URC2026 System Acceptance Review

System Acceptance Review (SAR) packages must be submitted no later than February 27, 2026 at 11:59pm Mountain Standard Time (MST; UTC-7).

The SAR is a competitive milestone, meaning that teams will be judged against each other.  Only the top 36 teams will qualify for the URC2026 Finals.*

Format and Submission Details

SAR packages shall consist of two components: a SAR Report and SAR Video.  They must be submitted no later than February 27, 2026 at 11:59pm Mountain Standard Time (MST; UTC-7) via the URC2026 System Acceptance Review Submission Form (link removed).

All content (including, but not limited to, text, images, video, and audio) not created by the submitting team must be credited or cited appropriately. This includes pictures of parts taken from a manufacturer's website. Plagiarism concerns are taken very seriously, and are grounds for disqualification.

2026 SAR Packages must be original products. Teams cannot reuse prior years' reports or videos.

For URC2026 judges will place an increased emphasis on teams clearly differentiating between systems carried over from prior years' work, and what is being developed during the URC2026 competition cycle.

SAR Report (40% of SAR Score)

Report Format

SAR Reports are limited to 7 pages of text and graphics (images, figures, etc.).  A cover page is optional, and is not included in the 7 page limit, but may only include the report title, team name, university, country, and contact information (student team lead and an optional point of contact). If not included on a cover page, this information must appear in a header at the top of the first page).  Pages should be in letter paper size (8.5 in. x 11 in.), with margins no smaller than 1 in. (2.5 cm), text in Calibri 11 point font (or similarly sized font), and single spaced.  Electronic submissions are required in *.pdf file format only. All text embedded in figures (e.g. the Gantt chart) must be easily legible when zooming to 250%.

• Pages 1-4 may include text and graphics (images, figures, etc.).

• Page 5 may only include the Gantt chart.

• Page 6 may only include the Project Budget Table.

• Page 7 may only include the Science Plan.

Judges will not consider any content after the end of the seventh page (not including cover page), regardless of the situation or content remaining on additional pages.

Unless provided for citation, links to external files should not be provided. Judges will not consider any information from teams beyond the report and video limits specified here.

Report Contents and Criteria

• System Overview & Architecture (8%)
  Describe your team's system, presenting the overall system architecture, and discussing critical subsystems (to include communication, and command and control subsystems). Teams should provide a system-level context that describes the overall design, and demonstrates a thoughtful systems engineering approach. Describe in detail subsystems which are considered particularly novel. System architecture diagrams are required. Teams must discuss (and clearly communicate through a system architecture diagram) which subsystems are new for URC2026, and which have been reused or modified from prior to September 1, 2025.
  Detailed scoring criteria:

  • Description of System (2%)

  • System Architecture Diagram(s) (2%)

  • Description of subsystems which are new versus reused or modified (2%)

  • Detailed description of new and novel features (2%)

• Integration and Testing (6%)
  Describe your team's integration plan in a way that is consistent with your system architecture description, and articulate your current integration status. Describe your team's test plan, addressing how the team will conduct testing at the component/subsystem level, system level, and operational testing/training. Description of software testing is encouraged. If a team is using any modeling and simulation tools, they should be described in this section.
  Detailed scoring criteria:

  • Approach to Integration (2%)

  • Status of Integration (2%)

  • Test Plan (2%)

• Project Management (11%)
  Describe your team's organizational structure, and how project management is being executed through the second half of the URC2026 cycle (January - May). Describe team training (mentorship and education within the team, in particular training related to integration, testing, and operations), and educational and public outreach activities. An updated Gantt chart and Project BudgetTable are required, with additional details provided below.
  Detailed Scoring Criteria:

  • Team Organization (1%)

  • Approach to Team Training (1%)

  • Educational and Public Outreach (1%)

  • Gantt Chart (4%; page 5 only)
    The Gantt chart is required to cover, at a minimum, September 1, 2025 through May 31, 2026. The Gantt chart should include the following for each task: start/end dates, percentage complete, and task owner. Time resolution should be 1 week or shorter. Tasks should be organized through a logical work breakdown structure that reflects the system architecture. Identify all work remaining (to include integration and testing), and accurately depict the critical path for project completion (the sequence of interdependent work elements which determine the shortest schedule to completion). 

