NASA Competition Model 2.0: Lessons for Space Companies

TL;DR: NASA's Science Mission Directorate is changing how it competes and selects science missions. Under the new Competition Model 2.0 (CM 2.0), first-round proposals focus on the science, detailed engineering and cost work comes later, and selection timelines shrink by up to 45 percent. Smaller missions, hosted payloads and rideshares move to a single-step competition, and NASA says mission teams will be expected to use commercial buses, subsystems and multi-mission operations wherever they offer a technical or cost benefit. For space companies, this is a buyer openly asking industry for help, with faster decisions and tougher cost and schedule rules attached.

Key takeaways

• NASA is shortening science mission selection from about 35 months to about 19.5 months for mid-size and larger competed missions, and from about 32 months to about 19 months for its smallest ones.
• Commercial buses, subsystems and multi-mission operations are now an expectation wherever they help on cost or performance, not just an option.
• Universities and industry partners get a wider opening, but they will be judged on past performance on similar projects.
• Faster competitions reward companies that already have partners, proof and a ready answer when a science team calls.
• Strict cost and schedule control comes with the speed, including possible mission termination for breaches.

What did NASA announce?

In an open letter to the science community published October 21, Nicola "Nicky" Fox, who leads NASA's Science Mission Directorate, introduced Competition Model 2.0. She wrote that NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman directed the directorate to speed up the delivery of science and cut the time and resources spent on long competitions. Space.com reports that Fox and other NASA science leaders are explaining the changes at a virtual town hall today, October 26, at 2 p.m. EDT (1 p.m. CT).

Here is the short version of what changes:

• Science first. Proposals no longer need detailed engineering plans, cost and implementation work until NASA truly needs them to make a decision.
• Discovery, New Frontiers and Astro-Probes. These keep a two-step process, but step 1 asks for just a science case, a science implementation plan and a proof-of-concept mission design, which NASA says removes roughly half the material in a current proposal. Step 2 is an implementation study with Goddard Space Flight Center or the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL). Time to selection drops from about 35 months to about 19.5 months.
• Medium-class and Earth Explorer missions. These follow the same two steps with a broader field of implementing organizations, including universities and industry partners, who are evaluated on past performance on projects of similar complexity and cost.
• The smallest missions. Small Explorer (SMEX), Earth Venture, Missions of Opportunity, hosted payloads and rideshares move to a single-step competition with a smaller review team and virtual site visits. Time to final selection drops from about 32 months to about 19 months.
• Commercial capabilities for every mission type. Teams are expected to adopt commercial buses, subsystems and multi-mission operations wherever they offer a technical or cost benefit. NASA says it will keep assessing the commercial market, building on its recent Science as a Service request for information.
• Tighter control. Cost and schedule control stays mandatory, and Fox wrote that breaches of control thresholds can carry consequences up to and including mission termination.
• Flagships unchanged. The largest missions keep the approach NASA adopted after the James Webb Space Telescope.

Why does NASA Competition Model 2.0 matter to space entrepreneurs?

Most space companies will never lead a NASA science mission. But many sell to the teams that do: bus makers, component suppliers, ground and operations providers, rideshare and hosted payload providers, and engineering services firms. CM 2.0 changes how those teams buy.

First, NASA is putting commercial capabilities in writing. When the buyer's own guidance says mission teams are expected to use commercial buses, subsystems and operations where they help, principal investigators (PIs) have a reason to look for credible commercial partners early.

Second, faster competitions compress the buying window. If a science team has about 19 months instead of about three years to reach final selection, it has less time to discover suppliers, run long evaluations and build relationships from scratch.

Third, the door opens wider for first-time teams. Fox wrote that established teams and first-time teams should stand on equal footing at step 1, and that PIs without a major university or commercial backer will get fair consideration. New teams often need partners who can fill gaps quickly.

Who wins and who loses from NASA Competition Model 2.0?

This is our reading of the announcement, not a finding from NASA or Space.com. The real effects depend on how NASA rolls out the changes, which Fox said will happen in stages.

