Moon to Mars Architecture Definition Document (ADD), Revision C

Document: Moon to Mars Architecture Definition Document, ESDMD-001 – Revision C, report number NASA/TP-20250010956, NASA Exploration Systems Development Mission Directorate (p. 2). 304 pages. Date: released 12/12/2025, per the revision table (p. 4). The file name says 20251211 (add-revision-c-20251211.pdf). Owner: "The NASA office of primary responsibility for this document is the Exploration Systems Development Mission Directorate (ESDMD) Strategy and Architecture Office (SAO)" (p. 3). Files: text sources/text/docs/2025-12-add-revision-c-20251211.txt; raw PDF sources/raw/docs/2025-12-add-revision-c-20251211.pdf, fetched 2026-10-01 from https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/add-revision-c-20251211.pdf (per sources/manifest.csv).

Summary. The ADD is NASA's master document for the Moon to Mars Architecture. In its own words it "establishes the process of objective decomposition, outlines the architecture's constituent parts, and provides insight into the ongoing evolution of the architecture" (p. 9). NASA revises it once a year after the Architecture Concept Review. Revision C is the current one: it adds two elements (the lunar utility rover and the lunar nuclear fission system), the first list of architecture-driven data gaps, and an updated list of technology gaps (p. 9). It describes the architecture as of December 2025, before the Moon Base was announced (see What to know when using it).

What the ADD is, and what it is not

NASA is explicit about how the ADD should be read. These passages matter for anyone reading the gap lists as a shopping list.

• "This is not a manifest or requirements document. Rather, it is a tool for those seeking to understand or engage with the architecture. This can include commercial industry, international partners, other U.S. government organizations, and implementing programs and projects within NASA" (p. 9).
• "The Architecture Definition Document is also not a policy document. It is a technical document that reflects the approved baseline for programs of record, contracts, partnerships, and funding. The document reflects changes to the program of record after formal approval of and adoption by the U.S. government. Partnerships appear once formalized through a contract vehicle, bilateral agreement, or other formal arrangement" (p. 9).
• Scope. ESDMD "established the Moon to Mars Architecture to decompose the agency's Moon to Mars Objectives into the crewed and robotic exploration systems and capabilities needed to meet those objectives". The document "may not cover some independent robotic or other non-NASA systems supporting agency exploration goals" (p. 12).
• Content scope. "This document limits itself to content related to Moon to Mars Architecture development and associated pre-formulation activities. This document intentionally excludes programmatic, partnership, and procurement information outside of that narrow scope" (p. 12).

The ADD then lists five things it is not (p. 13):

"The document is not …"	NASA's explanation (p. 13)
"a replacement for existing processes or agreements"	"Existing NASA mechanisms and processes for partnerships, procurements, etc., are unchanged. Existing formal governmental processes remain in effect. The architecture approach supports these processes; architecture products reflect formal process results."
"procurement direction"	"NASA formally documents and manages procurement processes. The agency defines procurement timing, requirements definition, and contract methods within those processes. This document only informs procurement by articulating needed capabilities. Architecture products communicate needs; they do not presuppose solutions."
"a manifest"	"NASA's Moon to Mars Program Office takes responsibility for flight manifests, sequences, and mission design in concert with associated partners and/or contracts. The architecture reflects capabilities necessary to achieve objectives; the manifesting of flights to achieve objectives is subject to procurement, development, and implementation processes of implementing programs."
"a budget request"	"NASA may fulfill architecture needs through various means, coordinating through the existing processes, procedures, and budget analysis. Architecture products inform these processes but do not presuppose how the agency allocates resources."
"a policy document"	"The Architecture Definition Document is a technical document that reflects the approved baseline for programs of record, contracts, partnerships, and funding."

Revision history (pp. 3–4)

Checked against the PDF: the text layer separates the dates and revision names from their descriptions.

