By This Hour Science Desk
NASA’s Science Mission Directorate says it is changing how it runs a broad range of science-mission competitions, proposing a model that would ask teams to make their scientific case before undertaking much of the detailed engineering, cost and implementation work traditionally associated with a full proposal.
The plan, called Competition Model 2.0, or CM2.0, is presented by the agency as an effort to move promising missions from an Announcement of Opportunity to selection more quickly while reducing the burden placed on prospective teams. For some classes of missions, NASA projects that the time to a key selection could fall by as much as 45%. The stakes are considerable: the rules of a competition influence not only how swiftly an agency chooses a concept, but also who can afford to bring an idea forward and how mature a mission is when its eventual design is approved.
NASA has framed the proposal as a rebalancing of its process rather than an abandonment of technical scrutiny. Detailed work on engineering, budget and execution would not disappear. Instead, under the agency’s description, it would be deferred until it is required to make an informed selection. That places the science case, and a preliminary way of carrying it out, at the front of the competition.
Science would lead the first round
CM2.0 begins with a simple organizing principle: evaluate science first. NASA says proposals would be centered on the scientific objective instead of requiring applicants to complete every element of engineering planning and implementation analysis before the agency has determined whether the concept should advance.
For Astro-Probes, New Frontiers and Discovery missions, NASA describes an accelerated two-step contest. The initial submission would contain three core components: a science case, a science implementation plan and a proof-of-concept mission design. In NASA’s account, that would remove roughly half the material now expected in a response to an Announcement of Opportunity.
The distinction matters because the first stage would test whether a proposed mission asks an important scientific question and has a credible basic route to answering it, without demanding the same degree of development work from every applicant at the outset. NASA says the approach is intended to give scientific merit greater weight in deciding which concepts continue. It also says principal investigators without large university or commercial backing should receive fair consideration, while NASA-based principal investigators would remain eligible to participate.
Teams that advance would then enter a Mission Implementation Study. NASA describes that work as a bridge between pre-Phase A and Phase A, designed to examine scientific merit, the plan for implementing the science and the feasibility of mission implementation. Its stated purpose is to expose risks early, before NASA chooses one mission and sends it through the remainder of Phase A. The final down-selection would occur partway through that phase; the selected mission would proceed to a more mature implementation design before reaching the agency’s next decision point.
NASA’s projected gain is substantial but conditional. It says the period from an Announcement of Opportunity to the second-step selection for these mission classes could be reduced by up to 45%, from roughly 35 months to about 19.5 months. “Up to” is important: it is a target or estimate, not a timetable demonstrated by completed CM2.0 competitions. The agency has not, in the material provided, laid out a mission-by-mission schedule or specified which factors could narrow the anticipated saving.
Different mission classes would take different routes
The proposed framework is not one uniform process for every NASA science mission. NASA says its largest flagship missions would remain under an existing directed approach. In that model, the agency assigns overall responsibility to a lead NASA center, while science teams and instruments are selected through focused solicitations. NASA characterizes that approach as already reformed, following its Large Mission Study, and does not propose to place flagships into the new competition structure.
That carve-out places CM2.0 most directly on competed missions rather than on the agency’s largest directed programs. It also means that claims about faster selection should not be read as a promise of a shorter pathway for every NASA science mission. The model is differentiated by mission class, with separate procedures and projected timelines.
For MIDEX and Earth Explorer missions, NASA proposes another two-step process but says a wider array of organizations could carry out the work, including universities and industry partners. Organizations and partners would be assessed on prior work of comparable complexity and cost before NASA selects a mission. A principal-investigator-led team could ask to pair with an implementation group at Goddard Space Flight Center or the Jet Propulsion Laboratory when chosen at the first step. NASA also says it could offer center support where procurement, contract management or rapid technical problem-solving warrant it.