  • Project Budget Table (4%; page 6 only)
    The SAR budget table is required to follow the guidance on the Budget Tables and Gantt Charts page. Please pay careful attention to the required elements of information. Note that the SAR Project Budget Table is different than the final Rover Expense Report (which is required prior to the Finals), however teams must still show that the cost of their fielded system will be below $24,000 (see Q2 below). The team’s project budget should reflect funding raised and expenses to date, as well as anticipated funding yet to be raised and planned expenses through project completion.  Teams are also required to clearly state whether or not they have, or will have, the funding required to travel to URC if selected (it is acceptable to have sponsor commitments that are contingent upon invitation to the Finals). 

• Science Plan (15%; page 7 only)
  The Science Plan should describe the experiments designed to take place on-board the rover,  including the sample cache system and the on-board instrument(s)/method(s) of the team's choice.**

SAR Video (48% of SAR Score)

Video Format

SAR Videos are limited to a single video that is no longer than 5 minutes (5:00).  Teams may use any combination of video techniques - to include individuals talking, rover demonstrations, voiced-over-slides, etc.  However, audio quality of any voice used is absolutely imperative, even at the expense of video quality.  Do not include background music that is loud or makes voices hard to hear and understand. The use of captions/subtitles is encouraged, especially for non-native English speakers.  Videos must be submitted via a link to YouTube.  Videos must be publicly accessible and searchable.  By submitting the SAR Video, teams acknowledge that some or all of their video may be utilized by URC for promotion purposes. Additional video guidance is provided in the SAR Q&A.

Judges will not consider any content after 5:00 in the video, regardless of the situation or content remaining.

Video Dates & Speed

• All video, regardless of the date recorded, must include a caption indicating the month and year that the video was recorded.

• Video recorded since September, 2025 will be counted as direct evidence of your rover's maturity and team's readiness. If all else is equal, judges will inherently score recent video higher than old video.

• If video is leveraged from previous years, teams should ensure that it is relevant to current year's rover. For example, if your team shows testing on a 4-wheel rover with independent suspension, but designs for URC2026 feature a 6-wheel rover with a rocker-bogie suspension, then the judges will assume no applicability or relevance of that older video clip (when considering locomotion/suspension).

• Don't hesitate to explain why you are using old videos, but ensure that the judges have an appreciation of the current status/maturity of your URC2026 rover!

• If a video is accelerated, the speed must be shown as a caption during the entirety of that segment (e.g. "4X"). Never accelerate video to the point that judges can't follow what is happening.  Never accelerate audio.

Video Content and Criteria

The primary intent of the video is to demonstrate rover progress and capabilities. Teams will be scored/evaluated on their demonstrated progress in the areas described below. Scores will be based on a rover's ability to complete tasks, as well as the level of system integration and quality of completing each task. Historical data has shown that teams hoping to qualify for the URC Finals need to demonstrate proficiency with a large portion of the tasks below.

•  Rover Mobility & Terrain (8%)
  Rovers are expected to demonstrate mobility over a diverse range of challenging terrain and obstacles. Demonstrations off-road or on natural terrain are preferred, although if such test conditions aren't available then other challenging obstacles may be used.
  Detailed Scoring Criteria:

  • Difficulty of Terrain and Obstacles

  • Diversity of Terrain and Obstacles

• Arm/End Effector (8%)
  Teams are expected to demonstrate a high level of arm integration on the rover, manipulation and lift, and dexterity capabilities.  Specific arm objectives are based on the rules, and should include:
  Detailed Scoring Criteria:

  • Pick up and carry 5 kg

  • Pick up a small object, such as a small hand tool

  • Open a latched door or drawer

  • Interact with switches and buttons

  • Plug a USB cable into a USB port (USB C connector)

  • Insert a test tube into a slotted holder

  • Connect a hose

  • Type on a keyboard (tele-operated for partial credit, autonomously for full credit)

• Autonomous Navigation (6%)
  Teams are expected to demonstrate autonomous navigation capabilities. Use of split screen to show rover movement, live camera/sensor feeds, and software interface/map view is recommended. Demonstrating image processing tasks outdoors in strong sunlight is preferred.
  Detailed Scoring Criteria:

  • Drive to prescribed GNSS waypoint/coordinates

  • Detection of AR tag

  • Object recognition

  • Obstacle avoidance

  • Execution of search pattern

  • Rover driving autonomously while demonstrating these capabilities

• Science Payload (6%)
  Teams are expected to demonstrate operation of their science payload. Integration on the rover is required for full points.
  Detailed Scoring Criteria:

  • Soil collection

  • Soil management & storage in cache

  • Assay/reaction mechanism(s)

  • Sensor operation and data display

• Overall Integration (12%)
  Detailed Scoring Criteria:

  • Arm/Rover Integration

  • Science Payload/Rover Integration

  • Autonomy/Rover Integration

• Communications, Command and Control, and Operations (8%)
  Detailed Scoring Criteria:

  • Communications test

  • Command and Control setup being used during demonstrations

  • State of operational testing

Judges' Assessment Criteria (12% of SAR Score)

The judges will be making a subjective assessment of the following criteria, based on the evidence provided in the SAR Report and Video.