Revision	Released	Description, as printed
Initial	04/18/2023	"Initial Release"
Revision A	01/22/2024	"2023 Architecture Concept Review Updates": refined and added sub-architectures ("Data Systems and Management, Infrastructure, In-situ Resource Utilization, Robotics"); refined and expanded objective decomposition, "including use cases and functions"; updated the Human Lunar Return, Foundational Exploration and "Human to Mars" segments; added elements and their functional mappings: "Gateway expanded capability configuration, Human-class Delivery Lander, Lunar Terrain Vehicle, and Pressurized Rover"; added and updated assessments for recurring tenets
Revision A.1, Management Directive 1	03/27/2024	"Corrections of Minor Errata": added functions to the Human Landing System for the Human Lunar Return and Foundational Exploration segments; "Updated definitions of 'cargo' and 'consumables;' removed 'large cargo' from glossary"
Revision B	12/13/2024	"2024 Architecture Concept Review Updates": refined and expanded objective decomposition; added "Mars characteristics, needs, use cases, and functions for Transportation and Habitation, Mars Infrastructure, and Operations objectives"; updated the Human Lunar Return, Foundational Exploration and Humans to Mars segments; added the elements "initial surface habitat and lunar surface cargo lander"; updated recurring tenet assessments; "Added and expanded architecture decisions"; "Added architecture-driven technology gaps"
Revision B.1, Management Directive 4	04/04/2025	"Corrections to Resolve Unallocated Function Discrepancies for the Human Lunar Return Segment": updated the list of unallocated functions for Human Lunar Return; "Identified functions targeted for the Human Lunar Return segment"; "Removed allocation of FN-T-103 L, 'transport crew from cislunar space to distributed sites outside of the south pole region on the lunar surface,' to UC-T-103 L, 'aggregation and physical assembly of spacecraft components in cislunar space'"
Revision C	12/12/2025	"2025 Architecture Concept Review Updates": "Reorganized, simplified, and refreshed content based on stakeholder feedback"; updated objective decomposition; added "Mars use cases and functions for lunar and planetary science, heliophysics science, human and biological science, and physics and physical science objectives"; "Added the lunar utility rover element and lunar nuclear fission system element"; "Added content on element definition and pre-formulation methodology"; updated recurring tenet assessments; "Updated 'architecture decisions' terminology to 'architecture definition' to better capture the process and outcomes of these activities"; refined architecture definition tasks; "Refined architecture-driven technology gaps"; "Added architecture-driven data gaps"

What the table shows:

• One major revision per Architecture Concept Review (2023, 2024, 2025), with small corrections in between issued as management directives. See Architecture definition process.
• Technology gaps first appeared in Rev B (Dec 2024); data gaps are new in Rev C (pp. 3–4). The wiki's gap pages and data-gap pages are built from the Rev C spreadsheets.
• "Architecture decisions" became "architecture definition" in Rev C (p. 4). Older documents use the older term.
• Rev C's own summary of what changed (p. 9): "Revision C incorporates several updates, including adding the lunar utility rover element and the lunar nuclear fission system element. NASA added a new list of architecture-driven data gaps — which capture information that NASA needs to achieve its exploration objectives — to join an updated list of architecture-driven technology gaps. NASA also refined its architecture definition tasks, including capturing three new results that will shape the future of results." The last sentence is quoted as printed; the source doesn't say here what the three results are (open question 21). Section 3.1.3 dates three completed tasks "At the 2025 Architecture Concept Review" (MD-02, MD-04, MD-05) and a fourth "In 2025" (LD-103); see Key definition tasks.
• Earlier revisions remain on NASA's architecture website, the ADD says (p. 9). None of them is among the wiki's sources (Architecture Definition Documents page).

Contents by page

PDF page numbers equal the printed page numbers. Section titles and pages are from the table of contents (pp. 5–8), checked against the PDF.

