2018 MgUE Proposal Guidelines

NASA Johnson Space Center

Precision Air Bearing Floor Challenge

#NASAMgUE

Table of Contents

Challenge Overview……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..……….1

Proposal Overview………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..2

Proposal: Cover Page…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….4

Proposal: Technical Section………………………………………………………………………………….……………………………….5

Proposal: Safety Evaluation…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..6

Proposal: Team Engagement........………………………………………………………………………………………………………...7 Proposal: Lesson Plan…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….8 Proposal: Outreach Section…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….9 Proposal: Administrative Deliverables………………………………………………………………………………………………...10 Appendix A: Team Member Commitment Letter………………………………………………………………………………..11 Appendix B: Technical Information…………………………………………………………………………………………………….12 Appendix C: Proposal Scoring Rubric…………………………………………………………………………..........................15

1

Challenge Overview

A primary function of operating in space is the deployment and retrieval of payloads. NASA uses a

deployment system to eject payloads such as cube satellites from the International Space Station. In

recent years, a deployment system failed to release satellites when commanded, and inadvertently

or prematurely released satellites. Work to improve the mechanics and powering of the system has

been a focus for NASA and its partners. Microgravity University for Educators (MgUE) invites

educators and high school students to be a part of the team to improve the solution.

We are challenging teams to design and build a Satellite Launching Experimental Device (SLED)

coded to autonomously deploy a mock satellite into a moving, targeted zone that mimics a Mars

orbital insertion. Teams should represent a school, school district, informal educational organization, or

any combination of the above. Teams should have a minimum of two educators and at least 60 highly

involved high school students in grades 9 through 12. Each team will be able to send only two educators

and four high school students to Johnson Space Center in Houston, TX to test the SLED in a simulated

microgravity and reduced friction environment called the Precision Air Bearing Floor (PABF).

Interested teams will prepare a proposal package to be reviewed and scored by NASA.

Proposal Deadline: 2:00pm, Central Time, on Wednesday, December 13, 2017

Need More Information?

Please direct all questions to jsc-epd@mail.nasa.gov. Please include ‘MgUE’ in the subject line.

Information sessions will be held to answer questions LIVE about the challenge, proposal process, and technical questions. Sessions will be held online. Please check the website for times and connection information.

A downloadable FAQ page, with updated information, is available on the website

http://go.nasa.gov/nasamgue

2

Proposal Overview

Teams will submit a written proposal to participate in MgUE. Proposals need to contain the information

outlined in the following pages. Be sure to read guidelines carefully and fully address all topics. Before

writing and submitting a proposal, teams should become familiar with technical specifications for using

the PABF found in Appendix B of the 2018 MgUE Proposal Guidelines.

The proposal should be submitted as a single document and contain the following sections:

I. Coversheet/Team Member Information

II Technical Section

A. Abstract

B. Test Objectives

C. Investigation Description

D. Technical References

III. Safety Evaluation

IV. Team Engagement

V. Lesson Plan

VI. Outreach Section

VII. Administrative Deliverables

A. Test Week Preference

B. Educational Organization Letter of Commitment

C. U.S. Citizenship and Team Member Commitment Letter

Proposal Deadline: 2:00pm, Central Time, on Wednesday, December 13, 2017

Note: Please submit the proposal sections in the order listed above. Acceptable file types are .docx, or

.pdf. Please minimize the file size to 25MBs or less. Uploading files may take some time depending on

connection speeds, server availability, etc. Please be patient and wait for confirmation of your

submission.

3

Complete proposals will be reviewed and scored using a rubric (Appendix C) by a team of NASA

educators, technicians, mentors, and/or aerospace professionals. Incomplete proposals will not be

considered. The ten teams with the top scoring proposals will be invited to participate in MgUE.

