NASA Technologies That Could Help Build the Future of the Moon and Mars

Key Takeaways

• NASA selected 41 unfunded collaborations that trade agency resources for industry development.
• The portfolio joins lunar power and dust control with autonomy, servicing, propulsion, and materials.
• Selection does not equal a flight commitment; each concept must still prove performance and mission value.

What NASA Selected in the 2025-2026 ACO Round

On June 26, 2026, NASA announced 41 proposals from 37 U.S. companies for work connected to long-duration lunar activity and eventual human expeditions to Mars. The NASA announcement and the agency’s complete selection list show that the NASA Moon and Mars technologies portfolio is much broader than a group of lunar base machines. It includes surface power, thermal control, dust protection, autonomous navigation, orbital servicing, spacecraft docking, electric propulsion, atmospheric entry systems, advanced materials, computing, and manufacturing.

The announcement concerns technology maturation rather than mission assignments. NASA has not purchased 41 finished products, committed every selected system to Artemis, or promised that any individual project will fly. Each company will negotiate a collaboration with a NASA center, then use agreed agency resources to reduce technical uncertainty. NASA expects each effort to last about 12 to 24 months. A successful project may lead to a flight demonstration, a commercial sale, another government award, or further engineering work. An unsuccessful project may still produce test data that redirects the design.

That distinction matters because the selected projects sit at very different points in development. Lockheed Martin is working on vertical solar arrays and wireless power transmission for lunar applications. Kall Morris is developing an attachment method for adding payloads to spacecraft that were not designed for servicing. Moonprint Solutions is testing protective soft covers for dusty planetary environments. Other companies are addressing radiator deployment, cislunar autonomy, docking, low-power electric propulsion, inflatable pressure vessels, thermal protection, and high-performance computing in orbit.

NASA’s Moon Base concept depends on systems that can operate together near the lunar South Pole, where power, mobility, communications, maintenance, and thermal control are tightly linked. New Space Economy coverage of NASA’s Moon Base plans describes the same dependency problem from an architecture perspective. A rover cannot work for long without power. A solar array cannot deliver dependable output if dust, cold, or mechanical wear disables it. A habitat cannot remain useful if heat rejection, repair, or logistics fail. The 41 selections address pieces of that system rather than presenting a single integrated base design.

How Unfunded Collaboration Changes Technology Development

NASA’s Announcement of Collaboration Opportunity (ACO) uses an unfunded Space Act Agreement. The NASA Moon and Mars technologies selected through this route remain company-led development efforts rather than NASA-owned products. Under the standing ACO solicitation, NASA and a company define work that benefits both sides, but no direct payment passes from the agency to the company. NASA may provide access to engineers, test facilities, software, hardware, technical data, or specialized equipment. The company supplies its own labor, management, hardware, and other resources set out in the agreement.

NASA reported that ACO collaborations since 2015 had supported more than 110 projects by June 2026. The agency estimated the value of its contributed resources at about $30 million and industry contributions at about $32 million. Those totals describe the program’s cumulative activity, not the value of the 2025-2026 selections alone. They also show why an unfunded agreement can still matter. Vacuum chambers, thermal test facilities, propulsion laboratories, flight software expertise, and engineering review can be expensive or unavailable to a small company outside government.

The 2025 ACO announcement established a standing opportunity through July 30, 2030, with topic appendices expected at intervals. That structure lets NASA update its technical needs without rebuilding the full solicitation each time. It also gives companies a recurring pathway for proposing work that sits between internally financed development and a funded demonstration program.

The model differs from NASA’s Tipping Point partnerships. Tipping Point projects use funded Space Act Agreements and require an industry contribution. ACO projects receive access and support, but the company bears the cash cost of development. The split shapes who can participate. A company needs enough capital, revenue, or outside backing to keep its team working without a NASA payment. Access to a government facility may lower development cost, yet it does not pay salaries or manufacture flight units.