• How ready will the team be to compete by May 27? (4%)

• Is the rover and overall system rugged enough to withstand the operating environment at MDRS? (4%)

• How do you assess the overall novelty of the team's submission, and the scope of work undertaken for URC2026? (4%)

Penalties

Teams will be penalized for violating the format requirements, failing to provide proper citations, or other critical issues as assessed by the judges.

Notes

*It is anticipated that only 36 teams will pass the SAR milestone and be invited to compete in the URC2026 Finals, although the judges may elect to change this number due to a variety of factors.  This limit is due to logistical, timing, environmental and staffing constraints, and is required to maintain the quality of the competition for competing teams.  There will not be a stand-by list in the event of teams withdrawing prior to the competition.

**Teams who are accepted to compete in the URC2026 finals will be required to explain how any hazardous materials/chemicals will be used, as well as the safety measures being implemented (to include transportation to, and storage at, URC, as well as disposal).  Commercial Off The Shelf (COTS) systems with integrated safety measures from the original manufacturer will be looked upon more favorably by the judges and staff from a safety standpoint. Details regarding the Chemical Safety Plan (due in May) will be posted on the Science Plan page before the SAR results are announced.

SAR Q&A

Q1) Can we make changes to the rover after the SAR?
For URC you may make changes to your rover at any point (including after the SAR). If you team makes any modifications during the Finals you will have to watch your weight and budget limits if adding or modifying components.

Q2) In the Project Budget Table, should we talk about ALL of our expenses, or just those that count towards our $24,000 on-rover budget? Should we include the total cost of the rover from the previous year that we are re-using even though those expenses have already been covered?
Teams should refer to the Budget Tables and Gantt Charts page. More specifically teams should demonstrate that:

1. Your fielded rover will be below the $24K budget limit (rover + command station equipment - refer to Section 2.d of the rules);

2. You have budgeted for all project-level expenses beyond just the fielded rover (this should be tailored to your team, but expense categories should include the cost of prototypes, excess materials, outreach events, and travel to the URC Finals);

3. Your income will cover all project costs (if you do not yet have sufficient funds, you need to explain your plan to raise deficit funds);

4. You have properly accounted for the value of any components being reused from previous years (these count towards your budget limit);

5. You have properly accounted for the value of sponsorships (e.g. clearly show the difference between financial sponsorships and "in-kind" sponsorships of goods or services);

6. If your team is part of a larger student organization, you must break out the income and expenses specific to the URC team.

Update (February 17): On Page 6 of the SAR Report, teams may elect to provide 2 separate tables: 1) a Project Budget Table that shows all expense categories for the team; and 2) a separate Rover Expense Report, completed to WBS level 2, which shows how your final rover will fall within the $24,000 limit. Whether teams show this in a single table or two, all information must be contained on Page 6 of the SAR Report.

Q3) Is the science page of the SAR being reviewed by engineers or scientists? Should the focus be on what the science is and why it detects life or how the mechanical system is supporting it?
Teams should focus on the science, but not ignore how the system will be implemented. The science page of the SAR report is being reviewed by scientists, but the rest by engineers. The science judges may only skim over the material outside of the science page, and non-science judges may only skim over the science page.

Q4) What science explanation should be shown in the video?
The video should demonstrate the rover systems required to execute the Science Mission. However, any discussion of the scientific procedure or explanation of scientific principles should be limited to the written SAR Science Plan.

Q5) Are we allowed to include citations to papers supporting the science? Do they count against the page limit?
Citations should be included when papers are discussed, but it can be abbreviated. A citation alone does not count as knowledge. They must be included as footnotes on the page where the referenced material is presented, and must be included within the page limits.

Q6) What other advice should teams follow when producing their videos?

• Do not artificially accelerate audio when editing your video. This causes compression issues when uploading to YouTube that usually make the audio unintelligible. Judges cannot award points for content they cannot understand.