Pages	Content	Wiki page
2	Title page	this page
3–4	Revision and history	this page
5–8	Table of contents	this page
9	Executive Summary	this page
10	Divider: "01. Architecture Foundations"	—
11	1.1 Purpose; what "architecture" means	Architecture framework
12–13	1.2 Scope: content structure; content scope ("The document is not …")	this page
13–14	1.3 Methodology: "architect from the right and execute from the left"	Objective decomposition
14–15	1.3.1 Why Moon to Mars	Why Moon to Mars, with the white paper it points to (source page)
15–17	1.3.2 Objective Decomposition Process, including the ten goals	Objective decomposition; Objectives: the ten goals
17–18	1.3.3 Architecture Framework	Architecture framework
18–19	1.3.4 Architecture Definition Process	Architecture definition process
20	Divider: "02. Architecture Components"	—
21	2 Architecture Components: key terms (Segments, Sub-Architecture, Element, Exploration Asset, Utilization Payloads and Equipment)	Elements; Architecture framework
22–39	2.1 Segments (p. 22): Human Lunar Return (24), Foundational Exploration (27), Sustained Lunar Evolution (33), Humans to Mars (37)	Segments and one page per segment
40–44	2.2 Sub-Architectures: the 12 and their decomposition letters	Sub-architectures and one page per sub-architecture
45–46	2.3 Elements: introduction and element table	Elements
47–68	The 15 elements: Commercial Lunar Payload Services (47), Exploration EVA System (48), Exploration Ground Systems (49), Gateway (50; components 51–54), Human Landing System (55), Human-Class Delivery Lander (56), Initial Surface Habitat (57), Lunar Nuclear Fission System (58), Lunar Surface Cargo Lander (59), Lunar Terrain Vehicle (60), Lunar Utility Rover (61), Orion Spacecraft (62), Pressurized Rover (63), Space Communications and Navigation Networks (64; partners, interoperability and network evolution 65–67), Space Launch System (68)	one page each under elements/; overview on Elements
69	2.4 Utilization Payloads and Equipment	Elements
70	Divider: "03. Architecture Evolution"	—
71	3 Architecture Evolution: what the section covers	Architecture definition process
72–76	3.1 Architecture Definition: unique considerations by destination (72), roadmapping approach and its two figures (73–74), summary of key definition tasks (74–76)	Architecture definition process; Key definition tasks. The "Architecture Definition" white paper (footnote 22, p. 74) repeats the two figures (source page).
77–79	3.2 Architecture-Driven Technology Gaps: identification (77), prioritization and the p. 78 figure (77–78), evolution (79)	Gaps index; the "Priority" section of each gap page
80–81	3.3 Architecture-Driven Data Gaps: introduction and the p. 80 figure (80), methodology (81)	Data gaps index
82	3.4 Element Definition and Pre-Formulation	Elements
83–103	3.5 Recurring Tenet Assessments: the nine tenets (83), RT-1 (84), RT-2 (87), RT-3 (88), RT-4 (92), RT-5 (93), RT-6 (95), RT-7 (98), RT-8 (100), RT-9 (101)	Recurring tenets and one page per tenet
104	Divider: "A. Appendix A Architecture Rationale and Considerations"	—
105–107	Appendix A: Architecture Rationale and Considerations. A.1 Moon to Mars Strategy: the three pillars and the "Three Pillars of Exploration" figure (105), Science, National Posture, Inspiration (105–107). A.2 Moon to Mars Objectives: 63 objectives in four categories (107). A.3 Human Exploration Considerations: one paragraph pointing to the white papers (107)	PDF checked. A.1 and A.3: Why Moon to Mars. A.2: Objectives.
108	Divider: "B. Appendix B Architecture Decomposition" (PDF checked; the text layer carries a hidden running header, "Human Exploration Considerations", and the page number)	—
