should pick a date that doesn't overlap with final exams. U.S. finals are between the end of May and the middle of June. I'm not sure about other locations. I was thinking an online submission of Monday, July 2nd would be safe. We could annnounce the winner on August 1st, which would give us over a full month to review.
I was looking more closely at the project tasks associated with SGC and it looks like we need to focus specifically on transportation issues related to returning to the Moon and traveling on to Mars. I am thinking this means we need focus on propulsion for human missions in the announcement. What do you think?
i must admit i didn't go through the project tasks (shame...) and maybe i'm out of focus here.
but i'd say that 'transportation issues' can be broader than propoulsion; we can talk AOCS, long term effects (radiation shieding, microgravity - biological, psycological), closed loop circuits (water, food, oxygen)
Maybe we can have a single competition but we can limit the areas or subjects for the papers. Or if everyone agrees we admit only propulsion, but that can be a very narrow field (in terms of people willing to write something on this)
i'd have:
1. How long should the paper be?
2. Do we want to require a specific format? yes, e.g., SAE
3. Can the paper have multiple authors? yes, but only one author per paper is sponsored.
Ricardo;
I think you are very correct that we should be including aspects other than propulsion. I think the competition is geared around any ideas or technologies that would assist in supporting transport to the Moon or Mars. I am wondering if we could even consider space elevator technologies, as they would have a definite direct benefit in lifting high-mass payloads to orbit.
On your other points:
1. Paper length: around 5 pages or something like 5000 words? Not too long to read, but long enough to get the point across?
2. SAE format
3. Multiple authors...this is difficult. The point of SGAC is to involve as many people as possible and to encourage collaborative thinking. It is hard to do that with a contest that sponsors only one person out of a group of three or five. The papers would very probably be better if written as collaborative efforts, but I can't imagine groups entering if only one person gets sponsored.
Plus, there is the whole cost issue itself: it is more expensive to travel from some parts of the world than others. For instance, why would SGAC not sponsor a team of three Indian students to travel to the conference when sponsoring one American (North or South) would actually cost more.
What if SGAC said they would provide funding towards the trip up to whatever amount represents one of the more expensive travel costs for one student attending? For example, a rough cost estimate for a single attendee from N/S America would be $2030 ($1700 per plane ticket + $135 SGC registration fee + $30x4 nights hotel x $15 per diem food/transportation). SGC could provide up to $2500 to travel per team.
hum...
1: agree. or even your first suggestion (3 000 max)
2: ok
3: maybe you got a point. collaborative means all (or 2 or 3 max???) authors should come. But assuming the amount of fundings is limited a fixed figure, maybe we should also consider having as many different opinions (i.e, representatives from different papers) as possible. Becaus we also want to see collaborative during the SGC. It's a trade off i guess...
Maybe we can set up something like: funding available for 1 author per paper, but 2 or 3 authors for the first 3 or 4 or 5 papers will also be funded. This will increase interest of groups bidding as a team. i guess.
Its good to have jugdes whose control base I think in the criteria of SRS, that is their work should focus on the education and service about space.
As an additional I think these groups should have come with something demonstrative(which i sapose it difficult to demonstrate to SRS team through email)
manyoolo@yahoo.co.uk
Thanks ricardo.... and emmanuel, now for advt. this....... Let me do a blast in Y! 360 for letting people know about this......guyz, who have xanga, myspace, etc, do the advt. in there own way. Would you kindly view http://360.yahoo.com/sparkofblueedge ? thanks
Hey, Madman;
I think we should probably wait until we get some sort of review/confirmation from the executive council before we start advertising. We need to make sure we haven't overlooked anything and that our ideas will work. This means we need to get Daniel in the loop, too. I'll email some folks tonight and underscore the urgency of the situation (our timeline is looking a little short).
Our Goals:
-develop an annual paper writing competition that addresses aspects of space transportation, specifically relevant to Moon/Mars travel
-inaugurate the competition this year in time for the winner(s) to present at SGC 2007
What we need to do:
1. Establish a timeline
We need to announce the contest as soon as possible so give participants ample time to write the paper and ourselves enough time to review it. Transportation arrangements must also be made so that the winner(s) have time to apply for a Visa, etc., if needed
Here is my suggestion for a time line:
-May 2nd: Details finalized. Contest summary and relevant information sent to Executive Council for approval.
-May 9th: All PR and promotional items finished (poster and website).