Scoring Rubric Summary

Proposal Sections Weight

Coversheet/Team Members Information 5%

Technical Section 20% Safety Evaluation 10%

Team Engagement 20%

Lesson Plan 20%

Outreach Section 20%

Administrative Deliverables 5%

4

Proposal: Cover Page

The cover page for your proposal carries a weight of 5% and should include the following information:

Team Name Team Logo (Optional)

Education Institution(s) Name Address

Telephone Number Fax Number

Webpage

Team Lead Educator name Email address Phone number

Team Co-Lead Educator name Email address Phone number

5

Proposal: Technical Section

This section describes the design of the Satellite Launching Experimental Device (SLED) and carries a

weight of 20%. The technical section should demonstrate technical merit and include detailed

information about the design of your SLED, its autonomous function, and how those functions will be

coded. Include any information that a technical reviewer might find informative for understanding the

goals of the design. Selected teams will be assigned NASA mentors to guide them in the engineering

design process.

A. Abstract

The abstract should be a brief (up to 300 words) summary that touches upon all elements of the

SLED design being proposed.

B. Test Objectives

This section should include a detailed description of the design being proposed. Describe how

the proposed SLED meets the design requirements of the Precision Air Bearing Floor (PABF)

found in Appendix B. Describe a detailed plan of how the team will create the SLED. The plan

should include details such as materials used from the SLED kit (Appendix B) and other sources.

Only 20% of the design can be made using parts that are not included in the kit. Only teams

invited to participate will receive the SLED kit. No fuels, compressed air, or solvents may be used

in the design. Include at least one of the following in your proposal: a sketch or drawing, or a

photo. Please embed images in your proposal document.

C. Investigation Description

Part of testing your device on the PABF includes collecting data. You may choose to investigate a

component of your SLED in addition to overall performance. In this section, provide a brief, but

detailed description of the investigation being proposed. It should be written so that a practicing

engineer or scientist can understand the investigation and the predicted results. Be sure to

include how quantitative and/or qualitative data will be collected, analyzed, and used in a final

report.

D. References should be cited in the text and in the “Bibliography”. Standard American

Psychological Association (APA) formatting should be utilized.

NOTE: Please refer to Appendix B for all technical specifications for the PABF, SLED kit, launch pad, and

simulated orbital insertion target.

6

Proposal: Safety Evaluation

The safety evaluation section will be used by the reviewers to confirm that each SLED is safe to handle

on the ground and for usage on the PABF. This section is worth 10% of the overall score. We

understand that teams may not know exact dimensions or tensile strengths of parts planned for use;

however, teams should be able to describe a plan to design, fabricate, and operate the SLED in a safe

manner.

Safety is paramount, therefore, ranking in this section will place the team’s proposal in a SAFE/GO,

CONDITIONAL, or UNSAFE/NO GO category. Proposals rated as UNSAFE/NO GO will not be considered

for participation.

Prior to shipping the final SLED to NASA Johnson Space Center, invited teams will submit a written

Technical Safety Review (TSR) report on the final version of the SLED. NASA mentors will be able to assist

teams with addressing safety questions or issues during the building process. In addition, each invited

team will perform a face-to-face TSR review before a NASA safety panel prior to testing on the PABF.

The review panel will advise the teams on any final actions needed before launch day.

7

Proposal: Team Engagement

This section relates to how the challenge will be addressed by your team and counts as 20% of the

overall score. Please answer the questions using the format below.

1. Explain how educators and students collaborated to design the proposed SLED.

ANSWER HERE

2. Explain what science, technology, engineering, and/or mathematics (STEM) concepts will be

taught during the designing, building, and testing of the SLED?

ANSWER HERE

3. How will this challenge support your active learning environment?

ANSWER HERE

4. List the tasks or phases of the challenge and explain how students will be involved. (Examples to

include: designing the SLED, building the SLED, coding, scientific research, conducting outreach,

post-challenge, data analysis, and preparing the final report.)

ANSWER HERE

5. Describe the plan to communicate with your remote team members during the onsite testing

and amplify your outreach activities.

ANSWER HERE

6. How will students test and measure the SLED performance prior to the onsite testing?

ANSWER HERE

8

Proposal: 5E Lesson Plan

This section is worth 20% of the score. Please create a 5E lesson plan using the template below showing

how the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) will be used to teach students about science and

engineering practices related to the design of your SLED.

