NASA is changing how it chooses future science missions, aiming to cut months of proposal reviews and engineering studies from a process that can take nearly three years before some spacecraft concepts are selected.
Under a framework called Competition Model 2.0 (CM 2.0), the agency plans to put scientific merit at the center of early evaluations while postponing some detailed engineering, budgeting and implementation requirements until later stages.
In an October 21, 2026, announcement, Nicola Fox, associate administrator of NASA's Science Mission Directorate, said the revised approach could shorten selection timelines for certain mission classes by as much as 45%. For Discovery, New Frontiers and Astro-Probes competitions, NASA projects a reduction from approximately 35 months to 19.5 months.
The changes could ease the burden on scientists competing for NASA funding, but the projected savings have not yet been demonstrated through completed competitions under the new framework. Faster mission selection also does not necessarily mean spacecraft will be built or launched sooner.
How NASA's New Mission Selection Process Will Work
The central change is straightforward: NASA wants to evaluate the scientific value of a proposed mission before requiring teams to produce extensive technical and financial documentation.
For major competitively selected missions, the initial proposal will focus on three elements:
- A compelling science case: The questions the mission would investigate and why its research matters.
- A science implementation plan: How the proposed investigation would accomplish its scientific objectives.
- A proof-of-concept mission design: An initial demonstration of how the spacecraft concept could support the investigation.
NASA says this approach will remove roughly half the material currently required in an initial Announcement of Opportunity response for Discovery, New Frontiers and Astro-Probes missions.
More extensive technical work will follow during a Mission Implementation Study involving NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center or Jet Propulsion Laboratory. Johns Hopkins University's Applied Physics Laboratory may also participate in certain Discovery or New Frontiers implementation studies.
These studies will examine scientific merit, implementation feasibility and mission risks before the competition narrows to one selected mission during Phase A, NASA's early mission-development stage.
As Space.com reported in its coverage of the reforms, the broader objective is to reduce the resources teams spend preparing unsuccessful proposals while moving promising scientific concepts through selection more efficiently.
The revised process does not eliminate engineering scrutiny. Instead, it changes when detailed technical assessments are performed and which organizations help complete them.
Which NASA Science Missions Will Be Affected?
Competition Model 2.0 will not apply identically across NASA's science portfolio. The agency has outlined different procedures depending on a mission's scale, complexity and implementation requirements.
Discovery, New Frontiers and Astro-Probes: These programs will use the accelerated two-step competition, with shorter initial proposals followed by more detailed implementation studies. NASA estimates that the time from the solicitation announcement to the second-step selection could decline by up to 45%.
Medium-Class Explorer (MIDEX) and Earth Explorer: These programs will retain a two-step approach while allowing a broader range of implementing organizations, including universities and industry partners. NASA plans to consider previous performance on comparable projects and allow research teams to request implementation support from Goddard or JPL.
Small Explorer (SMEX), Missions of Opportunity, Earth Venture, hosted payloads and rideshares: These opportunities will move toward single-step competitions, smaller review teams and virtual site visits. NASA projects their selection timelines will decrease from approximately 32 months to 19 months, a reduction of up to 40%.
Flagship missions: NASA's largest, agency-directed scientific missions will retain their existing management framework. The agency says that process was previously revised following lessons from the James Webb Space Telescope program.
These distinctions matter because a relatively small scientific payload and a multibillion-dollar flagship observatory involve very different technical, financial and management challenges. A single selection procedure would not necessarily suit both.
Will Faster Selection Mean More Space Missions?
NASA's proposed reductions could make a meaningful difference for researchers who currently spend considerable time developing detailed proposals without knowing whether their missions will receive funding.
Shorter early competitions may allow scientists to devote more effort to research and reduce some institutional costs associated with preparing unsuccessful bids.
The science-first approach could also make competitions more accessible to smaller research teams that lack the resources to develop extensive engineering documentation before their scientific concepts receive serious consideration.
NASA additionally wants mission teams to consider commercial spacecraft buses, subsystems and operational services whenever those capabilities offer technical or financial advantages.
These are potential benefits, however, rather than independently established results.
Mission selection is only one part of the journey to launch. Once a concept advances, engineers still need to finalize spacecraft designs, integrate instruments, conduct environmental and functional testing, manage suppliers and arrange launch services.
Unforeseen technical problems, changing requirements and funding constraints can still affect mission schedules after the selection process is completed.
The proposed timetable reductions therefore measure a narrower administrative and developmental milestone. They do not establish that an entire mission will reach space 40% or 45% faster.
NASA also intends to strengthen cost and schedule oversight. Its announced framework warns that missions exceeding applicable control thresholds could face consequences up to and including termination.
That policy highlights a central challenge: allowing more scientific ideas to advance while ensuring selected missions remain feasible and affordable.
What Happens Next for NASA's Science Programs?
NASA says Competition Model 2.0 will be introduced in stages, with procedures refined as the agency receives feedback from the scientific community.
Fox and other NASA science leaders scheduled a virtual community town hall for October 26, 2026, to explain the new model and take questions. The agency's event notice also said a recording would be made available afterward.
The next important evidence will come from the detailed rules of upcoming mission solicitations and the results of competitions conducted under the revised framework.
Several measures will help determine whether the reforms deliver their intended benefits: how long competitions actually take, how much proposal preparation costs participating institutions, whether smaller organizations win greater opportunities, and whether selected projects subsequently meet their technical, financial and schedule commitments.
It will also matter whether the changes increase the number of scientifically valuable missions that ultimately reach operational status, rather than simply accelerating the announcement of selection decisions.
For now, NASA has established a plan to change how it chooses science missions, supported by specific projected time savings. Whether Competition Model 2.0 produces more frequent launches, lower costs and stronger scientific returns will depend on its implementation and the performance of missions selected through the new process.
0 Comments