National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Human Space Exploration 

Framework Summary

For Public Release 1
Overview

 Context and approach for human space exploration 

• Key guiding principles

• Figures of Merit

 Capability-Driven Framework

 Technology

 Partnerships

 Affordability & Cost Analysis

 Summary 

• Key takeaways

• Forward work

For Public Release 2
For Public Release 3

Human Space Exploration Architecture Planning

 Human spaceflight (HSF) programs are complex and can occur on decadal 

timescales, yet funding is annual and political cycles occur on 2, 4, and 6-

year intervals.

 Since 1969, 24 blue-ribbon panels have (re)assessed HSF strategy, and 

exploration concepts and technologies and national priorities have 

continued to evolve.

 Planning and program implementation teams established in February 

2010, after the FY11 President’s Budget Request and the NASA 

Authorization Act of 2010, needed integrated guidance.

NASA uses an ongoing, integrated HSF architecture decision-support function to

develop and evaluate viable architecture candidates, inform near-term strategy and budget 

decisions, and provide analysis continuity over time.
For Public Release 4

Context: Policy, Process, and Law 

 2009: Review of U.S. HSF Plans Committee [Augustine Committee]

 2010: National Space Policy (28 June 2010)

 2010: NASA Human Exploration Framework Team (HEFT) 

• Phase 1 (Apr-Aug 2010)

• Phase 2 (Sep-Dec 2010)

 2010: NASA Authorization Act

• Long-term goal: “To expand permanent human presence beyond low Earth orbit 

and to do so, where practical, in a manner involving international partners.”

 2011: NASA Human Space Exploration Architecture Planning (ongoing)
5

Flexible Path for Human Exploration of Multiple Destinations

Review of U.S. Human Space Flight Plans 

Committee (Augustine Committee) defined 

“Flexible Path” as: 

“Steadily advancing...human exploration of 

space beyond Earth orbit...successively 

distant or challenging destinations...” 

Destination options include:

 Low Earth orbit (LEO) and the 

International Space Station (ISS)

 High Earth Orbit (HEO), Geosynchronous 

Orbit (GEO)

 Cis-lunar space (Lagrange/Libration 

points, e.g., L1, L2), lunar orbit, and the 

surface of the moon

 Near-Earth asteroids (NEAs), near-Earth 

objects (NEOs)

 The moons of Mars (Phobos, Deimos), 

Mars orbit, surface of Mars

Can multiple paths 

get us where we 

want to go?

Can the program keep 

its basic shape 

despite unforeseen 

events?

Can milestones 

stretch out without 

the program 

breaking?

For Public Release
For Public Release 6

What is the Human Exploration Framework Team (HEFT)?

 HEFT provides decision support to NASA senior leadership for planning human 

spaceflight exploration beyond LEO

 Decision support informs potential decisions

• Objective, consistent, credible, and transparent analyses

 Multi-layered team tapped from throughout NASA

• From Strategic Management Council to technical subject matter experts

• From all centers and headquarters

 Analysis scope includes all architecture aspects: technical, programmatic, and fiscal

• Destinations, operations, elements, performance, technologies, safety, risk, schedule, cost, 

partnerships, and stakeholder priorities

 HEFT prepares architecture decision packages for NASA senior leadership

• Objective sensitivity analyses, inclusive trade studies, integrated conditional choices

• Draft multi-destination architectures that are affordable and implement stakeholder priorities

• Neither “point solution” architectures, decision recommendations, nor decisions
For Public Release 7

NASA Guidance for its HSF Strategy

 Make affordability a fundamental requirement that obligates NASA to identify all 

content/milestones in budget, all content/milestones exceeding the available 

budget, and all content/milestones that could be gained through budget increases 

in a prioritized structure. Create and refine a culture of value, fiscal prudence, and 

prioritization. 

 Reward value-conscious performance, prudent risk assumption, and bold 

innovation, and incentivize the executive leadership team to further create a 

“can-do” culture of excellence and a team of scientists, engineers, pioneers, 

explorers, and shrewd mission implementers.

 Employ an executive leadership team to seek consensus that is fully empowered, 

capable and willing to make decisions in the absence of consensus. Build a culture 

of empowerment, accountability, and responsibility. 

 Build on and apply design knowledge captured through previously planned 

programs. Also seek out innovative new processes, techniques, or world-class 

best practices to improve the safety, cost, schedule, or performance of existing and 

planned programs, thereby enhancing their sustainability. 