Grade/ Grade Band: Topic: Lesson # in a series of lessons

Brief Lesson Description: Performance Expectation(s):

Specific Learning Outcomes:

Narrative / Background Information Prior Student Knowledge:

Science & Engineering Practices: Disciplinary Core Ideas: Crosscutting Concepts: -

Possible Preconceptions/Misconceptions:

LESSON PLAN – 5-E Model ENGAGE: Opening Activity – Access Prior Learning / Stimulate Interest / Generate Questions:

EXPLORE: Lesson Description – Materials Needed / Probing or Clarifying Questions:

EXPLAIN: Concepts Explained and Vocabulary Defined:

Vocabulary:

ELABORATE: Applications and Extensions:

EVALUATE:

Formative Monitoring (Questioning / Discussion):

Summative Assessment (Quiz / Project / Report):

Elaborate Further / Reflect: Enrichment:

9

Proposal: Outreach Section

In this section, please outline how the team will share this STEM experience in the local education

community and the general public. This section is worth 20% of the overall proposal score. Please

answer the following questions using the format below.

1. How will peer educators and other students (those beyond the onsite team) be involved with

this challenge? What steps will be taken to ensure their involvement? Examples include parallel

classroom investigations, social media, websites, science nights, etc.

ANSWER HERE

2. How will the team share this challenge with the general public?

ANSWER HERE

3. List all partners, sponsors, or volunteers that may help the team during this process.

ANSWER HERE

4. List the local media outlets that will be contacted to share this experience with the local

community. Please list any hashtags that your team and/or organization may have on social

media.

ANSWER HERE

10

Proposal: Administrative Section

In this section, teams will demonstrate support from their organization’s administration. This section is

worth 5% of the score. Please include the following information in the proposal package.

A. Test Week Preference

Please rank the following in order of preference for test week at JSC. First choice is not guaranteed.

Onsite Testing Week 1 03/19/2018 - 03/23/2018 Onsite Testing Week 2 03/26/2018 - 03/30/2018

B. Organization Letter of Commitment

Support from your education organization or school/district administration is extremely

important to the success of this challenge. A letter from your organization, school or district

administrator(s) stating support for the items below must be included as part of the proposal on

organization letterhead. Proposals are considered incomplete without a Letter of Commitment.

It is understood that the organization, school, and/or district will:

Be responsible for funding any required substitutes for all team members while the

participants are in Houston during the experimental test week.

Be responsible for securing and funding shipping costs to send the Satellite Launching

Experimental Device (SLED) to Johnson Space Center.

Provide additional planning time for those involved with this opportunity when possible.

Provide release time for team members to conduct outreach activities.

Please Note: If a team represents more than one organization, school, district, etc., then a

Letter of Commitment from each is required.

C. U.S. Citizenship and Team Member Commitment Letter

Instructions: Include the letter from Appendix A in the proposal. Please have each team lead sign

and date the letter. Signatures may be electronic (i.e. scanned into the document).

11

Appendix A: Team Member Commitment Letter

By signing this document, you are indicating that you are a citizen of the United States and

currently hold a position as an educator. You are also agreeing to the following terms:

I understand that, if selected, I am expected to fully participate in all scheduled events.

I understand that, if selected, I am required to participate in all online and onsite tasks.

I understand that, if selected, I am required to complete NASA required safety forms and

other documents.

Team Lead: __________________________________________________________ Date:______

Team Co-Lead: _______________________________________________________ Date: ______

12

Appendix B: Technical Information

Technical Problem: Design a Satellite Launching Experimental Device (SLED) that will autonomously launch a model satellite

and mimic orbital insertion around Mars on a two-dimensional simulated microgravity environment. The

autonomous launch should be achieved with the use of coding. The two-dimensional simulated

microgravity environment is the Precision Air Bearing Floor (PABF) at NASA’s Johnson Space Center.

Precision Air Bearing Floor: The PABF or “flat floor” is a 70’ X 98’ epoxy surface designed to support rendezvous and contact testing

that require low friction movement of test articles along a flat surface.

Test articles are mounted on perforated pads, or air bearings, that distribute a cushion of compressed

air between the pads and the floor. The test articles “ride” on the air cushion and do not contact the

floor. The floor is level within .003 inches per foot and .005 inches per 10 feet. It is polished to within

250 micro-inch average deviation. It is positioned between a large manipulator facility and a gravity

offload facility for accessibility.

