Conrad Challenge — Canonical Competition Facts
Source of truth for every Conrad skill and document in this repo. Cycle documented: 2025–2026 (authoritative, from the official Student Guide) with 2026–2027 deltas noted. Last verified: 2026-07-30.
⚠️ Annual recalibration required. Deadlines, fees, and the special category change every year. Re-verify against
conrad.spacecenter.orgbefore each season. See §12 for the refresh procedure.
1. What the competition actually is
The Conrad Challenge is a purpose-driven innovation and entrepreneurship competition, not a science fair. Run by Space Center Houston, presented by Equinor, named for Pete Conrad (Apollo 12, third person on the Moon). Founded 2005.
This distinction governs everything:
| Science fair (ISEF/STS) | Conrad Challenge | |
|---|---|---|
| Core question | Is the science sound? | Would a reasonable investor want to learn more? |
| Unit of work | A study with results | A venture with a product |
| Rewarded | Rigor, methodology, novelty of finding | Innovation + defensibility + market + money |
| Deliverable | Paper / poster | Brief + video + website (+ live pitch) |
| Data required | Yes | No. Evidence required; experiments optional |
| Team | Usually solo | Mandatory 2–5 students |
A team that writes a Conrad brief like an ISEF abstract will score 2s. The rubric asks business questions, and 50% of the score (Marketing 20% + Finances 10% + half of Storytelling) is business reasoning.
Scale: 2025–26 season had 1,500+ projects from 70+ countries. 2024–25 had 2,000+ teams. Roughly 3% become finalists (~25–31 teams reach the Summit).
2. Eligibility and team rules
| Rule | Value |
|---|---|
| Age | 13–18 at time of participation |
| Team size | 2–5 students (never 1) |
| Coach | Exactly one, age 18+ — teacher, parent, subject-matter expert, or other qualified mentor |
| Team changes | Members may be removed but no new members added after Activation Stage is submitted |
| Minimum | Team must always have ≥2 members |
| Repeat entrants | Allowed, but resubmitting a prior innovation requires "significant advancements or changes" |
| Geography | Anywhere in the world; teammates may span schools/cities/countries |
Age is not a scoring category. Judges are not told ages and score all teams to one standard. 13-year-olds have won. (Chief Judge cites a team of 13–14-year-olds who made finals and won awards.)
3. The three stages
Stage 1 — Activation (free)
2025–26 window: Aug 28 – Oct 30, 2025, 11:59 PM ET Register team + coach under one account in the Conrad Portal, agree to Rules & Terms, name the innovation, pick a category, submit the Lean Canvas.
Stage 2 — Innovation (paid, the real filter)
2025–26 deadline: Jan 8, 2026, 11:59 PM ET Submit: Innovation Brief + Innovation Video + Website + team photo + innovation image + references PDF. Entry fee $499 USD per team. Financial aid available on demonstrated need. Judged by external expert judges. Coaching comments + Finalist announcements released February.
Stage 3 — Innovation Summit (finalists only)
2025–26 dates: April 22–25, 2026, Space Center Houston + NASA Johnson Space Center, Houston, TX. Power Pitch to expert judges, EXPO tabletop exhibit, workshops, tours. $499 per guest to attend (financial aid available). Top honor: Pete Conrad Scholar (one team per category).
Timeline shape (any year)
Aug ──── Oct 30 ──────────── Jan 8 ────── Feb ──────── Apr 22-25
│ │ │ │ │
reg Lean Canvas Innovation Finalists Summit
opens due Stage due announced Power Pitch
[FREE] [$499] [$499/guest]
~2 months ~10 weeksThe brutal structural fact: the gap between Lean Canvas (Oct 30) and Innovation Stage (Jan 8) is ~10 weeks spanning winter holidays and exams. Teams that treat Oct 30 as the finish line lose.
4. Categories
Four standing + one rotating special category:
- Aerospace & Aviation
- Cyber-Technology & Security
- Energy & Environment — sponsored by Equinor
- Health & Nutrition
- Special category (rotates annually) — 2024-25 and 2025-26: The Water Challenge ("Currents of Change"): water equity, efficiency, purity.
Category is chosen at Lean Canvas time and shapes which judges see you.
Category boundaries are soft and gameable. Real 2026 examples:
- BeCure — bee-mite detection by phone camera — competed in Health & Nutrition, not Energy & Environment.