Likely winners

• Commercial bus, subsystem and operations providers. NASA's letter names these capabilities directly as an expectation where they offer a benefit.
• Hosted payload and rideshare providers. These opportunities now sit in the fastest, single-step track.
• Small and first-time science teams. Lighter step 1 proposals lower the cost of putting a strong idea forward.
• Companies with a proven delivery record. Past performance on similar projects is part of how implementing organizations get judged.

Likely losers or under pressure

• Teams that relied on proposal volume. When the first round is about the science, polished engineering binders matter less early on.
• Suppliers that are hard to find or slow to respond. A shorter competition leaves less time for a PI to track you down.
• Teams that underestimate cost and schedule risk. NASA is pairing speed with real consequences for breaches.
• New entrants without proof. Wider eligibility helps, but a past performance check still favors companies that can show similar work.

What should space entrepreneurs do now?

Here are five practical moves, whether you build hardware, sell services or support science teams.

1. Watch the town hall and read the letter yourself

Do not rely on summaries, including this one. Join or watch the recording of NASA's town hall and read Fox's letter in full so you understand which mission classes matter to your product. Our guide on how to sell to NASA explains how to map NASA's buying paths to what you offer.

2. Make yourself easy to find before a team needs you

With selection timelines shrinking, PIs will shortlist suppliers fast. Make sure your website states plainly what you provide, which mission classes you support and what you have already flown or delivered. Clear proof beats a clever tagline when a science team is searching under time pressure.

3. Package your capability for the science-first round

Step 1 asks for a science case, a science implementation plan and a proof-of-concept mission design. Give PIs short, ready-to-use material they can lean on: a one-page capability summary, interface basics and a plain statement of heritage. The less work you create for the team, the more likely you end up in their plan.

4. Lead with past performance on similar projects

NASA says implementing organizations and partners will be evaluated on past performance on projects of similar complexity and cost. Turn your delivered work into clear case studies that name the problem, your role and the result, without overstating what you did.

5. Partner early with teams and larger players

Many companies will reach CM 2.0 missions as a subcontractor or partner, not as the lead. Build relationships with PIs, universities and larger mission builders now. Our article on selling to prime contractors covers how to become the partner they bring in, and following up through long sales cycles helps you stay in the conversation until a proposal window opens.

How does this change positioning for space companies?

NASA's message is that the commercial market is ready to help and that speed now matters. That favors companies whose positioning answers three questions quickly:

• What exactly do you provide to a science mission? Name the subsystem, service or capability in plain words.
• Where has it worked before? Show heritage or comparable delivery, honestly.
• How do you protect cost and schedule? With breaches carrying real consequences, buyers will value partners who reduce that risk.

We saw a similar shift on the defense side when the Space Force made it easier for startups to reach classified work. Government buyers are lowering barriers, and the companies that are ready to show up clearly get the first look. For a full framework, start with our space marketing guide.

Frequently asked questions

What is NASA Competition Model 2.0?

Competition Model 2.0, or CM 2.0, is NASA's new approach to competing and selecting science missions, announced October 21, 2026. Proposals focus on the science first, and detailed engineering, cost and implementation work is deferred until NASA needs it to make a decision.

How much faster will NASA science mission selection be?

NASA says time to selection drops from about 35 months to about 19.5 months for Discovery, New Frontiers and Astro-Probes, and from about 32 months to about 19 months for its smallest missions, such as Small Explorers and Earth Venture.

Which missions move to a single-step competition?

Small Explorer (SMEX), Earth Venture, Missions of Opportunity, hosted payloads and rideshares move to a single-step competition with a smaller review team and virtual site visits.

How does CM 2.0 affect commercial space companies?

NASA says mission teams will be expected to adopt commercial buses, subsystems and multi-mission operations wherever they offer a technical or cost benefit, and medium-class missions open to a broader field of implementing organizations, including industry partners.

Does CM 2.0 change NASA's flagship missions?

No. Flagship missions keep the approach NASA adopted after the James Webb Space Telescope, with NASA directing the mission to a lead NASA center and competing science teams and instruments through targeted solicitations.

Want to work through this with other space founders?

Join Space Entrepreneurs, free. Space Entrepreneurs is the free Skool community I host for founders who are starting, marketing and growing space companies. Bring your questions, share what you are working on and learn from people building in the same industry.

Join Space Entrepreneurs free