International Partnerships and NASA's Moon to Mars Architecture (ACR24 white paper)¶

Document: International Partnerships and NASA's Moon to Mars Architecture, 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. Files: text sources/text/docs/2024-12-acr24-international-partnerships.txt; raw sources/raw/docs/2024-12-acr24-international-partnerships.pdf (fetched 2026-10-01T07:22:46Z from https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/acr24-international-partnerships.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" as "International Partnerships": "Policies, Opportunities, and Engagement: Elaborates on how NASA engages and collaborates with space agencies from around the world" (White Papers page, fetched 2026-10-01). It is 2024 context, older than ADD Rev C.

Summary. How a foreign space agency gets into the architecture. Cooperation "typically occurs on a no-exchange-of-funds basis" (p. 1). The starting point is an "architecture gap", which the paper defines as "use cases and functions that do not currently trace to an element" (p. 2). Large contributions (elements) go through NASA's pre-formulation milestones, drawn in Figure 2: element initiation, mission concept review, an acquisition strategy meeting that decides "whether to make, buy, or partner", then an international agreement. "Only once that international agreement is completed will NASA document elements as partner-provided in the next revision of the ADD" (p. 3). Smaller contributions (science instruments) go through PRISM and the Artemis deployed-instrument calls. The content is on RT-1 International Collaboration.

Contents¶

Page	Section	Wiki home
1	Introduction (no exchange of funds; RT-1 quoted; pre-formulation "vary depending on the nature of the proposed cooperation"); Figure 1	RT-1; figure below
2	Figure 2; Getting Started (architecture gaps; study agreements); Pre-Formulation Milestones	RT-1; figure below
3	Pre-Formulation Milestones (end); Science Cooperation; Opportunities for Continued Engagement; Figure 3	RT-1; Figure 3 on Why Moon to Mars
4	Key Takeaways; References 1–9	this page

What the PDF shows that the text layer loses¶

The text layer keeps the three captions and nothing else of the figures.

Figure 1 (p. 1), "Decomposition of NASA's Moon to Mars Objectives into component architecture features." It is the figure ADD Rev C prints on p. 16 as "Objective Decomposition Process and Key Terms" (Objective decomposition). The two were compared in the PDFs (ADD p. 16 at page resolution); the comparison is the wiki's. Both have the same layout and the same text: "Illustration of the decomposition of objectives using NASA's process of architecting from the right"; "Agency Level" "Objectives & Goals"; the "Strategy and Architecture Office (SAO)" "Architecture" box with "Characteristics & Needs", "Use Cases" (labeled "Segments") and "Functions" (labeled "Sub-architectures"); "Program Level" "Design Reference Missions/ConOps" and "Elements / Requirements". Two box texts that the wiki's description of the ADD figure doesn't quote are in both: use cases are "Operations executed to produce desired needs and/or characteristics", and functions are "Actions an architecture performs to complete a desired use case." The 2024 figure has a vertical label beside the use cases reading "Reference Missions". The ADD figure has a small vertical label in the same place, too small to read at page resolution.
Figure 3 (p. 3), "Three pillars of exploration." A Venn diagram of Science, Inspiration and National Posture. Its labels sit in the same regions as in the ADD's p. 105 figure, as the wiki reads both images (Why Moon to Mars).

Figure 2, "ESDMD pre-formulation process, including partner roles" (p. 2)¶

A swim-lane chart, read left to right. Labels as printed; the layout description is the wiki's.

Legend. Two symbols, "Document(s)" and "NASA Milestone" (a diamond). Three colors: "Collaboration Partner", "Strategy and Architecture Office (SAO)", "Moon to Mars Program Office (M2MPO)".

Milestones (diamonds on the NASA lane), with the captions printed above three of them:

Diamond	Caption
ACR	none
EI	"Element Initiation (EI)": "Overt decision to proceed with maturation of concept assessed for priority, budget, and strategy"
MCR	"Mission Concept Review (MCR)": "Evaluates feasibility of proposed mission concept(s) and its fulfillment of architecture needs and objectives."
ASM	"Acquisition Strategy Meeting": "Transition from SAO to M2MPO for implementation, completion of project roles and responsibilities leading to Implementing Arrangement (IA) or contracting process (e.g., RFP)"

Lanes:

Lane	Steps, in order
NASA (SAO, then M2MPO)	document "M2M Obj." → "Arch. Studies" → document "ADD" → "Gap Analysis/Concept" → ACR → EI → "Mission /Concept Trades" → MCR → "Acquisition Plan" → ASM → "M2M Program Int." (the only step in the M2MPO color)
"International Partners"	"Studies" → document "EI" → "Partner Pre-Phase A/B" → document "MCR" → "Partner Integration" → document "IA"
"Industry Partners"	"Studies" → "Industry BAA, RFI, etc." → document "RFP"

A shaded band labeled "Element Definition" covers the steps from "Gap Analysis/Concept" to MCR. Lines labeled "Collaboration Partner" run from the partner lanes back up to the ADD document.

