5
Summaries of Reports

This chapter reprints the summaries of Space Studies Board (SSB) reports that were released in 2019. Reports are often written in conjunction with other boards and divisions, as noted, including the Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board (ASEB) and the Board on Physics and Astronomy (BPA).

5.1 AN ASTROBIOLOGY STRATEGY FOR THE SEARCH FOR LIFE IN THE UNIVERSE

A Report of the SSB ad hoc Committee on the Astrobiology Science Strategy for the Search for Life in the Universe

Summary

Astrobiology is a field of rapid change. In the 3 years since publication of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA’s) Astrobiology Strategy 2015,¹ significant scientific, technological, and programmatic advances in the quest for life beyond Earth have taken place. Scientific advances have revolutionized fields of astrobiological study, ranging from results from missions focused on exoplanets, such as Kepler, to continuing discoveries from existing planetary missions. Returned results have changed how problems are thought of and integrated across astrobiological disciplines. From biology (e.g., miniaturized nucleic acid detection devices) to astronomy (e.g., continued improvement of starlight suppression technologies), technological advances in life detection instrumentation have continued, but will need to accelerate to match the rate of scientific advancement. Simultaneously, programmatic advances—for example, the creation of research coordination networks—have begun to break down traditional disciplinary boundaries and resulted in greater communication across the broad fields of astrobiological research.

Against the backdrop of these changes, increasing public interest in astrobiology, and the approaching decadal surveys in astronomy and astrophysics and planetary sciences, which will guide agency scientific priorities for the coming decade, NASA’s request for this assessment of advances and future directions in the field of astrobiology is timely. The committee’s statement of task was to build on the foundation of the 2015 NASA Astrobiology Strategy, emphasizing key scientific discoveries, conceptual developments, and technology advances since its publication. Rather than revisiting aspects that were already well covered in that document, the committee’s work focused on additional insights from recent advances in the field—intellectual (e.g., conceptual insights and frameworks, modeling), empirical (e.g., observations, discoveries, novel technologies), and programmatic. This approach highlights areas of rapid scientific and technological growth and advancement that have occurred since the 2015 publication, raising key scientific questions and identifying technologies that are emerging and likely to shape the field in the coming two decades. Further, the committee identifies the roles that near-term space missions and ground-telescope projects will play and highlights increasing opportunities for private, interagency, and international partnerships. The NASA Astrobiology Program’s history and continuing success in engineering cross-divisional collaborations between Earth science, astronomy, heliophysics, and planetary science (to break down disciplinary entrenchments) bodes well for its ability to leverage such partnerships to advance the search for life.

Strong collaboration between diverse scientific communities is at the core of astrobiology. Astrobiology is inherently a systems-level science requiring contributions from a wide range of disciplines. For example, in astrobiology the “system” under study is frequently a planet with a potential (or in the case of Earth, realized) biosphere. Astrobiology seeks to understand the web of interrelationships and feedbacks between time-variable planetary processes—both physical and chemical—and the proto-biological chemical and organizational dynamics that lead to the emergence and persistence of life. Systems science provides a holistic, transdisciplinary paradigm for addressing this complexity. Although detailed mathematical modeling is not (and may never be) applied to many problems in astrobiology, most notably the emergence of life, integration across diverse and sometimes seemingly disparate disciplines is key to major progress on astrobiology’s fundamental questions.

Astrobiology is usually defined as the study of the origin, evolution, distribution, and future of life in the universe. However, adopting a systems approach suggests that astrobiology system science can be defined as the integrative study of the interactions within and between the physical, chemical, biological, geologic, planetary,

___________________

NOTE: “Summary” reprinted from National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM), 2019, An Astrobiology Strategy for the Search for Life in the Universe, The National Academies Press, Washington, DC, https://doi.org/10.17226/25252, pp. 1-7.

¹ NASA, NASA Astrobiology Strategy 2015, https://nai.nasa.gov/media/medialibrary/2016/04/NASA_Astrobiology_Strategy_2015_FINAL_041216.pdf.

and astrophysical systems as they relate to understanding how an environment transforms from nonliving to living and how life and its host environment coevolve.