109–185	Appendix B: Architecture Decomposition: objective decomposition (109); lunar use cases (110) and functions (117); Mars use cases (127) and functions (135); element function mappings (148); utilization payloads and equipment function mappings (166); unallocated functions by use case (167)	B.1 and the lunar lists (PDF checked): B.1 (109), the 163 lunar use cases (110–117) and the 208 lunar functions (117–127). See Use cases and functions, Lunar use cases and Lunar functions. The Mars lists: the 148 Mars use cases (127–134; PDF checked 130–134) and the 263 Mars functions (135–147; PDF checked 137–139, 141, 145, 147), on Mars use cases and Mars functions, with the Mars decomposition spreadsheet that B.1.2 links to (source page); both lists match it by ID, order and title. #1107 cites p. 147. The lunar spreadsheet: the lunar decomposition spreadsheet that B.1.1 links to has its own source page. Its 163 use cases and 208 functions match B.2 by ID and title, apart from print differences. B.3 to B.5 (PDF checked pp. 158, 166, 169, 175, 176): B.3 element function mappings (148–165), B.4 equipment (166), B.5 unallocated functions by use case (167–184; 79 tables, 4 HLR and 75 FE); p. 185 is blank. All lunar, HLR and FE. Each element's B.3 list is on its element page; the comparison with the spreadsheet's allocation, and B.5 in full, are on Lunar function allocation; the Moon Base join on Phase 1 functional gaps.
186–197	Appendix C: Architecture Definition: roadmapping, with its terms, value and process and the p. 188 figure (186–188); legacy lunar architecture decisions (189); completed key definition tasks (192); open key definition tasks (194–197). p. 198 is the Appendix D divider (PDF checked).	PDF checked pp. 188, 194–198. C.1: Architecture definition process; its terms on the Glossary. C.2: Key definition tasks, with all 71 rows of the open-task table (four done); MD-02's three options also on Humans to Mars.
199–260	Appendix D: Architecture-Driven Technology Gaps: components (199), prioritized list (200), catalog (203), one table per gap in ID order (#0101 on p. 204 to #1202 on p. 260)	The field definitions, the list and all 57 tables. Each table is cited on its gap page; summary on the gaps index. All 57 match the spreadsheet, with one print difference (#0102, p. 205) and one content difference (#1107, p. 258; open question 37).
261	Divider: "E. Appendix E Architecture-Driven Data Gaps" (PDF checked; the text layer carries a hidden Appendix D header and the page number)	—
262–289	Appendix E: Architecture-Driven Data Gaps: field definitions (262), E.1 list (263), E.2 catalog (265), one table per gap in ID order (DN-001 L on p. 265 to DN-019 L on p. 283, DN-001 M on p. 284 to DN-006 M on p. 289)	Every page checked in the PDF. Each table is cited on its data-gap page; summary on the data gaps index. 23 of 25 match the spreadsheet; two content differences (DN-016 L's data type, p. 280; a reworded sentence in DN-007 L, p. 271; open question 38) and one print difference (DN-005 L's title in the list, p. 263).
290	Divider: "F. Appendix F Terminology" (PDF checked; the text layer carries a hidden Appendix E header and the page number)	—
291–304	Appendix F: Terminology: F.1 acronyms (291–294, 112 entries), F.2 glossary (295–303, 107 terms), F.3 quantity descriptors (304)	PDF checked pp. 291–294, 298, 300–302, 304. All three parts on the Glossary, with comparisons against the body, Appendix C, the white papers, the objectives documents and the overviews.

