Architecture-Driven Technology Gaps (ACR24 white paper)¶

Document: Architecture-Driven Technology Gaps, a four-page white paper headed "2024 Moon to Mars Architecture" and footed "2024 Moon to Mars Architecture Concept Review". No date is printed beyond the year; the download path is 2024/12, and the paper says ADD Revision B was "released alongside this white paper in December 2024" (p. 2). Files: text sources/text/docs/2024-12-acr24-architecture-technology-gaps.txt; raw sources/raw/docs/2024-12-acr24-architecture-technology-gaps.pdf (fetched 2026-10-01T07:22:46Z from https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/acr24-architecture-technology-gaps.pdf, per sources/manifest.csv). Page numbers: the printed numbers (1–4) match the PDF pages and the text file's [page N] markers. All four pages were checked against the PDF.

Which paper this is. NASA's White Papers web page lists it under "2024 Architecture Concept Review": "Explains how NASA identifies technology gaps for needed architecture capabilities and encourages innovation to close them" (White Papers page, fetched 2026-10-01). It is the paper that later documents point to for more on the gaps:

ADD Rev C: "the associated white paper published in 2024" (p. 77, footnote 23)
the 2025 Architecture Update: "the 2024 architecture white paper or revision C" (p. 14)
three of the ACR25 white papers, by title in their reference lists (data gaps, ref. 4; "Why Moon and Mars?", ref. 27; FE C&PNT, ref. 11)

It is 2024 context: it describes the first gap list, in Revision B.

Summary. "This year, for the first time, NASA has published a prioritized list of these architecture-driven technology gaps in Revision B of its Architecture Definition Document" (p. 1). The paper explains what counts as a gap, and how gaps differ from STMD's Civil Space Shortfalls (all gaps are included among them). It shows how gaps trace to the objectives and how they are prioritized on four weighted metrics. It names the five highest-priority gaps of 2024, from a list of 56. Most of it carries into ADD Rev C Section 3.2 almost unchanged. Its content is on the gaps index; what changed is below.

Contents¶

Page	Section	Wiki home
1	Introduction; What is a Technology Gap?; Technology Push and Pull; "Defining Terms" box	Gaps index
2	Figure 1, STMD shortfalls and ESDMD gaps; Architecture-Driven Technology Gaps and Civil Space Shortfalls; Gap Definition and Traceability	same
3	Figure 2, gap traceability; Prioritizing Technology Gaps (four metrics); Figure 3, prioritization process	same
4	Technology Gap Evolution; Table 1, five high-priority gaps; Key Takeaways; References 1–5	below; takeaways on this page

What the PDF shows that the text layer loses¶

Figure 1 (p. 2), "Complementary and overlapping gap definition efforts by STMD and ESDMD." A Venn diagram. Left circle, "STMD Shortfalls": "Technology Push and Pull", and "Technology Push and Pull from other stakeholders (NASA's Science Mission Directorate, Industry, Academia, etc.)". Right circle, "ESDMD Gaps": "Derived from Architecture", and "Unallocated Architecture Functions". The overlap, "Shared Gaps", is "Architecture-Driven Technology Gaps". A box below reads "Architecture mapping defines technology pull gaps" and "100% of technology gaps are included in Shortfalls".
Figure 2 (p. 3), "Technology Gap Traceability through the architecture to Moon to Mars Objectives." A flow chart. Inside a box marked "Strategy and Architecture Office (SAO)" and headed "Gap Definition", "Objectives & Goals" feed "Characteristics & Needs", then "Functions" and "Use Cases". These lead to "Technology Gaps" ("Technologies or capabilities needing closure to fulfil objectives.") and "Decisions" ("Decisions with flow-down impacts to architecture development."). Both are "Identified, Prioritized, and Documented in Architecture Definition Document Appendixes". Outside the box, "Programs/Projects" ("Assets, Elements, Requirements, Reference Missions") exchange arrows with the use cases. "Technology Development Organizations" hold "Technology Development" and "Civil Space Shortfalls", with a "Technology Infusion" arrow up to the programs. The figure's own caption: "NASA identifies technology and capability gaps in the Moon to Mars Architecture through the objective decomposition process. NASA then prioritizes and documents gaps in the Architecture Definition Document and relies on technology development organizations to close them."
Figure 3 (p. 3), "Architecture-driven technology gap prioritization process flow diagram and weighted gap scoring formula." Headed "Overview of Gap Prioritization Process": "Architecture-Driven Gaps", scored on "Criticality", "Urgency", "Depth" and "Breadth", go through "Analytical Hierarchy Process" ("Weighting, Scoring, Aggregation, and Normalization") to a "Prioritized Gaps List". Beneath, the four scores, each times a weight "W…%", sum to the "Gap Overall Prioritization Rating". The small print is hard to read at the PDF's resolution. Its boxes and formula match the ADD Rev C p. 78 figure described on the gaps index (the wiki's comparison).
Table 1 (p. 4), below. The text layer prints its rows in a different order from the PDF.

