Skip to content

2026 industry and academia workshop deck (January 2026)

Document: industry-and-academia-for-export-control-v3.pdf, 50 slides, 49,879,629 bytes, from https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/ (sources/manifest.csv). The title slide reads "Industry and Academia Workshop", "Charts for Distribution", and every slide's footer reads "January 21-22, 2026", "Moon to Mars Architecture Workshops", "Industry and Academia | N" (slides 1, 2). NASA's Architecture Workshops page lists it as the "Selected charts" from the industry and academia workshop "in Washington, DC, on January 21 and 22 at the National Academy of Sciences" (Architecture Workshops page). Text: sources/text/docs/2026-01-industry-and-academia-for-export-control-v3.txt; images in sources/raw/slides/2026-01-industry-and-academia-for-export-control-v3/.

Coverage. All 50 slides are recorded. All 24 text-poor slides (1, 2, 3, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 30, 37, 38, 39, 46, 49, 50, as listed in sources/workshops-screening.md) were read from their images. So were slides 4–7, 13, 15, 16, 18, 25, 28, 29, 31–36, 42, 43 and 47, to check the text layer or read a chart.

Rank. A briefing, not the architecture of record (SCHEMA, "Workshop slides"). It was given a month after ADD Rev C and the 2025 Architecture Update and mostly presents them. Where it says something newer, the pages it bears on record it as "briefed at the January 2026 workshop", beside Rev C. The text layer has no "CUI" or "Pre-Decisional" line (searched; compare open question 80). The words "export control" appear only in the file name, not on any slide.

Summary. The opening and framing charts of NASA's January 2026 workshop for industry and academia. The Strategy and Architecture Office presents the 2025 Architecture Concept Review's products: ADD Rev C, the Architecture Update and six white papers; the page types of the revised ADD; the "Why Moon and Mars?" paper; the two new elements; the data gaps; the performance chart; the Mars crew outcome; and the deep space standards. Newer than Rev C: the workshop's rules (no recording, presentations posted afterwards), a NextSTEP "Appendix B" industry day held separately, and a quiet period on "fission surface power system proposals" during their "pre-solicitation and solicitation periods". Day two opens with an environment panel (lighting visualizations) and an interoperability briefing that names nine international standards and seven "Lunar Surface Specifications (not yet publicly available)". It goes on with an implementation-challenges panel (a Moon–Mars chart and an operations chart over the project life cycle), a briefing on the Mars crew decision (MD-05), which states the outcome in a third wording, "consideration for the minimum to be up to six (6) crew", and gives its findings and a crew-number chart, a data-gaps briefing and roundtable, and a sample-return panel with a chart of sample-handling unknowns.