The ADD describes its own layout this way (p. 12): Section 1 "Overviews processes that inform architecture development"; Section 2 "Captures the current state of the architecture"; Section 3 "Details ongoing architecture development, including architecture roadmapping, architecture-driven technology gaps, definition of new elements, and architecture assessments"; Appendix D "Catalogs and prioritizes architecture-driven technology gaps"; Appendix E "Lists architecture-driven data gaps".

The Users Guide's unnamed appendices. The Moon Base Users Guide refers to "an appendix of the Architecture Definition Document" for the full list of unallocated functions (p. 9) and to the ADD's "appendices" for the gaps (p. 11), without naming them (Users Guide source page). By title, the ADD sections that match are B.5 "Unallocated Functions by Use Case" (p. 167), Appendix D and Appendix E (contents, pp. 6–7). The match by title is the wiki's; neither source states it. B.5 holds 11 of the guide's 31 Phase 1 functional gaps; the other 20 are mapped to elements in B.3 (open question 65).

What to know when using it

• It has a companion summary. The 2025 Architecture Update was "released alongside" Rev C (Update, p. 3). Its Executive Summary carries a caveat that applies to Rev C: "While conversations continue about potential changes in implementation, the products represent the contracted baseline and will be updated and responsive to changes if and when they occur" (Update, p. 3). It doesn't say which changes were under discussion.
• It disagrees with the Update on the Mars crew number. MD-05 here considers "no fewer than six (6) crew" (pp. 76, 193); the Update says "up to six" (Update, p. 13). See Key definition tasks and open question 28.

• It predates the Moon Base. Rev C is dated 12/12/2025 (p. 4). The Moon Base was announced in March 2026, and later sources record changes to the plan Rev C reflects:

  • In the fact sheet's "Updated Plan —announced Feb 2026", Artemis III is a "Human landing system & EVA suit test mission in Earth orbit — 2027", and Artemis IV is "Astronauts return to the lunar surface — early 2028". Its "Original Plan" had Artemis III as the "First lunar landing — 2028" (Going back to the Moon, pp. 1–2).
  • Gateway hardware is being reused: SR-1 Freedom repurposes "the Power and Propulsion Element originally planned for the Gateway space station" (Users Guide, p. 2). Rev C still has a Gateway element section (contents, p. 5).

  Pages 1–20 don't describe either plan. Pages 24–25 do, and contradict the fact sheet: the Human Lunar Return segment "continues with Artemis II, which sends crew around the Moon, and Artemis III, which lands crew on the lunar surface" (p. 24), and its next steps include "initial Gateway deployment (OP-6)" (p. 25). Three of the nine lunar reference missions involve Gateway or its orbit (pp. 25, 30). The newer fact sheet wins (Human Lunar Return; open question 22). Gateway's own section (pp. 50–54) describes two configurations and seven components with no sign of the change. Since Rev C, HALO power and avionics hardware is also being repurposed for Moon Base surface demonstrations (Moon Base update, Aug 2026, "Northrop Grumman"; Gateway).

• Other element changes since Rev C are on each element page: Artemis II has flown (April 2026); the SLS upper stage and mobile launcher are being standardized; LTV vendors were selected; Lunar Reactor-1 is announced for 2030. See Elements.