 Leverage existing NASA infrastructure and assets, as appropriate, following a 

requirements-based need and affordability assessment. 
For Public Release 8

Human Space Exploration Guiding Principles

 Conduct a routine cadence of missions to exciting solar system destinations including the Moon 

and NEAs with Mars’ surface as a horizon destination for human exploration

 Build capabilities that will enable future exploration missions and support the expansion of 

human activity throughout the inner Solar System

 Inspire through numerous “firsts”

 Fit within projected NASA HSF budget (affordability and sustainability) 

 Use and leverage the International Space Station

 Balance high-payoff technology infusion with mission architectures and timeline

 Develop evolutionary family of systems and leverage commonality as appropriate

 Combine use of human and robotic systems 

 Exploit synergies between Science and HSF Exploration objectives

 Leverage non-NASA capabilities (e.g., launches, systems, facilities)

 Minimize NASA-unique supply chain and new facility starts 

 Pursue “lean” development and operations “best practices”
For Public Release 9

What Has HEFT Done?

 HEFT was chartered in April 2010. The first phase concluded in early September 2010, and 

the second phase concluded in December 2010.

 HEFT established and exercised a consistent method for asking questions, comparing 

architecture alternatives, integrating findings and fostering cross-agency discussions.

 HEFT examined a broad trade space of program strategies and technical approaches in an 

effort to meet priorities from the White House, Congress, and other stakeholders. 

 HEFT explored new affordability options and applied a refined cost analysis approach to do 

relative comparison of alternatives in order to hone and narrow the trade space.

 A smaller HEFT-like effort will continue for the foreseeable future since the HSF technical 

and programmatic environment will continue to evolve over time.

NASA HSF architecture must provide the flexibility to accommodate technical, 

programmatic, economic and political dynamics while enabling a safe, affordable 

and sustainable human space exploration program.
10

HEFT Architecture Analysis Cycle Approach (Iterative)

Technical Design Reference 

Mission

Investment strategy Element catalog

Schedule and cost to develop 

and operate each element

Integrated program schedule 

& flight manifest

Non-optimized cost 

rollup through 2025

Also addressed tech investment priorities & stakeholder concerns, objectives & constraints

For Public Release
For Public Release 11

Key Initial Findings

 No single solution achieved all of the objectives

• There is no “magic architectural bullet”

• Lean system development approaches will be essential

 Compromise is key to forward progress and sustainability

• Satisfying all major stakeholders, while desirable, is not feasible

 A 15-year analysis horizon is too short 

• Understanding the impacts of a series of exploration missions and the potential value of system reusability requires a 

longer view

 New technologies are required for sustainable human exploration beyond LEO

• Key technology investments are applicable to multiple destinations

• “Technology priority” investment strategy highlighted key technology investment need

 Human-rated heavy-lift launch and an exploration-class crew vehicle are desired for human exploration 

beyond LEO

• Initial analysis shows a 100t-class evolvable to about 130t human-rated launch vehicle is best option of those studied 

(based upon performance, reliability, risk, and cost, but not operations affordability)

• Needed for planet-surface-class missions and all but nearest deep-space missions

• Current designs, however, may not be affordable in present fiscal conditions, based on existing cost models, historical 

data, and traditional acquisition approaches. Affordability initiatives are necessary to enable these and other content 

needed for exploration

• Exploration-class heavy lift and crew launch systems dominate the program content and cost profile for years

• An exploration crew vehicle requires additional capabilities as compared to a LEO-class crew vehicle 

• Staging for deep space missions is best done in HEO at the Earth-Moon Lagrange (L1) point

 Some major choices and elements can be delayed or re-phased

• Examples: the type of Mars-class propulsion and whether lunar surface operations should precede Mars

• A flexible path strategy preserves options for future stakeholders
For Public Release

Early Findings Drove Analysis of Key Issues

 Launch vehicle options

• Analysis areas included: implications for readiness date, cost risk, alignment with national propulsion 

objectives, potential development of partnerships, and use of existing NASA expertise, alternatives 

to Expendable Launch Vehicles (ELVs) alone and propellant depots

• Assessed key trade for heavy lift between affordable DDT&E* vs. affordable annual cost

• Evaluated cost uncertainty, complexity, and launch rate for commercial propellant launch 

 Crew vehicle options

• Assessed: system options for ascent/descent capsule and destination operations vehicle

• Addressed implications of Orion derivatives and commercial crew launch for exploration

• Analyzed development pace of radiation mitigation, reliable Environmental Control Life and Support 

System (ECLSS), and deep space habitat system

 Advanced Propulsion: electric propulsion trip time

• Electric propulsion is key for achieving affordable missions to an asteroid or similar long-range 

destinations, however there are important considerations for number of units needed vs. time to 

first asteroid mission

• Electric propulsion can’t be used for crew transit through the Van Allen radiation belts and there are 

also issues associated with long-duration spacecraft operations within the belts

 Cost profile

• Complete accounting of all elements and reconciliation of assumptions

• Conservative projection of available budget

• Getting through the “budget keyhole” constrained by near-term budget liens

12

Affordability is essential; sustainability and flexibility are key drivers for investment in pursuit 

of inspirational objectives that return true value to the nation and improve life on Earth. 