As the above definition suggests, a systems-level view of the emergence of life that includes its environmental context, and how life and its environment subsequently changed together to maintain a habitable Earth, is leading to a new view of habitability. The concept of dynamic habitability drives the insight that habitability is more appropriately thought of as a continuum—that an environment may transition from inhabitable to habitable over different spatial and temporal scales as a function of planetary and environmental evolution, the presence of life, and the feedbacks between related complex physical, chemical, and biological parameters and processes. Planetary environments that may be habitable today or in the past are not necessarily the same as those that could have fostered the emergence of life. Evidence from major transitions in environmental conditions from early Earth to today, and an understanding of how they occurred, is critical for the search for life.

A better understanding of the emerging concept of dynamic habitability will come from studying the one inhabited planet currently known—Earth. The planetary environments of early Earth that gave rise to life remain poorly constrained. A better understanding of these environments entails a “mission to early Earth.” Such a “mission” will, in the near term, integrate prebiotic chemistry, origins of life research, and early Earth planetary conditions to understand their coevolution in the context of multiple parameters (including, e.g., temperature, pressure, and pH conditions) evolving over a range of spatial and temporal scales. Projecting forward, increased understanding of dynamic habitability and how life and its environment evolved together on Earth will allow questions to be addressed concerning which elements of planetary evolution are predictable and independent of biosphere evolution; what feedbacks exist between the biosphere and geosphere, including during long periods of quiescence; and how periods of catastrophic change affect the balance of influence between planetary dynamics and the biosphere. Although the research for these basic questions is most easily carried out on Earth, the far-reaching questions to be addressed in the next two decades demonstrate that dynamic habitability and the coevolution of planets and life provide a powerful comparative foundation upon which to integrate diverse astrobiology communities focusing on Earth, the solar system, stellar astronomy, and exoplanetary systems.

Recommendation: NASA and other relevant agencies should catalyze research focused on emerging systems-level thinking about dynamic habitability and the coevolution of planets and life, with a focus on problems and not disciplines—that is, using and expanding successful programmatic mechanisms that foster interdisciplinary and cross-divisional collaboration. (Chapter 2)

Understanding dynamic habitability has been furthered by recent advances in investigations of extreme life and how it interacts with its environment on Earth. Identifying life in isolated refugia or ephemeral habitats on Earth (e.g., in the Atacama Desert) has emphasized that habitability, rather than being a binary state, is a continuum defined over varying time and spatial scales. Increasing understanding of the habitability of saline and hypersaline environments, life’s limits in extreme environments, concurrent with the discovery of potential brines on Mars, has led to a resurgence in interest in adaptations of life to saline fluids. The recent discovery of communities existing in the subsurface of the ocean floor and continental lithosphere, away from the influence of the Sun’s energy, has provided new models for rock-hosted, chemosynthetic life that may exist on other worlds. Such subsurface communities, which often live in energy-limited environments, contrast starkly to life in energy-rich environments. Whereas “slow” life that is barely able to survive in an austere environment may be detectable because the noise level is low, “fast” life in a rich environment may be detectable because the signal is high. Assessing the relative signal-to-noise ratio of each type of population in its given environmental context would help identify corresponding biosignatures that are most relevant and distinctive. Discoveries of the role of water-rock interactions producing essential electron donors and electron acceptors (e.g., hydrogen, methane sulphate), both at high rates in high-temperature vents, and at slow rates in lower-temperature continental settings, has generated a renewed focus on how to seek for signs of subsurface life—thereby informing astrobiology investigations of the subsurface of other rocky planets (e.g., Mars), ocean or icy worlds, and beyond to exoplanets.

In sum, expanded understanding of habitability of subsurface environments, brine stability of chemosynthetic organisms, and adaptations of life to saline fluids, have widespread implications for the search for life in the solar system. In the next two decades, continued field, laboratory, and modeling studies of these communities will address the following questions:

• How does subsurface life adapt to extreme environments and energetic spectrums?
• How do marine and continental subsurface terrestrial communities inform what chemosynthetic or rock-hosted communities on other worlds might look like?
• What is the spatial and temporal distribution of potentially habitable environments on Mars, especially in the subsurface?
• What are the chemical inventories and physical processes sustaining rock-hosted life on ocean worlds?