• The Users Guide is the bridge. For how ADD functions, tech gaps and data gaps apply to the Moon Base, see the Moon Base hub.
• Internal slips. p. 16 labels the Lunar Infrastructure goal "(LS)", but the acronym list (p. 292) and every objective code use LI. p. 16 also says "Section 3.4 assesses … these recurring tenets", but the contents (p. 6) and the body (p. 83) number that section 3.5. See open question 21.
• The three element tables in pp. 21–46 disagree. The Section 2.3 table (pp. 45–46) leaves out the Lunar Nuclear Fission System and numbers the later elements one lower than the contents; names and Appendix B mapping numbers also vary between tables. The wiki follows the contents and headings. Details on Elements.
• More slips in pp. 47–68 (open question 21): the SLS one-pager prints mapping "B.3.14", SCaN's number, where the contents and the Appendix B heading (p. 165) give B.3.15 (p. 68); the SCaN one-pager repeats the dangling "Section 2.2.2" reference (p. 64); and the Gateway airlock's partner is "Mohammad" in the text but "Mohammed" in the label (p. 54).
• Slips and mismatches in pp. 71–103 (open question 21):
  • The guiding questions read "Where do we go? Why do we go? Where do we go?…" with no "When?", though both figures include it (p. 73).
  • MD-04's summary has "to for evaluating risk" (p. 75).
  • The headings of RT-3, RT-4, RT-6, RT-7 and RT-8 word the tenets differently from the p. 83 table; RT-4's differs in substance (p. 92).
  • "The data gaps span all architecture segments" (p. 81), but no data gap lists Sustained Lunar Evolution, in the spreadsheet or in the ADD's own Appendix E tables (pp. 265–289).
  • p. 80 says "The figures below" but has one figure.
• Slips and differences in Appendix E (open questions 21 and 38), PDF checked:
  • p. 262's running header reads "Catalog of Technology Gaps", on the first page of the data gaps appendix.
  • The E.1 list titles DN-005 L "Optical images from lunar surface at the lunar south pole" (p. 263); its table has "from the lunar surface" (p. 269).
  • Not slips, differences: two tables differ in content from the December 2025 spreadsheet, in DN-016 L's data type (p. 280) and one sentence of DN-007 L (p. 271). The wiki doesn't say which document is right (open question 38).
• Slips in Appendices A and B, pp. 105–135 (open question 21), PDF checked:
  • A.2 repeats p. 16's "Section 3.4 captures assessments of the architecture's adherence to the recurring tenets"; they are Section 3.5. It also has a sentence without a verb: "These categories one or more goals surrounding specific subjects" (p. 107).
  • A.3 reads "specific explorations constraints" (p. 107).
  • The appendix promises "a deep dive into human exploration considerations" (p. 105). A.3 is a single paragraph pointing to the white papers (p. 107).
  • B.1's note says "Appendix E captures additional terms and definitions" (p. 109). Appendix E is the data gaps; terms are in Appendix F.
  • In the lunar lists, as printed: "assets(s)" (UC-A-401 L, UC-A-402 L), "payloads(s)" (FN-P-401 L, FN-P-402 L), "at assets in cislunar asset(s)" (UC-U-725 L), and "to support in-space technologies related to support bioregenerative ECLSS" (UC-U-724 L).
  • In the Mars use cases: UC-U-713 M is printed before UC-U-712 M, and UC-U-808 M reads "related to presence of Earth life on at various distances from landing sites the Martian surface" (p. 134).
  • In the Mars functions (pp. 135–147): FN-X-201 M and FN-X-202 M printed before FN-X-113 M (p. 139); no FN-H-122 M (p. 138); "continency" (FN-A-109 M, p. 142); "in space as (demonstration)" (FN-A-113 M, FN-A-114 M, p. 143); "Martian vicinity" for "Mars vicinity" (FN-T-312 M, p. 136); "payloads(s)" (FN-P-401 M, p. 140). The Mars spreadsheet has all of these too (source page). Not slips, but unexplained: 63 Mars functions end "(demonstration)", and no lunar one does (Mars functions).
• Slips and inconsistencies in Appendices C and F (open question 21), PDF checked:
  • C.1's sub-sections run C.1.2, C.1.2.1, then C.1.1.1 to C.1.1.3 (pp. 187–188).
  • MD-06 is printed "05 Human Systems & Habitation" (p. 194); elsewhere 05 is "Surface Systems & Infrastructure" and Human Systems & Habitation is 04.
  • MD-07 is "Mars Primary Surface Power Generation Technology" in its C.2.2 heading (p. 192) and "Primary Mars Surface Power Generation Technology" in the table (p. 194).
  • The roadmapping terms are defined in both Appendix C (p. 186) and Appendix F, not alike: "trade space" is a range of options in one and "an exploratory part of the systems engineering process" in the other (p. 302); F's "Legacy Decision" keeps the old "architecture decision roadmapping" (p. 298). See the Glossary.
  • The revision table says Rev A.1 "removed 'large cargo' from glossary" (pp. 3–4), but F.2 has a "Large Cargo" entry (p. 298).
  • F.3 promises descriptors "like small, medium, and large" but has no "medium" (p. 304).
  • F.1 spells the Gateway refueling module "ESPIRIT" (p. 291); the Gateway pages have "ESPRIT" (p. 53). F.1 has "Lunar Communication Relay and Navigation Systems" (p. 292); p. 64 has "Communications".
  • F.2 defines "Consumables" and "Logistic Items" in the same words (pp. 296, 298).