For NASA, the arrangement expands the number of technical options under examination without creating a procurement commitment. For industry, NASA participation can improve test quality and expose design weaknesses before a product reaches customers. It can also provide commercial credibility, although selection is not certification. New Space Economy’s review of NASA’s civil space technology shortfalls shows why this approach has value: power, dust control, landing, resource processing, autonomy, and long-duration operations contain many gaps that no single contract can close.

The limits are equally clear. An ACO can mature a component that later lacks a buyer. It can complete a test without producing a flight-qualified product. A technically sound result may still face cost, schedule, licensing, export-control, supply-chain, or integration barriers. The collaboration reduces selected technical risks, but it does not remove the commercial gap between a promising prototype and repeatable sales.

Why Power, Cooling, and Thermal Survival Come Before Settlement

Among the NASA Moon and Mars technologies, power and heat-management projects receive strong emphasis because lunar surface operations face severe thermal conditions. NASA’s description of the lunar South Pole environment states that some permanently shadowed regions can reach about minus 203 degrees Celsius, or minus 334 degrees Fahrenheit. Nearby sunlit areas can reach roughly 54 degrees Celsius, or 130 degrees Fahrenheit. Hardware may encounter long shadows, low solar angles, abrasive dust, and sharp thermal changes across short distances.

Lockheed Martin received selections for three related efforts: advancing vertical solar array capabilities, testing power transmission across lunar surfaces, and developing robotic assembly and outfitting methods for space infrastructure. A vertical solar array can raise photovoltaic panels above nearby terrain and orient them toward sunlight that remains close to the horizon near the poles. Height can improve access to light, but it creates structural, deployment, stability, cable-routing, and maintenance demands.

Wireless power transmission offers a different option. A generating station could send energy to a rover, instrument, or isolated work site without laying a cable across difficult terrain. NASA’s announcement describes Lockheed Martin’s concept as fiber-laser power beaming combined with space-based heat rejection. The receiver must convert incoming light into electricity, pointing must remain accurate, and the transmitter must dispose of waste heat. Dust on optical surfaces and line-of-sight interruptions can reduce performance. The concept could supplement a wired grid, but it does not remove the need for storage or local backup power.

Advanced Cooling Technologies was selected to test a 3D-printed loop heat pipe with a deployable radiator panel and thermal control valve. Heat pipes move thermal energy from hot equipment to a radiator without a conventional pump. A deployable radiator can provide more area after launch, reducing packaged volume. Its hinges, fluid path, valve, and radiator surfaces must survive launch loads, vacuum, radiation, dust exposure, and temperature cycling.

Other selections fill different parts of the power chain. Teledyne Energy Systems is developing a space-rated hydrogen electric power system. Zeno Power Systems is testing organic materials used in a Stirling convertor associated with radioisotope power. Aerojet Rocketdyne is addressing a high-temperature fluid coupling for a liquid-metal coolant system. Astrobotic is advancing spacerless multilayer insulation enclosures. Each project targets a different operating scale or mission class.

No single power source will meet every lunar need. Solar generation suits illuminated locations. Batteries and regenerative systems can bridge interruptions. Radioisotope systems can support lower-power equipment where sunlight is absent. Fission systems may serve higher-load applications if such programs reach deployment. The choice depends on power level, operating period, location, mass, maintenance, safety, and available transport. New Space Economy’s assessment of Moon Base feasibility treats power as one of the main schedule and architecture constraints because every other surface service depends on it.

How Dust Control, Mobility, and Autonomy Support Surface Work

The NASA Moon and Mars technologies focused on surface work must contend with lunar dust, which is sharp, abrasive, and electrostatically charged. It adheres to surfaces, works into joints, changes thermal properties, scratches optical elements, and can interfere with seals. NASA’s lunar surface technology program has tested active removal methods such as the Electrodynamic Dust Shield, which uses electric fields to move dust away from protected surfaces. The 2025-2026 ACO portfolio adds passive barriers, monitoring, dust-tolerant mechanisms, and autonomous operating systems.