Recommendation: NASA’s programs and missions should reflect a dedicated focus on research and exploration of subsurface habitability in light of recent advances demonstrating the breadth and diversity of life in Earth’s subsurface, the history and nature of subsurface fluids on Mars, and potential habitats for life on ocean worlds. (Chapter 2)

The search for life beyond the solar system has seen substantial changes in the last 3 years. Since 2015, the Kepler spacecraft more than doubled the catalog of confirmed exoplanets. Thanks to extended observations during Kepler’s so-called K2 mission and improvements in data analysis, its results continue to refine our knowledge of exoplanet statistics. Some of the Kepler planets fall within what is commonly considered the “habitable zone”—traditionally defined as that region around a star where an Earth-like exoplanet could support liquid water on its surface—of their host star. This discovery, coupled with estimates of the fraction of stars with rocky, habitable-zone planets, has matured the search for evidence of life beyond the solar system enough to warrant taking the next steps toward the discovery of life on exoplanets. That search will be greatly aided by future missions and the implementation of technologies currently in development. For instance, in the near to midterm, the Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite (TESS), the Atmospheric Remote-sensing Infrared Exoplanet Large-survey (Ariel), and the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) will focus on identifying and characterizing potentially habitable, transiting exoplanets. In addition, the Wide Field Infrared Survey Telescope (WFIRST) may demonstrate the coronograph technology needed for direct imaging of exoEarths. From the ground, new instruments for direct imaging (e.g., the Gemini Planet Imager) and high-resolution spectroscopy (e.g., the Magellan Planet Finding Spectrograph) and telescopes (e.g., the Thirty Meter Telescope or Giant Magellan Telescope) will complement the observations of space-based missions using direct imaging, particularly with radial velocity measurements, and atmospheric spectra. In fact, ground-based telescopes have already detected small, potentially rocky planets in the habitable-zones of M-dwarf stars.

The technologies utilized by these instruments and missions, and the near-term data on the atmospheres of rocky exoplanets that they would yield, have the potential to make possible the first observational tests of potential habitability or, perhaps, even biosignatures within the next two decades. To confidently assess these biosignatures, it will be important to also characterize the atmospheres and the full spectrum of incident radiation for exoplanets of different sizes, compositions, and stellar irradiances so that understanding of the physical and chemical processes that lead to false positives and negatives will be increased. In order to make this progress, starlight suppression technologies that are still in development, such as coronagraphs and starshades, will be essential.

Recommendation: NASA should implement high-contrast starlight suppression technologies in near-term space- and ground-based direct imaging missions. (Chapter 5)

Technology alone will not advance the search for habitable exoplanets. A better understanding of the contexts in which potentially habitable exoplanets formed, evolved, and currently exist will be needed to inform exoplanetary exploration and planet target selection. Because exoplanets coevolve with their host stars, just as Earth coevolved with the Sun, stellar activity and evolution are critically important for understanding the dynamic habitability of exoplanets. Further, the context of solar and planetary system architecture, including the distribution of small bodies and their potential for volatile delivery to exoplanets, and evolution of that architecture, are important for determining a planet’s history of habitability as well as the limits on its current habitability. Such investigations will benefit from comparisons between the architecture, evolution, and coevolution of stellar and planetary dynamics in the solar system. Comparative planetology between the solar system and exoplanetary systems is a powerful approach to understanding the processes and properties that impact planetary habitability and is essential for informing experiments, modeling, and mission planning in astrobiology, and fundamentally collaborative, and therefore ideally suited to research coordination networks.

In addition, methods well suited to the analysis of data on exoplanetary systems as well as comparative planetology will increasingly move the field forward. Continued theoretical modeling of planetary environments, including model inter-comparisons, will become increasingly necessary to explore processes, interactions, and environmental outcomes and to understand habitability and biosignatures in the context of their environment. Techniques based on statistical methods, scaling laws, information theory, and probabilistic approaches currently used in other branches of science will continue to gain traction in astrobiology. Furthermore, rapid progress in the development of artificial intelligence machine learning algorithms has the potential to improve analysis of the large, complex data sets, which are increasingly common to fields related to the search for life. In the coming two decades, that search will increasingly address questions concerning the formation, evolution, and architectures of planetary systems and how these interact with their host star to sustain habitable planets—aided by evolving understanding of how planetary systems are studied and by new missions, technologies, and approaches to data set analysis.

The search and discovery of life in this solar system and beyond hinges on the ability to identify and validate signs of life. Since publication of the 2015 NASA Astrobiology Strategy, the field of biosignature research has advanced in four major areas as follows:

1. The search for and identification of novel biosignatures, especially those that are agnostic to life’s molecular makeup or metabolism (i.e., agnostic biosignatures).
2. A concerted effort to better understanding abiosignatures (signature of abiotic processes and phenomenon), in particular those that may mimic biosignatures. Critically some (but not all) abiosignatures could be false positives and some (but not all) false positives could be abiosignatures.
3. An improved understanding of which biosignatures are most likely to survive in the environment, and at what timescales of preservation.
4. The first steps toward developing a comprehensive framework that could be used to interpret potential biosignatures, abiosignatures, false positives, and false negatives, and increase confidence and consensus in interpretations.

