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 Science announced Competition Model 2.0, a staged redesign of how it solicits and selects science missions. The agency says the changes could shorten selection timelines by up to 45% for some mission classes; large flagship missions will keep their existing process. NASA plans to explain the model at a virtual town hall, but the source letter does not give the year for its October 26 date.

NASA’s Science Mission Directorate has announced Competition Model 2.0, a redesign of how it competes and selects science missions that the agency says will reduce proposal work and shorten selection timelines for some mission classes. NASA plans to explain the changes at a virtual Science Town Hall on Monday, October 26; the letter announcing the event does not specify the year.

NASA says the new model begins by asking teams to compete on science first. Early proposals will focus on the science case, science implementation plan and, for the relevant two-step competitions, a proof-of-concept mission design. Detailed engineering plans, costs and implementation work would be requested later, when NASA says they are needed to make a selection decision.

For missions using the accelerated two-step process, NASA estimates that the interval from an Announcement of Opportunity to selection for the second step could fall from 35 months to about 19.5 months, a reduction of up to 45%. A later mission implementation study would examine scientific, science-implementation and mission-implementation merit. NASA says a single mission would be selected partway through Phase A, allowing the chosen team to complete that phase while teams not selected would not have to carry concepts through the rest of it independently.

The letter describes different approaches for different mission classes. NASA says its largest flagship missions will retain their existing process, while some competitions will use the two-step model with a wider range of potential implementing organizations. Other missions would move to a single-step competition with a smaller review team and virtual site visits; NASA estimates that process could reduce selection from about 32 months to about 19 months, or up to 40%. The letter also says NASA intends to rely on the maturing commercial space sector for its smallest missions, but the supplied text ends before giving details of that approach.

Shorter Competitions, Earlier Science

The proposed changes matter because mission competitions can require research teams to spend substantial time and resources preparing technical and management plans before NASA has chosen which science it wants to pursue. NASA’s letter says the current two-step process has taken years and brought contract-management challenges, unpredictability and insufficient funding. Reducing early proposal requirements could let teams devote more effort to scientific cases rather than extensive implementation documents.

NASA also says the first stage is intended to make competitions more accessible. By delaying detailed engineering and cost work, the agency says strong science ideas could be judged more on their merits and less on the resources behind a proposing team. The letter specifically says principal investigators without major university or commercial backing would receive fair consideration, and that NASA-affiliated investigators at any NASA center remain eligible to respond.

These are agency projections and stated aims, not evidence yet that missions will be selected faster in practice or delivered sooner. The outcome will depend on how the new review stages work, the resources available for studies and implementation, and whether later technical evaluation identifies risks early enough to avoid delays.

A Different Path by Mission Class

NASA frames CM 2.0 as a response to direction from Administrator Jared Isaacman to accelerate science delivery, reduce the time and resources spent on long competitions, and focus funding on high-priority missions across the agency’s science divisions. The letter says implementation will happen in stages and be refined with input from the science community.

The proposed model does not apply uniformly. NASA says flagship missions will continue under an approach developed after the James Webb Space Telescope and a subsequent Large Mission Study. Under that approach, NASA directs the overall mission to a lead NASA center, which then competes science teams and instruments through targeted solicitations. For other mission classes, the letter describes two-step or single-step competitions and expanded participation by universities and industry partners. It also says NASA may provide center support for procurement, contract management or resolving technical problems.

The letter’s central change is a shift in when NASA asks teams to do detailed implementation work: less work before the initial science-focused decision, more focused study after it. NASA presents this as a way to make competitions quicker while still evaluating mission risks before a final selection.

Details Still Awaiting Explanation

The NASA letter gives projected timelines but does not provide the full competition rules, a complete schedule for implementation or details about how the agency will measure whether the changes improve mission delivery. The October 26 town hall year is not stated in the supplied source, so its calendar timing cannot be pinned down from the letter alone.

The source material also ends partway through its description of the smallest missions, leaving the commercial-space approach incomplete. It does not specify how many competitions will use each model, how funding levels will change, or how review criteria and appeals will work. NASA’s projected reductions are estimates; the letter does not report results from competitions already run under CM 2.0.

NASA to Explain the New Process

NASA says it will use its virtual Science Town Hall to explain Competition Model 2.0 and answer questions from the science community. The agency says the changes will be rolled out in stages and refined with community input. More specific competition guidance, including solicitation documents and schedules, will be needed for research teams to determine how the new process applies to individual mission opportunities.

For prospective teams, the immediate next step is to review NASA’s detailed rules when they are released and identify which mission class and competition pathway applies. Until those details are available, the timeline estimates and proposed eligibility arrangements should be treated as the agency’s announced plans rather than confirmed outcomes.

Key Questions

What is NASA Competition Model 2.0?

CM 2.0 is NASA Science’s proposed redesign of its mission competition and selection process. It aims to focus initial proposals on science and postpone detailed engineering, cost and implementation work until later.

How much faster does NASA expect selections to be?

NASA estimates that some two-step competitions could reach selection for the second step in about 19.5 months instead of 35 months, a reduction of up to 45%. For a described single-step process, NASA estimates about 19 months instead of 32, or up to 40%. These are projections, not reported results.

Will the new model apply to flagship missions?

No. NASA says its largest flagship missions will continue using the approach developed after the James Webb Space Telescope and the Large Mission Study. The new competition formats are intended for other mission classes.

What is still unknown about the rollout?

The letter does not provide a full implementation schedule, complete competition rules or details of the commercial approach for the smallest missions. It also omits the year of the stated October 26 town hall date.

Source: primary