Three months after launching the first phase of its architecture for human exploration on the Moon and Mars, NASA is moving to a second phase that will focus on Mars.

In April, NASA released the first architectural definition document for the overall Moon-to-Mars manned exploration campaign. This 150-page document linked more than 60 targets previously set for long-term exploration by NASA with plans for the first series of Artemis lunar missions, the first of four parts of the overall architecture.

“We tied the targets to what we plan to do on our first four to five missions,” said Jim Free, NASA’s deputy director of exploration systems development, during a panel discussion at the American Astronautical Society’s Glenn Memorial Symposium on July 19. “From my point of view, having this segment and then the remaining three segments allows us to really demonstrate the implementation strategy.”

The agency is currently preparing for the next phase of architectural concept review. Free said the agency has recently completed a strategic analysis cycle for the next review, which will focus on the final chapter, human missions to Mars. The audit itself will take place in November.

NASA also collected feedback on this first document. This included face-to-face meetings with companies and international partners, as well as two workshops in June, one for international partners and one for companies and academia. “The entrance was outstanding,” he said.

Some of the feedback themes included a desire to better understand priorities and where partners should invest to support the architecture. There was also feedback on the architecture development process itself, which will be included in the next round.

“There are some parts of the architectural definition document that will be updated based on what we’ve heard,” he said, but didn’t offer any details about those changes.

Freeh said he believes the architecture will support the agency’s goal of having a robust approach to manned space exploration that can withstand financial and political changes. “For me, we’ve launched this process that is designed to leave management behind,” he said, presenting options for future management. “It’s not whether you want to do it, but how much do you want to do it?”

He argued that architecture could serve as an advocacy tool. “It also helps us explain what not to do after budget cuts,” he said, allowing advocates of these elements to step in and explain why these missing elements are important.

“I believe we need to achieve results. That’s how we support our advocacy,” he said. “We have to implement the programs on time and within budget. It is very difficult.” Source