February 2025 workshop: NASA International Partnerships (international partners deck)¶

Document: iparch06-international-parterships.pdf (NASA's spelling), 16 slides, 10,918,173 bytes, from https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/, fetched 2026-10-01T18:28:07Z (sources/manifest.csv). Title slide: "NASA International Partnerships", "Office of International and Interagency Relations (OIIR)", "Youshay Rizvi, International Program Specialist", "February 2025" (slide 1); footer "February 2025", "Moon to Mars Architecture Workshops". Part of the international partners' set on the Architecture Workshops page. Text: sources/text/docs/2025-02-iparch06-international-parterships.txt; images in sources/raw/slides/2025-02-iparch06-international-parterships/.

Rank and method. A briefing, older than ADD Rev C (SCHEMA, "Workshop slides"). The partners' version of "Paths to Partnership": OIIR's guidelines first, then ESDMD, SOMD and SMD, and a panel card. All 16 slides were read in the text layer. The images of the seven text-poor slides (1, 2, 6, 9, 10, 11, 13) were viewed, and that of slide 8. No "Moon Base", "CUI" or "Pre-Decisional" in the text (searched).

Its industry counterpart. The industry and academia workshop's Paths to Partnership deck has no OIIR part, and has procurement, STMD and Mars Campaign Office talks that this deck lacks. The two share the ESDMD chart (under different titles) and SMD's CLPS slide (with different benefits). sources/workshops-screening.md lists neither as a near-copy, so each has its own page.

Summary. OIIR's rules for international cooperation (government to government, each partner funding its own part, generally no joint technology development, legally binding agreements coordinated with the State Department) and its two models, "Bottom Up" and "Top Down". Then the pre-formulation chart and the coffee-maker example, the human system's place in the architecture with the International Space Life Sciences Working Group, and SMD's two routes for partner science on the Moon. The deck doesn't explain the "Expressed Partner Interest" dots on the same workshop's Foundational Exploration gaps deck.

Slides¶

Slide	Title (as printed)	Content
1	"NASA International Partnerships"	Title, presenter (above)
2	"Outline"	Two items (image): "Partnership Guidelines", "Cooperation Models"
3–4	"Guidelines"; "Guidelines (cont.)"	OIIR's guidelines
5	"Cooperation Models"	Bottom up and top down
6	"Paths to Partnership"	Section title (image): "Exploration Systems Development Mission Directorate"; "Julie Grantier, Deputy Manager for Integration, Strategy and Architecture Office, NASA – ESDMD - SAO"
7	"Partner Pre-Formulation Process"	The chart
8	"Concept Maturity Mapped to Process"	"Fictional Example: Lunar Coffee Maker"
9	"Paths to Partnership"	Section title (image): "Space Operations Mission Directorate"; "Steve Bowen, Cross Directorate Technical Integration, Space Operations Mission Directorate, NASA – SOMD"
10–12	"The Human System Represented in M2M Architecture"; "NASA Human Research Program"; "International Space Life Sciences Working Group (ISLSWG)"	The human system
13	"Paths to Partnership"	Section title (image): "Science Mission Directorate"; "Brad Bailey, Assistant Deputy Associate Administrator for Exploration, Science Mission Directorate, NASA – SMD"
14–15	"Delivering Science"; "Competitive Science and Partnerships"	Science
16	"Charting the Course: Paths to Partnership"	Panel card: Youshay Rizvi (NASA), Steve Bowen (SOMD), Brad Bailey (SMD), Julie Grantier (ESDMD, SAO)

OIIR's guidelines and models (slides 3–5)¶

"Guidelines", as printed:

"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 have scientific and technical merit and demonstrate specific benefits to NASA."
"Collaboration is structured to establish 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 to the partnership, developed independently of the other party."
"The results of the cooperation are fully shared, generally published and do not involve products or processes that are potentially of near-term commercial value."
"Exploratory discussions are welcome and encouraged, consistent with export control limitations."
"Specific cooperative activities are documented in written, legally binding agreements, closely coordinated with the U.S. Department of State."

"Cooperation Models" (slide 5):

"Bottom Up", "Competed": "Mid to low level missions are often conceived by scientists and engineers with a familiarity of global capabilities. These scientists work with their international counterparts to develop proposals for cooperative activity." "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. These are often large, highly visible programs with multi-year funding commitments."

The guidelines' bearing on the architecture is on RT-1.