• Music has consistently been an issue in videos over the years. Judges strongly prefer no music. If any music is used, double check that the audio levels are consistent and appropriate throughout the video, and that music is never playing during spoken components.

• If something isn't specifically shown in the video, judges can't award points. Pay attention to what is actually shown in the footage, and not just implied or assumed to be off-screen. Be careful not to zoom in on arm end effectors without showing the entire arm integrated on the rover. If judges only see an end effector, they cannot assume that the entire arm is operating, or that it has been integrated on the rover.

• Teams are reminded that the judges are professionals with technical backgrounds, and decades of combined experience in evaluating student rover projects.  Videos that focus on an overly embellished marketing format (e.g. a “Kickstarter style” video) while failing to provide meaningful content will not be judged favorably.  Teams are encouraged to demonstrate their rover in a variety of situations that demonstrate readiness.

Q7) How do we show the autonomous navigation in a convincing way that does not take up a lot of valuable time in the 5 minute video?
This is mostly up to you. Be creative and impress us. You could try speeding up the video, on-screen display of data, or effects such as picture-in-picture to show multiple viewpoints simultaneously. It is often important to show video of the rover, alongside camera/sensor views, and a video of the software interface with a map.

Q8) The requirements state the use of 11 point Calibri font (or similar). Is the same font required for captions, footnotes, etc.?
8 point font is acceptable for citations, captions, footnotes, or in tables. Text embedded in graphs/images must be readable in the final document when zooming in to 250% (no minimum font requirement, however teams will not be given credit for unreadable content).

Q9) Is a specific format required for footnote citations?
No specific citation style is required, but at a minimum, last name of the first author, year, abbreviated journal name. However, you need to make sure it is easy for the judges to find. If it doesn't come up as the top link in a Google Scholar search either add more details such as the title of the article, or provide a link/URL to the article. (URLs are strongly recommended when available.)

Q10) How detailed do teams need to be? Any other guidance about preparing the report and video?

• Teams are reminded that this is a competitive milestone; simply stating that the elements and criteria above have been addressed is insufficient.  Teams are expected to demonstrate why their system is unique and exceptional.

• The judges do not require a detailed discussion on the merits of 6061 series Aluminum or a description of why rovers are important on Mars.  Teams are expected to use the space provided as efficiently and effectively as possible to make a compelling case to judges while addressing the required content.

Q11) Are the Science Plan in the Report and Science Payload in the Video just the same information in different formats?
No. The Science Plan in the report is reviewed by scientists and should focus on describing the science (chemical reactions, anticipated results, the science behind the results, etc.) Description of the engineering mechanisms of the science payload should be limited in the written report (approximately 2 sentences). The video content is meant to show how the engineering systems are designed and function to enable the science (answering the question, do the systems work?).

Common ways a team may lose points for the written Science Plan include: science is not adequate or properly designed for URC (e.g., a reaction takes 2 days, but competition time is less than an hour), false/incorrect science claims are made (e.g., claiming life has been found on Mars), or the references are not sufficient (e.g. citing Wikipedia, or not including citations).

The best videos would also give a brief description as to how each step influences the science as the subsystems are operating - think of this as the systems engineering description of the intersection of engineering & science.

Q12) What are good examples of system architecture diagrams? How many diagrams should be provided, and are extra pages allowed for additional diagrams?
There is no single answer for which system architecture diagrams should be used, or what is considered "the right answer." Ultimately teams need to choose the architecture views that best represent their work. In general, systems architecture diagrams should be communicating a logical organization or breakdown of your system, or provide a detailed view of a specific domain (e.g. electrical system architecture, software architecture, etc.). There are also formal methodologies such as SysML, but in many cases block architecture diagrams are sufficient. An important element for any architecture diagram is showing connections and/or architectural relationships that are aligned with your WBS.

It would be completely impractical to provide a system diagram for every subsystem on the rover. Which types of system architecture diagrams, and to what level of detail, your team chooses to include is left to your team's discretion. No additional space is allocated beyond the page limits discussed in the SAR requirements.

A good set of references can be found in the Systems Engineering Body of Knowledge.

Q13) When we detail the components in the subsystem architecture, do we describe how they work together there or in the integration section? What is the goal for the integration section to communicate?
The Approach to Integration criterion is meant to evaluate how your team approaches integration as a systems engineering activity. Descriptions of how subsystems interact with one another is best kept with your system architecture. Note that one of these is focused on your system, the other is focused on your team's approach.