National Space Sustainability Competition: design energy for life in orbit

National Space Sustainability Competition: design energy for life in orbit

Editorial overview

Space Foundation is a nonpartisan nonprofit that convenes people from government, industry, finance and education across the space ecosystem. Space Foundation reinvests proceeds from its events into STEM education, workforce development and its Discovery Center. That combination helps explain the National Space Sustainability Competition: the educational exercise sits close to the practical question of keeping people and equipment supplied with power beyond Earth. The competition asks students to consider how energy can be generated, stored or managed to support future operations in Earth’s orbit. CompeteMap sees its strongest appeal in that systems perspective. A team has to connect a promising idea to the activity it supports, then explain why its design makes sense. A striking space-station drawing can start the conversation, but it cannot carry the whole argument.

We would prioritise this project for students who enjoy discussing how things work and can share responsibility for technical explanation, visual modelling and communication. Its value lies in translating one design into several consistent forms. The preparation burden is therefore coordination as much as construction: the model, written explanation and spoken pitch should describe the same mechanism. It is a useful stretch for a team willing to simplify an ambitious idea and expose its assumptions. Families seeking a short, individually completed activity should consider whether that collaborative workload fits their available time before committing.

Quick Facts

Review Evaluation

For current dates, eligibility and registration details, see the National Space Sustainability Competition 2027 competition page.

Checked on 5 November 2026. Use the competition page and official website for the latest timetable.

Review Evaluation

Rated Advanced. The main challenge is connecting technical feasibility, sustainability and a clear presentation.

Trace the energy before drawing the habitat

The interesting design question is the link between an energy source and a human need. As an editorial starting exercise, draw a chain from generation through storage and distribution to a single use. Then ask what happens when one part stops working. A team might investigate lighting during periods without sunlight, a way to reduce wasted power, or a modular storage concept. These are preparation examples, rather than extra organizer requirements.

Keep the first sketch functional. Arrows can show where energy goes; a small table can distinguish what the team knows from what it assumes. If the proposed system needs a material, a storage method or a control strategy that students cannot explain, that is a useful research question. Narrowing the proposal often produces a better project than adding another futuristic component.

The official brief asks teams to connect technical, economic and social considerations. Our interpretation is that students should be able to explain both the mechanism and the reason to build it. Who uses the power? What resource does the design save? Which practical limitation remains? The aim of this preparation is to make the proposal understandable, with uncertainty visible rather than hidden behind impressive vocabulary.

Make the three outputs agree

The mission brief is a PDF of at most three pages. The written explanation should identify the problem, describe the proposed solution and make its sustainability argument easy to follow. An effective working method is to finish a rough explanation before decorating the layout; gaps in that explanation usually reveal gaps in the design.

Model documentation uses PNG, JPG or PDF, and the description must not exceed 500 words. Labels should help the reader trace a mechanism. A simple diagram with clear inputs and outputs can be more informative than an intricate render whose purpose is unclear. The competition page allows a concept model or technical representation, so families can choose a medium that students can control and explain.

The video pitch is at most three minutes, in landscape format at a minimum 720 resolution, submitted as MP4 or MOV. Treat the recording as a concise explanation of the same idea. Show the part of the model that supports each point being made. Rehearse for comprehension: ask a listener to describe the mechanism back to the team, then revise the sections that were misunderstood.

A useful editorial review is to compare one claim across all three outputs. If the brief describes energy storage, the visual should identify the storage component and the pitch should explain its role. Disagreement between these outputs is a stronger reason to revise than an imperfect transition or an unpolished background.

Keep the project with the students

Entrants must be current students in grades 6–8. Students must reside in U.S. states or territories. Teams consist of 2–4 students supervised by a teacher or adult mentor. These conditions matter before a family invests time in a concept; do not assume that an online format permits entry from anywhere.

An adult teacher or team mentor registers the team and submits through the competition dashboard. One entry is permitted per eligible team. The adult can organise permissions and logistics while students retain ownership of the thinking and explanation.

Entries must be original work created solely by eligible students. Keep working sketches and notes so students can explain how their decisions developed. An adult's most helpful contribution is often a question: what does this part do, why did you choose it, and how could someone check that explanation?

The sources reviewed did not establish a specific policy on generative AI. That uncertainty does not establish permission to outsource the design or writing. Ask the organizer about any proposed use that could affect authorship, and preserve the students' ability to explain every submitted component.

The rules assign entry rights to Space Foundation and permit worldwide perpetual publicity use. Guardians should read those terms together with the consent and submission instructions before agreeing to participate. This is a practical decision about what the family is comfortable submitting and allowing the organizer to use.

Resolve the orbital and lunar wording

There is an inconsistency in the official brief instructions: one bullet refers to a long-term sustainable lunar presence, while the published theme, task explanation and competition announcement focus on energy for life in orbit. This guide follows the orbital-energy theme and explicitly flags that lunar wording. Teams should ask Space Foundation to clarify how that bullet applies to their proposed project before completing their submission.

This is especially relevant when a design depends on its operating environment. A surface-based concept and an orbiting system can involve different assumptions. Keep the team's intended setting explicit, and retain any clarification received from the organizer with the project notes.

Key Takeaways

CompeteMap's view is that the strongest reason to choose this competition is the opportunity to explain an energy system as a connected design. Choose a manageable human need, trace the energy, and make the model, brief and pitch tell the same technical story.

The practical commitment is collaborative work plus adult administration. Check the residency and school-grade requirements, review the consent and rights terms, and resolve the conflicting lunar wording before the team spends heavily on presentation. A thoughtful, explainable concept is a better preparation goal than a visually elaborate proposal that students cannot defend.

Sources checked

• https://www.spacefoundation.org/national-space-day-competition/
• https://www.spacefoundation.org/national-space-day-competition/competition-rules/
• https://www.spacefoundation.org/2026/10/15/national-space-day-competition/
• https://swft.space/national-space-day/competition/register/