*Design, Development, Test & Evaluation
For Public Release 13

Focus of On-going HSF Architecture Refinement Work

 Leverage HEFT’s “analysis engine” to conduct and validate key trades 

• Elements: heavy-lift launch vehicle (HLLV) options, crew vehicles, in-space systems, 

ground-based elements

• Locations: cis-lunar staging; cis-lunar, trans-lunar, and real asteroid targets

• Alternative providers: critical-path partnerships with other domestic and 

international agencies, balanced reliance on commercial launches of propellant, inspace elements, and exploration crew

• Sensitivity analyses to understand impact of varying key assumptions

 Use decision trees used to lay out the option space and to drive which branch 

to analyze; iterate process and identify most fruitful branches

 Define multiple architecture alternatives that “work” based upon key Figures 

of Merit (mission and stakeholder drivers)

• Based on coherent, implementable assumptions and concepts of operation

• Options that fit the budget and meet stakeholder objectives on acceptable schedules

• Refine concepts of operations that address the spectrum of operations, including 

destination operations, aborts, and contingencies
For Public Release 14

Key Technical Architecture Observations To Date

 Advanced in-space propulsion (e.g., solar electric propulsion {SEP}) is a big enabler: 

Reduces launch mass by 50% (factor of 2) and mass growth sensitivity by 60%

 A balance of ELVs and HLLVs is optimal for varying mission needs

 Shuttle-derived HLLV option (100t-class evolvable to ~130t for deep space, full 

capability missions) meets more current FOMS than other options, although out-year 

affordability is still a fundamental challenge for long term exploration. Alternative 

design analysis continues to be part of NASA’s strategy, coupled with an assessment of 

possible affordability initiatives.

 HLLV and crew vehicle should be a human-rated system

 ELV-only solution not optimal given all factors

 Staging at HEO or Earth-Moon L1 for deep space missions better than LEO

 Crew Transportation Vehicle (CTV) full ascent and entry capability is needed

 Additional capability, such as the MMSEV needed for EVA and robotics capability

 High reliability ECLSS is desired over fully closed loop ECLSS except for Mars missions

 In-Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU) is an enabler, particularly for surface missions

 Modularity and commonality aid key affordability FOM

• HLLV=Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle

• CTV=Crew Transportation Vehicle

• MMSEV=Multi-mission Space 

Exploration Vehicle

• EVA=Extravehicular Activity

• SEP=Solar Electric Propulsion

• ECLSS=Environmental Control and Life 

Support Systems
For Public Release 15

General Decision Tree Analysis Approach (Notional)

• HLV=Heavy Lift Vehicle • CTV=Crew Transportation Vehicle

• SDV=Shuttle-Derived Vehicle • SEV=Space Exploration Vehicle

• LOX-RP= Liquid Oxygen-Rocket Propellant • DSH=Deep Space Habitat

• SEP=Solar Electric Propulsion

W – Strategies 

1. Fixed initial

conditions

2. Near-Earth 

Asteroid 

(NEA) in 

2025

3. Others 

(including 

CapabilityDriven 

Framework)

X – DRM’s / Missions 

1. DRM-4

2. “Easy” NEA

3. DRM Lunar

4. HEO/GEO 

5. DRM Mars 

(Orbit) / Phobos

and Deimos

Y – Elements / 

Capabilities Trades

1. HLV: SDV, LOX-RP

2. CTV: Orion Derived E’ 

and Ascent/Entry 

3. Commercial Crew

4. In-space Elements: 

CTV/ SEV / DSH 

functionality split

5. SEP Configuration / 

Propellant

6. Ops Trades

7. Others

Z- Opportunities*

1. Partnerships 

2. # of Crew

3. Phasing / Budgets

4. Affordability:

• In House 

Development

• Insight/Oversight

• Fixed/Recurring

Costs

• Others

* Envision 2-3 

Affordability 

Configurations per 

Element W : X : Y : Z – Filtered to control number of cases

(Kerosene)
For Public Release 16

Figures of Merit (FOMs) Areas

 FOMs are quantitative or qualitative expressions representing the value of a given system. FOMs 

ensure that each architecture or trade space option is evaluated with the same parameters and 

they go hand-in-hand with ground rules & assumptions, and help to mature decision options.

FOM Area Top-Level (Proxy) FOMs

Affordability

• DDT&E cost

• Annual recurring cost

• Annual savings from affordability strategies

• Cost risk

Sustainability

• Number of key events in the architecture/manifest

• Assumed element production & flight rates (min/max)

• Number of partner launch opportunities

• Number and scope of partner element opportunities

• Destinations accessible (with no added DDT&E)

• HSF capability sustainment?

