Award Results
SA Cup Team Conduct Awards
Competition Officials present two awards recognizing teams competing in the IREC whose conduct throughout the Spaceport America Cup is exemplary of goals and ideals held by the event organizers. The Spaceport America Cup is an event where academia, industry, and the public may come together to preserve, popularize, and advance the science of rocketry in a collaborative environment energized by friendly competition.
- Team Spirit Award - Team 123 - Rutgers University
- Team Sportsmanship Award - Team 37 - University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
SDL Payload Challenge Awards
Place Awards:
- First Place - Team 79 - Concordia University
- Second Place - Team 116 - Ryerson University
- Third Place - Team 83 - University at Buffalo
Honorable Mentions:
- Honorable Mention for "amazing science" - Team 117 - University of Victoria
- Honorable Mention for full "engineering lifecycle professionalism" - Team 63 - Union College
- Honorable Mention for "complex engineering" - Team 53 - University of Minnesota, Duluth
- Honorable Mention for a "four chamber atmospheric sampling experiment" - Team 104 - Colorado State University
- Honorable Mention for a "software defined radio GPS demonstration" - Team 111 - Stanford University
IREC Technical Achievement Awards
Competition Officials present four awards recognizing technical achievement to deserving teams competing in the IREC. A description of each award may be found in the IREC Rules & Requirements Document.
- Charles Hoult Award for Modeling and Simulation - Team 100 - ETH Zurich
- James Barrowman Award for Flight Dynamics - Team 40 - University of Sheffield
- Dr. Gil Moore Award for Innovation - Team 59 - Polytechnique Montreal
- Jim Furfaro Award for Technical Excellence - Team 35 - Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne
IREC Category Place Awards
A First Place Award is granted to the highest scoring, eligible team in each of the six categories defined in the IREC Rules & Requirements Document. A Second Place Award is granted to the second highest scoring, eligible team in each category. A team is considered eligible for the place awards in its category after launching successfully to at least half or more its category's target altitude. In the event no teams meet this definition in a given category, competition officials issue Category Place Awards at their discretion based on multiple factors – including points accrued, launches attempted, and flight performance.
10k ft COTS:
- First Place - Team 47 - McGill University
- Second Place - Team 84 Brigham Young University
30k ft COTS:
- First Place - Team 79 - Concordia University
- Second Place - Team 111 - Stanford University
10k ft SRAD Solid:
- First Place - Team 60 - The Ohio State University
- Second Place - Team 85 - West Virginia University
30k ft SRAD Solid:
- First Place - Team 65 - University of Illinois, Chicago
- Second Place - Team 53 - University of MInnesota, Duluth
10k SRAD Hybrid Liquid:
- First Place - Team 38 - University of Waterloo
- Second Place - Team 108 - University of California, Los Angeles
30k ft SRAD Hypbrid/Liquid
- First Place - Team 09 - University of Washington
- Second Place - Team 105 - AGH University of Science & Technology
IREC Overall Winner & Judges Choice
One team among the First Place Award winners in the six IREC categories is named the overall winner of the IREC, and receive their own copy of the Genesis Cup! A perpetual trophy rendition of the Genesis Cup is displayed in the Gateway Gallery at Spaceport America. The recipient of this award is determined by qualitative assessments of the competition officials made throughout the event.
Genesis Cup - Team 47 - McGill University
Additional IREC Ranking Information
The following file contains overall flight performance and final total score information recorded before the end of competition at the 2018 IREC. Note that final total score is not necessarily indicative Place Award eligibility, in accordance with the IREC Rules & Requirements Document.
| scoring_matrix_26jun2018_final_for_release.xlsx |
Last Updated: 07/16/2018, 22:00 hours
Conference Procedings
Disclaimers:
These reports and presentations were prepared by students as part of Intercollegiate Rocket Engineering Competition (IREC) requirements. They are not the work of licensed engineers and have not undergone the extensive verification or peer review expected in a professional publication. The information, data, conclusions, and other content presented in these reports should not be used without thorough, independent verification. University faculty members were associated with these projects as advisors or instructors but, are not responsible for the accuracy of results or conclusions in these roles.