• Slips and inconsistencies in Appendix B.3 to B.5 (open question 21), PDF checked:

  • The table under "B.3.9 Lunar Surface Cargo Lander" is headed "Human-Class Delivery Lander" (p. 158). Its four functions are the cargo lander's.
  • B.5.2.2 prints UC-A-204 L to UC-A-207 L for UC-C-204 L to UC-C-207 L (p. 169).
  • B.5 shortens FN-I-207 L to "Conduct additive/subtractive manufacturing …" (p. 172), as the spreadsheet's Unallocated list does. B.2.2 has "regolith-based".
  • B.3 and B.5 disagree with each other. B.3 maps FN-A-103 L to the Pressurized Rover (p. 162) and FN-A-105 L to the Lunar Utility Rover (p. 160), and B.5 lists both as unallocated (pp. 168, 177–178). FN-P-101 L and FN-P-301 L are on the fission system in B.3 and in B.5 too, as in the spreadsheet.
  • Four functions are in no FE table. FN-G-106 L, FN-G-107 L, FN-C-205 L and FN-M-402 L are neither mapped (B.3) nor listed as unallocated (B.5) for Foundational Exploration.

  These, and the differences from the spreadsheet, are on Lunar function allocation (open question 64).

• The Users Guide prints one function ID with another's title. Its "FN-P 102 L" carries this document's title for FN-P-202 L, "Store energy in the south pole region on the lunar surface" (p. 121). This document's FN-P-102 L is "Generate power at multiple distributed locations outside of the south pole region on the lunar surface". See Lunar functions and open question 40.

• Section 3 still has the pre-2026 Artemis plan. The Crew Return assessment has Artemis III conducting "an initial lunar landing and EVA" (p. 90), and RT-1 lists an instrument "for Artemis III" (p. 85). The legacy decisions still have "Gateway in lunar orbit" (LD-02-L) and NRHO (LD-04-L) (pp. 74–75). See open question 22 and Key definition tasks.