Safety & Mission 

Success

• Mission probability of loss of crew (LOC)

• Mission probability of loss of mission (LOM)

Schedule

• Crewed U.S. access to LEO and ISS capability date

• First beyond LEO mission date

• First NEA mission date

Benefits

• Number of destinations visited by type

• Percentage of NEA population accessible

• Mass delivered /returned

• Crewed days beyond LEO

• Percentage of Mars technologies demonstrated

• Alternate destinations accessible (with added DDT&E)

Inspiration for current and future generations remains an important intangible FOM.
For Public Release 17

Strategies and Design Reference Missions (DRMs)

 Four different strategies were developed in the HEFT Phase 2 Architecture Analysis Cycle.

• Strategies 1, 1’ and 2: Built an integrated manifest with the respective element schedule and cost data

• Strategy 3: Capability Driven Framework not manifested in HEFT 2 [Early Forward Work in Jan 2011]

Strategy Description DRM Simple Result Description

1 – Fixed Initial 

Conditions: 

Mission to a NEA 

when Affordable

A fixed cost and initial milestone-constrained 

assessment, consistent with the NASA 2010 

Authorization for the DRM 4B (NEA mission) only. 

Manifest changed to incorporate HLLV test flight.

Utilized updated design & cost estimates, that 

include some lean development options

4B Over-constrained. Does not meet 

all schedule, budget, and 

performance requirements. 

Results heavily dependent upon 

budget availability and phasing.

1 Prime –

Affordability 

Centric

Same as Strategy 1. Combines Expendable Launch 

Vehicles flights into an HLLV flight. Utilized updated 

design and cost estimates that include some lean 

development options

4B Small improvement, but still 

didn’t close on budget in outyears. Key insights into necessary 

affordability measures.

2 – NEA by 2025 Deadline and cost-constrained assessment to reach 

a NEA by 2025 utilizing a “minimal” set of 

systems/elements and an “easy” target 

5B Not prudent: Sprint with 

minimum capability mission to 

asteroid too costly for sustained 

benefit/ROI.

3 – CapabilityDriven 

Framework

Journey, not destination. Builds capabilities that 

enable many potential paths w/DRMs to GEO, 

L1/2, Lunar, NEA< Mars Orbits/Moons

Multiple Departure from long-standing 

destination-focused approach –

Best path given constraints. 
For Public Release 18

Capability-Driven Framework Overview

 Objective: Facilitates a capability-driven approach to human exploration 

rather than one based on a specific destination and schedule

 Evolving capabilities would be based on:

• Previously demonstrated capabilities and operational experience

• New technologies, systems and flight elements development

• Concept of minimizing destination-specific developments

 Multiple possible destinations/missions would be enabled by each 

discrete level of capability

 Would allow reprioritization of destination/missions by policy-makers 

without wholesale abandonment of then-existing exploration 

architecture

A Capability-Driven Framework enables multiple destinations and provides

increased flexibility, greater cost effectiveness, and sustainability.

For Public Release 20

Capability-Driven Framework Approach

 Establish “Mission Space” defined by multiple possible destinations

• Define Design Reference Missions to drive out required functions and capabilities

 Utilize common elements across all DRMs 

• Size element functionality and performance to support entire mission space

• Common element and DRM analyses still in work, appears feasible

 Assess key contingencies and abort scenarios to drive out and allocate any additional 

key capabilities to element(s)

• Iterate element sizing and functionality to ensure key contingency and abort scenarios are 

addressed

 Establish key driving requirements for common elements

• Establish technology needs for each element

 Identify key decision points for element/capability phasing

• Decision trees/paths for transportation architecture and destination architecture

 Assess various manifest scenarios for costing and other constraint analysis

• Select various strategies for acquisition approach and affordability

 Actively seek international and commercial involvement where possible

Costing not completed, additional work required to complete integration

of Capability-Driven Framework assessment
For Public Release 21

Example DRM Mission Space to Common Element Mapping

• LV=Launch Vehicle • REM=Robotics & EVA Module

• SLS=Space Launch System • EVA=Extravehicular Activity

• MPCV=Multi-person Crew Vehicle • DSH=Deep Space Hab

• CPS=Cryogenic Propulsion Stage • SEP=Solar Electric Propulsion

D Driving Case

R Required Elements

B Back-Up Capability

DRM TITLE

MINIMUM ELEMENTS

Commercial LV

SLS - HLLV 

MPCV

CPS

REM/SEV

EVA Suit

Lunar Lander & 

Elements

DSH

SEP

Mars Elements

LEO missions R B B R

HEO/GEO vicinity without

pre-deploy D D D D R

HEO/GEO vicinity with pre-deploy R R R R D R

Lunar vicinity missions R R R R

Low lunar orbital mission R R R R

Lunar surface mission R R D D D

Minimum capability NEA R R* D D R R

Full capability NEA D D* D D D D D

Martian moons: Phobos/Deimos R R* R D R R

Marslanding D R* R D R D D

D/R/B Element allocations 

based on Authorization Act 

and other conditions. 

