Faster To Science: A Letter To The Science Community

TL;DR

Age 18–24?Offer from Amazon

Prime made for students and young adults

• Fast, free delivery for dorm and study essentials
• Prime Video and Amazon Music included
• Member-only deals

Try Prime for Young Adults →Free trial for eligible 18–24 year olds

As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.Hide

NASA’s Science Mission Directorate says it will introduce Competition Model 2.0, a staged change to how it solicits and selects science missions. The agency projects that some selection timelines could shrink by up to 45%, but the plans are not fully implemented and details for the smallest missions are incomplete in the available announcement.

NASA’s Science Mission Directorate says it will change how it competes and selects science missions, proposing a process called Competition Model 2.0 that puts science proposals ahead of detailed engineering and cost plans. NASA projects that selection timelines for some mission classes could be cut by up to 45%, though the letter describes a plan being rolled out in stages rather than a fully implemented policy.

NASA said the new model responds to concerns that the current two-step competition process takes years, creates contract-management difficulties and can be unpredictable and underfunded. Under CM2.0, early proposals will focus on the science case, a science implementation plan and, where required, a proof-of-concept mission design. Detailed engineering, cost and implementation work would come later, when NASA says it is needed to make a selection decision.

For the affected mission competitions, NASA says the revised two-step process will cut the time from an announcement of opportunity to the second-step selection by up to 45%: from 35 months to about 19.5 months. NASA says Step 2 will use a mission implementation study to examine scientific merit, science implementation and mission implementation, with the aim of surfacing risks earlier. A single mission would be chosen partway through Phase A; teams not selected would not have to carry their concepts through the rest of that phase at their own expense.

The letter says other classes will use different arrangements. The largest missions will retain the approach developed after the James Webb Space Telescope, while another group of missions will use a single-step competition, a smaller review team and virtual site visits. NASA estimates that this group’s time to final selection could fall from about 32 months to about 19 months, or up to 40%. The letter also says smaller missions will draw on the commercial space sector, but the supplied announcement cuts off before it describes that process in full.

Less Proposal Work, Faster Selections

The proposed change could affect how research teams spend time and money before NASA decides which mission concepts advance. By moving detailed engineering and cost work later, NASA says it wants early reviews to focus more directly on scientific value and reduce the burden on teams whose concepts are not selected. That could matter particularly to principal investigators without major university or commercial backing: NASA says a strong idea should be judged on its merits rather than the size of the team behind it.

The potential timeline cuts also matter because mission proposals require substantial planning, and NASA says drawn-out competitions can bring uncertainty and contract-management challenges. Shorter selection periods could allow the agency to move to mission development sooner. These are projected benefits, however, not demonstrated outcomes: the letter does not provide results from a completed CM2.0 competition or evidence that the estimated schedules will be met.

The changes affect more than proposal timing. NASA says implementation organizations—including universities and industry partners for some competitions—will be assessed on past performance on projects of similar complexity and cost. Principal-investigator-led teams may request pairing with a NASA implementation team, and NASA says its centers can offer support with procurement, contracts or technical issues. How these provisions work in individual competitions will shape who can participate and how responsibilities are divided.

A Response to Long Competitions

NASA’s letter presents CM2.0 as a response to problems with the agency’s existing competition process, which it describes as a two-step system that can take years to move mission concepts forward. The agency says teams have faced unpredictable schedules, contract-management challenges and insufficient funding. The announcement does not identify specific competitions or quantify how many missions have experienced those problems.

The proposal does not apply identically to every mission class. NASA says it will leave the process for its largest missions unchanged because that approach has already been revised. After the James Webb Space Telescope, a Large Mission Study drew lessons from Webb and other flagship missions into a documented method. Under that method, NASA directs a mission to a lead center, which then competes science teams and instruments through targeted solicitations.

For other competitions, NASA describes fewer requirements at the first stage and implementation studies before final selection. It says some studies may be carried out with Goddard Space Flight Center or the Jet Propulsion Laboratory; for New Frontiers or Discovery, NASA may award a study managed by Goddard to Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, depending on the selected science. The letter also says NASA will discuss CM2.0 at a virtual town hall on Monday, October 26, but does not state the year.

Implementation Details Still Pending

The announcement does not provide a dated implementation schedule, identify the first competitions to use CM2.0 or include the full rules for each mission class. NASA says the changes will be introduced in stages and refined with community input, so the eventual requirements may develop as the agency applies the model.

The schedule reductions are NASA estimates. The letter does not explain the assumptions behind the projections or establish that every competition will meet them. It also leaves open how teams will be evaluated in practice, how implementation partners will be selected in each case, and how NASA will measure whether the revised process reduces costs or improves predictability. The source text ends partway through its description of commercial participation in smaller missions, leaving that portion of the plan incomplete.

NASA Town Hall and Rollout

NASA said it would hold a virtual Science Town Hall on Monday, October 26, from NASA Headquarters, to explain Competition Model 2.0 and answer questions. The letter does not specify the year, provide a registration link or say whether a recording will be available.

NASA says it will roll out the changes in stages and take feedback from the science community. The next details to watch for are the full competition guidance, the first solicitations using the new model and clarification of the process for smaller missions. Until those are published, the projected schedule cuts should be treated as goals described by NASA, not as results already achieved.

Key Questions

What is NASA Competition Model 2.0?

CM2.0 is NASA Science’s proposed revised process for competing and selecting missions. It is designed to focus early proposals on the science before requiring detailed engineering, cost and implementation plans.

How much faster does NASA expect mission selections to be?

NASA projects reductions of up to 45% for some two-step competitions, from 35 months to about 19.5 months. For a separate single-step group, it estimates a decrease from about 32 months to 19 months, or up to 40%. These are projections, not reported outcomes.

Will CM2.0 change the process for NASA’s largest missions?

No. The letter says the largest missions will continue using the approach developed after the James Webb Space Telescope and described in NASA’s Large Mission Study.

When does the new process take effect?

NASA says changes will be introduced in stages, but the letter does not give an implementation calendar or identify the first competitions that will use CM2.0.

What is still unknown about the plan?

The full rules, rollout schedule and details for smaller missions are not included in the available announcement. NASA’s timeline estimates have also not yet been tested through completed competitions under the new model.

Source: primary