Moonprint Solutions proposes flexible isolation covers for rovers, robotic joints, hoses, and other articulated equipment. Soft covers can conform to complex shapes that are difficult to protect with rigid housings. They may limit direct dust intrusion and reduce abrasion, although seams, folds, attachment points, and repeated motion still need testing. The company’s softgoods development work spans protective covers, actuators, energy absorbers, and flexible structural components for demanding environments.

Mission Space U.S. Corp. was selected to develop a small lunar dust monitoring unit. A monitor can measure local dust behavior and help operators connect contamination with lander exhaust, rover movement, electrostatic charging, or natural transport. Better measurements could guide cleaning schedules, surface traffic rules, equipment placement, and component design. Dust monitoring does not remove particles, but it can turn an uncertain hazard into an operating condition that can be tracked.

Venturi Astrolab is working on high-power, dust-tolerant actuators for lunar use. Actuators convert electrical or hydraulic input into movement and are found in steering, suspension, robotic arms, deployment systems, and excavation equipment. A lunar actuator must function through vacuum, temperature changes, abrasive particles, limited maintenance, and long idle periods. New Space Economy’s review of lunar construction vehicles explains why such components matter: roads, landing areas, shielding, excavation, and cargo handling require machines that can repeat physical work without frequent human repair.

Autonomy appears across several selections. Lunar Outpost is developing distributed autonomy for intelligent fleets. Advanced Space has projects for distributed small-spacecraft autonomy in cislunar space and onboard autonomy for flight demonstrations. Starpath Robotics is working on high-speed exploration using lidar for onboard navigation. Psionic is testing a navigation suite based on its Doppler lidar technology. These projects address different domains, but they share the need for vehicles to sense conditions, estimate position, coordinate actions, and respond without continuous manual control.

Autonomy reduces dependence on constant ground intervention. It also introduces verification problems. A fleet controller must handle conflicting tasks, sensor errors, communications loss, and a failed vehicle. Navigation software needs reliable maps and uncertainty estimates. Human crews need predictable behavior and clear override authority. New Space Economy’s explanation of the Lunar Surface Innovation Consortium places autonomy beside power, construction, mobility, resource processing, and dust control because surface systems must coordinate as an operating network.

Mars extends the same logic under different environmental conditions. Communication delays prevent continuous real-time driving from Earth. Dust enters mechanisms and reduces power output. Local weather, terrain, and distance make rescue or repair slow. Technologies proven on the Moon will not transfer automatically, but experience with autonomous work, sealed mechanisms, contamination control, and limited maintenance can inform Mars system design.

Why Orbital Servicing and Assembly Matter Beyond Earth Orbit

The orbital subset of NASA Moon and Mars technologies is not made up of lunar surface machines. It belongs to in-space servicing, assembly, and manufacturing (ISAM), a field concerned with inspecting, moving, repairing, refueling, upgrading, assembling, or producing hardware after launch. That work matters to Moon and Mars plans because sustained exploration will depend on orbital logistics, communications relays, transfer stages, depots, cargo platforms, and structures that may need inspection or modification far from Earth.

Kall Morris Incorporated is developing Asteria, an adhesive attachment system for adding payloads to spacecraft that lack a prepared servicing interface. The company describes Asteria as a gecko-inspired adhesion technology that can attach to compatible surfaces without continuous power. A servicer could add a tracking device, maneuvering package, inspection sensor, protective element, or disposal aid to an existing object. Controlled release could permit later removal without destructive cutting or drilling.

Prepared interfaces remain preferable when designers know that servicing will occur. Enduralock’s OneLink project combines a satellite docking system with a robotic end effector. Apech Labs is testing a launch-hardened deploy-and-docking mechanism. Ten One Aerospace is advancing autonomous rendezvous, proximity operations, and docking. Rogue Space Systems is validating simulation and test methods for approach, capture, and docking. These projects address separate steps in the servicing chain, from navigation and contact to mechanical connection.