The identification of novel and agnostic biosignatures focuses on both in situ biosignature detection and remotely sensed biosignatures. Remotely sensed agnostic biosignatures may take the form of complex chemical networks in planetary atmospheres or atmospheric disequilibria. Such potential biosignatures, although suggestive of life and worthy of follow-on investigation, may result from a wide range of abiotic and biologic processes and therefore will need to be closely evaluated in the context of their environments. Contextual information provided by exoplanet observation may include quantification of atmospheric gases, knowledge of the stellar spectral energy distribution across a broad wavelength range (including ultraviolet wavelengths), and models of gas fluxes. Having a strong characterization of exoplanet atmospheres across their range of sizes and compositions—not only those that are potentially habitable—will aid in evaluating the potential for false positives. For in situ biosignatures, agnostic and novel approaches are benefiting from, for example, the promise of current nucleic acid sequencing technology and the commercial availability of compact, low-power, RNA and DNA sequencing devices that could contribute significantly to the robustness of the current portfolio of life detection technologies. However, while current technology for DNA amplification and sequencing may be useful for in situ detection of terrestrial contamination and lifeforms that are closely related to terran life, at present, these devices are not sufficiently agnostic to the composition of an informational polymer. Over the next two decades, improvements in these areas will help address the question of how novel and/or agnostic biosignatures are identified.

Recommendation: The search for life beyond Earth requires more sophisticated frameworks for considering the potential for non-terran life; therefore, NASA should support research on novel and/or agnostic biosignatures. (Chapter 4)

In addition to identifying novel and agnostic biosignatures, in the past few years, a greater emphasis has been placed on improving understanding of which biosignatures survive in the environment and how the environment may change surviving biosignatures. Record bias, preservational bias, false negatives, and false positives all play a role in biosignature detectability. There is increasing focus on understanding the range of signatures abiotic processes can produce, particularly those that might be confused with signatures of life. Ambiguous examples

of early life from Earth’s own stratigraphic record demonstrate that the task of achieving community consensus on a biosignature, even on Earth, can be long and arduous. Such a task would be even greater on another planetary body. Re-addressing controversial biosignatures from Earth’s early sedimentary rock record can provide an important test bed for biosignature assessment frameworks. Such biosignatures occur at the microscale, and new technologies for microscale and nanoscale analyses combining optical microscopy, Raman spectroscopy, laser-induced breakdown spectroscopy, infrared, and other interrogatory methods offer promise for advancing detection of and confidence in biosignature interpretation. Over the next two decades, the foregoing lines of research will converge to give a clearer picture of preservational biases for biosignatures, how these may result in false negatives, and which biosignatures have the highest probability for preservation and detection, and on what timescales preservation is possible or probable.

Recommendation: NASA should direct the community’s focus to address important gaps in understanding the breadth, probability, and distinguishing environmental contexts of abiotic phenomena that mimic biosignatures. (Chapter 4)

The potential value of a biosignature reflects not only the intrinsic value of the biosignature, but also the associated propensity for both false positives and false negatives, which together create an uncertainty and probability for detection and reliability that is unique to each biosignature. This in itself represents a fundamental problem in attaining community consensus. Thus, in the next two decades, a growing question will be how biosignature detection and interpretation can be standardized as a probabilistic outcome such that the community can agree upon the robustness of a biosignature interpretation. Resolving this challenge before potentially controversial results from missions with potential astrobiological implications are returned is particularly important.

Recommendation: NASA should support expanding biosignature research to addressing gaps in understanding biosignature preservation and the breadth of possible false positives and false negative signatures. (Chapter 4)

As an important step toward these goals, a near-term, systematic reevaluation and increased understanding of the nature and detectability of biosignatures of chemoautotrophic and subsurface life would be immensely helpful. This follows from the increasing focus on such communities, not only on Earth, but also in the search for life in other subsurfaces—both rocky planets (e.g., Mars) and ocean worlds in the solar system. Concurrent with increasing the depth and breadth of the catalog of known biosignatures, however, it will be important to establish community consensus criteria and standards by which purported biosignatures can be evaluated and verified.

