RT-1: International Collaboration

Summary. "Partner with international community to achieve common goals and objectives" (ADD Rev C, p. 83). ADD Rev C calls international partnerships "an integral part of the Moon to Mars Architecture" and lists what is already in place: ESA's service module for Orion, four partners on Gateway, Japan's pressurized rover, joint studies with nine agencies, and cooperation in science, life sciences, Mars, communications and navigation, and technology. Its forward look is a list of the multilateral forums where future partnerships are worked out. A 2024 white paper, older than Rev C, sets out how a partner gets in: from an "architecture gap", through NASA's pre-formulation milestones, to an agreement (below). One of the nine recurring tenets.

All page numbers below are ADD Rev C, Section 3.5.1 (pp. 84–87), unless marked otherwise.

The assessment

• "International partnerships are an integral part of the Moon to Mars Architecture. These partnerships help drive human and scientific exploration by leveraging additional resources, advancing mutual interests, and promoting the use of outer space for peaceful purposes. Coordination and cooperation among established and emerging actors in space are foundational principles of the Artemis program" (p. 84).
• How a partnership forms. "NASA and potential partners work together to identify specific technical concepts that address architecture needs. Once a proposed technical capability reaches a sufficient level of maturity and has passed internal NASA reviews, NASA and its partners can formalize the cooperation in an international agreement" (p. 84). Partner elements enter the ADD only after that agreement (Elements).

Cooperation already established (pp. 84–86), in the ADD's order:

Area	What the ADD reports
European Service Module	"ESA provides the ESMs, which power the Orion spacecraft for Artemis lunar missions" (Orion).
Gateway	ESA, JAXA, CSA and the Mohammed Bin Rashid Space Centre (UAE) "are providing key elements for operating this cislunar outpost" (Gateway).
Pressurized Rover	"Japan will provide a pressurized crew rover for the lunar surface" (Pressurized Rover).
Additional capabilities	Joint technical studies with ESA, JAXA, CSA, ASI (Italy), CNES (France), the Australian Space Agency, KASA (Korea), the Luxembourg Space Agency and MBRSC "to develop concepts in support of the Moon to Mars architecture, such as rovers, cargo delivery to the lunar surface, habitation, and lunar communications".
Artemis I	Radiation experiments from ESA, DLR (Germany) and the Israel Space Agency; CubeSats from JAXA and ASI.
Artemis II	"Artemis II will include a Canadian astronaut." CubeSats from CONAE (Argentina), DLR, the Saudi Space Agency and KASA; DLR radiation sensors on Orion and analysis of biological samples.
Lunar science	CLPS deliveries for payloads from ESA, CSA, CNES, KASI (Korea) and the University of Bern; international proposals to Artemis science calls, e.g. "a dielectric analyzer from the University of Tokyo and JAXA for Artemis III"; a UK Space Agency instrument on Lunar Trailblazer, "launched in early 2025".
PRISM	CNES in "the U.S.-led far-side seismic payload and an electromagnetics experiment"; university partners from Denmark, Switzerland and the UK.
NASA instruments on partner missions	Laser retroreflectors on JAXA's SLIM and ISRO's Chandrayaan-3; an infrared imager on CSA's LEAP rover; a neutron spectrometer on JAXA's LuPEX rover "launching on ISRO's Chandrayaan-5 lander"; ShadowCam on Korea's KPLO (2022).
Space life and human research	The International Space Life Sciences Working Group; Gateway Program working groups on human health and biological sciences.
Mars science	Mars Sample Return planning with ESA; contributions to ESA's Rosalind Franklin mission; two of 13 instruments on JAXA's MMX (MEGANE and the Pneumatic Sampler Mechanism).
Communications and PNT	Talks on "ground stations, lunar relays, navigation assets, and lunar surface communications elements"; NASA's commercial lunar relay procurement "in parallel with a similar ESA activity called Moonlight"; reference systems and time standards; the ICG's Lunar PNT Working Group; the Mars Relay Network with ESA; "a study agreement with JAXA related to development of a lunar navigation satellite system"; the Space Frequency Coordination Group (SCaN Networks).
Technology	"International space technology partnerships generally focus on low technology readiness levels and fundamental research, the results of which are then shared publicly. For example, NASA is collaborating with ASA on lunar regolith and rocket plume surface interaction."
Public engagement	NASA and the Department of State brief Artemis Accords signatories.