Robotic work after docking forms another cluster. HEBI Robotics is developing modular robots for lower-cost ISAM systems. Motiv Space Systems is reducing risk for commercial servicing missions using its Fly robotic platform. Lockheed Martin’s STRATOS effort covers robotic assembly, acceptance testing, and outfitting of space infrastructure. Dcubed USA is advancing carbon-fiber photopolymer booms manufactured in space, and Opterus is testing a boom for solar sails. Such systems could support antennas, solar arrays, shades, sensor masts, trusses, or other structures that are difficult to fit inside a launch fairing.

New Space Economy’s guide to serviceable spacecraft architecture explains why interfaces, robotic access, software, propulsion, and operating rules must be designed together. Its history of rendezvous and proximity operations also shows that safe approach is a separate technical discipline. A capture tool cannot compensate for poor navigation, and a docking port cannot compensate for unstable relative motion.

The business case is less certain than the engineering case. A servicing vehicle must reach the customer, perform the task safely, and create more value than replacement or disposal. Unprepared spacecraft are harder to service than vehicles built with standard ports and access zones. Cislunar missions add distance, communications delay, radiation exposure, and fewer rescue options. The ACO selections expand the available toolset, but commercial demand will depend on mission economics and customer willingness to design assets for service.

How Propulsion, Landing, and Materials Expand Mission Options

The transport subset of NASA Moon and Mars technologies covers efficient movement in space, atmospheric return, planetary descent, and high-temperature hardware. The projects do not form one propulsion program. NASA selected separate concepts because mission needs differ by thrust, efficiency, power, propellant, destination, payload, and operating time.

Aerojet Rocketdyne is working on affordability improvements for an advanced Hall-current thruster. Busek is conducting a duration test of a low-power krypton Hall-effect thruster. Hall-effect thrusters use electric and magnetic fields to accelerate ions, producing efficient propulsion with low thrust over long operating periods. They suit orbit raising, station keeping, cargo movement, or deep-space cruise when travel time and electrical power permit. Krypton can cost less than xenon, although storage, efficiency, and operating characteristics influence the full system trade.

Hyperion Transport Systems is developing an applied-field magnetoplasmadynamic thruster with a superconducting magnet. Magnetoplasmadynamic propulsion can produce higher thrust density than many electric systems, but it needs substantial electrical power and must control electrode wear, heat, plasma behavior, and magnetic hardware. The ACO project is a development test campaign, not a commitment to install the thruster on a mission.

General Galactic Technologies is advancing Genesis, a water-based dual-mode propulsion system. Water is stable, comparatively easy to store, and potentially available from off-Earth resources. A system can use it through more than one propulsion method, trading thrust against efficiency. The attraction grows if water can be supplied from lunar or asteroid resources, but that commercial chain does not yet exist at operational scale. New Space Economy’s review of lunar resource processing shows that extraction, purification, storage, transfer, and customer demand must all work before local propellant becomes routine.

Blue Origin’s selection concerns space-to-surface deceleration capability assessment. STOKE Space is advancing entry, descent, and landing work for the Nova second stage. Canopy Aerospace is testing alternative carbon ablators, Orbital Composites is developing 3D-printed composite rocket nozzles, and Varda Space Industries is creating heating-augmentation tips for flight testing thermal protection systems. These efforts address different parts of surviving high-speed flight through an atmosphere or high-temperature engine operation.

Material and interface projects support the same transport chain. Quadrus is advancing an additively manufactured, dexterous, leak-proof interface. Chase Supply is testing digital electronics for a flight Coriolis flow meter, an instrument that measures fluid flow. Accurate flow data matters in propulsion, thermal systems, and fluid transfer because controllers need to know how much material is moving through a line under changing conditions.

The presence of Earth-entry technology in a Moon and Mars portfolio is not a mismatch. Reusable launch stages, sample-return capsules, orbital manufacturing vehicles, and Mars return systems all face thermal protection demands. Flight testing on Earth can provide data for materials and sensors that later support deep-space missions. New Space Economy’s survey of frontier space technologies connects reusable transportation, orbital servicing, lunar cargo, and in-space manufacturing as markets that increasingly share components and operating methods.