The Spaceport America Cup is intended as an ITAR-free event. U.S. persons (U.S. citizens and permanent residents) are responsible for ensuring that technical data they present in open sessions to non-U.S. persons in attendance or in conference proceedings are not export restricted by the ITAR. U.S. persons are likewise responsible for ensuring that they do not discuss ITAR export restricted information with non-U.S. nationals in attendance. Similarly, US person authors of IREC Project Technical Reports as well as Podium Session submissions and associated slide decks are responsible for ensuring the content of their materials does not exceed the interpretation of "fundamental research" and the ITAR established by their affiliated academic institution(s).
SA Cup Podium Session
In accordance with the IREC Rules & Requirements Document, 24 Technical Presentation Topics submitted to competition officials in the form of an Extended Abstract were selected for inclusion in the 2018 SA Cup Conference Podium Session. The 2018 SA Cup Conference Podium Session also featured a presentation by students from Brigham Young University, Utah - who submitted a presentation on their design, construction, and testing a sounding rocket intended for flight to just over 100,000 ft AGL (designated team 205). They - along with three other high-altitude teams from the University of Michigan, The Ohio State University, and Saint Louis University - attempted the first full scale flight of this system at the Second Annual Spaceport America Cup - on Thursday, 21 JUN. Below is a list of the IREC Teams whose Extended Abstracts were accepted, as well a file containing brief summaries of these presentations, and compressed zip file containing the associated presentation slides. (Note that some files may be missing either because the courtesy copy was corrupted, or not provided by the team.)
|
Team 09 from the University of Washington
Team 12 from Texas A&M University Team 20 from Iowa State University Team 21 from Oregon State University Team 23 from Ohio University Team 35 from the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Team 37 from the University of Michigan Team 38 from the University of Waterloo Team 42 from Laval University Team 43 from the University of Calgary Team 54 from Oklahoma State University Team 55 from the University of Ottawa |
Team 59 from Ecole Polytechnique, Montreal
Team 65 from the University of Illinois at Chicago Team 73 from the Aeronautics Institute of Tech, Sao Jose dos Campos Team 83 from the University at Buffalo Team 92 from Rice University Team 93 from McGill University Team 100 from ETH Zurich Team 104 from Colorado State University Team 105 from AGH University of Science & Technology Team 111 from Stanford University Team 117 from the University of Victoria Team 124 from The John's Hopkins University |
| selected_presentations_for_the_second_sa_cup_irec_conference_podium_session.pdf |
| presentation_slides.zip |
Selected Project Technical Reports
In accordance with the IREC Rules & Requirements Document, all competing teams submitted Project Technical Reports (PTR) to competition officials. The following files contain the PTRs for the winners of the six IREC Categories and the SA Cup Conference Podium Session selectees. Inclusion in this list is not necessarily reflective of the report's quality by itself. (Note that some files may be missing either because the courtesy copy was corrupted, or not provided by the team.)
| 09_project_report.pdf |
| 12_project_report.pdf |
| 20_project_report.pdf |
| 21_project_report.pdf |
| 23_project_report.pdf |
| 35_project_report.pdf |
| 37_project_report.pdf |
| 38_project_report.pdf |
| 40_project_report.pdf |
| 42_project_report.pdf |
| 43_project_report.pdf |
| 105_project_report.pdf |
| 47_project_report.pdf |
| 54_project_report.pdf |
| 55_project_report.pdf |
| 59_project_report.pdf |
| 60_project_report_.pdf |
| 65_project_report.pdf |
| 73_project_report.pdf |
| 79_project_report.pdf |
| 83_project_report.pdf |
| 84_project_report.pdf |
| 85_final_report.pdf |
| 92_project_report.pdf |
| 93_project_report.pdf |
| 100_project_report.pdf |
| 104_project_report.pdf |
| 108_project_report.pdf |
| 111_projectreport.pdf |
| 117_project_report.pdf |
| 124_project_report.pdf |