Recommendation: NASA should support the community in developing a comprehensive framework for assessment—including the potential for abiosignatures, false positives, and false negatives—to guide testing and evaluation of in situ and remote biosignatures. (Chapter 4)

In addition to developing the specific research and technologies, overarching programmatic advances will be important in advancing the detection of biosignatures on other planetary bodies in future astrobiology missions. Because of the inherent ambiguity in many known biosignatures, and the necessity of making multiple measurements on a sample, in situ detection of life is best advanced by integrated suites of instruments or single instruments that permit multiple analytical techniques, including nondestructive approaches, to be applied to the same materials. Of particular importance is that, when designing such suites, science requirements, rather than off-the-shelf engineering solutions or ease of implementation, remain the key decision drivers.

Given the range of new technologies that will be implemented in biosignature detection in the coming decades, it will be increasingly important to pay particular attention to ensuring the resultant instruments and suites of instruments are successfully selected and perform to an agreed upon standard that will facilitate community consensus on results. Current NASA instrument evaluation and selection policies tend to favor low risk technologies, which in some cases adversely impacts scientific payoff. This inhibits development and selection of potentially game-changing life detection technologies. Furthermore, because of possible ambiguity in proposer-defined instrument success criteria, there is inherent risk in using these, rather than observation and measurement validation standards established by community consensus, to propose, evaluate, and select instruments designed to detect biosignatures. Most fundamental to the success in the search for life, however, is a need for dedicated focus on astrobiology.

Planning, implementation, and operations of planetary exploration missions with astrobiological objectives have tended to be more strongly defined by geological perspectives than by astrobiology-focused strategies. However, biosignature detection will require increasingly specialized instrumentation specific to astrobiological objectives, such as micro- and macroscale imaging, spectral imaging, mass spectrometry, and nucleotide sequencing.

Recommendation: To advance the search for life in the universe, NASA should accelerate the development and validation, in relevant environments, of mission-ready, life detection technologies. In addition, it should integrate astrobiological expertise in all mission stages—from inception and conceptualization to planning, development, and operations. (Chapter 5)

The scientific questions and goals summarized above, the missions and technological advances that will be implemented to solve them, and those searches for life not currently engaged in by NASA present immense challenges that will require partnerships with other agencies and private and international entities to address. Opportunities for such partnerships are increasing. The existence of technologies outside of the space industry—for instance, in biomedical applications and artificial intelligence—that could be used in the search for life provide prime areas for establishing partnerships with the commercial sector. Partnership models with the commercial sector do not have to be formalized, long-term agreements, but could take the form of collaborative events bringing together industry, government agency, and individual researchers. Through such events, the agency could foster increased collaboration between individual investigators and interested corporations. Philanthropic investment in the search for life is increasing and not only on traditional award funding to individual investigators, but also to self-funded and crowd-funded missions that may be categorized as “high risk/high payoff.”

One high-risk/high-payoff area for which philanthropic and, increasingly, international investments have entirely supported the search for life is the search for technosignatures, or the signature of technologically advanced life. International and philanthropic investments in the search for technosignatures over the last few years have greatly enhanced search capabilities, and corresponding improvements to radio and optical facilities have also benefited the scientific community. Philanthropic investments have supported the Allen Telescope Array, advances to instrumentation at the Green Bank Telescope and the Murchison Widefield Array Telescope, and the design of dedicated optical and near-infrared observatories. International facilities include, among others, the European Low Frequency Array, the Australian Murchison Widefield Array, and the recently completed Five-hundred-meter Aperture Spherical radio Telescope (FAST) in China. Such investments have led directly to discoveries and advances in methodology for the broad scientific community, such as with the discovery of Fast Radio Bursts and with the implementation of big data analysis techniques applied to signal detection.

Sharing assets and resources for large undertakings, such as missions, is also becoming increasingly important as mission complexity increases, although barriers to effective cooperation and collaboration exist. Expensive assets and infrastructure exist within the United States but are poorly leveraged by the astrobiological community due to insufficient coordination between government agencies. Unified research strategies between relevant entities—including, but not limited to NASA, the National Science Foundation (NSF), and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)—for conducting research in shared areas (e.g., polar regions and other difficult-to-access analog environments) and with shared infrastructure (e.g., ground- and space-based telescopes) would facilitate advances in astrobiology. Given existing government-level and international collaborative tools within NASA’s Astrobiology Program, there is potential to further catalyze coordination of international research and mission planning in this area. Although not explicitly an astrobiological mission, the multidecadal Mars Sample Return campaign to be undertaken by NASA and the European Space Agency is one such example. The nucleation of government-level astrobiological partnerships that has been initiated by NASA could have the potential to motivate formation of an international organization with a unified focus on solving the immense challenges of detecting and confirming evidence for life within and beyond the solar system. One possible example discussed by the committee would be the establishment of a new international organization dedicated to the goal of supporting the development, construction, and operation of a direct-imaging space telescope capable of searching hundreds of nearby stars for possibly habitable exoEarths. Such an organization, perhaps modeled on CERN (European Organization for Nuclear Research), the European Southern Observatory, or the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) Organization, might be what is required to guarantee the sustained funding required to achieve this goal over multidecadal time scales.