What Manufacturing, Computing, and Habitation Add to the Portfolio

Some selections focus on making, deploying, or operating structures rather than moving them. Made in Space, Inc. is advancing regolith sintering for lunar thermal management. Sintering heats particles until they bond without fully melting. Applied to lunar regolith, it could create tiles, pads, barriers, or heat-management structures using local material. The engineering burden includes excavation, particle handling, energy use, quality control, thermal stress, and operation in vacuum.

Elementum 3D is developing Reactive Additive Manufacturing Permeable Integrated Structures, known as RAMPIS. The project title indicates a focus on printed structures that combine material reactions with controlled permeability. Such structures could support fluid handling, thermal systems, filters, or propulsion components, depending on the final design and qualification results. NASA’s selection confirms the collaboration topic but does not establish a flight application.

Axiom Space is studying multiscale modeling of microgravity effects on aluminum nitride crystal growth through physical vapor deposition. Aluminum nitride has thermal and electronic uses, and microgravity can alter convection, sedimentation, and defect formation during crystal growth. The project sits closer to orbital manufacturing research than lunar construction. Its inclusion reflects NASA’s interest in commercial production methods that may benefit spacecraft systems and Earth markets.

Starcloud is preparing a flight demonstration of high-performance computing for in-orbit autonomy and exploration. More processing near sensors can reduce the amount of raw data sent to Earth and let spacecraft respond faster. Orbital computing can support image analysis, navigation, equipment monitoring, science selection, and fleet coordination. It also faces radiation, power, cooling, cybersecurity, software-update, and reliability demands. Computing hardware converts electrical power into heat, making thermal rejection a direct limit on processing capacity.

Max Space is advancing an ultra-lightweight inflatable pressure vessel toward human certification. Inflatable structures can provide more internal volume per unit of launch volume than rigid modules. Certification requires evidence for pressure retention, structural loads, micrometeoroid protection, fire behavior, material aging, inspection, repair, and crew safety. An inflatable vessel can expand living or working space, but it still needs life support, power, shielding, thermal control, docking, and internal equipment.

These projects show that lunar and Mars infrastructure will depend on production and maintenance methods as much as on launch. Transporting every finished part from Earth raises cost and slows repair. Local manufacturing could reduce some logistics demand, yet early systems will depend heavily on terrestrial feedstock, spare parts, software, and skilled support. New Space Economy’s discussion of living on the Moon treats habitats, shielding, power, logistics, and human health as connected requirements rather than separate products.

What NASA Moon and Mars Technologies Reveal About Strategy

Taken together, the NASA Moon and Mars technologies reveal a portfolio strategy built around options. NASA is supporting multiple approaches to the same operational problem, including solar power, beamed power, hydrogen power, radioisotope conversion, active dust removal, passive dust barriers, prepared docking interfaces, unprepared-object attachment, electric propulsion, water propulsion, and more than one autonomy method. Parallel development gives the agency alternatives if one approach proves too costly, too heavy, too fragile, or poorly matched to a mission.

The portfolio also shows that the path to Mars runs through capabilities developed closer to Earth. Cislunar navigation, orbital assembly, fluid measurement, thermal protection, robotics, and autonomous computing can be tested in Earth orbit or near the Moon before crews depend on them farther away. Lunar operations provide a demanding environment for cold, dust, radiation, power interruption, and limited maintenance. Mars adds atmosphere, longer communications delays, longer logistics cycles, and a different dust environment.

NASA’s collaboration model encourages companies to seek customers beyond a single agency mission. A thermal system may serve a commercial station. A docking mechanism may support satellite servicing. An inflatable pressure vessel may support orbital laboratories. A computing platform may process Earth-observation data before downlink. New Space Economy’s analysis of orbital transfer vehicles shows how transport and servicing markets can connect civil, commercial, and national-security demand without relying on one lunar program.