Numbered notes, placed on the partner lanes before EI, after EI and after MCR:

"Feasibility studies and collaboration identify potential concept."
"Mission refinement to optimize for strategic value and functional achievement, using study mechanisms to better inform planning."
"Feedback incorporated into architecture products as milestones occur."

The paper doesn't expand ACR, BAA, RFI, RFP or "Pre-Phase A/B", and the wiki doesn't either.

Key takeaways (p. 4)¶

"NASA considers international cooperation foundational for deep space exploration and a key part of its Moon to Mars strategy."
"International partners can cooperate with NASA in a variety of ways, from participating in scientific investigations to providing exploration assets or elements that fill gaps in the architecture."
"For exploration elements — substantial, architecture-level contributions — NASA has defined a clear pre-formulation process that incorporates partners at every step."
"NASA encourages new and existing partners to engage its Office of International and Interagency Relations with questions or to begin partnership discussions."

What changed by Rev C¶

These comparisons are the wiki's. The paper predates Rev C.

The ADD caught up with the paper. Rev C "Added content on element definition and pre-formulation methodology" (revision table, ADD Rev C, p. 4), as Section 3.4 (p. 82). Rev C keeps the paper's sequence: gaps found through the objective decomposition, element initiation reviews, Mission Concept Reviews, the element added "into the next revision", partnership information added only "after the U.S. and partner nation formally establish an appropriate international agreement", and a hand-off from the Strategy and Architecture Office to the Moon to Mars Program Office once the concept "includes a strategy for acquisition" (p. 82; Elements).
What Rev C doesn't print. A search of Rev C's text finds no "Acquisition Strategy Meeting", no make, buy or partner decision, no "Implementing Arrangement", no "Office of International and Interagency Relations" and no "exchange of funds". Rev C points to "the Moon to Mars Architecture website" for "a more detailed explanation of the pre-formulation process" (p. 82, footnote 24: www.nasa.gov/architecture). Whether Figure 2 is that explanation isn't stated.
"Architecture gaps" without a definition. Rev C uses the phrase twice: new systems "fill architecture gaps" (p. 82), and the architecture "outlines opportunities for additional partnerships to address architecture gaps" (RT-1, p. 84). It doesn't define it. The paper's definition is the only one in the sources read (RT-1; open question 48).
Science cooperation, the same channels. Rev C's RT-1 also names PRISM and annual "deployed instrument calls" open to international partners, and reports "a dielectric analyzer from the University of Tokyo and JAXA for Artemis III" (p. 85). It doesn't say which call selected it. The paper names the "2023 Artemis III Deployed Instruments Program solicitation" as one open to international-led proposals (p. 3). The wiki doesn't connect the two.

References that are other architecture documents¶

The paper cites nine references (p. 4). As printed:

Ref.	Title, as printed	Among the wiki's sources?
1	Moon to Mars Objectives	yes, Moon to Mars Objectives (2022) (same file name in the link)
2	Moon to Mars Architecture	yes, source page
3	Architecture White Papers	yes, source page
4	Moon to Mars Architecture Definition Document	the ADD documents web page, source page
5	Architecting from the Right	yes, source page
6	Moon to Mars Strategy and Objectives Development	yes, Strategy and Objectives Development (2023) (same file name in the link)
9	Moon to Mars Architecture: International Engagement	yes, source page (the paper says OIIR points of contact are listed there)

The others are NASA's decadal surveys page and NSPIRES.

Oddities¶

As printed, PDF checked:

PRISM's name. "Payload and Research Investigation from the Surface of the Moon (PRISM)" (p. 3). ADD Rev C has "Investigations" (pp. 47, 85).
The deployed-instrument program's name, three ways on the same page (p. 3): "Artemis Deployed Instruments Program solicitations", "The 2023 Artemis III Deployed Instruments Program solicitation" and "future Artemis Deployed Instrument Program solicitations".

RT-1 International Collaboration · RT-2 Industry Collaboration · Elements: how a new element gets in · Objective decomposition · Why Moon to Mars · Architecture definition process · Lunar function allocation