NASA overhauls how it picks science missions

NASA is changing how it chooses which science missions to fly. The new approach, Competition Model 2.0 (CM 2.0), was set out on October 21 in an open letter from Nicky Fox, head of NASA's Science Mission Directorate, and NASA officials are presenting it at a virtual town hall today, October 26, at 18:00 GMT, Space.com reports. The changes were directed by NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman.

The problem it tries to fix

Many NASA science missions are picked through competitive Announcements of Opportunity. Today that is a two-step process in which teams must submit detailed engineering and financial plans before NASA even chooses finalists. The whole thing can take almost three years, and most teams that invest in a proposal are never selected. "We know that the burden of bringing great ideas forward has been too heavy for too long," Fox wrote.

What changes, by mission size

• Smallest missions: Small Explorer (SMEX) and Earth Venture missions, Missions of Opportunity, hosted payloads and rideshares move to a single-stage selection. NASA expects final selection to take about 19 months instead of roughly 32.
• Mid-size and planetary missions: Discovery, New Frontiers and Astro-Probes keep two steps, but first-round proposals need nearly half the material. The timeline drops from about 35 months to 19.5.
• Medium Explorers (MIDEX) and Earth Explorers: open to a wider range of applicants, including universities and companies, with teams judged partly on their track record with similar projects. Principal investigators can ask for help from Goddard or JPL during the first stage.
• Flagships: big missions like the James Webb Space Telescope keep their current, recently revised process.

Faster, but stricter

The reforms come with tighter cost and schedule control. "Breaches of control thresholds will carry real consequences," Fox wrote, and Space.com notes those consequences could include cancelling missions that miss their targets. NASA also wants Goddard and JPL more directly involved in maturing missions, partly to reduce competition between its own centres.

Why it matters

Small and mid-size missions produce a lot of NASA's science for the money. The Explorer-class Swift observatory, which ended its mission this autumn, is a good example. If selection really gets faster, more of these missions could fly, though the new rules also make it easier to cut those that overrun. Fox's summary: "more missions, more often, with more incredible science at a lower cost."

For what NASA's bigger observatories are doing now, see our story on the Roman Space Telescope's science commissioning, and our beginner telescope guide if you want to do some astronomy of your own.