Skip to content

NASA's Moon to Mars Strategy and Objectives Development

Document: NASA's Moon to Mars Strategy and Objectives Development: A blueprint for sustained human presence and exploration throughout the Solar System, 78 PDF pages. The foreword is signed by Bill Nelson, NASA Administrator. No date is printed. The back cover (PDF p. 78) carries the publication number "NP-2023-03-3115-HQ", and the download path is 2023/04. The wiki calls it "2023" and reads no more exact date from either (open question 51). Files: text sources/text/docs/2023-04-m2m_strategy_and_objectives_development.txt; raw sources/raw/docs/2023-04-m2m_strategy_and_objectives_development.pdf (fetched 2026-10-01T07:22:46Z from https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/m2m_strategy_and_objectives_development.pdf, per sources/manifest.csv).

Page numbers. The printed numbers are one lower than the PDF pages: the cover is unnumbered, and the foreword on PDF p. 2 is printed "1". The contents page uses the printed numbers. The wiki cites PDF pages, which match the text file's [page N] markers, as for the 2025 Architecture Update (open question 29). The table below gives both. So "Appendix C … p. 46", which the 2024 priority-science paper cites, is PDF p. 47.

Who wrote it. NASA's Cross-Directorate Federated Board, "an internal coordination body whose membership includes senior leadership from each of the mission directorates", "is also the primary author of this document" (PDF p. 16).

Summary. The strategy behind the objectives, and how they were made. It answers "Why go?" with three pillars: science, inspiration and national posture. It sets out the systems engineering reasoning: the "why" leads to the "what" (goals and objectives), and ESDMD fills in the "how". It names the risks that broke earlier Moon and Mars plans: external pressures, insufficient funding, broad or changing goals, and the cultural behaviors that follow. Against these it sets five methodology principles. It then restates the 63 objectives and nine tenets with a rationale for each goal, and describes what was to come: objective decomposition, annual strategic analysis cycles, the ADD, and Architecture Concept Reviews. ADD Rev C cites it for "challenges associated with architecture definition" (ADD Rev C, p. 11). Its appendices describe the benefit behind each label of the pillars figure (A), tell how the objectives were developed (B), and trace the science objectives to the decadal surveys (C). Read: all 78 PDF pages.

Contents

PDF page Printed Section Wiki home
1 — Cover
2 1 Foreword (Nelson)
3 2 Executive Summary this page
4 3 Full-page image
5 4 Table of contents
6 5 1.0 Introduction; box "Moon to Mars Strategy Definitions" Objectives; architecture and wireframe on Architecture framework
7 6 1.1 Scope; figure "Current Moon to Mars Scope" below
8–9 7–8 2.0 Background and Context; 2.1 Why Go? (the pillars, the Venn figure, "Categories of Benefits") Why Moon to Mars
10 9 2.2 Optimal Systems Engineering (why, what, how) Objective decomposition
11 10 2.3 Systems Engineering Risks below
12–13 11–12 2.4 Historical Context and Recent State of Play below
14–16 13–15 3.0 Methodology Principles (five) Objective decomposition
17 16 4.0 Objectives Development Objectives
18–31 17–30 5.0 Revised Objectives with Rationale: tenets (18–19), then LPS (20), HS (21), HBS (22), PPS (23), SE (24), AS (25), LI and MI (26–27), TH (28–29), OP (30–31) tenets on Recurring tenets; goal rationales on Objectives
32 31 Full-page image
33 32 Objectives Glossary Objectives
34–35 33–34 6.0 What's Ahead: objectives decomposition; strategic analysis cycles; ACRs; Federated Board targeted reviews Architecture definition process; decomposition on Objective decomposition
36–37 35–36 Image (Curiosity sunset), blank page
38–40 37–39 Appendix A: Why Go? Benefit Descriptions (Science; Inspiration; National Posture; the first intersection) Why Moon to Mars
41–42 40–41 Appendix A, continued: the other three intersections (Advance Science and Technology Priorities, Climate; Norms; Leadership, Economy, Human Condition) Why Moon to Mars
43–46 42–45 Appendix B: Objectives Development Process (tracks and leads, gap analysis, feedback campaigns and workshops, summer scrub, rollout); two figures Objectives; tenets on Recurring tenets; figures below
47 46 Appendix C: Mapping Science Goals and Objectives to Decadal Surveys; the guiding documents Science objectives and the decadal surveys
48–69 47–68 Appendix C: LPS-1 to LPS-4 against the planetary science decadal Science objectives and the decadal surveys
70–73 69–72 Appendix C: HS-1 to HS-4 against the heliophysics decadal, with other documents as above
74–75 73–74 Appendix C: HBS-1 (biological sciences); HBS-2 and HBS-3 (Integrated Research Plan) as above
76–77 75–76 Appendix C: PPS-1 and PPS-2 as above
78 — Back cover: NASA Headquarters address; "NP-2023-03-3115-HQ" above

The Appendix B and C starting pages come from the contents page (PDF p. 5), converted to PDF pages.