Slides

Slides Content
1 Title (above); an image of the Orion crew module in a recovery ship's well deck
2 "2025 Architecture Concept Review Updates", "Nujoud Merancy, Deputy Associate Administrator, Strategy and Architecture Office, Exploration Systems Development"
3 "Welcome!" over a lunar surface rendering. The text layer also has "Questions?", which the image doesn't show
4 "Workshops in Action" (below)
5 "2025 Architecture Products": ADD Rev C and the Architecture Update (covers), a QR code, six white papers
6 "Incorporating Your Feedback: Product Revitalization": thumbnails of eight kinds of ADD Rev C page
7 "Why Moon and Mars?": the white paper's graphics
8–10 Images: "The Lunar South Pole Region"; "Lunar Lighting and Shadows" (a lighting visualization still); "Roving the Lunar Highlands, Apollo 16 - April 1972"
11–12 "NEW ELEMENT": "Lunar Utility Rover Element" and "Lunar Nuclear Fission System" (renderings with icons)
13 "Initial Set of Architecture-Driven Data Gaps": all 25 by ID and title
14 "Measuring Architecture Performance Over Time" (radar chart)
15 "Architecture Definition Outcome": Mars crew to the surface
16 "Interoperability Standards": three standards elevated in 2025
17 "Tips for Workshop Engagement"
18 "What's Out of Bounds?": NextSTEP Appendix B industry day; fission surface power proposals
19 "NASA Day of Remembrance": "Please Join Us in a Moment of Silence to Honor our Fallen Explorers" (crew photographs)
20 "Industry and Academia Workshop", "DAY TWO"
21 "Environmental Challenges", "Panel Discussion"
22–23 Lighting visualization stills: "South Pole 2026" (LRO logo) and a horizon view with the Earth, "Credit: E.Wright (GSFC/SVS)"
24 "Problem Description – Multilateral Interoperability" (a labeled rendering)
25 "Interoperability Standards": international standards and lunar surface specifications
26 "Implementation Challenges", "Panel Discussion", over a photograph of four astronauts in front of an Orion crew module; no panelists named
27 Image only: "Artist render of Gateway's initial capabilities: NASA"
28 "MOON AND MARS EXPLORATION" (below)
29 "M2M Implementation Challenges - Operations"
30 "Mars Key Definition: Number of Crew to Surface Decisions", "Patrick Chai, David Baumann, Eddie Terrell, NASA"
31–36 The Mars crew briefing: "Introduction", "Background", "Three Key Findings", "Key Finding to Number of Crew Recommendation", "Crew Health and Operation Perspective", "Other Key Architecture Definitions" (below)
37 "Architecture Maturation Strategy": the "Notional Definition Flow" figure
38 "Summary": a Mars surface painting and a QR code, "Architecture White Papers"
39 "Architecture-Driven Data Gaps", "Audrey Morris-Eckart, Deputy Manager, Science, Technology Utilization & Integration, Strategy and Architecture Office"
40–45 The data-gaps briefing: "Data Gaps Purpose", "Data Gaps Caveats", "Data Gaps Examples and Drivers", "Data Gaps Definition", "Example of Data Gap details in ADD Rev C, Appendix E", "Data Gaps Strategic Impacts" (below)
46 "Panel Discussion", "Data Gaps", "Roundtable": "Audrey Morris-Eckart, NASA", "Debra Needham, NASA", "Kristen John, NASA", "Kristina Gibbs, NASA-SSERVI", "Tim Crain, Intuitive Machines"
47–48 "Initial Lunar Data Gaps List in Rev C of ADD, Appendix E" and "Initial Mars Data Gaps List …": ID, data type and title of all 25
49 "Sample Return", "Panel Discussion", over the photograph of slide 26; no panelists named
50 An untitled chart of sample-handling steps and their "Unknowns" (below)

What the slides add

What the workshops changed (slides 4–6, 17)

  • "Workshops in Action" (slide 4), as printed: "Spurred additional communication on topics including Logistics, Mobility, Power, and Comm & Nav, etc"; "Adapting engagement to enable more industry studies in priority areas"; "Changes to solicitation, procurement, and study approaches"; "Informed development of NASA's architecture-driven technology gaps and data gaps"; "And More…". The slide names no study, solicitation or gap.
  • The 2025 products (slide 5): "Architecture Definition Document Revision C and Architecture Update", and six "Architecture White Papers", numbered: "1 Why Moon and Mars? Building an Evolutionary Architecture"; "2 Integrated Lunar Power Considerations"; "3 Architecture-Driven Planetary Protection Considerations"; "4 Communications and Navigation Needs for Foundational Exploration"; "5 Architecture-Driven Data Gaps"; "6 Architecture Definition (update to prev. papers)". The titles of 2 and 4 are the 2025 Update's short forms (Update, p. 17); the papers' own title pages read "Integrated Lunar Power Strategy Considerations" and "… for the Foundational Exploration Segment" (lunar power paper; C&PNT paper). "update to prev. papers" matches what the wiki records of the "Architecture Definition" paper, that it supersedes two 2022–2023 papers (source page).
  • "Incorporating Your Feedback: Product Revitalization" (slide 6) shows the ADD Rev C cover and thumbnails of eight kinds of page, labeled "Segments" (2.1.4, Humans to Mars), "Sub-Architectures" (Autonomous Systems and Robotics, C&PNT, Data Systems), "Element One Pagers" (2.3.12 Orion), "Tech Gaps" (#0803), "Unallocated Functions" (B.5), "Functional Mappings" (B.3.3, Exploration Ground Systems), "Element Icons" and "Data Gaps" (E.2). The title ties the page design to workshop feedback; the slide doesn't say which feedback or which page types are new. The text layer of slide 6 is the thumbnails' ADD text, run together.
  • The workshop's rules (slide 17): "NASA is not looking for passive participants at these workshops; we desire and appreciate your honest feedback on the evolution of NASA's Moon to Mars Architecture." "To facilitate open conversation, NASA will not record sessions; nor have we invited media or press. However, NASA will take notes in all sessions to ensure we capture your feedback." "After the event, NASA will make all presentations available on our website", at the Architecture Workshops page.