In summary, the search for life beyond Earth presents many opportunities for public, private, and international partnerships, which have the potential to advance the search for life rapidly.

Recommendation: NASA should actively seek new mechanisms to reduce the barriers to collaboration with private and philanthropic entities, and with international space agencies, to achieve its objective of searching for life in the universe. (Chapter 7)

5.2 Continuous Improvement of NASA’s Innovation Ecosystem: Proceedings of a Workshop

A Proceedings from the Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board and the Space Studies Board

Introduction

On November 29-30, 2018, in Washington, DC, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine held the Workshop on the Continuous Improvement of NASA’s Innovation Ecosystem. The workshop was requested by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Office of the Chief Technologist with the goal of identifying actionable and implementable initiatives that could build on NASA’s current innovation culture to reach a future state that will ensure the agency’s continued success in the evolving aerospace environment. Specifically, the National Academies planning committee was charged (see Appendix A) to “organize a workshop focused on understanding barriers to innovation at NASA and providing feedback on NASA’s framework for creating an innovative ecosystem.” In a presentation made during the workshop’s first session, NASA Chief Technologist Douglas Terrier described the context, challenge, and goal of the workshop.

NASA, Terrier noted, is responsible for exploring everything from the surface of Earth to the edges of the observable universe, and that requires an enormous range of capabilities. Over the past 60 years, Terrier said, NASA has been the standard bearer for U.S. leadership in science and technology, and during that time NASA has accomplished an impressive line of firsts in aeronautics, exploration, and scientific discovery, propelled by its particular culture of innovation. In its formative years, NASA’s focus included the advancement of aviation knowledge (and transferring the knowledge to the early aircraft industry) and winning the “space race,” a fast-paced, event-driven mission with the sole purpose of getting there first. The effort required many advanced technologies that did not exist outside of NASA, Terrier said, and the highly competitive atmosphere that developed in the quest for those technologies fostered a culture of self-reliance with the mantra of “failure is not an option.” NASA and its close-knit family of contractors became a tightly integrated engine of innovation that produced a number of breakthrough technologies leading to the modern global airline industry and a successful Moon landing in July 1969.

In the decades that followed, Terrier said, the agency shifted its focus from competition to collaboration. Institutionalizing its culture of self-reliance and continuing its tradition of technology leadership, NASA produced breakthroughs ranging from advanced space telescopes that could probe the secrets of the universe to robotic rovers traveling across the surface of Mars. Starting with the Apollo–Soyuz era and extending to the International Space Station, NASA expanded its reliance on partnership with legacy aerospace contractors and international partners, according to Terrier. Along the way, he continued, NASA learned painful lessons from various failures and loss of life—lessons that became encoded in processes intended to ensure safety and avoid failure. Some have claimed that these processes may have had the unanticipated consequence of reducing flexibility and limiting creativity and agility, he said.

NASA’s self-reliant innovation culture served the agency well for many decades, Terrier said, but today the aeronautics and aerospace landscape is rapidly being disrupted by new developments in technology and new business models. Technology developments in many disciplines, including computing, artificial intelligence, big data, and autonomous devices, are being led by industries outside the aerospace sector. In some cases, other-industry technology investments exceed the investments of NASA and the entire space sector combined by an order of magnitude.

A new generation of space and aviation entrepreneurs backed by abundant private capital are developing independent commercial business models, Terrier continued. Disruptive space technologies, including reusable launch vehicles, small satellites, on-orbit refueling, and in-space assembly, promise to reduce the cost of access to space to a fraction of legacy systems. A rapidly increasing amount of innovation and technology investment is occurring outside NASA’s traditional reach, including in the sciences, aeronautics, and human exploration domains. New

___________________

NOTE: “Introduction” reprinted from NASEM, 2019, Continuous Improvement of NASA’s Innovation Ecosystem: Proceedings of a Workshop, The National Academies Press, Washington, DC, https://doi.org/10.17226/25505, pp. 1-3.

approaches for human capital management and the digital transformation of the economy also are influencing NASA’s position on the global playing field.