- Robo Therapy — a tremor-suppressing exoskeleton — competed in Cyber-Technology & Security, not Health.
- Echo/Pulse — an EMG speech-restoration headset — competed in Cyber-Technology, not Health.
→ Strategic implication in topic-engine/METHOD.md §5: pick the category where your project is unusual, not the one where it's obvious. See "category arbitrage."
5. The China Chapter (structurally important)
Conrad China (康莱德创新者大会中国站) launched 2020 under authorization from the global committee. 2026–27 is its seventh season.
- Runs its own selection process and its own awards, with a China regional final (typically March).
- Has dedicated finalist slots at the global Summit — the 2026 finalist roster lists a separate "China Chapter Finalists" section (B-ASE, DiveGuard, OctoScope, VisionBridge, Soaring Seeds).
- Own timeline: 2026–27 regular registration deadline Dec 14, 2026.
- Runs offline Lean Canvas workshops in Chinese schools.
Practical consequence: a China-based team chooses which pipeline to enter. The China Chapter is a second, parallel path to Houston with a different competitive pool. This materially changes odds and should be an explicit strategic decision, not a default.
6. Submission artifacts — exact specifications
6a. Lean Canvas — 12 questions, ~40 words each
| # | Question | Limit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Problem — customer need; social/environmental challenge | 40 w |
| 2 | Existing Alternatives — how is this solved today? | 40 w |
| 3 | Solution — key characteristics of the innovation | 40 w |
| 4 | Key Metrics — numbers that track success | 40 w |
| 5 | Unique Value Proposition — what makes it different | 40 w |
| 6 | High Level Concept — the tagline | 10 w |
| 7 | Sustainable Advantage — why hard to copy | 40 w |
| 8 | Channels — how sold and delivered | 40 w |
| 9 | Customer Segments — target audience | 40 w |
| 10 | Early Adopters — the very first customers | 40 w |
| 11 | Cost Structure — most significant costs¹ | 40 w |
| 12 | Revenue Streams — how it makes money ongoing | 40 w |
¹ The 2025-26 Student Guide has a typo: items 10 and 11 are both printed "Early Adopters". Item 11's body text ("What are the most significant costs?") makes clear it is Cost Structure. Answer it as Cost Structure.
Lean Canvas is reviewed for completeness and feasibility, not scored competitively. It is a gate, not a contest. Submissions are approved on a rolling basis — submit early, advance early, and buy weeks of Innovation Stage runway.
6b. Innovation Brief — 10 questions, 3,000 words total
The single most important submission item. Per-question limits:
| # | Question | Words | Feeds rubric theme |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Elevator Pitch — essence, impact, customers, business potential | 150 | Storytelling + Innovation |
| 2 | Team — formation, roles, motivation, capabilities | 150 | Storytelling |
| 3 | Opportunity — what pain point does it address? | 300 | Innovation |
| 4 | Innovation² — design, technology, how it works, what's new/proprietary, impact qual+quant, how IP is protected | 750 | Innovation + Practicality |
| 5 | Validation / Progress — how validated, what progress | 450 | Practicality |
| 6 | Market — customers, segments, opportunity size, buyer≠payer, ecosystem | 300 | Marketing |
| 7 | Competition — what competes, comparison, advantages/disadvantages, positioning | 300 | Marketing |
| 8 | Go-To-Market — how to attract and sell, pilot customers, channel strategy | 150 | Marketing |
| 9 | Business Model — key revenues and costs, price and cost of one unit | 300 | Finances |
| 10 | Fundraising — funds needed, use of funds, cost to develop and roll out, sources | 150 | Finances |
² The 2025-26 guide labels Q4 "Key Metrics" but its body text is the Innovation question (identical to the 2024-25 form's Q4 "Innovation"). Answer the body text, not the label.
Plus:
- Reference Attachment (PDF) — all sources cited in the brief. Judges see and open this.
- Additional Attachments — up to 2 optional files providing visual context (diagrams, animations, CAD renders, test data). Under-used and high-leverage.
Word budget insight: Q4 alone is 750 words = 25% of the brief, and it feeds two rubric themes (Innovation 30% + Practicality 20% = 50% of total score). Q4 is where the competition is won or lost. Most weak briefs spend Q4 on adjectives.