ESDMD: the chart and the coffee maker (slides 6–8)¶

"Partner Pre-Formulation Process" (slide 7). The same chart as the industry deck's slide 2, with the same lanes, milestones and notes, but titled as in Architecture 101 and without the sentence "Agency affirmation of the element in Artemis." in the acquisition strategy caption, which begins "Transition from SAO to M2MPO for implementation …" (text compared; the wiki's comparison; industry deck, slide 2). The industry lane has "Industry BAA, RFI, etc.".

"Concept Maturity Mapped to Process. Fictional Example: Lunar Coffee Maker" (slide 8, image viewed). The same slide as Architecture 101's slide 11, transcribed on that page: "Area of Partner Interest: In-Space Food Systems", "Architectural Gap: Provide coffee to lunar astronauts", three associated sub-architectures (Human, Habitation and Logistics Systems), ending at the mission concept review.

SOMD: the human system (slides 10–12)¶

"The Human System Represented in M2M Architecture", subtitled "Find areas where your agency would like to collaborate or contribute" (slide 10, image). Four pictures with captions: "Pillars" (the three-pillar Venn figure), "Objectives" (a page of the objectives document with its goal list), "Human System Sub-Architecture" (a page of "Table 1-2. Sub-Architecture Definitions" showing C&PNT, Data Systems and Management, Habitation and Human Systems), and "Human System White Papers" (the first page of "Human Health and Performance: Keeping Astronauts Safe & Productive On a Mission to Mars", marked "2023 Moon to Mars Architecture", with its "Integrated Human Performance" figure of five hazards). That 2023 paper is not among the wiki's sources (Architecture 101, slide 19 lists it as "Human Health and Performance for Mars Missions").
"NASA Human Research Program" (slide 11, image): the mission, as on the industry deck's slide 9, and nasa.gov/hrp.
ISLSWG (slide 12): "Mission: to achieve coordinated strategic planning and implementation for space life sciences activities"; "Forum for all eligible and interested space agencies"; "Working group to discuss life science activities across all carriers and platforms (Terrestrial, ISS, Gateway, Lunar Surface)"; members "NASA, CSA, JAXA, ESA, IBMP, ASI, MBRSC, ISRO, CNES, DLR"; "Two in-person meetings/year"; a NASA point of contact.

SMD: science for partners (slides 14–15)¶

"Delivering Science" (slide 14). The industry deck's CLPS slide with the same "CLPS Overview" figures ("14 companies in IDIQ pool", "12 Task Orders awarded", "2 missions executed with 1 landing on the Moon", "1 active mission with another expected Q1 2025") and the same Blue Ghost and Athena captions. Its benefits differ: "Benefits to International Communities" ("Rapid, low-cost access to the lunar surface for emerging space organizations"; "Provides access to and cooperation with US industry experts"), and for NASA "Enables global scientific discovery" and "Test technologies in advance of and concurrently with human exploration".
"Competitive Science and Partnerships" (slide 15). ROSES "predominantly uses a competitive selection process". "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"; "Awards through competitive solicitations for both CLPS and Artemis". "Selected Solicitations that may include Int'l participation": PRISM; "Artemis Deployed Instruments Solicitations"; "Artemis Geology Team"; "Artemis Participating Scientists". The same open program elements as the industry deck (Artemis IV Deployed Instruments, PRISM SALSA, SSERVI CAN 5, Artemis III Participating Scientists), and among the engagement opportunities "Uncrewed Science with Pressurized Rover (April)" and "Community-led Studies (e.g., Far Side Sample Return; Mars science)".

What changed by Rev C¶

The wiki's comparison:

Rev C's RT-1 assessment says partnerships are formalized "in an international agreement" (ADD p. 84); it doesn't state OIIR's guidelines, and its text has no "OIIR" (RT-1).
Rev C names the ISLSWG under its life-sciences cooperation (p. 85) and among its forums (p. 87), without its members.
The "Expressed Partner Interest" dots of the Foundational Exploration gaps deck remain without a key.

Oddities¶

The file name spells "parterships".
Steve Bowen is "Cross Directorate Technical Integration" here (slides 9, 16); the industry panels deck has "Director, Cross-Directorate Technical Integration Office".

Paths to Partnership, industry and academia deck · Panels and roundtables, international partners · Architecture 101 deck · International Partnerships (ACR24) · RT-1 · Human Systems · CLPS