Different constraint basis 

would result in different 

element allocations/options.

* MPCV entry velocity could be driven by these missions for certain targets, if selected. 

Driving: There is something 

in this DRM that is "driving" 

the performance 

requirement of the 

element.

Example : Entry speeds for 

MPCV driven by NEO DRM.

Required: This element 

must be present to 

accomplish this DRM.

Example : SEV required for Full 

Capability NEO, but not for 

other DRMs

Flexible mission space analysis validates that several fundamental building blocks, including 

the SLS and MPCV, are needed to support multiple destinations.

For Public Release 23

Transportation and Destination Architectures

for Flexible Path

* MPCV Service Module derived Kick Stage utilized in 

some DRMs

Elements based on Authorization Act and other 

conditions. Different constraint basis would result in 

different elements, but capabilities represented would 

be unchanged.

In-Space 

Propulsion Stages

Cryogenic 

Propulsion Stage 

(CPS)

Solar Electric 

Propulsion (SEP)

Multi-Purpose 

Crew Vehicle 

(MPCV)

Space Launch 

System - HLLV

TRANSPORTATION ARCHITECTURE

LEO

GEO/HEO

Lunar

NEA

Mars

Deep Space Habitat 

(DSH)

Mars Lander & 

Additional Elements

Lunar Lander

Crew EVA Suit 

(Block 2)

International GPOD 

Surface Elements

Robotics & EVA 

Module (REM) or 

Space Exportation 

Vehicle (SEV)

Crew EVA Suit 

(Block 1)

DESTINATION

ARCHITECTURE DISTANCES AND 

ENVIRONMENTS
24

Notional Architecture Elements

Graphics are Notional Only – Design and Analysis On-going

Deep Space Habitat

(DSH)

Multi-Mission Space 

Exploration Vehicle

(MMSEV)

Lander Mars Elements

EVA Suit Robotics & EVA 

Module (REM)

Kick Stage NEA Science Package

Solar Electric 

Propulsion (SEP)

Cryogenic 

Propulsion Stage 

(CPS)

Multi-purpose 

Crew Vehicle

(MPCV)

Space Launch 

System (SLS)-HLLV

For Public Release
25

For Public Release

Technology Development Data Capture Process

Strategy

& DRMs

Element

Data

‘Tech Dev’ Sheets

‘Tech Dev’ Summary Spreadsheet

(per Strategy/DRM)

Tech Dev Data for Cost Team:

- Cost, Schedule, Phasing

- Applicable Elements (per Strat/DRM)

Cost Fidelity Subject Matter

Expert POCs
26 For Public Release

Technology Applicability to Destination Overview (1)

LEO (31A) Adv. LEO 

(31B)

Cis-Lunar 

(32A,B & 

33A,B)

Lunar 

Surface -

Sortie (33C)

Lunar 

Surface -

GPOD (33X)

Min NEA 

(34A)

Full NEA 

(34B)

Mars 

Orbit

Mars 

Moons 

(35A)

Mars 

Surface 

(35B)

LO2/LH2 reduced boiloff flight demo 

LO2/LH2 reduced boiloff & other CPS tech development

LO2/LH2 Zero boiloff tech development

In-Space Cryo Prop Transfer

Energy Storage 

Electrolysis for Life Support (part of Energy Storage)

Fire Prevention, Detection & Suppression (for 8 psi)

Environmental Monitoring and Control 

High Reliability Life Support Systems

Closed-Loop, High Reliability, Life Support Systems

Proximity Communications

In-Space Timing and Navigation for Autonomy

High Data Rate Forward Link (Ground & Flight)

Hybrid RF/Optical Terminal (Communications)

Behavioral Health

Optimized Exercise Countermeasures Hardware

Human Factors and Habitability

Long Duration Medical

Biomedical countermeasures

Space Radiation Protection – Galactic Cosmic Rays (GCR)

Space Radiation Protection – Solar Proton Events (SPE)

Space Radiation Shielding – GCR & SPE

Vehicle Systems Mgmt

Crew Autonomy

Mission Control Autonomy

Common Avionics

Advanced Software Development/Tools

Thermal Management (e.g., Fusible Heat Sinks)

Mechanisms for Long Duration, Deep Space Missions

Lightweight Structures and Materials (HLLV)

Lightweight Structures and Materials (In-Space Elements)

Not 

applicable

Probably 

required

May be 

required

Required

technology
27 For Public Release

Technology Applicability to Destination Overview (2)

LEO (31A) Adv. LEO 

(31B)

Cis-Lunar 

(32A,B & 

33A,B)