Integration remains the harder problem. A power source, rover, habitat, communications system, landing zone, and logistics service can each pass individual tests and still fail as a combined operation. Interfaces must match. Power quality must meet load requirements. Software must exchange data. Dust barriers must allow maintenance. Robotic systems must reach the components they are expected to service. Spare parts must arrive before failure. Safety cases must account for interactions that component tests miss.

Standards will shape which technologies become reusable products rather than one-off hardware. Docking ports, electrical connectors, fluid couplings, data formats, servicing markings, grapple points, and navigation conventions can lower the cost of adding suppliers. Proprietary designs may protect company advantages, yet excessive incompatibility raises integration cost and locks customers into a narrow supplier base.

The selections are also a market signal. NASA has identified technical work that it considers relevant enough to justify staff time and facility access. That signal can help companies speak with investors, partners, and customers, but it should not be confused with revenue, certification, or mission adoption. Commercial value will come from passing tests, controlling cost, securing follow-on work, and delivering dependable systems.

The most accurate reading is neither that NASA has solved lunar settlement nor that these projects are too small to matter. The agency is assembling a bench of technologies that may feed later demonstrations and procurements. Some will remain specialized components. Some may combine into larger systems. A few could become common infrastructure used by government and commercial operators. The work now begins with negotiated agreements, engineering data, and evidence.

Summary

NASA’s 2025-2026 ACO selections cover 41 proposals from 37 U.S. companies, but the program is not a package of 41 funded mission contracts. It is an unfunded collaboration mechanism that gives selected companies access to NASA knowledge, facilities, software, hardware, and test capability. Projects are expected to run about 12 to 24 months, with companies carrying their own direct development costs.

The selected work spans lunar power, thermal control, dust protection, autonomy, navigation, mobility, docking, servicing, robotic assembly, electric propulsion, water propulsion, entry systems, advanced materials, orbital computing, and inflatable structures. Together, these areas describe the operational depth required for long-duration activity beyond Earth.

A less visible effect may be just as important for the space market: ACO selection helps define what NASA wants industry to mature without promising a purchase. Companies receive a technical pathway and a credibility signal, but they still need capital, customers, qualification evidence, and a route into mission procurement. The value of the portfolio will be measured by how many projects cross that gap and become systems that operators can buy, integrate, maintain, and trust.

Appendix: Useful Books Available on Amazon

• The Value of the Moon
• Moon Rush
• The Moon: Resources, Future Development and Settlement
• The Lunar Base Handbook
• The Case for Mars
• The New World on Mars

Appendix: Top Questions Answered in This Article

What Did NASA Announce in June 2026?

NASA selected 41 technology proposals from 37 U.S. companies under its 2025 Announcement of Collaboration Opportunity. The projects address transportation, lunar surface operations, orbital servicing, manufacturing, power, autonomy, materials, and related systems. The announcement begins a collaboration and agreement-negotiation process rather than awarding 41 flight contracts.

Does NASA Fund the Selected ACO Companies?

No direct funding is exchanged under an ACO Space Act Agreement. NASA contributes agreed access to personnel, facilities, software, hardware, data, or test capability. Each company supplies its own labor and development resources. A separate NASA mechanism called Tipping Point uses funded Space Act Agreements and requires an industry contribution.

How Long Will the Projects Run?

NASA expects each agreement to have a negotiated period of about 12 to 24 months. The exact schedule will depend on the work, NASA center participation, available facilities, company readiness, and test requirements. Completion of an ACO project does not guarantee a flight demonstration or procurement award.

Are All 41 Technologies Intended for the Lunar Surface?

No. Some projects address lunar power, dust, mobility, and local construction. Others concern Earth-orbit servicing, cislunar navigation, spacecraft docking, propulsion, atmospheric entry, thermal protection, orbital manufacturing, and computing. NASA groups them together because sustained Moon and Mars missions depend on a broader transportation and logistics network.

Why Is Lunar Power So Difficult?

The lunar South Pole combines low solar angles, long shadows, extremely cold permanently shadowed regions, and nearby sunlit areas with much higher temperatures. Dust can reduce optical and thermal performance. Power systems must generate, store, distribute, and reject heat under conditions that change sharply across terrain and time.