What the PDF shows that the text layer loses

Read from the rendered pages. Labels are as printed; descriptions of layout are the wiki's.

  • "Current Moon to Mars Scope" (PDF p. 7). Earth, then the Moon, then Mars, then "Future Destinations". A key has two marks, "Current Scope of M2M Objectives" and "Partial Scope". Three labels carry the first mark: "Human Presence on Moon", "Practice for Mars Exploration Demo" and "Demo Exploration Framework on Mars". "Human Presence on Mars" carries the dimmer mark, which the wiki reads as "Partial Scope". Caption: "Identified goals and objectives are designed to first achieve the Moon to Mars endeavor, which will strategically position space exploration to extend beyond these destinations, reaching farther into the solar system to achieve the blueprint vision."
  • "Why Go?" (PDF p. 8). The Venn diagram of Science, Inspiration and National Posture that ADD Rev C prints on p. 105. As the wiki reads both images, every label sits in the same region. One label is worded differently: "Advance S&T Priorities" here, "Advanced Science and Technology Priorities" in the ADD. Beneath it is a table labeled "VALUE" standing on three legs marked Science, Inspiration and National Posture. The text layer has a caption, "Figure 2. Humans go into space because…", that isn't visible on the rendered page. No other figure in pp. 1–40 is numbered.
  • Why, what and how (PDF p. 10). Two rockets on the "VALUE" table: a solid one labeled "WHAT" and a blue outline labeled "HOW", joined by an arrow "Optimal Systems Engineering". "WHY" is written under the table. Next to "HOW": "Elements required to create the 'What'", "Defined and Managed by a Program Office", "Approved by Leadership", "Sufficient Funding Required". A tube labeled "Systems/Technology Development" feeds the outline rocket from a cloud marked "Mature < < < Conceptual / Low TRL".
  • Systems engineering risks (PDF p. 11). A cracked rocket, with each risk pointing to a crack.
  • "Communication Breakdown" (PDF p. 13). "The M2M Plan", an outline rocket, receives "Limited funding received". Under "Limited Current Execution" two results are drawn: "Plan Intact", the outline with some parts filled in, and "No Plan", the same filled parts with no outline.
  • Architect from the right (PDF p. 14). Rocket parts move from right to left into an outline rocket; label "Execute from the Left".
  • The four tracks (PDF p. 17). A rocket in four bands, from the top: "Operations", "Infrastructure", "Transportation and Habitation", "Science".
  • The annual cycle (PDF p. 35). Chevrons from left to right: "Moon to Mars Objectives"; "ACR Product Review", "Architecture Definition Document", "Revised Architecture"; "Architecture Concept Review"; "Architecture Confirmation (Federated Board, Stakeholder Targeted Reviews)"; "ACR Product Development/Review", "Architecture Definition Document Expansion", "Refined/Expanded Architecture"; "Architecture Concept Review". An arrow back from the last review is labeled "Annual Cycle to Mature Architecture". Compared with the ADD's p. 19 figure on Architecture definition process.
  • Goals and objectives to ESDMD (PDF p. 43). Three columns, "Objectives" (the codes, too small to read one by one), "Goals" and "Tracks". The goals are labeled "Lunar/ Planetary", "Heliophysics", "Human & Biological", "Physics & Physical", "Science Enabling", "Applied Science", "Lunar Infrastructure", "Mars Infrastructure", "T&H Goal" and "Ops Goal". The tracks are Science, Infrastructure, "Transportation & Habitation" and Operations, beside a column "Recurring Tenets" holding RT-1 to RT-9. A box in the middle reads "Create a blueprint for sustained human presence and exploration throughout the solar system". To the left, a large arrow labeled "Objectives to ESDMD" passes an outline rocket and points, under "Qualifiers and requirements", to a filled-in rocket. Caption: "A graphical depiction of how goals and objectives were developed with an eye toward the blueprint vision, and how they work together to achieve that vision. With goals and objectives developed, the architecture will follow."
  • "Bridging the Gap" (PDF p. 44). Subtitle: "'Architecting from the Right' meets 'On-going Developments'". From the left, an orange arrow of timelines labeled "Current efforts" ("advertised as or intended to support the overall M2M Objective"). From the right, the p. 43 graphic, with an arrow labeled "Objectives feed ESDMD qualifiers and requirements". They meet at a rocket. Below are partly built rockets, labeled in red "Potential for gaps, partial gaps, or disconnects". Caption: "Ongoing efforts must merge with strategy toward future state; the gap analysis bridges this gap."
  • Appendix C tables (PDF pp. 48–77). Two-page spreads, one colour per objective: objective and decadal questions or goals on the left page, research or other documents on the right. Rows that continue from a previous page are repeated in italics. No page carries the caption "Table C.1", which the text names (PDF p. 47). The layout and column headings are on Science objectives and the decadal surveys.

