-
EmPower Information Technology Inc
Distance: 5.2 Mi4800 Montgomery Ln Ste 700
20814 Bethesda -
Downey Data
Distance: 5.2 Mi4800 Montgomery Ln Ste 700
20814 Bethesda -
Tom Hill
Distance: 5.5 Mi16819 Centerfield Way
20832-2000 Olney -
MLM International
Distance: 8.2 Mi7914 Queenair Dr
20879-4138 Gaithersburg -
Piedra-sombra Corporation Inc
Distance: 8.6 Mi18912 Glendower Rd
20879-1833 Gaithersburg
NewSpace Journal
- 12205 Village Square Ter Apt 101
- Rockville, Maryland
- 20852-1919
- Phone: 301.984.3183
- Website
Description
Does the GLXP scorecard need a new grading curve? The web site Evadot recently published a comprehensive “team scorecard” ranking all the current teams participating in the Google Lunar X PRIZE . The scorecard lists 22 teams and their cumulative scores based on the following metrics: It’s certainly a comprehensive examination of the teams, and Michael Doornbos deserves credit for putting it together. However, if the goal is to measure which teams are closest to winning the prize, the categories and their weighting should be reconsidered. Some comments: 1) While the scorecard weights funding more than any other category, it’s still not weighted heavily enough. Getting enough funding to carry out a mission is perhaps the most difficult aspect of the competition, given that none of the teams are independently wealthy or (with, perhaps, the exception of new team Rocket City Space Pioneers ) have the backing of major corporations. You can have a great concept, an impressive social media strategy, and inspiration oozing out your virtual pores, but without money you’re never getting off the ground. 2) Similarly, hardware development should be weighted more: it’s a key differentiator between teams making serious progress towards going to the Moon versus those with flashy web sites and gorgeous illustrations, but nothing else. 3) Several of the other categories should be weighted less, or even combined or eliminated: social savvy, connections, feeling, and inspiration among them. Social media is nice to have, but beyond the requirements set forth by the competition it’s not essential. And some of the metrics are admittedly extremely subjective (see “feeling”). 4) Since progress is captured in other areas, such as funding and hardware development, having a separate progress category seems redundant. A simplistic alternative would be to give one-third weight to funding, one-third to hardware development, and one-third distributed among the other categories. Even that, though, may underweight funding and hardware.