Future considerations

"As the architecture evolves, NASA identifies capability gaps and pursues partnerships to close those gaps and achieve the Moon to Mars Objectives." The ADD lists the forums it "hosts, sponsors, or participates in", which "will be crucial for developing future international partnerships" (pp. 86–87):

• "annual architecture workshops to provide international partners with updates to the latest Architecture Definition Document and gather stakeholder feedback"
• the International Space Exploration Coordination Group
• the Lunar Surface Innovation Consortium, "to foster communication and potential collaborations among industry, academia, government, and international partners on technologies to enable sustained human and robotic presence on the lunar surface"
• the Lunar Exploration Analysis Group and the Mars Exploration Program Analysis Group
• the Solar System Exploration Research Virtual Institute
• the International Mars Exploration Working Group (NASA is executive secretariat)
• the International Space Life Sciences Working Group
• the Interagency Operations Advisory Group, with "the Consultative Committee on Space Data Standards" and "the Interagency Operations Working Group" (names as printed on p. 87; p. 100 has "Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems")
• the COSPAR Panel on Planetary Protection
• the Space Frequency Coordination Group
• engagement with Artemis Accords signatories, with the Department of State

International Partnerships (ACR24 white paper, 2024)

The 2024 white paper "International Partnerships and NASA's Moon to Mars Architecture" explains how a foreign agency gets into the architecture. It predates Rev C; the ADD's own account of the process, Section 3.4, was added in Rev C (revision table, ADD p. 4). Page numbers in this section are the paper's.

The basis. "Cooperation between NASA and international partners typically occurs on a no-exchange-of-funds basis, where each party funds its respective activities in pursuit of shared goals." "International cooperation encompasses all aspects of the architecture, but it is especially important for addressing capability gaps" (p. 1). The steps "vary depending on the nature of the proposed cooperation — for example, activities for science payloads may be different than those for human-tended infrastructure" (p. 1).

Where to start. "Architecture gaps (i.e., use cases and functions that do not currently trace to an element) are areas ripe for collaboration and serve as excellent starting points for initial discussions on partnerships. NASA is open for international partners to provide exploration assets — ranging from scientific instruments to entire elements — that map to unallocated use cases and functions and fill architecture gaps." A study agreement "can be an effective first step to identifying shared interests" (p. 2). The paper's basis for all this is the annual architecture documents: "These documents serve as the basis for NASA's collaboration with industry, academia, and the international community" (p. 2).

Elements: the milestones (pp. 2–3, and Figure 2, transcribed on the source page):

1. Studies. NASA and the partner "engage in studies and technical discussions" that "refine element concepts and define the use cases and functions they would perform".
2. Element initiation. "NASA assesses whether an element concept meets priority architectural needs and whether prospective technologies and capabilities are likely to demonstrate sufficient maturity." The figure: "Overt decision to proceed with maturation of concept assessed for priority, budget, and strategy".
3. Trade studies and technical interchanges, ending in the mission concept review, "which evaluates the proposed concept's feasibility, ability to fulfil its objectives, and maturity to begin formulation". The figure shows the partner's own "Partner Pre-Phase A/B" in this stretch.
4. Acquisition. "NASA undertakes an acquisition planning process that culminates in an acquisition strategy meeting to determine whether to make, buy, or partner on a particular element." The figure: "Transition from SAO to M2MPO for implementation", leading to an "Implementing Arrangement (IA) or contracting process (e.g., RFP)".
5. Agreement. "If NASA decides to proceed with a partnership approach, NASA would then engage its potential international partner to establish an agreement that formalizes respective roles and responsibilities for formulation and implementation. Only once that international agreement is completed will NASA document elements as partner-provided in the next revision of the ADD."

The figure runs an industry lane alongside the partner lane ("Studies", then "Industry BAA, RFI, etc.", then an "RFP" document), and marks "Feedback incorporated into architecture products as milestones occur."