6c. Innovation Video
- 3–5 minutes, hard cap 5:00
- Must feature a model of the innovation: sketch, 3D model, storyboard, wireframe, physical prototype, or other visual artifact
- Upload both a YouTube/Vimeo link (public or unlisted — must be accessible) and an MP4 < 800 MB
- Focus on the innovation, its capabilities and technology
6d. Website
- Tells the team's story (mission, vision, values)
- Displays a model of the innovation with explanatory imagery
- Communicates brand — name, logo, colour scheme, voice, design
- Accessible by direct link; may be hidden from search engines
6e. Team Photo + Innovation Image
High-quality. If you become a finalist these appear on the public Global Finalists page. The innovation image should be the same model used in the video and website.
7. The scoring rubric
Five themes, weighted, each scored 1–5 in whole points only (no 3.5), auto-weighted to a 100-point scale.
| Theme | Weight | Core question |
|---|---|---|
| Innovation | 30% | How new or unique? How impactful? |
| Storytelling & Professionalism | 20% | Would a reasonable investor be motivated to learn more? |
| Practicality | 20% | Will it work? |
| Marketing Strategy | 20% | Does the team understand key markets? |
| Finances | 10% | Does the team understand costs and funding? |
The 1–5 scale
| Label | Meaning | |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | FAIR | Significant missing elements, poor communication |
| 2 | GOOD | Addresses requirements but incomplete, not developed enough to assess with confidence |
| 3 | VERY GOOD | Competent, worthy of further work, gives general confidence and interest |
| 4 | EXCELLENT | Convincing and thorough, strong internal logic, good technology or originality, attracted to work with or fund |
| 5 | EXEMPLARY | Role model performance, strong impact, original and awesome innovation, high confidence in rationale, evidence and storytelling |
Most teams earn 2, 3 or 4 on each theme. 5s are reserved for genuine wow.
2025–26 sub-criteria (25 total — the real checklist)
Innovation (30%)
- Originality — truly new or a novel combination? creative/scientific inspiration?
- Impact Potential — transforms an industry or delivers real benefit?
- Ambition Level — incremental, bold, or audacious?
- Verification — has an online search confirmed uniqueness and ruled out duplicates?
- IP Defensibility — patent, trade secret, copyright, first mover, contracts, ecosystem capture?
Storytelling & Professionalism (20%)
- Investor Appeal · Clarity of Opportunity · Credibility Boost (video+website) · Narrative Structure · Polish & Consistency
Practicality (20%)
- Feasibility · Realism (consistent with scientific principles) · Proof of Concept · Evidence Base · Next Steps
Marketing Strategy (20%)
- Market Insight · Entry & Adoption · Ecosystem Awareness · Differentiation · Engagement Channels (website)
Finances (10%)
- Cost Estimation · Revenue Projections (per unit and overall) · Funding Strategy · Budget Reasonableness · Financial Viability
Finalist threshold
- No formal cutoff, but finalists typically score above 85–90 points.
- Finalists are usually a judge's highest-scored team.
- Each team is normally seen by 3+ judges; a selection committee sees all scores.
- Teams never see scores — only the written comments.
8. Rules on originality, coaching, and AI — read this twice
These are the constraints that make or break a mentoring program.
Originality
"The team's idea must be original work that has been developed by the team as a group."
Coach limits
"Coaches may guide the students but may not create any of the submitted elements or provide excessive influence on the concept design."
AI and citation
From the Rules & Regulations:
Submissions "may not copy or use other materials — including artificial intelligence (AI) tools — without properly citing the source. Proper citation includes the standard information of a scientific citation, including authors, publication source, dates, volume, pages, or URL information."
From the Chief Judge's Q&A (more specific and more restrictive):
"Student teams self-certify that they present original work with necessary attributions and have not used AI for writing, programming, or key innovation. AI must be used only for partial, original submission writing." "Teams may use AI for research, and AI should be footnoted as any other source or quoted directly with footnoting. Judges will see a research attribution page (PDF) on the submission page."
Separately and explicitly permitted: teams may build AI into the innovation itself. Judges then evaluate whether the team can explain how the AI functions — "it's not convincing for teams to write that AI will solve a problem or create action unexplainedly."
