NASA is overhauling how it selects and develops science missions, with changes intended to reduce costs, streamline competition and get missions into space faster.
The new approach, called Competition Model 2.0 (CM 2.0), was announced on Oct. 21 in an open letter from Nicky Fox, associate administrator of NASA’s Science Mission Directorate (SMD), to the NASA science community. The changes, directed by NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman, could significantly reshape how scientists, universities, NASA centers and commercial companies vie for future missions.
“We have heard you. We have listened. We know that the burden of bringing great ideas forward has been too heavy for too long,” Fox stated in the letter.
The new process aims to prioritize scientific merit over unduly complicated engineering and financial planning during initial evaluations, and reduce selection timelines to encourage innovation.
Fox and other top NASA science officials will provide an overview of the reforms during a virtual town hall today (Oct. 26) at 2 p.m. EDT (1800 GMT). A livestream of the event will be available here, with an opportunity for the public to submit questions here.
NASA currently selects many of its science missions through competitive Announcements of Opportunity (AOs), inviting scientists and research institutions to submit proposals. Under the existing two-step process, competing teams must include thorough engineering and financial details as part of their proposals before NASA selects finalists for further study. The process can take almost three years, requiring significant investments of time and resources from teams that may ultimately never get selected.
CM 2.0 aims to reduce that burden by emphasizing scientific distinction during initial evaluations, allowing teams to defer much of the engineering and financial planning until later. Instead, initial proposals will focus on the scientific objectives of a mission and a preliminary plan for how to accomplish them.
NASA organizes its science missions into different classes based on their size, cost and objectives, with selection procedures varying between them. These range from smaller Explorer missions to large, expensive flagships like the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST).
Under CM 2.0, programs including smaller Discovery planetary missions, larger New Frontiers spacecraft and Astro-Probes, a program that focuses on mid-sized astronomy missions, will retain a streamlined version of the existing two-step process, but with nearly half of the material required for initial proposals. “This means that the original 35-months timeline will be reduced to about 19.5 months, all while having a stronger, more mature mission at the time of selection,” Fox wrote.
Flagship missions, meanwhile, will continue following their current procedures, which were recently revised based on lessons learned from a study of best practices examining the development of JWST.
Medium-class Explorer (MIDEX) and Earth Explorer missions will open to a wider range of applicants, including universities and commercial organizations, and will have similar changes implemented for their two-step selection process. NASA plans to evaluate prospective mission developers based on their track records with projects of similar size, cost and complexity, and offer principal investigator-led teams the opportunity to request support from NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center or Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) during the first stage of selection.
Smaller, lower-cost science programs will see a more substantial selection process shakeup. “Our smallest missions will be riding the momentum of a maturing commercial space economy and will move even faster,” Fox wrote.
Under CM 2.0, these programs will move to a single-stage selection process, eliminating the need for a second round of competing proposals entirely.
These include the Small Explorer (SMEX) and Earth Venture missions, which conduct astronomy and heliophysics research, and targeted studies of Earth and its climate. Missions of Opportunity, which allow researchers to piggyback scientific investigations onto other missions, as well as hosted payloads and rideshares, will fall under the same one-step umbrella, which is expected to drop final selection timelines from approximately 32 months to just 19.
“This means more missions, more often, with more incredible science at a lower cost,” Fox wrote.
Beyond shortening competition times, the changes put particular emphasis on the roles of Goddard and JPL for developing NASA’s science missions. NASA hopes that involving those centers more directly in mission maturations will reduce competition between the centers while maintaining the expertise of the agency’s workforce.
The reforms also come with stricter oversight, with NASA insisting on “rigorous cost and schedule control” across its mission classes. “Breaches of control thresholds will carry real consequences,” Fox wrote, adding that such consequences could include mission cancellations in the face of unmet expectations.
Together, the changes represent an attempt to shift NASA’s mission selection process to one focused on prioritizing scientific merit. The longer-term outcome of the new approach, the agency hopes, will reduce the financial and technical burden on competing research teams and ultimately get missions from idea to orbit with efficiency and speed.
“This is a moment of real opportunity,” Fox wrote. “We have an administrator who is empowering us to move faster and a commercial market that is ready to help. We have NASA Centers with unmatched expertise, and a science community whose ideas expand and redefine the bounds of human achievement in the cosmos.”