These points are on Architecture definition process.

The 2025 review's content, as briefed (slides 7, 11–16)

  • "Why Moon and Mars?" (slide 7) reprints the white paper's graphics: "Historical Context" (Mercury, "Six Crewed Flights"; Gemini, "10 Crewed Flights"; Apollo, "Nine Crewed Flights", each with "Crawl", "Walk", "Run" and three objectives), "Exploration Challenges by Destination" (distance, one-way journey, light-time delay, gravity) and the four "Programmatic Considerations", with a QR code to "Read the White Paper". The labels and figures checked match those the wiki transcribes from the paper (the wiki's comparison; Why Moon to Mars), including "Six Crewed Flights" for Mercury. Nothing new.
  • The two new elements (slides 11–12) are image slides headed "NEW ELEMENT": "Lunar Utility Rover Element" (a rendering of a tracked rover with solar panels and a robotic arm beside a cargo container) and "Lunar Nuclear Fission System" (two units with tall vertical panels on legs, joined by a cable, a lander in the background). Each carries a small model image and an icon. No text beyond the names. See Lunar Utility Rover and Lunar Nuclear Fission System.
  • Data gaps (slide 13): a table headed "Initial Set of Architecture-Driven Data Gaps", DN-001 L to DN-019 L and DN-001 M to DN-006 M. The IDs and titles match ADD Rev C's list of data gaps (p. 263) word for word, including "Optical images from lunar surface at the lunar south pole" for DN-005 L, where the data-gap tables and the wiki's page title have "from the lunar surface" (the wiki's comparison). The ADD calls its list "a snapshot in time" and "a representative sample" (p. 263). See Data gaps index.
  • Performance (slide 14): "Measuring Architecture Performance Over Time", a radar chart with lines for 2022, 2023, 2024 and 2025, eleven axes and six labels ending in "OPPORTUNITY" (Communications, Habitation, Power, Cargo, Mobility, Crew Time). Same eleven axis labels, six labels and four years as the 2025 Update's chart (the wiki's comparison; the lines were not compared). The slide adds no scale or values. See Architecture definition process.
  • The Mars crew outcome (slide 15), "Architecture Definition Outcome": "The Moon to Mars Architecture's initial Humans to Mars segment will target no fewer than four (4) crew to the surface, with consideration for no fewer than six (6) crew to enhance mission capability and/or provide risk reduction." That is ADD Rev C's wording (pp. 76, 193), not the Update's "up to six" (Key definition tasks; open question 28).
  • Standards (slide 16): "As part of the 2025 Architecture Concept Review, NASA elevated three deep space standards to the architecture level, joining the communications standard elevated in 2024", with four badges, "COMMUNICATIONS" ("ADOPTED 2024") and "AVIONICS", "SOFTWARE", "POWER" ("ADOPTED 2025"), and the link https://www.nasa.gov/international-deep-space-standards/. The same four badges and years as the Update (p. 15; the wiki's comparison). See RT-7.

Out of bounds: two procurements (slide 18)

"What's Out of Bounds?", as printed:

  • "The NextSTEP Appendix B Industry Day is a separate event with independent registration; Please hold all questions about Appendix B until the industry day." More information: https://www.nasa.gov/general/nextstep-3-b-moon-to-mars-architecture-studies/; registration questions to [email protected]. The slide gives no title or date for Appendix B beyond the address.
  • "Most NASA representatives may not discuss fission surface power system proposals during the pre-solicitation and solicitation periods." "For procurement information, see the draft announcement for partnership proposals" and "For technical information, consult the fission power system technical library", each a sam.gov link.