In addition, Terrier stated that some disciplines have achieved a technology refresh cycle that is measured in months, challenging legacy qualification and certification processes, which operate on a timescale of many years. The ever-growing number of emerging space-faring nations are demonstrating impressive capabilities.

In aggregate, he said, these developments present formidable challenges to NASA’s legacy processes and culture, and the agency has acknowledged that it must adapt if it is to continue its global leadership role. For example, NASA leadership has called for the following:

• Expanding the agency’s innovation ecosystem to take advantage of investments and developments outside its traditional circle;
• Creating agility in its engineering and acquisition processes to accommodate the accelerating pace of technology; and
• Designing a flexible workforce that can adapt skill sets at the rate the technology is evolving.

Therefore the goal of the workshop, Terrier said, is to help address these challenges and, specifically, to identify ways that NASA can maintain its position as a leader in aerospace innovation in coming decades.

ORGANIZATION AND STRUCTURE

In preparation for the appointment of the planning committee and the holding of the workshop, the National Academies held two meetings of experts to conduct a dialogue between members of NASA’s Office of the Chief Technologist and invited experts from the government (including NASA science and technology leadership), industry, university, and nonprofit sectors. NASA used those meetings to refine its set of topic areas and determine the questions a workshop could usefully address. A workshop planning committee was subsequently formed and met in August 2018 with NASA, at which time an exceptionally ambitious structure for the workshop was agreed upon that would rely heavily on the extensive organizational training experience of the committee membership. (See Appendix B for agendas of the meetings of experts, in-person committee meetings, and the workshop.) The committee subsequently met weekly by teleconference to plan, develop, and organize the workshop. During this period NASA also worked closely with National Academies project staff to support the workshop development through a variety of activities that included providing information, developing assessments and materials, identifying key NASA participants, and coordinating communications within NASA.

Most of the invited workshop participants fell into one of three groups: the leadership of NASA, leading innovation experts with diverse skill sets and experiences in organizational innovation and development, and individuals representing the type of innovator that NASA hopes to encourage. Those groups of participants worked side by side to assess the issues that this workshop brought to the surface and to exchange ideas and suggestions for the future.

The structure of the workshop differed notably from a standard science or technology workshop organized by the National Academies. In essence, it was a hybrid of a classic workshop activity, where experts from different domains share their knowledge with participants, and an agency retreat where NASA employees (side by side with outside experts) take part in various exercises designed to encourage reflections and prompt discussions about new ways to ensure a bright future for the agency.

The bulk of the workshop was devoted to a series of parallel breakout sessions and working sections in which the participants were divided into groups of fewer than two dozen. The general purpose of these breakout sessions was to take advantage of the knowledge base, brought by outside experts with considerable experience in optimizing organizational innovation, to enable the NASA attendees to approach issues facing the agency from a fresh perspective and develop new ideas for how to maintain NASA’s innovative excellence. In each breakout session, facilitators led the attendees through a particular exercise—different for each breakout—whose product was a collection of group-generated ideas that had relevance for a particular aspect of the overarching goal of keeping NASA at the forefront of aerospace innovation.

The workshop also included four plenary sessions. One of these was an introductory session in which the goals of the workshop were explained and its format described. The others were devoted to recaps of the breakout sections and discussions of what had been learned.

This proceedings of a workshop summarizes and synthesizes the 2 days of discussions during that workshop. Because of the complex structure of the workshop and the way in which the same topic would often be discussed during multiple sessions, this proceedings does not follow the structure of the workshop exactly; instead, it is organized by topic in a way that captures the rough flow of the workshop but, where beneficial, collects discussions from different parts of the workshop into a single place. Chapter 2, which is based mainly on the opening talk by NASA Chief Technologist Douglas Terrier in the workshop’s first plenary, provides background and context. Chapter 3, which follows two breakout sections in particular, addresses the question of what NASA’s future should look like. Chapter 4, which depends on material that appeared in various parts of the workshop, describes some of the challenges to reaching that future. Chapter 59 may be considered the key chapter by many readers. It is based on the presentations and discussions from four parallel working sections on day two of the workshop, and from those it captures a collection of strategies and tactics that were described for creating NASA’s desired future. Chapter 6 is a look to the future, including statements made by Terrier and other NASA leaders about the steps they intend to take in the near term to get started on the road to that future.

