Getting a robotic science mission chosen by NASA has long taken nearly three years. Teams spend that time writing proposals, getting them reviewed and then going through a second round of study. On Oct. 21, NASA's Science Mission Directorate (SMD) said it plans to shorten that process a lot. In an open letter titled "Faster to Science," SMD Associate Administrator Nicky Fox laid out what the agency calls Competition Model 2.0, or CM2.0. It changes how most of NASA's competed science missions will be chosen.
The idea fits in one phrase from the letter: proposers should "compete on the science first." According to the letter, teams will no longer have to submit detailed engineering, cost and implementation plans until NASA actually needs them to make a decision. Fox's letter says NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman directed the changes.
What changes, program by program
CM2.0 does not treat every mission class the same way. The letter and Space.com's reporting describe three tiers.
Flagships stay as they are. NASA's largest missions are not part of the competitive overhaul. The letter says they will keep following the Large Mission Study approach NASA developed after the James Webb Space Telescope.
Discovery, New Frontiers and Astro-Probes get a faster two-step process. These are the mid-size and larger competed lines. NASA will keep a two-step selection for them but shrink what it asks for in Step 1. The first round will ask only for a science case, a science implementation plan and a proof-of-concept mission design. According to the letter, that drops roughly half of the material a current Announcement of Opportunity requires. The letter and Space.com both report that the selection timeline for these programs falls from 35 months to about 19.5 months.
Smaller programs move to a single round. Small Explorers (SMEX), Earth Venture and Missions of Opportunity will use single-stage selection, as will hosted payloads and rideshares. The letter puts that timeline at about 19 months, down from about 32.
The overhaul also widens who can lead some missions. Space.com reports that the Medium-class Explorer (MIDEX) and Earth Explorer lines will be open to universities and commercial organizations. NASA is also letting principal-investigator teams request support from Goddard Space Flight Center and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory during the first stage of selection.
Less paperwork up front, more accountability later
If the reform only cut paperwork, it would be easy to praise. The other half is stricter oversight after a mission is chosen. The letter says "breaches of control thresholds will carry real consequences," and says those consequences could go up to and including mission termination.
That pairing makes sense. A first round judged mostly on science and a proof-of-concept design gives reviewers less engineering and cost detail to work with early on. Some of the risk of a mission costing more than planned, or running into technical trouble, may move to later in the process. NASA's answer seems to be: pick faster, then hold teams firmly to cost and schedule limits once they are underway. How strictly those limits are enforced, and how "control thresholds" are defined, will matter a great deal. Neither the letter nor the coverage reviewed here gives specific threshold values.
The quote cited by SpacePolicyOnline states the principle directly. In Fox's words, NASA wants to compete on science first without requiring "detailed engineering plans, cost, and implementation work until they are truly needed to make a decision."
The town hall
SMD scheduled a virtual town hall for Monday, Oct. 26, at 2 p.m. EDT to explain CM2.0 to the research community, according to Space.com and SpacePolicyOnline. Fox's letter also pointed scientists to the event. Proposers and the institutions behind them will likely want details the letter does not cover. Those include when the first CM2.0-style solicitations will come out and how the shorter Step 1 proposals will be scored.
Why It Matters
Competed missions are one route by which scientists and institutions outside NASA's own centers propose missions of their own. Space.com notes that a selection cycle of almost three years requires significant investments of time and resources from teams that may ultimately never get selected. If the stated timelines hold, the Discovery, New Frontiers and Astro-Probes lines would shed about 15 months of selection time, and the smaller programs about 13.
Requiring less up front may also change who can compete. The letter says a strong idea should be judged on its merits rather than on the size of the team behind it, and that principal investigators without major university or commercial backing will get fair consideration. Opening MIDEX and Earth Explorer to universities and commercial organizations, and letting PI teams request Goddard or JPL support, point the same way. In short, NASA wants more competitors and wants to choose among them more quickly.
The test comes after selection. Faster picks with lighter early engineering review will only work if NASA actually enforces the cost and schedule discipline it has promised. That means following through on consequences for missions that breach their limits, not just warning about it. The agency's own slogan for the effort, taken from Fox's letter and used in Space.com's headline, is "more missions, more often." Whether CM2.0 delivers will show up in the selection calendars and project budgets over the next few cycles.