NASA showed the same chart at both February 2025 workshops, with the industry lane unchanged. In Architecture 101 and in the partners' Paths to Partnership talk it is "Partner Pre-formulation Process", followed by the coffee-maker example redrawn on its lanes ("Area of Partner Interest: In-Space Food Systems"; "Architectural Gap: Provide coffee to lunar astronauts"), ending at the mission concept review (Architecture 101 deck, slides 10–11, the same in its partners' copy; International Partnerships deck, slides 7–8). In the industry and academia Paths to Partnership talk it is "Partner Path to Infusion into Artemis Enterprise", and the acquisition strategy caption opens with a sentence found in no other version: "Agency affirmation of the element in Artemis." (the wiki's comparison; Paths to Partnership deck, slide 2). The same deck lays the elements on a "notional timeline" with dots for four partners, CSA, ESA, MBRSC and JAXA (slide 9). Partners at the 2024 workshop had asked for "clear paths through preformulation to element initiation" (Architecture Updates deck, slide 8).

The chart's earliest form is from that February 2024 workshop: two charts, "ESDMD Pre-Formulation Elements" "For International Partners" and "For Industry Partners". Industry's "Industry BAA, RFI, etc." sat after element initiation, where the partners have "Partner Pre-Phase A/B"; the partner chart ends in "Partner Integration" and an Implementing Arrangement, the industry chart in an "RFP" and a "Contracted Solution". The breakout also said what element initiation is for: approval by the ESDMD Associate Administrator at the Directorate Program Management Council, "Potential international partner contribution and scope to next stage of bilateral study commitments", and "Not intended for small payloads, utilization, or similar contributions or partnerships" (element initiation breakout, slides 4–6; the comparison with Figure 2 is on that page). At the same workshops the UAE's Gateway airlock was shown as signed "shortly after ACR23" and due in Rev B, the order step 5 describes (Gateway; the pairing is the wiki's).

Science. "Because scientific experiments and instruments carry less of a financial burden than elements, science is an excellent way for international partners to collaborate with NASA" (p. 3). The routes, as the paper gives them (p. 3):

• joining "U.S.-led proposals to Payload and Research Investigation from the Surface of the Moon (PRISM) and Artemis Deployed Instruments Program solicitations", found through NSPIRES; "NASA selects scientific investigations from these solicitations for delivery as payloads on human or robotic missions to the lunar surface"
• proposing directly, without a U.S. partner: "The 2023 Artemis III Deployed Instruments Program solicitation offered this opportunity". "The cost of developing these proposals and the instruments themselves must be covered by the sponsoring international agency or institution."
• NASA instruments on partner-led missions, "on a cooperative basis"

Who to call. "NASA's Office of International and Interagency Relations (OIIR) manages the agency's international engagements." Agencies "with cooperative proposals that fill identified gaps in the Moon to Mars Architecture should reach out to the appropriate OIIR point of contact, as listed on the Moon to Mars Architecture website", and attend the annual workshops "held annually following the release of the latest architecture products" (p. 3).

The contacts, on NASA's International Engagement page (undated, fetched 2026-10-01; source page). OIIR "provides executive leadership and coordination of international partnerships", with one named contact per area: "Human Exploration" (ESDMD and the Space Operations Mission Directorate), "Science & Utilization" (the Science Mission Directorate) and "Technology & Education" (the Space Technology and Aeronautics Research directorates and the Office of STEM Engagement). The page names the office "International and Interagency Relationships"; the paper says "Relations". The 2026 international workshop was in Rome, co-hosted by the Italian Space Agency, with posters from eight agencies (Architecture definition process).

What changed by Rev C (the wiki's comparison; details on the source page):

• Rev C's Section 3.4 (ADD p. 82) keeps the sequence: element initiation reviews, Mission Concept Reviews, the element added to the next revision, partnership information only after an international agreement, then the hand-off to the Moon to Mars Program Office (Elements).
• A search of Rev C's text finds no acquisition strategy meeting, no make, buy or partner decision, no Implementing Arrangement, no OIIR and no "exchange of funds".
• PRISM and the deployed-instrument calls are in Rev C's assessment above (ADD p. 85).

In the February 2025 workshop briefings

At the February 2025 international workshop, older than Rev C, NASA's Office of International and Interagency Relations opened the partners' "Paths to Partnership" session with its guidelines (International Partnerships deck, slides 3–5):