The five gaps in Table 1¶

"Table 1 features the five highest priority gaps identified in Revision B of the Architecture Definition Document, published in 2024" (p. 4). The table is headed "Example Technology Gaps (2024)" and captioned "Five high priority technology gaps identified in 2024. The initial list included 56 total gaps, but the gaps will change each year." Its rows are not numbered. In the PDF's order, with the wiki's match to the December 2025 list:

Table 1 (2024), as printed	Rev C gap	Rev C rating
Lunar Dust Tolerant Systems and Dust Mitigation	#0801 Lunar Dust-Tolerant Systems and Dust Mitigation	1
Systems to Survive and Operate through Extended Periods of Lunar Shadow	#0301, same title	3
High-bandwidth, High-reliability Surface-to-Surface Communications	#0103, same title	5
Mars Transportation Propulsion	#1104, same title	6
Extreme Environment Avionics	#0201, same title	2

The titles match today's, apart from the hyphen in "Dust-Tolerant". The five are Rev C's ratings 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6. Rev C's rating 4, #1107 Cryogenic Fluid Transfer, is not among them. By the paper's own description of the table, #1107 was not in Revision B's top five. The paper prints no ratings. The February 2025 workshops briefed Rev B's whole list: its ranks 1 to 5 are these five rows in this order, and #1107 was 11th (technology gaps briefing, slide 5; compared with Rev C on the gaps index).

Key takeaways (p. 4)¶

"Technology gaps exist when a capability that NASA needs exceeds the current technology state of the art."
"Strategic technology investments to close technology gaps enable future Artemis missions."
"Architecture-driven technology gaps map to specific architecture segments and sub-architectures and trace to NASA's Moon to Mars Objectives through the Moon to Mars Architecture's use cases, functions, and driving decisions."
"Architecture-driven technology gaps are defined and prioritized using rigorous systems engineering processes and principles."
"All architecture-driven technology gaps are included in the list of Civil Space Shortfalls developed by NASA's Space Technology Mission Directorate."
"Architecture-driven technology gaps and their prioritization will be updated as the architecture evolves and as technology matures."

What changed by Rev C¶

These comparisons are the wiki's, against ADD Rev C Section 3.2 and Appendix D as quoted on the gaps index.

The count. The paper's "initial list included 56 total gaps" (p. 4). Rev C has 57. The Update says Rev C "adds two new technology gaps and removes one former gap" (Update, p. 14). The arithmetic, 56 + 2 − 1 = 57, is the wiki's, and it fits.
The narrow definition is word for word the same. The paper's paragraph beginning "This is a narrow definition" (p. 1) is repeated in ADD Rev C, which adds only "It is important to note that" in front (p. 77).
Metric definitions, nearly the same (paper p. 3; ADD p. 78):
- Criticality and urgency: the same apart from "a" for "the".
- Breadth: "the prevalence of a technology gap across sub-architectures" became "the prevalence of a technology gap's applicability across sub-architectures".
- Depth: "dependent on future architecture decisions" became "dependent on future architecture definition tasks". The paper points to "the Architecture Definition Document appendix on architecture decision roadmapping".
Weights. The paper says "Each priority metric has a relative weighting (Wx%) defined by the architecture teams" (p. 3). Rev C adds the order, "criticality, urgency, breadth, and depth", and that cost is not considered (p. 78). Neither prints the values.
Push, pull and shortfalls are not in Rev C. A search of ADD Rev C and the 2025 Update finds no "shortfall" and no "technology push" or "technology pull". The paper's definitions: "Technology Pull: innovation to meet documented mission needs. Technology Push: innovation to meet anticipated mission needs" (p. 1).
Fields. The paper lists what each gap documents: "a description, architecture impacts and benefits, target performance metrics, current state-of-the-art metrics, and subsidiary 'child' gaps", mapped to "use cases, functions, decisions, campaign segments, and sub-architectures" (p. 2). Rev C's Appendix D defines 13 fields covering the same ground (p. 199).

References¶

The paper cites five references (p. 4):

Ref.	Title, as printed	Among the wiki's sources?
1	NASA's Moon to Mars Architecture	yes, source page
2	Moon to Mars Objectives	yes, Moon to Mars Objectives (2022) (same file name in the link)
3	Moon to Mars Strategy and Objectives Development	yes, Strategy and Objectives Development (2023) (same file name in the link)
4	Moon to Mars Architecture Definition Document	the ADD documents web page, source page
5	Civil Space Shortfall Ranking	no; the link is a July 2024 PDF

A boxed note beside the references reads "Reference the latest of the architecture-driven technology gaps in the Architecture Definition Document: https://go.nasa.gov/3CsjcT5", with a QR code. The short link wasn't followed. The Civil Space Shortfall Ranking is also linked from NASA's Lunar Surface Technology page (source page); the wiki holds neither it nor the 2026 list (open question 10).

Oddities¶

As printed, PDF checked:

Table 1's row order differs between the PDF and the text layer, which puts "Extreme Environment Avionics" second. The wiki follows the PDF.
"Moon to Mars Objectives and Strategy document" in the text (p. 1); reference 3 is titled "Moon to Mars Strategy and Objectives Development".
"(WX%)" in the text layer is "W" with a subscript x in the PDF (p. 3).

Gaps index · Tech gaps spreadsheet · ADD Rev C · 2025 Architecture Update · Objective decomposition · Key definition tasks · ACR25 FE C&PNT white paper