What the document says (PDF pp. 1–40)

  • Vision, endeavor, goals, objectives. The vision is to "Create a blueprint for sustained human presence and exploration throughout the solar system." The "near-term Moon to Mars endeavor" works toward it, "with resulting goals and objectives to guide success" (PDF p. 6). Definitions are on Objectives.
  • Scope: both, not either. The strategy "assumed neither a weighted focus on returning to the Moon nor moving swiftly on to Mars. Instead, the Moon to Mars endeavor embraces the need to do both". "The Moon is a proving ground to develop and demonstrate capabilities that will lay the foundation for humans to thrive, while at the same time offering opportunities to learn and prepare for an initial Mars campaign" (PDF p. 7).
  • Who does the "how". After leadership sets the "why" and the "what", "the 'how' must be filled in by a responsible organization assigned and empowered to complete this task – something akin to a Program Office. For Moon to Mars at NASA, that responsible organization is the Exploration Systems Development Mission Directorate (ESDMD)." "Funding is as vital as the plan" (PDF p. 10).
  • Technology development. "In order to flesh out the wireframe, technology development is needed in partnership with the Program Office to shepherd technology solutions from conceptual ideas to mature components that form the elements of the wireframe." These "can range from conceptual ideas (which are seed-corn for future space exploration approaches) to mature technologies ready for mission infusion". Technology development for Moon to Mars "pulls from a dedicated NASA mission directorate, as well as organic technology development inherent in agency-wide individual programs, international space agencies, and commercial work" (PDF p. 10). The directorate isn't named.
  • Risks (PDF p. 11):
    • External pressures: stakeholders "injecting ideas for solutions that stem from non-technical motivations", which "warps the wireframe because the technologies no longer directly map to the goals and objectives"
    • Insufficient funding: a "'level of effort' approach, meaning only some individual elements are funded to the limit of the budget"
    • Broad or changing goals: "any changes force the systems engineering process to reset"
    • Unhelpful cultural behaviors: "Fears of Being Cut", "Stovepipes", "Poor/Restricted Communication", "Distributed Motivations"; and "A Deteriorating Cycle" that "erodes public trust"
  • History (PDF pp. 12–13). The "Moon to Mars Roller Coaster": the 1989 Space Exploration Initiative and its Ride Report implementation plan; the 1990 Augustine Committee's redirection to a "non-strategic, 'go-as-you-pay' or level-of-effort strategy"; restarts in 2004 (Vision for Space Exploration) and 2010. Then the "Capability-Based Framework" of 2010 to about 2020, which led to SLS, Orion and Exploration Ground Systems: "These capabilities would enable the agency to go to any destination legislators chose … while not necessarily accounting for the specific needs of each destination." It "allows for the development of technology but lacks a vision of the end state for that work." Then a "Communication Breakdown", and an "Inflection Point": "the commercial sector has proven that once NASA demonstrates a technology, it can successfully carry technologies forward and provide space transportation as a service."
  • Objectives development (PDF p. 17). Started in November 2021; "nine goals and 50 draft objectives" released in May 2022 for comment by June 2022; "more than 5,000 inputs"; consultation workshops with industry and international partners; "revised 10 goals and 63 final objectives". The document doesn't say which goal was added.
  • What the objectives are meant to be. "Top-level enough to not mandate particular technical solutions or acquisition approaches, detailed enough to judge success, rigorously developed over nine months to make them resilient, and consistent with the value proposition and future trajectory" (PDF p. 18).

What the document says (PDF pp. 41–78)

  • Appendix A, continued (PDF pp. 41–42). Benefit descriptions for the intersections of the pillars, ending with "Human Condition", which is "at the center of the Venn diagram". Taglines and examples are on Why Moon to Mars.
  • Appendix B (PDF pp. 43–46). How the objectives were made, month by month, from November 2021 to September 2022. It covers the Executive Council's tasking, the mission directorate that led each track, 45 draft objectives by March 2022 and the April 2022 gap analysis ("12 objectives gaps"). Then come the 50 drafts of May 2022, the feedback numbers, the Houston and London workshops, the "summer scrub" and the release at the International Astronautical Congress. All of it is on Objectives.
  • Appendix C (PDF pp. 47–77). Thirteen science objectives (LPS, HS, HBS, PPS) mapped to the decadal surveys and the Integrated Research Plan, on Science objectives and the decadal surveys.