The air bearings use compressed air to suspend and enable frictionless movement of mockups and

hardware. Commercial rubber skirted air bearings are used with large loads. Ground plates with orifices

are used for smaller loads. Typically, air is supplied via a hose to a compressed air source; bottled gas is

an option. A 2,000 lb hoist and jib are mounted on the north edge of the PABF to support positioning of

small modules onto the floor. Co-located with this hoist are 120 psi utility air and hose reel, 4,000 psi air

outlet, and utility electrical power.

13

Satellite Launching Experimental Device Kit Contents:

All selected teams will receive an SLED kit that contains the following items:

1 Eight Inch Diameter Satellite Hovercraft

SLED Launchpad Attachment hardware (mounts to launch pad)

Nuts and Bolts (different sizes)

Duct Tape

Rubber Bands (different sizes and strengths)

String

Tongue Depressors/Craft Sticks

Springs (different sizes and strengths)

Bungie Cords (different sizes and strengths)

1 & 2 inch strips of Aluminum Tubing 1-2 feet long

5 feet of Rubber Tubing

Paper Clips

Straws

Masking Tape

Clothes Hanger

Paper Towel Rolls

Balloons

9 Volt Battery

Magnets (different sizes and strengths)

80% of your design materials must

come from the SLED kit. ONLY 20% of

materials not found in the SLED kit can

be used in the design due to safety

constraints.

NO fuels, compressed air, or solvents

may be used in the design.

14

SLED Launch Pad:

Each selected team will be given a launch pad attachment system to mount their device. Your team

design must have an adjustable interface for height. Your team must have the launching device 1/4 of

an inch off of the PABF. No exceptions. Your SLED must keep the satellite’s launch velocity below 15

feet/second. Please refer to the launch pad image below and the attachment system. Please Note:

Details for the attachment system will be sent with the final SLED kits.

Simulated Orbital Insertion Target:

All teams will be using mathematical calculations to help reach the target of simulated orbital insertion

around Mars. Below is a picture of the target with measurements of the insertion points

15

Appendix C: Proposal Scoring Rubric

COVERSHEET and

ADMINISTRATIVE

SECTION

Lowest Score Highest Score

Coversheet/Team Member Information: Total: 5 points

No cover sheet 0 points

Some education organization information is missing, not all team members are listed, and some team member information is missing. 2-3 points

All education organization information is included, team members are listed, but some team member information is missing. 4 points

All requested information for all team members and the education organization is included. 5 points

Administrative:

Test Week Preference

Organization Letter of Commitment

U.S. Citizenship and Committment Form

Total: 5 Points

No administrative deliverables. 0 points

Some deliverables are missing, such as not listing weeks in order of preference. 2-3 points

All documentation is present but not complete. 4 points

All documentation is present and complete. 5 points

TECHNICAL/SAFETY

SECTIONS

Lowest Score Highest Score

Abstract: The abstract should be a brief (up to 300 words) summary that touches upon all elements of the SLED design being proposed. Total 5 points

50-150 words, Little to no details are found in the abstract. Reader does not understand concept. 0 points

150-200 words, Few SLED details are in the abstract; reader needs further assistance to understand concept. Mostly fluff. 1-2 point

200-250 words, Summarized SLED, but leaves out details to get a clear picture of the team’s experimental design. 3-4 points

250 -300 words, Summarizes precisely the SLED, Reader understands what the team is proposing. 5 points

Test Objectives: This section should include a detailed description of the design being proposed. Describe how the proposed SLED meets the design requirements of the Precision Air Bearing Floor (PABF) found in Appendix B. Describe a detailed plan of how the team will create the SLED. The plan should include details such as materials used from the SLED kit (Appendix B) and other sources. Only 20% of the design can be made using parts that are not included in the kit. Only teams invited to participate will receive the SLED kit. No fuels, compressed air, or solvents may be used in the design. Include at least one of the following in your proposal:

No picture/drawing of SLED. 90% of the SLED kit is NOT used in the SLED Is lack one of the two descriptions.

Picture/drawing of SLED is lacking details needed to accurately show device. SLED is not a creative design. Reader needs further details on how the design meets the requirement of the PABF to understand the concept. Reader needs further details on how the team created the SLED to understand.

