NASA announced Competition Model 2.0 (CM2.0) on October 21, 2026, as a staged revision to how its Science Mission Directorate selects science missions. The plan puts scientific merit early in the competition and delays detailed engineering and cost work until they are needed to make a decision. The selection path will depend on the program.
Which programs follow each selection path?
NASA’s plan leaves flagship missions on their existing directed-mission approach. Two distinct groups retain two-step competitions, while five named program types move to a single step.
| NASA program group | Selection path | Defining change |
| Flagship missions | Existing approach | No change under CM2.0; NASA continues the approach documented after its Large Mission Study. |
| Astro-Probes, New Frontiers and Discovery | Two steps | Step 1 asks for a science case, a science implementation plan and a proof-of-concept mission design. |
| MIDEX and Earth Explorer | Two steps | The pool of implementing organizations expands to include universities and industry partners. |
| SMEX, Missions of Opportunity, Earth Venture, Hosted Payloads and Rideshares | One step | A smaller review team and virtual site visits accompany the single-step competition. |
For Astro-Probes, New Frontiers and Discovery, NASA says the revised Step 1 proposal removes roughly half the material currently required in an Announcement of Opportunity response. That change applies to this group; MIDEX and Earth Explorer have a separate two-step path with broader eligibility for implementing organizations.
What happens after the first review?
For Astro-Probes, New Frontiers and Discovery, Step 2 is a Mission Implementation Study involving Goddard Space Flight Center or the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. It evaluates scientific merit, science implementation merit and mission implementation merit, bringing implementation risks into the assessment before a mission advances.
NASA says reviewers select one mission partway through Phase A. That mission then completes Phase A and reaches KDP-B with a more mature implementation design. For New Frontiers or Discovery, NASA’s Science Mission Directorate may award a study to Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory under Goddard management, depending on the selected science.
MIDEX and Earth Explorer remain a separate two-step group. Teams in those programs can request pairing with a Goddard or Jet Propulsion Laboratory implementation team at Step 1 selection. NASA also says it will assess teams’ past performance on projects of similar complexity and cost before mission selection.
What do NASA’s projected timelines measure?
NASA’s figures are forecasts for selection-process intervals, each tied to a specific group and milestone:
- For Astro-Probes, New Frontiers and Discovery, NASA projects a reduction from 35 months to about 19.5 months between an Announcement of Opportunity and selection for Step 2, or up to 45%.
- For MIDEX and Earth Explorer, NASA projects a selection-time reduction of up to 45%. The forecast does not specify absolute month totals for this group.
- For SMEX, Missions of Opportunity, Earth Venture, Hosted Payloads and Rideshares, NASA projects final selection moving from about 32 months to about 19 months, or up to 40%.
These intervals measure the competition and selection process, not the time to launch. CM2.0 changes how proposals advance through selection; the estimates do not state a launch schedule.
Cost and schedule controls remain part of the plan
NASA says rigorous cost and schedule controls will continue across every mission class. Breaching control thresholds can bring consequences up to and including mission termination. The agency also plans to consider commercial buses, subsystems and multi-mission operations when they offer technical or cost benefits.
