Judges will use the Phase 2 selection criteria to nominate the Phase 2 winners, which will be submitted to NGA for final approval. Should the volume of submissions exceed the capacity of the judges to conduct a thorough evaluation of the submissions, a review panel may conduct a preliminary review of eligible entries to determine the subset reviewed by the independent judging panel. A scoring rubric that provides greater detail for Phase 2 selection criteria will be released during the Phase 2 open submissions period.
Phase 2 Selection Criteria and Target Performance Metrics
When evaluating Phase 2 submissions, judges will assign each submission one to five points in each of the categories below (for a maximum of 25 points).
- Performance. The degree to which the integrated design (including sensor, platform, and data analysis) indicates an ability to achieve or exceed the necessary data requirements for production of the WMM (see target performance metrics below).
- Technical Feasibility. The extent to which the design uses technically sound methods, the solver identifies potential risks, and proposes credible mitigation strategies.
- Operational Feasibility and Cost Fidelity. The degree to which the design accounts for real-world implementation and operation in the near term (e.g., 5 years), as well as the ability to continuously and reliably collect data for several WMM iterations (e.g., 30 years).
- Innovation. The degree to which the design creates potential efficiencies in time, money, or other resources.
- Team. The extent to which the solver or team demonstrates sufficient expertise that may be needed to advance their integrated design to a Technology Readiness Level (TRL) of at least 5, and preferably 6, within a potential timeframe of two years (e.g., by September 2021). (see Technology Readiness Assessment in Additional Resources for more information on TRLs)
Target Performance Metrics
MagQuest seeks solutions that will capture data sufficient to produce the World Magnetic Model. The performance specifications below represent thresholds for solutions to consider. In Phase 2, these specifications are intended to provide guidance and solvers should consider how they could demonstrate performance in a potential Phase 3. These target performance metrics are an updated version of the information provided in Phase 1.
|Measurement location||Sufficient number of homogeneously distributed points around Earth for a model complete to degree and order 12 along with its secular variation meeting the WMM performance specification
|Measurement positioning and timing accuracy||Preferably provided by dual frequency GPS receiver and with specifications similar to previous satellite mission performance (e.g., Ørsted, Swarm)|
In geographic frame, after accounting for orientation/attitude error, crustal biases, spacecraft/aircraft fields, biases due to temperature effects, mechanical noise, and any other systematic noise source
In geographic frame, see also preamble of “Measurement accuracy” for details
< 1 nT per component precision
|Measurement sampling rate||
|Measurement range||-70,000 to 70,000 nT|
|Measurement time span||
Minimum requirement: at least 3 years
Preferred: continuous measurement solutions
|Measurement data latency||
Minimum requirement: less than one year
Preferred: less than 3 months
Phase 1 Selection Criteria
The judging panel used the Phase 1 selection criteria to nominate ten winners from the pool of eligible entries in Phase 1, which were submitted to the U.S. National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) for final approval.
When evaluating Phase 1 submissions, judges assigned each submission one to five points in each of the categories below, for a maximum of 25 points.
- Performance. The degree to which the concept could achieve or exceed the necessary data requirements for production of the WMM (see target performance metrics in Additional Resources).
- Technical Feasibility. The extent to which the concept uses technically sound methods and the solver identifies critical assumptions and risks.
- Operational Feasibility. The degree to which the concept accounts for and addresses real-world implementation, and the ability to continuously and reliably collect data for several WMM iterations (e.g., 20 years).
- Innovation. The degree to which the concept creates potential efficiencies in time, money, or other resources.
- Team. The extent to which the solver or team demonstrates expertise or recognizes what additional capabilities may be needed to advance their concept.