-May 14th: Contest announced
-July 2nd: Papers due
-July 4th: Delivery of papers to judging committee
-July 30th: Winner(s) announced
2. Details to be finalized:
-The Award: We need to find out exactly how much money can be set aside for the prize. Please read Ricardo's and my discussion in the thread above for further explanation.
-Participants: How many authors per paper will be allowed? Again, please read the thread for more discussion.
-Paper length and format: So far we have two people agreeing on a length of 3000 words and SAE formatting.
-Judging committee: We need qualified people to judge. Suggestions? Volunteers? (Please list your qualifications if you are volunteering.)
-Promotional considerations: We need a poster design/announcement and probably a simple website for more information. Volunteers?
-Submission method: Email would probably be easiest, especially with formatted papers. We should probably require all papers to be in .doc format, as well. We also need to create a short 'application' to accompany the paper (contact info, author(s), etc.)
Suggestions, ideas, volunteers? :)
I would like to volunteer to be a judge.
I am a senior physics major, with huge interests in space transportation, especially propulsion. I am applying to graduate school for space engineering later this year (or atomic physics, to learn as much about antimatter as I can, since that is the form of propulsion I would like to study and develop). I have been reading a lot about aerospace engineering, and feel I can make a sound judgement as far as the papers are concerned.
I would also like to volunteer for PR efforts. I am involved in many groups with members who would probably love to participate in this contest.
- I agree on 3000 words and SAE format.
- I think about 3 authors per paper should be adequate.
- I definitely agree with e-mail submission.
Also, I think we need to let people know exactly how technical this paper needs to be. Does it need to reflect undergraduate-level understanding of engineering, or should it be written so that the average space-enthusiast can understand it?
If we participate in the development of the contest, are we not eligible to participate in the contest? Personally, I would really like to write a paper for this, even though that would mean I could not serve as a judge *sheepish smile*.
Hey guys,
After going through all the poists one thing is still not clear as to how the paper should be written in the sense that
1. Does it nee to be technical? Tecnhical enough that it includes certain trade studies? parametri sizing?graph? nubers?
2. Or, rather a paper that justifies the person's idea and plan as what the long term effects of Space Transporation are and how it could be achieved?
This needs to be made clear.
Thank You,
-Kavya
~!I Don't Want to be one in the crowd; I want to be One Above the crowd!~
Welcome, Kavyakamal!
The paper is defined as "technical" in nature, according to the Project Description (Space Transportation Technical Paper Competition).
About participating in the planning group and then submitting for the contest:
I don't suppose planning the contest guidelines would prove to be a conflict of interest in the event you submitted a paper.
About the judging panel:
I am strongly in favor of having only professionals on the judging panel, with several SGAC representatives included. As SGAC is for people from 18 to 35, I think finding representatives who have their Ph.D's and/or Masters (with several years experience in the space transportation fields) will not be difficult. I think it is absolutely crucial for this competition to be seen as a legitimate scientific contest in order to maintain the SGAC reputation in the international space community. Legitimate science is best determined by experts, thus the reason for having a judging panel of professionals.
I had some further questions about the judging panel, actually! :)
1. How many people should serve as judges?
We want to make sure we have enough judges to serve in the hopeful case of a large number of submissions, that way no one is over-worked. And what about the quota for SGAC representatives on the panel?
2. What fields should be represented on the judging panel? (For that matter, we should probably include these with the competition announcement so that contestants have a better idea of the subject matter.)
Here are a few specializations to start with:
-Power & Propulsion
-Life Support Systems
-Communications
-Orbital Mechanics
-Descent and Entry
What do you all think?
Maybe 3-ish professionals with 2 to 3 SGAC reps? That seems enough to me.
Those specilizations sounds awesome. How about adding spacecraft design (kind of like spacecraft architecture)? Since innovation in actual spacecraft aero-design could mean a more efficient use of the propulsion system and could mean more speed. Certain materials could better shield astronauts from space radiation and other hazards.
Just a thought.
How about 1 professional to category, with the 2 to 3 SGAC reps included, and limit to seven categories? That way we have an odd number of judges in the case of a tie.
Space architecture would be a very solid addition.
I would say shielding concerns might fit more into the life support systems category, though.
Hello Madman,
I think as far as the competition rules..go we can brainstrom on that..but i think for now we can limit ourselfs to MARS....adn not go beyond. Otherwise it will be too broad of an area to cover, but again this is up for discussion...what do the others think should we go beyond mars or limit it to moon and mars only ?.
Receive the lastest announcements, discuss space-related topics with other members.
Joined: 2007-02-27