See RT-2 and Lunar Nuclear Fission System.

Day two: environment and interoperability (slides 21–25)

  • Environment (slides 21–23). "Environmental Challenges, Panel Discussion" (slide 21); the panel's members are not named. Slides 22–23 are stills from lighting visualizations: an overhead view headed "South Pole 2026" with an LRO logo and a data box for "01 Jan 2026 00:00 UT" (phase, distance, subsolar and sub-Earth points), and a horizon view with a crescent in the sky and a data box, "Azimuth, Elevation", "Sun 335.15° 6.85°", "Earth 300.80° 9.42°", "01 Jan 2026 00:00 UT", "Credit: E.Wright (GSFC/SVS)". Slide 9 is a similar still for "23 Oct 2026 00:00 UT", with a site outlined in red and a 500 m scale bar. No site is named and no claim is made; the slides are kept here only.
  • "Problem Description – Multilateral Interoperability" (slide 24). A rendering of a lunar surface scene with labels: "Communication, Navigation & Timing"; "ISRU, science experiments, payloads, lunar infrastructure, etc."; "Pressurized Rover"; "Spacesuits & Tools"; "Foundational Surface Habitat"; "Human Landing System"; "Lunar Terrain Vehicle"; and, in an inset, the Gateway. The text layer also has "Orion" and "Gateway", which the image doesn't show as labels. Arrows join the items, with a legend: "Near-term" (solid blue), "Mid-term" (solid green), "Long-term" (dashed black). The slide uses another template from the rest of the deck: a bare "24" and no dated footer. The wiki doesn't tabulate the arrows. "Foundational Surface Habitat" is a name in no other source except the February 2026 international deck (slide 48); the slide doesn't relate it to the ADD's Initial Surface Habitat.
  • "Interoperability Standards" (slide 25). "International Standards (International Deep Space Interoperability Standards)": "Avionics", "Communications", "Docking", "ECLSS", "Power", "Rendezvous", "Robotics", "Thermal", "Software". "Lunar Surface Specifications (not yet publicly available)": "Communication", "C&DH", "E3", "Lighting", "Navigation", "Power", "Software". The slide doesn't expand "E3", and neither does the ADD's acronym list (Glossary, searched). See RT-7.

Implementation challenges (slides 26–29)

  • The panel (slide 26) names no members. Slide 27 is a full-page rendering captioned "Artist render of Gateway's initial capabilities: NASA", with no other text. The deck predates the March 2026 announcements on Gateway (Gateway).
  • "MOON AND MARS EXPLORATION" (slide 28), subtitle "Scientific exploration and operations at the Moon will help prepare for the first human missions to Mars". A picture split between a lunar side and a Martian side, with eight labeled links between them: "Long Durations in Zero Gravity", "Crew Size", "Mobile Expedition Duration", "Mobile Exploration Range", "Fission Surface Power", "In-Situ Resource Utilization", "Partial Gravity Operations", "Autonomous Robotics Systems & Contingency Crew Transportation". The lunar items are labeled "GATEWAY", "SURFACE HABITAT", "PRESSURIZED ROVER", "HUMAN LANDING SYSTEM" and "LUNAR TERRAIN VEHICLE"; the only Martian label is "TRANSIT HABITAT AND MARS TRANSIT", at the end of the "Long Durations in Zero Gravity" line from the Gateway. The wiki doesn't tabulate which picture each other line joins. The slide doesn't say "Moon Base"; the Users Guide's own list of seven Mars-forward areas came three months later (Mars-forward), and the wiki doesn't match the two lists.