Extraction note

• PDF page numbers equal printed page numbers. Checked on pp. 3–10, 12–17, 19–20, 22–23, 26, 31–32, 40, 45–47, 51, 54, 63, 67–71, 73–74, 78, 80–81, 83, 103–127, 130–134, 158, 166, 169, 175–176, 188, 194–198, 200, 204, 262–289, 291–294, 298, 300–302, 304.
• Appendix B.3 to B.5. The text layer reads in order on most pages. Where it doesn't, the rendered page was used:
  • Stacked titles. It stacks IDs and titles out of order in a few tables (xEVA FE on p. 149; UC-D-201 L on p. 169; UC-M-103 L, UC-M-602 L, UC-P-102 L on pp. 173–174; UC-T-307 L on p. 176; UC-U-307 L, UC-U-308 L on pp. 179–180). On p. 166 it interleaves B.4's two tables.
  • A repeated ID. It repeats "FN-T-207 L" under UC-T-301 L, where the page shows one row and a blank footer bar (p. 175).
  • Footers. Each B.5 table ends with a footer bar, "Architecture Definition Document – Unallocated Functions by Use Case"; the text layer has 78 of them for 79 tables.
• Appendices C and F. The text layer drops the p. 188 figure (it is the white paper's "Notional Definition Flow") and the shading and "Result" placement of the p. 194 table; it moves some F.1 cells to the foot of the page (the "Usage/Context" header on p. 291, H2M's "Segment" on p. 292); and on pp. 298, 300 and 302 it separates several F.2 terms from their definitions (for example "Large Asset", "Legacy Decision" and "Limited Capability Mission"; "Priority Key Definition Task" to "Refrigerated Samples"; "Definition Task" to "Trade Space"). The glossary follows the PDF.
• Appendices A and B.
  • p. 105: the text layer keeps only the caption of the "Three Pillars of Exploration" Venn figure. The figure is described from the PDF on Why Moon to Mars.
  • p. 108: the Appendix B divider. Like pp. 70 and 104, its text layer carries a hidden running header.
  • The B.2 list tables. Most rows extract as an ID followed by its title. On pp. 114–117, 126 and 130–134 the text layer instead gives a block of IDs and a separate block of titles. Those pairings were read from the PDF.
  • Line breaks. The text layer drops hyphens at line breaks ("longdurations", "environmentsrelated"). The wiki quotes the rendered form.
• Appendix E tables. The text layer interleaves the two columns of each data gap table, so lines of "Impacts if Data is Unavailable" and "Current State of Data" alternate (e.g. pp. 267, 269, 272). It also drops hyphens at line breaks ("groundbased", "plumesurface", "nearsurface") and garbles the "ff" ligature ("sukicient", "dikerent"). The data-gap pages quote the spreadsheet, which the rendered tables match. p. 290 is the Appendix F divider; like p. 261, its text layer carries a hidden running header and the page number.
• Section 3 figures. The text layer drops the two roadmapping figures (pp. 73–74), the gap-prioritization figure and formula (p. 78) and the data-gap figure (p. 80). They are described from the PDF on Architecture definition process, the gaps index and the data gaps index. The p. 83 tenet table has an icon per tenet that the text layer drops; the labels survive.
• pp. 96–97 and 102–103: the text layer separates bullet markers from their text, and on p. 103 it loses the nesting of sub-bullets. The RT-9 page follows the PDF.
• p. 104 is the Appendix A divider. Like p. 70, its text layer carries hidden running headers ("Architecture Evolution … Recurring Tenet Assessments").
• Element one-pagers. Each has a photo, a description, and boxes for implementing program, functional mappings, segments (labeled icons), sub-architecture and an element icon, with a header-image caption. The text layer keeps every label, so pp. 47–68 were read from text, with the PDF checked on pp. 47, 51, 54, 63 and 68. Gateway's components (pp. 51–54) are two-column panels with a "Partner Agencies" box.
• p. 67 figure (C&PNT links for Foundational Exploration) doesn't extract. It is described from the PDF on SCaN Networks.
• p. 70 is the Section 3 divider. Its text layer carries a hidden running header ("Architecture Components … Utilization Payloads and Equipment") that the rendered page doesn't show.
• Icon-only columns. The element tables carry sub-architecture and segment icons. The segment tables (pp. 26, 31–32) print the sub-architecture name next to its icon; the Section 2.3 table (pp. 45–46) has icons only in its "Sub-Arch" and "Segments" columns, which the text layer drops. They were read from the PDF using the icon keys on p. 22 (segments) and p. 40 (sub-architectures).
• p. 1 extracts as "0101s"; it wasn't checked. pp. 10 and 20 are section dividers with no content.
• The text layer splits table cells: in the revision table (pp. 3–4) and the contents (pp. 5–7), dates and section numbers extract apart from their text. Both tables here follow the PDF.
• The text layer drops the "ff" ligature ("oIice", "eIort", "diIerent"). Wiki quotations use the rendered spelling ("office", "effort", "different").
• The figures on p. 16 (objective decomposition) and p. 19 (evolutionary architecture process) don't extract. They are described from the PDF on Objective decomposition and Architecture definition process.

Related pages

Objective decomposition · Use cases and functions · Lunar use cases · Lunar functions · Architecture framework · Architecture definition process · Why Moon to Mars · Objectives: the ten goals · Segments · Sub-architectures · Elements · Key definition tasks · Recurring tenets · Gaps index · Data gaps index · Tech gaps spreadsheet · Data gaps spreadsheet · 2025 Architecture Update · Moon Base Users Guide