A physical hardware platform that measures ocean and weather data autonomously in harsh polar seas, designed for researchers.
Ministry of Earth Sciences (MoES) · National Centre for Polar andOcean Research (NCPOR) · Hardware
Signing in saves it for your whole team — everyone on your invite link sees the same two entries. Anything you shortlisted while signed out comes with you.
Decomposed from what the description asks for. Nothing added.
Hardware Chassis
Design a physical platform that can survive harsh polar and Southern Ocean environments.
Sensor Integration
Equip the platform to measure key oceanographic and atmospheric parameters.
Autonomous Navigation
Enable the platform to operate independently for long-term deployment.
Both columns are read off the brief's own wording. Nothing here is inferred from the ministry's name.
No specific demand we can quote, which means there is nothing concrete to prepare against.
A jury can still ask about these. Decide them deliberately rather than by accident.
Generated from the brief's own wording and the competition's published rules — never from a guess about what this ministry prefers.
What specific oceanographic and atmospheric parameters must be measured?
The brief never answers this, so a panel will. Whatever you decide, say it the same way twice.
What constitutes low cost in terms of budget?
The brief never answers this, so a panel will. Whatever you decide, say it the same way twice.
How long long-term deployment means?
The brief never answers this, so a panel will. Whatever you decide, say it the same way twice.
What specific power source should be used?
The brief never answers this, so a panel will. Whatever you decide, say it the same way twice.
Each one is quoted from a gap in the brief, not a guess about your team.
Needs physical hardware
Listed as a hardware problem statement, so a working demo needs physical components you have to source yourself.
Needs data you may not get
Building a physical ocean observation platform for polar environments requires specialized hardware and field testing that students cannot realistically procure or execute.
No measurable target
The description never defines what counts as low cost or how long long-term deployment should last.
No specific user named
The description never names the exact end user who will operate or collect data from the platform.
What the organisers attached, and what the brief assumes you can get.
Same organisation, same year. Reading two of theirs tells you more about what they care about than reading one.
Pick what you are about to do and copy the prompt. It carries the organisers' own wording, the constraints they never spell out, and an instruction not to invent requirements they never set.
Who has this problem, what already exists, and what you would have to find out.
Has any part of this been shown at a previous event, hackathon or college project?
The guidelines are explicit: your solution must not have appeared in any previous event or programme, of any sort. A recycled project is what a team under time pressure reaches for.
The brief asks for hardware chassis. How would you build that?
Decoded from SIH26065 itself — Design a physical platform that can survive harsh polar and Southern Ocean environments. The brief asks for it by name.
The brief asks for sensor integration. How would you build that?
Decoded from SIH26065 itself — Equip the platform to measure key oceanographic and atmospheric parameters. The brief asks for it by name.
The brief asks for autonomous navigation. How would you build that?
Decoded from SIH26065 itself — Enable the platform to operate independently for long-term deployment. The brief asks for it by name.
Where does your data come from — a published source, one you collect, or one you generate?
No dataset is attached to this problem statement, so sourcing it is part of the work and nobody told you that.
Why not use what already exists? Name the closest thing to this that is already running.
A team that has not named the alternative themselves is answering this for the first time in the room.
Which single thing will you demonstrate end to end, start to finish, with nothing skipped?
Ours, not a rule: a narrow thing that fully works survives questioning better than a broad thing that half works. If nobody on the team can name it, that is the finding.