Picture/drawing of SLED. SLED is made of only 100% SLED kit parts. Description of how the design meets the requirement of the PABF is lacking some details. Description of how the team created the SLED is lacking details.

Picture/drawing of SLED. 80% of the SLED kit and 20% is added to the design. Detailed description of how the design meets the requirements of the PABF. Detailed descriptions of how the team created the device.

16

a sketch or drawing, or a photo. Please embed images in your proposal document. Total 8 points

0 points

1-3 points

4-7 points

8 points

Investigation Description: Part of testing your device on the PABF includes collecting data. You may choose to investigate a component of your SLED in addition to overall performance. In this section, provide a brief, but detailed description of the investigation being proposed. It should be written so that a practicing engineer or scientist can understand the investigation and the predicted results. Be sure to include how quantitative and/or qualitative data will be collected, analyzed, and used in a final report. Total 5 points

Lacks prediction. Lacking many details for procedures. 0 points

Lacks prediction. Procedures lack many details. Reader needs further assistance to understand. 1-2 points

Prediction written. Procedures lack details to fully understand investigation. 3-4 points

Prediction written. Procedures, including data collection, to the test are detailed, clear, and precise. 5 points

Technical References: Referenced works should be cited in text and in the “Bibliography.” Standard APA format should be used. Total 2 points

No technical references. 0 points

Technical references are not formatted 0 points

Technical references included, but in another format - example (MLA). 1 points

Technical references included in APA format 2 points

Safety: The safety evaluation section will be used by the reviewers to confirm that each SLED is safe to handle on the ground and for usage on the PABF. This section is worth 10% of the overall score. We understand that teams may not know exact dimensions or tensile strengths of parts planned for use; however, teams should be able to describe s plan to design, fabricate, and operate the SLED in a safe manner. Safety is paramount, therefore, ranking in this section will place the team’s proposal in a SAFE/GO, CONDITIONAL, or UNSAFE/NO GO category. Proposals rated as UNSAFE/NO GO will not be considered for participation. Total 10 points

UNSAFE/NO GO 0 points (Proposal will NOT be selected.)

Conditional 5 points

Safe/Go 10 points

17

Team Engagement Section

Lowest Score Highest Score

Question 1: Explain how educators and students collaborated to design the proposed SLED. Total 4 points

Did not answer question or was inaccurate. 0 points

Answered question, but needs more details. 1-2 point

Answered question accurately with detail. 3-4 points

Question 2: Explain what science, technology, engineering, and/or mathematics (STEM) concepts will be taught during the designing, building, and testing of the SLED? Total 3 Points

Did not answer question or was inaccurate. 0-1 points

Answered question, but needs more details. 2 points

Answered question accurately with detail. 3 points

Question 3: How will this challenge support your active learning environment? Total 3 Points

Did not answer question or was inaccurate. 0-1 points

Answered question, but needs more details. 2 points

Answered question accurately with detail. 3 points

Question 4: List the tasks or phases of the challenge and explain how students will be involved. (Examples to include: designing the SLED, building the SLED, coding, scientific research, conducting outreach, post-challenge, data analysis, and preparing the final report.) Total 4 Points

Little to no student involvement. 0-1 points

Explained what students will be doing during the activity, but only have half the required information. Tasks include: building the SLED, trip planning to Houston, post-deployment analysis, community outreach, and publishing a final report. 2 points

Explained most parts of the tasks involved with their students but lacks some of the task or details. Tasks include building the SLED, scientific research about how to build a SLED, trip planning to Houston, post-deployment analysis, community outreach, and publishing a final report. 3 points

Explained all of the following with great detail of how their students will be involved: tasks involved with building the SLED, scientific research about how to build a SLED, trip planning to Houston, post-activity analysis, community outreach, and publishing a final report. 4 points

Question 5: Describe the plan to communicate with your remote team members during the onsite testing and amplify your outreach activities. Total 3 Points

Did not answer question or was inaccurate. 0-1 points

Answered question, but needs more details. 2 points

Answered question accurately with detail. 3 points

Question 6: How will students test and measure the SLED prior to the onsite testing? Total 3 Points