• Guidelines. "Cooperation is generally government-to-government, between civilian agencies." "Each partner generally funds their own activities, but activities need not be equivalent in terms of financial value." Cooperation should "demonstrate specific benefits to NASA", with "clearly defined managerial and technical interfaces to minimize complexity and protect against unwarranted technology transfer". "International partnerships generally do not involve joint development of technology. Each party retains intellectual property rights in the technology/hardware it brings". Results are "fully shared, generally published". "Specific cooperative activities are documented in written, legally binding agreements, closely coordinated with the U.S. Department of State."
• Two models. "Bottom Up" ("Competed"): missions "conceived by scientists and engineers", and "Scientist to scientist collaboration generates the vast majority of NASA's international cooperative activity". "Top Down" ("Strategic"): "Senior NASA leadership can look at specific agency needs and direct new missions", "often large, highly visible programs with multi-year funding commitments".
• Life sciences. The International Space Life Sciences Working Group, "Forum for all eligible and interested space agencies", covering "Terrestrial, ISS, Gateway, Lunar Surface"; members "NASA, CSA, JAXA, ESA, IBMP, ASI, MBRSC, ISRO, CNES, DLR" (slide 12).
• Science on the Moon. "International partners can contribute through multiple paths to conduct investigations on the lunar surface: Direct purchase of services from CLPS vendors; Partnership with NASA to deliver directed payloads through CLPS or Artemis" (slide 15); CLPS offers "Rapid, low-cost access to the lunar surface for emerging space organizations" (slide 14).

What changed by Rev C (the wiki's comparison):

• The 2024 paper's "no-exchange-of-funds basis" and OIIR's "each partner generally funds their own activities" say the same thing; the slide adds that the shares "need not be equivalent". Rev C states neither.
• OIIR's "generally do not involve joint development of technology" sits beside Rev C's technology row above: partnerships "generally focus on low technology readiness levels and fundamental research, the results of which are then shared publicly" (ADD p. 86). The two agree on sharing results; Rev C doesn't mention intellectual property.
• Rev C names the ISLSWG twice (pp. 85, 87) without its members. Its text has no "OIIR".

"Architecture gaps": the term

The 2024 paper's definition is the only one in the sources read: "use cases and functions that do not currently trace to an element" (paper, p. 2). Rev C uses the phrase twice without defining it: new systems "fill architecture gaps" (ADD Rev C, p. 82), and the architecture "outlines opportunities for additional partnerships to address architecture gaps" (ADD p. 84, above). Three other things in the sources are close to it. Setting them side by side is the wiki's comparison; none of them cites the paper:

• ADD Appendix B.5, "Unallocated Functions by Use Case" (ADD pp. 167–184). It lists use cases with the functions under them that no element performs: 4 use cases in Human Lunar Return and 75 in Foundational Exploration (Lunar function allocation). B.5 doesn't use the phrase "architecture gaps".
• the "Unallocated" marks in the December 2025 lunar decomposition, under a "FORWARD WORK" label (Lunar function allocation)
• the Users Guide's Moon Base "functional gaps": "Functional gaps are architecture functions that are either currently unallocated to any existing elements, or functions that need additional performance to be fully satisfied" (Users Guide, p. 9; Phase 1 functional gaps)

The phrase is not the same thing as the architecture's technology gaps or data gaps, though one NASA briefing uses it for them: at both February 2025 workshops, a slide on Rev B's technology gap appendix says "Architecture gaps are… …capability areas to enable the architecture (i.e., technologies that need to be matured or invented)", "…published as one-pagers in ADD rev-B (56 total gaps currently)" (Architecture Updates deck, slide 14). A second slide at the same workshops, "Architecture Gap Definition", is closer to the Users Guide: "Gaps can be identified two ways: Unfilled Use Cases/Functions; Performance gap with only partially addressed capability" (FE gaps deck, slide 2). RT-5 also uses it more loosely: robotic maintenance is "an architecture gap that needs additional development" (ADD p. 93; RT-5). See open question 48.

Changes since Rev C

• Artemis II has flown (April 2026), per photo captions in the Users Guide (Orion).
• Artemis III is now an Earth-orbit test (Going back to the Moon, pp. 1–2), so it no longer goes to the surface. No source says what happens to the dielectric analyzer from the University of Tokyo and JAXA selected "for Artemis III" (p. 85): the ADD is the only source that mentions it (searched all the wiki's sources for "dielectric").
• Gateway hardware is being repurposed (Gateway). None of the wiki's sources says what becomes of the partner contributions listed here.
• The pre-formulation chart, briefed at the February 2026 international workshop. NASA's deck for the Rome workshop (24–25 February 2026) shows the 2024 paper's Figure 2 again, retitled "Pre-Formulation Process for Architecture Elements", with the same milestones, captions, partner lane and notes. One lane differs: the industry lane runs "Studies" → "Partner Pre-Phase A" → "RFP", where the 2024 figure has "Industry BAA, RFI, etc." (the wiki's comparison against its transcription; deck, slide 25). The slide doesn't say whether it is the explanation on the architecture website to which Rev C points (ADD p. 82, footnote 24). The same deck's "Partnerships for Utilization" slide shows the Artemis II CubeSats on the Orion stage adapter, without naming them (slide 24).