What changed by Rev C

These comparisons are the wiki's.

  • The objectives' wording is the 2022 wording, not this document's. This document makes small edits to some goals, objectives and tenets, such as "geologic processes affecting planetary bodies" for "that affect" (LPS-2), "health and performance" for "health & performance" (HBS-2), and "Partner with the international community" (RT-1). ADD Rev C (December 2025) and the December 2025 lunar decomposition print the 2022 wording in every case checked (Objectives; open question 50). The document isn't consistent with itself either. Its Appendix C tables print LPS-2 and HBS-2 in the 2022 wording, and HS-3 and PPS-1 in words found in neither version ("near-Martian, and near-surface"; "deep space and deep time"; PDF pp. 70, 76; Science objectives and the decadal surveys).
  • Appendix C has no counterpart in Rev C. Rev C's only decadal citation is in RT-6 (p. 98). It leaves the mapping of science payloads to objectives for "the next revision" (p. 69; Science objectives and the decadal surveys).
  • The benefit descriptions are gone. ADD Appendix A keeps the Venn figure's labels but has no description of each one (search of the text; Why Moon to Mars).
  • ADD Appendix A.1 rewords Section 2.1. Several of its sentences on the three pillars are this document's, edited, and its Venn figure is the same (Why Moon to Mars).
  • Three of the five principles survive by name. ADD A.2: "an objective-based approach, architecting from the right and executing from the left, and constancy of purpose" (p. 107). Rev C doesn't use "unity of purpose" or "wireframe" (search of the text).
  • The process ran as planned. This document expected an ADD from annual strategic analysis cycles, reviewed at annual ACRs. Rev C is the third revision produced that way (Architecture definition process). Rev C doesn't mention the Federated Board (search for "Federated"). Its p. 16 figure puts the architecture under the "Strategy and Architecture Office (SAO)".

Cited by

Oddities

As printed, PDF checked:

  • Page numbers one lower than the PDF pages (above).
  • How long it took. "Development of the objectives spanned one year" (PDF p. 3), against "rigorously developed over nine months" (PDF p. 18). Section 4.0 runs from November 2021 to the final set (PDF p. 17), and the final set is dated September 2022 in the 2022 document.
  • TH's "three groupings" overlap. "TH-1 through TH-8", then "TH3, TH7, TH9, and TH10", then "TH11 and TH12" (PDF p. 28). TH-3 and TH-7 are in the first two.
  • LI-4 to LI-6 in reverse. The rationale says LI-4 through LI-6 describe "mobility, precise landings, and manufacturing and construction" (PDF p. 26). The objectives run the other way: LI-4 manufacturing and construction, LI-5 precision landing, LI-6 mobility (PDF p. 27).
  • Slips: "raison d'etat" (PDF p. 11); "eventually led to development the International Space Station" (PDF p. 12); "the reinforcing cycle of the all the other principles" (PDF p. 16); "lunar and Martians environments" (PDF p. 23); "lead to the fulfillment this policy" (PDF p. 31); "improved.." (PDF p. 3).
  • Appendices B and C:
    • "methodology principals" and "Overarching Objectives Principals" (PDF p. 46), and "the methodology principal of enhanced communication and engagement" (PDF p. 46)
    • "the Executive Office of the President and Congress and the International Space Agency" among the stakeholders briefed before release (PDF p. 46)
    • "Table C.1" is named in the text (PDF p. 47), but no table carries that caption
    • "Q3.4 What processes the unique initial state of Mars?" has no verb (PDF p. 48)
    • the column heading "Active Solar and Physics Decadal Science Challenges", beside "Active Solar and Space Decadal Objectives" (PDF pp. 70, 72)
    • HS-3's two "Other Relevant Documents" are each listed twice (PDF p. 71, repeated on p. 73)
    • HBS-1's row speaks of "the 2010 Decadal report" (PDF p. 74), where PPS-2's row has "the 2011 Decadal report" (PDF p. 76) and the guiding-documents list dates the survey 2011 (PDF p. 47)
    • "decadalscale" (PDF p. 77)
  • The text layer splits some suffixes from their codes ("SE-3 :" with "LM" on a later line) and carries zero-width characters. The rendered pages show the codes normally. In Appendix C it also runs some words together in the research rows; the wiki quotes none of those rows.

Objectives: the ten goals · Lunar objectives · Science objectives and the decadal surveys · Why Moon to Mars · Objective decomposition · Architecture definition process · Recurring tenets · Moon to Mars Objectives (2022) · ADD Rev C