NASA projects an up-to-45% reduction in the MIDEX and Earth Explorer selection timeline as well. The available description does not provide equivalent beginning and ending month figures for that group, so the percentage should be understood as NASA’s stated estimate rather than a fully specified schedule.
The smallest set of missions would follow a different route again. NASA says SMEX, Missions of Opportunity, Earth Venture, Hosted Payloads and Ride Shares would move to a single-step competition. Review panels would be smaller and site visits would be conducted virtually. NASA says final selection could drop from about 32 months to about 19 months, a reduction of up to 40%.
The single-step approach would reduce procedural stages, but it would also place more importance on the design of the one review that remains. NASA’s announcement identifies smaller teams and virtual visits as parts of that process; it does not provide detail on how those changes would affect the depth of review, the criteria applied by reviewers or the treatment of unusually complicated proposals within these mission categories.
Commercial tools and agency centers are central to the plan
CM2.0 is also a statement about how NASA expects selected missions to be built and managed. The directorate says teams will be expected to use commercial capabilities where they offer a technical or cost advantage. It identifies commercial spacecraft buses, subsystems and operations that can serve multiple missions as examples. The stated expectation applies across mission types, rather than being limited to the smaller programs that NASA says can draw on a maturing commercial market.
That language establishes a preference, not an absolute requirement to use commercial hardware or services in every circumstance. The test NASA gives is whether a capability offers a technical or financial benefit. The announcement does not define how that judgment would be made in individual selections, how competing benefits would be weighed, or how much discretion mission teams would retain when a commercial option does not fit the scientific or technical need.
NASA also plans a more deliberate role for its two named Science Centers of Excellence, Goddard and JPL. The agency says it intends to direct work to the two centers where appropriate, arguing that the approach could save money, reduce competition between NASA centers, encourage collaboration and retain critical skills. For New Frontiers and Discovery, NASA says an implementation study managed through Goddard could in some cases go to the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, depending on the science selected.
The proposal therefore combines a broader invitation at the earliest science-focused stage with a more structured implementation pathway later. Universities, industry partners and principal-investigator teams may have a place in the competitions described by NASA, but the agency’s centers would retain a significant part in developing and de-risking missions as they advance. JPL’s continuing role in NASA science work is also reflected in the agency’s broader mission planning, including proposed and planned Mars, lunar and Earth-science efforts outlined by the laboratory.
Faster decisions would not ease control requirements
NASA’s case for speed is paired with an explicit warning about cost and schedule. The directorate says rigorous controls will remain mandatory across mission classes. Phase A estimates would inform trades involving scope and complexity, and breaching control thresholds could bring consequences up to and including termination of a mission.
That provision is consequential because the new model seeks to delay some detailed work while still requiring NASA to identify risks before committing to a final choice. The Mission Implementation Study is intended to perform much of that function for the two-step programs. Whether the process produces the promised combination of quicker selection and sufficiently mature designs will depend on how the agency applies its reviews, estimates and control thresholds after the model is put into use.
NASA says it will introduce CM2.0 in stages and refine it with input from the science community. It scheduled a virtual Science Town Hall for October 26 to explain the approach and take questions. The session may clarify which solicitations will adopt the model first, what transitional arrangements will apply and how applicants will be expected to prepare for the revised first stage.
For now, the public account is an agency announcement laying out intentions, projected timelines and broad operating principles, rather than evidence from completed selections under the new system. The report has not been independently corroborated: the claims and projections described here originate with NASA’s Science Mission Directorate, and no independent assessment of CM2.0’s eventual time savings, review quality or cost effects was supplied.
Reporting notes
What is confirmed: NASA projects reductions of up to 45% for several two-step competitions and up to 40% for specified single-step competitions.
Why this matters: The proposal could reduce proposal burdens and selection times while reshaping the roles of mission teams, commercial suppliers and NASA centers.
What remains unclear: The projections have not been tested through completed CM2.0 selections, and implementation details remain unspecified. This report is based on one source and has not been independently corroborated.