Partner posters, February 2026

Eight agencies' posters from the Rome workshop, which the Italian Space Agency co-hosted, are on NASA's Architecture Workshops page, "Hosted here with partner permission" (Architecture Workshops page). Each is the agency's own material, not NASA's architecture. The table abridges what each poster says; the source pages have the wording.

Agency	What its poster presents
Australian Space Agency	Roo-ver, "carried to the lunar surface through the NASA CLPS initiative", "approx. 20kg", "14 days" with a hosted NASA sensor; SPIDER, a seismic payload "to land on the Moon in 2026"; LUNA, a landing navigation sensor on "IM's next lunar landing"; strengths in dust mitigation, radioisotopes and radiation sensing. Each item tagged by ASA with objective and tenet codes
Italian Space Agency	"Multipurpose Habitation Module (MPH)" and pressurized modules ("ISS, Lunar Gateway, Artemis MPH"); ORACLE oxygen extraction; drills, manipulators, LuGRE; interests in ISRU, observatories on the Moon, lava tubes, radiation
CNES	LISE, a "Lunar Integrated Shelter for Exploration" (power station, science laboratory, "Habitat for 2 astronauts for min. 7 days"); LORA, a rover assistant; Medipod; Space Kitchen; GeoAssist; AMAIA, an AI assistant
European Space Agency	Its service module and Gateway patches; "LEO Cargo Return Service", "Argonaut lunar lander", "Moonlight/ Lunar Pathfinder"; derisking demonstrations with dates ("Lunar night survival <2030", "Lunar mobility <2030", "Heavy landing >2035 (Moon/Mars)") and mission studies (among them "Lunar base camp (shelter as step 1)", "MEDaL (precision EDL + lander)")
GISTDA (Thailand)	Thailand in the Artemis Accords since 2024; ISS experiments, space food and agriculture; "Artemis TH's 4 Pillars" (transportation, infrastructure, Moon surface R&D, cislunar R&D with the Gateway)
Korea AeroSpace Administration	Danuri, extended "Through Dec. 2027", with ShadowCam; K-RadCube on Artemis II; four CLPS science payloads; the Korea Pathfinder Lunar Lander, "2032", "~43kg" of payload; a roadmap to a "Lunar Economy Base"
Luxembourg Space Agency	ESRIC, a space-resources centre with ESA's Dusty Thermal Vacuum Chamber; resource maps, prospecting mobility, thermal storage "for lunar night survival", cryogenic storage and transfer
UK Space Agency	"£2.8 billion" with ESA over a decade; Gateway contributions to I-HAB and ESPRIT; Lunar Pathfinder, Moonlight; the Rosalind Franklin rover, "Launching … in 2028"

Against the ADD's list of agencies in joint technical studies (pp. 84–86, above), the wiki's comparison: six of its nine have posters (ASI, CNES, the Australian Space Agency, KASA, the Luxembourg Space Agency, ESA); JAXA, CSA and MBRSC don't; GISTDA and the UK Space Agency, which have posters, are not on that list. No poster says "Moon Base" (searched; ESA's and GISTDA's read from the images). Whether to pair poster capabilities with the architecture's gaps is open question 85.

Related pages

Recurring tenets · RT-2 Industry Collaboration · RT-7 Interoperability · Elements: who implements each · Elements: how a new element gets in · Architecture definition process · Lunar function allocation · International Partnerships source page

Sources

ADD Rev C, pp. 4, 82–87, 93, 100, 167 · International Partnerships (ACR24), pp. 1–4 · Going back to the Moon, pp. 1–2 · Users Guide, p. 9, and via the Orion page · 2026 international partners workshop deck, slides 24–25 · the eight partner posters (linked in the table above) · International Partnerships deck, Feb 2025, slides 3–5, 7–8, 12, 14–15 · Paths to Partnership deck, Feb 2025, slide 2 · Architecture 101 deck, Feb 2025, slides 9–11 (partners' copy) · Lunar objective decomposition (via the allocation page)