Lunar 

Surface -

Sortie 

(33C)

Lunar 

Surface -

GPOD 

(33X)

Min NEA 

(34A)

Full NEA 

(34B) Mars Orbit

Mars 

Moons 

(35A)

Mars 

Surface 

(35B)

Robots Working Side-by-Side with Suited Crew

Telerobotic control of robotic systems with time delay

Surface Mobility

Suitport 

Deep Space Suit (Block 1)

Surface Space Suit (Block 2)

NEA Surface Ops (related to EVA)

Environment Mitigation (e.g., dust)

Autonomously Deployable very large Solar Arrays 

SEP demo

Solar Electric Propulsion (SEP) Stage 

Fission Power for Nuclear Electric Propulsion (NEP) 

Nuclear Thermal Propulsion (NTP) Engine

Fission Power for Surface Missions 

Inflatable Habitat Flight Demo (flight demo launch)

Inflatable Habitat Tech Development (including demo)

In-Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU)

TPS -- low speed (<11.5 km/sec; Avcoat)

Thermal Protection System (TPS) -- high speed

NEA Auto Rendezvous, Prox Ops, and Terrain Relative Nav

Precision Landing

Entry, Decent, and Landing (EDL)

Supportability and Logistics

LOX/Methane RCS

LOX/Methane Propulsion Stage - Pressure Fed

LOX/Methane Propulsion Stage - Pump Fed

In-Space Chemical (Non-Toxic Reaction Control System)

HLLV Oxygen-Rich Staged Combustion Engine

Not 

applicable

Probably 

required

May be 

required

Required

technology
For Public Release 28

Capability-Driven Framework: Technology Strategy

 The Capability-Driven Framework (CDF) offers an opportunity for a more 

complete look at technology needs over a longer span of time. It has the 

inherent benefit of not stranding technologies that result from only 

considering a single destination.

 Technology investment:

• Total amount will depend on the set of DRMs that are chosen

• We will attempt to follow the structure that the DRM team has been using to 

build the decision framework

• Many of the DRMs represent new discussion and so will require more work to 

understand what kind of technology advancement is required

 Some technologies are likely to be required to enable the full set of 

DRMs in CDF (i.e., environment [e.g., dust] mitigation, supportability & 

logistics, communication technologies)
For Public Release 29

Key Technology Observations

 More forward work is required for the HEFT Technology Team to align with other 

technology investments

• Need Crossflow with DoD/DARPA technology investments (tied to NASA strategies)

 Total cost for exploration-focused technology development investments are $0.5-

1B per year -- a relatively small portion of the total life cycle costs

 Majority of needed technologies can be matured in 3 to 8 years; some key Mars 

technologies require longer lead time

 Wide range of areas require technology maturation, but most specific technology 

needs require less than $500M to mature

 Some technologies are likely required to enable the full set of DRMs in the 

Capability-Driven Framework

 DRMs that only consider one mission/destination create an incomplete picture of 

agency technology needs

 Exploration (ETDD & HRP) programs are well aligned with HEFT direction

• ETDD = Exploration Technology 

Development and Demonstration

• HRP= Human Research Program
For Public Release 30

Capabilities, Technology and Partnerships

 DRM-Element matrices represent sets of functional capabilities and 

technologies packaged into specific elements

• There are many examples of potential common capabilities or technologies that 

apply across multiple elements

• Detailed capability identification enables discussion on several topics

 DRM-Element matrices being extended to additional detail to identify 

specific capabilities and technologies to drive out technology roadmap, 

potential common capabilities and partnership opportunities
31

Partnerships Overview

 Definition: 

• A partnership is an agreement between NASA and one or more entities that provides tangible 

benefit and shares cost, equity, and/or risk between all parties.

- For international partners this should be done on a no-exchange of funds basis

 National Space Policy mandates that NASA:

• “Expand international cooperation”

• “Energize competitive domestic industries”

• “Strengthen inter-agency partnerships”

 Potential benefits to NASA and/or the Nation

• Economic incentive (expansion, prosperity, innovation)

• Enhancement through foreign technology and ideas

• Enabling new domestic industries

• Promotion of foreign policy interests 

• Affordability

- Able to achieve missions that would otherwise be unaffordable

• Sustainability

• Schedule acceleration

• Ensuring domestic space industrial base viability

• Avoiding domestic capital investments which are significant and sustained

• Multiple users – spreads cost base

For Public Release
32

Partnership Opportunities

 Partnerships = International, Interagency, Commercial

 The Capability-Driven Framework enables on-ramps for:

• Partnerships that Expand the architecture 

- Characterized by adding elements and functional capabilities to the 

architecture that would not be otherwise funded for development, thus 

enabling missions that otherwise would not be possible

• Partnerships that Enable the architecture 

- Characterized by partners that develop elements that enable missions 

sooner than could otherwise be accomplished

• Partnerships that Enhance the architecture 

- Characterized by partners developing technologies or systems that enhance 

the existing or planned element capabilities within the architecture

For Public Release
33

International, Interagency, and Commercial Partnerships

Economic Expansion

Public Engagement

Exploration Preparation

Scientific Knowledge Global Partnerships

For Public Release

 Interagency partnership opportunities: DoD/IC, FAA, DOE, NSF, DHS, NIST

 DoD/IC promising potential partnership areas: In-space propulsion (Solar Electric 

Propulsion), range modernization, Technologies, Industrial base, Landing, recovery, and 

medical operations support, communications

 Commercial partnerships: “Traditional,” Entrepreneurial, and “Non-Traditional”

 Key Areas of Potential Interest: Cargo and crew transportation, in-space habitation, 

communications, in-situ resource utilization, propellant transfer, storage, and re-supply

• DoD=Department of Defense

• IC=Intelligence Community

• FAA=Federal Aviation Administration

• DOE=Department of Energy

• NSF=National Science Foundation

• DHS=Department of Homeland Security

• NIST=National Institute for Standards and 

Technology
For Public Release

Affordability - Most Significant Challenge Moving Forward

 Affordability: The ability of NASA to safely execute missions within the available 

funding constraints (long term and short term). 

• Program/Project Management, Risk Management Culture, Systems Engineering, 

Workforce/Infrastructure, Acquisition Approaches

 Opportunities to address affordability in program/project formulation and planning

• Levy lean development approaches and “design-to-cost” targets on implementing programs

• Identify and negotiate international partner contributions

• Identify and pursue domestic partnerships

 Traditional development 

• Balance large traditional contracting practices with fixed-price or cost challenges coupled with inhouse development

• Use the existing workforce, infrastructure, and contracts where possible; address insight/oversight, 

fixed-costs, cost analysis and cost estimation 

 Adopt alternative development approaches

• Leverage civil servant workforce to do leading-edge development work

• Attempt to minimize use of NASA-unique infrastructure, seeking instead to share infrastructure costs 

where feasible.

• Specifically, take advantage of existing resources to initiate the development and help reduce upfront 

costs on the following elements: Multi-Mission Space Exploration Vehicle, Solar Electric Propulsion 

Freighter, Cryo Propulsion Stage, Deep Space Habitat 

34

In order to close on affordability and shorten the development cycle, NASA must 

change its traditional approach to human space systems acquisition and 

development.
For Public Release 35

Affordability Activities as Part of the HSF Planning

 Affordability meetings with industry

• Received input from NASA contractors on how to reduce costs, maintain 

quality/performance, and improve our affordability

 Affordability practices summit (Federal Government only)

• Explored concepts and processes that will increase program affordability 

 Near-term strategies for affordability “Blue Sky” meetings in D.C.

• Brainstormed concepts to enable affordable, near-term missions; topics include 

utilizing ISS to support exploration, and concepts for near-term flight 

demonstrations
36

Elements of Affordability

Program/Project

Management

Business/Contractual 

Relationships, Methods 

& Incentives

On-Ramp Modern Tools 

& Technology

Smaller Projects / 

Periodic Achievable 

Milestones

Clear, Simple 

Reporting and 

Accountability/Authority

Planning for Vision vs. 

near term execution, 

funding stability

Robust Margin

(Performance, Cost, and 

Schedule)

Risk Management

Culture

Decision Making Velocity

Maintain Crew Safety as 

Highest Priority

Early Identification & 

Resolution of Key Risks

Clear Delegation 

of Authority

Rapid Prototyping 

Hardware Demonstration

Technical Oversight & 

Insight – Crisp Interface

Systems 

Engineering

Clear, Simple Interfaces 

Between Hardware and 

Org Elements

Clear 

Requirements/Rationale 

at the Right Level

Streamline Reviews & 

Approvals

Industry vs. Government 

Standards

Cost Requirements & 

Estimating

Cost Effective 

Architecture/ Design/Ops

Right People for the Role 

at the Right Time

Long-term skill 

maintenance/development

Use In-House Capability

for in-line Program Work

Program / Project/ Line 

Leadership & Incentives

Align NASA 

Infrastructure with 

Future Mission Needs

Minimize NASA Unique 

Industry Infrastructure

Workforce/

Infrastructure

For Public Release
For Public Release 37

Industry Affordability Input

 HEFT Affordability Team requested industry input

• Approaches for more cost-effective development and operation of human 

spaceflight missions

• Priority must be maintaining safety

• Opportunity to provide input advertised openly through NASA Acquisition 

Internet Service (NAIS)

 Submissions were received and if requested, meetings were held with 

industry to discuss their input

 Submissions were received from:

• Aerojet, ATK, Ball, Blue Origin, Dynetics, SpaceX, Hamilton Sundstrand, Honeywell, 

Georgia Tech, Paragon, L3 Communications, Space Partnership International, 

Valador, Lockheed Martin, KT Engineering, Boeing, Pratt and Whitney 

Rocketdyne, Orbitec, Northrop Grumman, United Launch Alliance, Florida 

Turbine Technologies, Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Lab, RAND, 

Space Partnership, and United Space Alliance
For Public Release 38

Industry Input – Major Themes

 Key tenets and recurring themes identified in industry submissions:

• Systems engineering is more than requirements tracking and documents

• Model, test and fly early and often

• Use small lean projects with highly competent empowered personnel

• Push decision authority to the lowest level. Trust them to implement and don’t 

second guess (over-manage)

• Maintain aggressive schedules

• Manage cost and schedule as well as technical performance (maybe even more so)

• Keep it simple

• Dramatically minimize fixed costs (the key driver of mission cost)

• Oversight/Insight model has to change

Focused, Realistic and Stable Requirements + Capable, Connected and Incentivized 

Lean Teams + Short Schedules = Low cost 
For Public Release 39

Key Cost and Budget Analysis Overview

 Innovative cost analysis approach enables significant insight into programmatic 

issues, thereby allowing us to address issues and develop solutions

 Authorization Act-driven HSF architecture does not yet close on budget and schedule

• The “big four” elements (SLS, MPCV, Commercial/Crew, Technology) comprise the 

majority of the budget

 To close on affordability, the agency consensus is to:

• Embrace the Capability-Driven Framework with a “go-as-you-pay” approach

• Maintain the “big four” and set challenging cost targets to fit within the available 

budget

- Requires forward analysis with a resolved budget

• Pursue agency transformation and aggressively implement applicable affordability 

practices 

• Vigorously pursue partnerships as part of the solution

• Leverage innovative “NASAworks,” lean development, and other infrastructure/ 

workforce efficiency measures in order to further improve our affordability posture

A Capability-Driven Framework allows NASA to increment or decrement 

prioritized investments based upon direction and available budget.
For Public Release 40

Key Takeaways

 The Capability-Driven Framework:

• Is the most viable approach given the cost, technical and political constraints

• Provides a foundation for the agency’s needed technology investments

• Enables common elements to support multiple destinations

• Provides flexibility, greater cost-effectiveness and easy integration of partnerships

 NASA-wide transformational change is required to significantly improve 

affordability and meet budget constraints

 Beyond LEO destinations require:

• Development of a HLLV and MPCV as the key core elements

• An investment in advanced space propulsion and long-duration habitation (including 

high-reliability ECLSS and radiation protection)

• Robotic precursors for human near-Earth asteroid mission

 Authorization Act-driven HSF architecture still presents a fundamental 

forward challenge to close on budget and schedule

 Partnerships are imperative to enabling our exploration goals

 Compelling, overarching mission goals are necessary to justify high-risk 

human spaceflight exploration beyond LEO 
For Public Release 41

Human Spaceflight Architecture Forward Work

 Continue Development of Capability Driven Framework

• Continue launch and crew vehicle architecture trades (SLS, MPCV, CCDev*)

• Continue iteration and refinement of DRM definition and analysis

- Develop more detailed destination capability descriptions for each DRM

• Initiate integrated capability-driven approach for multi-destination elements

- Incremental approach for developing element; utilize modular approach to avoid 

redundant capability development; fewer elements = lower cost

- Map technology developments based on destination and element

 Continue assessment of affordability options

• Affordability strategies can be applied to possible multiple architecture 

implementations; for example, use of civil servants for early development could be 

applied to many possible common elements

 Continue engagement with Partnership, Technology, Operations, Elements 

and other HEFT teams to refine approach and define scenarios for further 

assessment

 Identify and prioritize key technology and capability investment areas for 

NASAworks and other lean development approaches

 Hone Concept of Operations, to include key objectives and refine 

abort/contingency planning

* CCDev = Commercial Crew Development
For Public Release 42

NASA Human Spaceflight Exploration Summary

 The Capability-Driven Framework is the NASA approach to meeting the 

nation’s goals and objectives for HSF Exploration in a dynamic policy and 

budget environment

 NASA has a short-, mid-, and long-term human and robotic spaceflight 

exploration plan consistent with law and policy

 Affordability, technology development, and partnerships are enablers

 Important forward work has begun, much remains

 Investments in HSF exploration will be leveraged across the government, 

industry, and public sectors for National benefit

 Significant global, interagency, and commercial cooperation 

opportunities exist and NASA will continue to engage

Capability-Driven Framework shows that bold, smart, affordable, and 

sustainable opportunities exist -- We must implement them now!