  • "M2M Implementation Challenges - Operations" (slide 29) draws the project life cycle, with reviews above the phases ("FAD Approval", "SRR & SDR", "PDR", "CDR", "SAR", "FRR", "EOM") and the operations work in each phase, as printed:

    • Pre-Phase A, "Formulation": "Design Ref Missions", "ConOps dev", "Interoperability stds", "Ops standards"
    • Phase A, "Requirements Definition": "Level 1 req'ts", "Ground rules & assumptions", "GFE vs CFE hardware"
    • Phase B, "Preliminary Design": "Crew Task Analyses", "Design Assessments", "Level 2 – 4 req'ts", "ConOps refinement"
    • Phase C, "Final Design": "HITLs", "Design Evals (feedback on req'ts)", "FSW testing"
    • Phase D1, "Production & Certification": "Requirements verification", "FSW testing", "HITLs", "OOCT", "CEIT", "Training dev", "Ops product dev"
    • Phase D2, "Delivery & Launch"; Phase E, "Operations" (outlined in green); Phase F, "Project Shutdown": no items

    The caption reads "Mitigation – Balanced Engagement Prior to 'Mission'". The slide expands none of its acronyms, and the wiki doesn't either. Kept here only.

Mars crew to the surface, MD-05 (slides 30–36)

"Mars Key Definition: Number of Crew to Surface Decisions", by Patrick Chai, David Baumann and Eddie Terrell of NASA (slide 30). The content is on Key definition tasks; in brief:

  • A third wording (slide 31, beside the ADD Rev C cover): "The Moon to Mars Initial Human to Mars Segment will target no fewer than four (4) crew to the surface, with consideration for the minimum to be up to six (6) crew for enhanced mission capability and/or provide risk reduction." Bullets: "2025 Architecture Concept Review Decision"; "Documented in Revision C of the Architecture Definition Document"; "Potential Future White Paper to Provide Detail". ADD Rev C's wording is "with consideration for no fewer than six (6) crew" (pp. 76, 193), which this deck's slide 15 repeats; the Update's is "up to six" (p. 13). See open question 28.
  • Background (slide 32): "Key architecture definition identified with high leveraged impact on architecture"; "Assessment process involved cross-agency stakeholders, technical experts, and technical authorities"; "Decision primarily driven by crew operation and risks, and the need for new paradigm".
  • "Three Key Findings" (slide 33) on communication delay, surface EVA and crew time, with three graphics: "One-Way Light-Time Delay" (Earth "Negligible", Moon "Seconds", Mars "4-24 Minutes"); "ISS Ground MCC Support", headed "Measuring the gap: Current ground-support expertise that would be unavailable for real-time support to a Mars crew", with five rooms or teams (FCR, POIC, MPSR, MER, MART, each spelled out on the graphic); and "Crew Roles: Pilot, Commander, Medical Officer, Payload Specialists …" against "Ascent", "Rover/Habitat", "Descent", "EVA", "Science".
  • "Key Finding to Number of Crew Recommendation" (slide 34), a scale of 1 to "9+" crew, under "RISKS" and "CONSIDERATIONS".
  • "Crew Health and Operation Perspective" (slide 35), ending with "Day 2 Topics: Human Systems Challenges Breakout - 10:15am".
  • "Other Key Architecture Definitions" (slide 36), under two hexagon labels: "INITIAL HUMAN MARS SEGMENT TARGET STATE" ("The Initial Human to Mars Segment will be scoped to consist of more than one crew landing", with three options still to assess) and "MARS LOSS OF CREW RISK POSTURE" ("Established an architecture level methodology to evaluate crew risk across the vast architecture trade space").
  • "Architecture Maturation Strategy" (slide 37) reprints the "Notional Definition Flow" of the "Architecture Definition" white paper (Figure Four) and ADD Appendix C (p. 188): the same panels, arrow, legend and color key (the wiki's comparison; Architecture definition process). Slide 38, "Summary", is a painting with a QR code to the white papers.