The three-way distinction that everything depends on
| Use of AI | Status |
|---|---|
| AI inside the product you invented | ✅ Encouraged — but you must explain how it works |
| AI as a research/learning tool | ✅ Allowed — must be cited in the references PDF |
| AI writing your brief, code, or key innovation | ❌ Prohibited — you self-certify you didn't |
Enforcement
- Suspected plagiarism/AI misuse → judges report to
[email protected]. - "We examine this more so for teams that show finalist potential." → the scrutiny scales with success.
- Space Center Houston may disqualify a team at any point, at sole discretion.
IP ownership
Teams retain ownership of their intellectual property.
9. Fees
| Item | Cost |
|---|---|
| Activation Stage | Free |
| Lean Canvas Stage | Free |
| Innovation Stage | $499 / team (financial aid available) |
| Innovation Summit attendance | $499 / guest (financial aid available) |
The free→paid boundary sits at the Lean Canvas gate. Teams can test their idea at zero cost.
10. Awards
- Pete Conrad Scholar — top honour, one team per category
- Power Pitch Award — one per category, for the live pitch
- Equinor "Searching for Better" Award — progress through innovation, community, service
- Donald James Citizenship Award(s)
- Simon Glinsky Expo Exhibit Awards — "Most Persuasive" and "Best Tabletop"
- Space Center Houston Best Entrepreneurial Innovators
- Excellence in Education Award — for coaches
- Alumni Leader Council Award
Prizes include scholarships, grants, patent support, laptops, sponsor resources, and in 2026 all-expenses-paid trips. Menlo College offers Conrad Innovators up to $32,000/yr if they enrol.
Note the award structure: there are many ways to be recognised beyond Pete Conrad Scholar, and several (Expo, Citizenship, Power Pitch) reward things other than the technology.
11. Judging operations (what actually happens to your submission)
- Judging window ≈ Jan 18 – Feb 4; judges commit 5–10 hours.
- Each judge gets up to 5–6 teams, ~1–2 hours per team.
- Judges work independently; they may not consult each other or contact students.
- Judges are required to perform web research to verify originality, technical veracity, and market fit.
- Judges must complete all five comment fields in prose — short phrases are explicitly insufficient.
- Judges are told to write as coaches, not graders, and to address students directly ("you", not "they").
- Judges are told to have moderate expectations on Finances and be more lenient there.
- A judge's comments can be rejected/recused by the Chief Judge for poor quality or errors.
Implication for teams: your reader is a domain professional who will Google your claims, is time-boxed to ~90 minutes, is reading 5 teams, and is instructed to be kind in writing while scoring honestly. Optimise for fast verifiability.
12. Annual refresh procedure
Before each season, re-verify and update this file:
conrad.spacecenter.org→ Student Guide PDF (new one posts ~August) → §3 dates, §9 fees, §4 special category, §7 sub-criteria.conrad.spacecenter.org/the-challenge/rules-and-regulations/→ §8 rules, esp. AI policy.conrad.spacecenter.org/{YEAR}-awards/and/{YEAR}-innovation-summit-finalists/→ refreshdata/winners.jsonl.conradchallengechina.cn→ §5 China Chapter dates.- Judge Guide + Chief Judge Q&A (sent to registered judges) → §11.
- Bump
rubric_versionin every skill's frontmatter.
Known source fragility: the legacy www.conradchallenge.org (Squarespace) has intermittent TLS failures and is being superseded by conrad.spacecenter.org. Prefer the latter.
13. Coverage limits of this knowledge base
Stated honestly so downstream work does not overclaim:
- Verified in full: 2025–26 Student Guide; 2024–25 Judge Guide, Scoring Guide, Chief Judge Q&A; five real 2024–25 judged Innovation Briefs; current Rules & Regulations; 2026 awards + full 2026 finalist roster (31 teams with descriptions); 2025 and 2024 award winners (names only).
- Not obtained: full finalist rosters with descriptions for 2025 and earlier (legacy site TLS failures; Wayback not reachable from this environment). Innovation descriptions for 2024/2025 champions are partial.
- Not obtained: the 2026–27 Student Guide (not yet published as of 2026-07-30) — the special category for 2026–27 is therefore unconfirmed.
- Inferred, not confirmed: that the 25 sub-criteria introduced in the 2025-26 guide are used verbatim in the judging portal. They match the older Scoring Guide's themes and weights exactly, so the mapping is safe, but sub-criterion-level scoring granularity is not documented publicly.