Did not answer question or was inaccurate. 0-1 points

Answered question, but needs more details. 2 points

Answered question accurately with detail. 3 points

18

Lesson Plan

Lowest Score Highest Score

Engage: Opening Activity- assesses prior learning, stimulates interest, generates questions Total 4 points

Not engaging or not completed. 0 points

Very little details about exploration activity. Cannot teach activity by reading lesson plan. 1-2 points

Engagement is written in the lesson plan, but is minimal and not creative. The reader understands how to implement/teach the engage part of the lesson. 3 points

Different and engaging to students and related to microgravity concepts. The reader understands how to implement/teach the engage part of the lesson. 4 points

Explore: Lesson Description – materials needed, probing or clarifying questions Total 4 points

Not hands on, lacking evidence of exploration or not completed. 0 points

Very little details about exploration activity. Cannot do activity by reading lesson plan. 1-2 points

Explore lesson is written in lesson plan, but is minimal and not creative. The reader understands how to implement/teach the explore part of the lesson. 4 points

Hands-on and inquiry based learning incorporated into explore lesson plan piece. Must be related to microgravity concepts. The reader understands how to implement/teach the explore part of the lesson. 4 points

Explain: Concepts explained and vocabulary defined. Total 4 points

Not completed. 0 points

Incorrect Explanation. Very little details. 1-2 points

Explanation is minimal, but is the correct information and will allow the reader to understand how the concepts are taught. 3 points

Differentiated to learning styles. Must be related to microgravity concepts. The reader understands how to explain the concepts taught. 4 points

Elaborate: Applications and extensions Total 4 points

Not completed. 0 points

Very little details. Cannot understand how to teach elaboration activity by reading the lesson plan. 1-2 points

Elaboration is minimal in lesson plan, but will allow the reader to understand how the concepts are taught. 3 points

Differentiated to learning styles. Must be related to microgravity concepts. The reader understands how to elaborate the concepts taught. 4 points

Evaluate: Formative Monitoring (questioning and discussion) Summative Assessment (quiz, project, report) Total 4 points

Not Completed. 0 points

Very little details on how to evaluate understanding of students’ comprehension on learning goals. 1-2 points

The evaluation process is not differentiated, but all concepts are evaluated. The reader understands how to evaluate. 3 points

Differentiated and creative to evaluate various learning styles. Must be related to microgravity concepts. The reader understands how to evaluate. 4 points

19

Outreach Questions

Lowest Score Highest Score

Question 1: How will peer educators and other students (those beyond the onsite team) be involved with this challenge? What steps will be taken to ensure their involvement? Examples include parallel classroom investigations, social media, websites, science nights, etc. Total 6 points

Did not answer question. 0 points

Few or no other peer educators or students beyond the original team are involved in the process. Little to no details about involvement in the process are written in the answer. 1-2 points

Other peer educators and students are involved, but have little involvement in the process. Few details are written about their involvement in the process. 3-4 points

Creative make-up of outside peer educators and students beyond the basic team membership that are involved with the SLED experiment. Details are written about how the outside members will be involved in the process. 5-6 points

Question 2: How will the team share this challenge with the general public? Total 6 points

Did not answer question. 0 points

Minimal description to share and reach out beyond the team’s local education community. Lacks creativity. 1-2 points

Minimal, not creative ways are described to share and reach others beyond the team’s local education community. 3-4 points

Creative, detailed ways of outreach to others beyond the team’s local education community. 5-6 points

Question 3: List all partners, sponsors, or volunteers that may help the team during this process. Total 6 points

Did not answer question. 0 points

1 -2 additional members that will volunteer or partner during the process. 1-2 points

3-4 additional members that will volunteer or partner during the process. 3-4 points

Has 5 or more members that will volunteer or partner during the process. 5-6 points

Question 4: List the local media outlets that will be contacted to share this experience with the local community. Please list any hashtags that your team and/or organization may have on social media. Total 2 points

Did not answer question. 0 points

Provides contact information and hashtags for social media. 1 point

Provides contact information and hashtags for social media. Provides detailed plan to share the journey/milestones pre and post experience. 2 points