What Is Asteria?

Asteria is a Kall Morris attachment technology based on gecko-inspired adhesion. It is designed to add payloads to compatible spacecraft surfaces without a prepared docking fixture or continuous holding power. Possible uses include tracking, inspection, maneuvering support, disposal assistance, protection, and later servicing.

How Do Dust Covers Help Lunar Equipment?

Flexible covers can shield joints, hoses, actuators, and irregular hardware shapes from direct dust exposure. They may reduce abrasion and particle intrusion, but they still require testing for seams, motion, temperature cycling, attachment strength, and long operating periods. Covers complement active cleaning and dust-tolerant component design.

Why Does NASA Support More Than One Propulsion Concept?

No propulsion system suits every mission. Hall-effect thrusters favor efficient, low-thrust operation. Magnetoplasmadynamic concepts may offer different thrust and power characteristics. Water-based systems can simplify storage and may connect to local resources. NASA supports multiple concepts so test evidence can show where each one fits.

Will These Projects Build a Moon Base?

The projects can supply components or methods needed for a lunar outpost, but they do not constitute a complete construction program. A working base needs integrated transportation, power, habitats, life support, communications, mobility, maintenance, safety, and logistics. Each selected technology must connect to a funded mission or commercial service before it contributes operational hardware.

What Should Investors and Customers Infer From ACO Selection?

Selection shows that NASA considers the proposed work relevant enough to contribute technical resources. It does not prove commercial demand, mission adoption, certification, or revenue. Stronger evidence comes from completed tests, flight data, customer agreements, qualified manufacturing, controlled cost, and a defined path into procurement.

Appendix: Glossary of Key Terms

Announcement of Collaboration Opportunity

A NASA partnership mechanism that lets companies work with agency personnel, facilities, software, hardware, or technical resources without receiving direct NASA funding. The company contributes its own development resources under a negotiated agreement.

Space Act Agreement

A flexible legal agreement NASA uses for partnerships that do not fit a standard procurement contract or grant. Agreements can be funded, reimbursable, or unfunded, depending on the program and the exchange of resources.

Lunar South Pole

The region near the Moon’s southern rotational pole. It contains low-angle sunlight, long shadows, extreme temperatures, rugged terrain, and permanently shadowed craters that may preserve water ice and other volatile materials.

Permanently Shadowed Region

A lunar area, commonly inside a polar crater, that receives no direct sunlight because of local terrain and the Moon’s small axial tilt. Such locations can remain extremely cold for very long periods.

Thermal Rejection

The process of moving waste heat away from electronics, power equipment, habitats, or machinery and radiating it into space. Vacuum prevents ordinary air cooling, so spacecraft depend on conductive paths, fluid loops, heat pipes, and radiators.

Autonomy

The ability of a spacecraft, rover, robot, or software system to sense conditions, make bounded decisions, and perform tasks without continuous human commands. Autonomy can reduce communications burden but requires testing, fault handling, and clear human override rules.

Regolith

The loose layer of dust, broken rock, and debris covering the surface of the Moon or another solid body. Lunar regolith is angular and abrasive because it has not been rounded by wind or liquid water.

In-Space Servicing, Assembly, and Manufacturing

A group of activities performed after launch, including inspection, repair, refueling, relocation, component replacement, structure assembly, and production of hardware or materials in orbit or deep space. The work can extend asset life or enable structures that cannot launch fully assembled.

Rendezvous and Proximity Operations

The controlled process by which one spacecraft approaches, matches motion with, and operates near another object. It normally precedes inspection, docking, capture, refueling, servicing, or debris-removal activity and requires precise navigation, timing, and fault management.

Hall-Effect Thruster

An electric propulsion device that uses electric and magnetic fields to ionize and accelerate a propellant. It produces low thrust efficiently over long periods and is commonly considered for station keeping, orbit transfer, and deep-space cargo movement.