Data gaps (slides 39–48)

The Strategy and Architecture Office's data-gaps briefing, by Audrey Morris-Eckart (slide 39), then a roundtable (slide 46). What it adds is on the Data gaps index; as printed:

  • Purpose (slide 40): "Define and communicate integrated NASA data needs"; "Focus limited resources strategically", "To inform payload missions", "To enable data acquisition", "To optimize asset designs"; "Build knowledge base necessary to enable M2M Architecture and future elements"; "Characterize natural and induced environments, resources, terrain on surface, in space, in atmosphere, etc."; "Reduce risk on M2M Missions".
  • Caveats (slide 41): "Incomplete initial data gap sample set to start", "Grow and refine this year"; "Initial set includes high priority needs, but not in order"; "Sufficient data exist to enable initial Artemis Missions in Human Lunar Return (HLR)", "Beyond initial missions, additional data is needed", "To enable model validation", "To reduce uncertainty", "To reduce mission risk"; "Incremental progress is valuable to enable immediate response".
  • Examples and drivers (slide 42, read from the image; the text layer keeps only the #0602 table). "Technology Gap Replaced with Data Gaps": "0602: In-Situ Resource Identification, Characterization, and Mapping" to "DN-006 L, DN-007 L, DN-008 L, DN-010 L, DN-013 L", as in the Update (p. 14). Beside it, a table of DN-002 L, DN-007 L, DN-008 L and DN-017 L with their "Data Utility": the same four gaps, titles and utility statements as the white paper's Table Two, word for word (the wiki's comparison; white paper).
  • Definition (slide 43): a diagram with "STAKEHOLDER INPUTS" → "KNOWLEDGE DECOMPOSITION", "Needs Traced from Objectives", and three definitions: "DATA GAP", "A Data Need that is not satisfied by available information, requiring the acquisition of new or improved data" (the italics are the slide's); "DATA NEED", "Information, such as a specific measurement, that has value to Artemis and Moon to Mars activities through enabling the advancement of science, technology, utilization, exploration, or operations"; "DATA AVAILABLE", "Information that can be used to generate data products that can be acquired (or currently exists but may not satisfy the needs of stakeholders)". Below: "Impact and Benefits", "Defines Value of Closing Gap to Stakeholders", and "Target Measurement Parameters", "Defines Measurable Goals for Data Providers". A thumbnail and QR code point to the white paper. The wording differs from the white paper's Figure One (white paper); see the index.
  • ADD Rev C's records (slide 44): "Section 3.3 Initial Architecture-Driven Data Gaps", "Summarizes the methodology and purpose"; "Appendix E", "List of Data Gaps and defines attribute details for each gap", "ADD Rev C Includes 25 initial Data Gaps"; "Built from rigorous systems engineering principles which were also used to define technology gaps", "All fields defined by integrated input of stakeholders/SMEs", "Traced to NASA Blueprint Objectives & categorized by drivers", "Specific Target Measurement Parameters", "Context provided in Impacts and Benefits", "Snapshot of Current State of the Data", "Solution-agnostic", "A single data collection solution can contribute to multiple gaps". "Blueprint" is not expanded here. Earlier workshop decks print "Decomposition of Blueprint Objectives to executing Architecture elements" under "Traceability": the February 2024 overview and updates deck (slide 13) and two February 2025 decks, Architecture Updates (slide 6) and Architecture 101 (slide 6), with the same slide in both 2025 decks' copies. "Blueprint" appears nowhere else in those decks (searched), so none of them expands it.
  • Strategic impacts (slide 45): "Data gained will help", "Perform architecture analyses", "Characterize and reduce mission risk", "Develop optimized hardware", "Mature necessary technology", "Advance science objectives", "Support space exploration".
  • The lists (slides 47–48): ID, "Data Type" and title of all 25, with "High priority, but not in priority order" under the lunar list. The titles match slide 13 and ADD Rev C's list (p. 263), except that slide 47 prints "High-resolution" for DN-014 L where slide 13 and the ADD print "High resolution". The data types match the spreadsheet's except DN-016 L's, "In Situ Measurement", which is ADD Rev C's (p. 280); the sheet has "In Situ Monitoring" (the wiki's comparison; open question 38).

Sample return (slides 49–50)

"Sample Return, Panel Discussion" (slide 49) names no members. Slide 50 is an untitled chart; its text layer holds only "Sample Return" and the footer, and the image shows neither. A path runs through numbered sections, as printed: "4.8 UNSUPPORTED CREWED SURFACE LANDING ACTIVITIES", "4.9 EXPANDED & EXTENDED LUNAR EXPLORATION", "4.10 UNCREWED SAMPLE COLLECTION WITH MOBILITY", "4.11 TOOLS, SUIT, & VEHICLES INTERACTION", "4.12 OTHER CONSIDERATIONS, E.G. VOLATILES" and "4.13 FINAL EVA & LAUNCH PREPARATIONS", with numbered steps such as "4.8.4 Sample Collection", "4.9.2 Cold Sample Collection", "4.9.2.1 Freezer Capabilities (Initial, Active, Passive)", "4.9.2.2 Thermal Transfers" and "4.13.3 Sample Storage in HLS". Each step is shaded on a scale of "Unknowns" from 1 to 9, and "Circle size indicates est. number of transfers (1-9)". The two darkest circles (most unknowns) are "4.8.4 Sample Collection" and "4.9.2.2 Thermal Transfers"; 4.9.2.2 is also the largest (read from the image). The slide doesn't say which document its section numbers come from, and the wiki doesn't tabulate the values. Same subject as #1201 In-Situ Sample Storage and Processing (the pairing is the wiki's).

Against other sources (the wiki's comparison)

  • Mostly Rev C and the Update. Slides 5–7, 11–16, 37, 42 and 47–48 present the December 2025 products; their figures and wording match those documents where checked, with the exceptions listed above (DN-014 L's hyphen, DN-016 L's data type). The newer material is the workshop's rules (slide 17), the two procurements of slide 18, slides 24–25, the charts of slides 28–29 and 50, the MD-05 briefing's third wording and reasoning (slides 31–35), slide 36's "more than one crew landing", and the data-gaps briefing's wording (slides 40–45).
  • Two wordings of the Mars crew outcome in one deck. Slide 15 prints the ADD's "no fewer than six (6)"; slide 31 prints "the minimum to be up to six (6)". Both slides say the outcome is the 2025 review's, and slide 31 says it is "Documented in Revision C" (open question 28). The international partners' deck of 24–25 February 2026 carries both lines too (its slides 15 and 36; source page).
  • "4-24 Minutes" (slide 33) is the "Why Moon and Mars?" white paper's range, not the Update's "up to 22 minutes" (open question 31).
  • Nujoud Merancy's title. In January 2026 she presented as "Deputy Associate Administrator, Strategy and Architecture Office" (slide 2). Her NASA staff page, undated and fetched later, presents her as the Moon Base Chief Architect: "Prior to her current role, Merancy served as deputy associate administrator for NASA's Strategy and Architecture Office" (staff page).
  • No Moon Base. The deck never says "Moon Base" (searched); the program was announced in March 2026 (Moon Base hub). So the pages it bears on keep their Moon Base relevance unchanged.

Oddities

  • The file name says "for-export-control-v3"; the title slide says "Charts for Distribution". Recorded as printed.
  • Slide 3's text layer has "Questions?", not shown on the slide image.
  • Slide 6's "Tech Gaps" thumbnail is #0803; its text layer runs the thumbnails' text together, so ADD sentences from different pages sit side by side.
  • Slide 24's template differs from the deck's (see above).
  • Slides 27, 28 and 50 show no footer on the image; their text layers have the dated footer.
  • Slide 35 prints "preferrable"; slide 34, "not recommended due higher risk". Recorded as printed.
  • Slide 31 says the outcome is "Documented in Revision C" but words it differently from Revision C (above).
  • Slide 36's hexagon label "MARS LOSS OF CREW RISK POSTURE" is not Rev C's title for MD-04, "Mars Architecture Loss of Crew Risk Methodology" (ADD p. 76); it is the 2024 overview's chart name, which the wiki matches to MD-04 (Key definition tasks).

Architecture Workshops page · Architecture definition process · RT-7 Interoperability · RT-2 Industry Collaboration · Key definition tasks · Lunar Nuclear Fission System · Lunar Utility Rover · Initial Surface Habitat · Why Moon to Mars · Data gaps index · Humans to Mars · Gateway · #1201 In-Situ Sample Storage and Processing · Data-gaps white paper · ADD Rev C · 2025 Architecture Update