Because of the sensitivity of the discussions at the workshop, participant statements made in the discussion sessions are not attributed to individuals in this proceedings. The attendees were told in the first plenary that they could speak freely without concerns that their words could be traced to them, so they are typically not identified with their remarks in these proceedings. However, the comments made by the outside experts making presentations or leading discussions are attributed to those individuals, as are the comments made by the individual NASA employees who served as session chairs, as their names were made publicly available on the workshop agenda (Appendix B).

GENERAL CAVEATS

For the workshop to fulfill its goals, a high degree of candor was needed, and strongly urged, on the part of workshop participants. As per the charge, the workshop was largely focused on lessons learned from challenges faced by NASA and other organizations that rely on an innovative workforce, and on areas of potential organizational improvement for NASA. This focus on problem areas at NASA and the other organizations discussed, could, if taken out of context, create an extremely unbalanced view of NASA and those organizations. Thus, it is important to emphasize that even those speakers who made critical comments were careful to frame them as the sorts of weaknesses that can be found in any organization, and many participants in fact expressed considerable admiration for NASA’s legacy as an extremely effective and successful organization. The general context for constructive feedback expressed was that NASA has been and will continue to be an important engine for aerospace innovation in the United States but that it can be even more successful if certain changes are made.

Any opinions expressed in this proceedings of a workshop are those of the individual workshop participants and not of the National Academies. There was no attempt to come to any consensus or to make any formal recommendations, although it was the case that individual workshop participants did draw conclusions and may have expressed their own opinions concerning widespread agreement on certain issues.

5.3 Finding Hazardous Asteroids Using Infrared and Visible Wavelength Telescopes

A Report of the SSB ad hoc Committee on Near Earth Object Observations in the Infrared and Visible Wavelengths

Summary

In December 2018, an asteroid exploded in the upper atmosphere over the Bering Sea (western Pacific Ocean) with an explosive force initially estimated to be nearly 200 kilotons, or over 10 times that of the Hiroshima bomb.¹ This event, which was detected by various sensors and spotted by a Japanese weather satellite, demonstrates that Earth is frequently hit by objects, some of which could cause significant damage if they hit a populated area, as happened almost 6 years earlier over the Russian city of Chelyabinsk. Currently, NASA funds a network of ground-based telescopes and a single, soon-to-expire space-based asset to detect and track large asteroids that could cause major damage if they struck Earth. In 2018, NASA asked the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to establish the ad hoc Committee on Near Earth Object Observations in the Infrared and Visible Wavelengths to investigate and make recommendations about a space-based telescope’s capabilities, focusing on the following tasks:

• Explore the relative advantages and disadvantages of infrared (IR) and visible observations of near Earth objects (NEOs).
• Review and describe the techniques that could be used to obtain NEO sizes from an infrared spectrum and delineate the associated errors in determining the size.
• Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of these techniques and recommend the most valid techniques that give reproducible results with quantifiable errors.

THE GEORGE E. BROWN ACT AND NEO DETECTION, TRACKING, AND CHARACTERIZATION

Currently, NASA’s efforts to detect and track NEOs are guided by the 2005 George E. Brown, Jr. Near-Earth Object Survey Act,² which requires NASA to “detect, track, catalogue, and characterize the physical characteristics of near Earth objects equal to or greater than 140 meters in diameter in order to assess the threat of such near Earth objects to Earth. It shall be the goal of the Survey program to achieve 90 percent completion of its near Earth object catalogue (based on statistically predicted populations of near Earth objects) within 15 years after the date of enactment of this Act.”

NASA has not accomplished this goal and cannot accomplish it with currently available assets by December 31, 2020.³ Although Congress has charged NASA with NEO detection and threat characterization, it has failed to provide specific funding to enable NASA to adequately pursue this task.

The George E. Brown Act was based on findings of a 2003 NASA science definition team study of NEOs. A follow-on 2017 NEO science definition team report also used the act as a baseline (e.g., the focus on 140-meter

___________________

NOTE: “Summary” reprinted from NASEM, 2019, Finding Hazardous Asteroids Using Infrared and Visible Wavelength Telescopes, The National Academies Press, Washington, DC, https://doi.org/10.17226/25476, pp. 1-6.

¹ This estimate is likely to be revised downward upon further analysis.

² Technically, this language was included in the 2005 NASA Authorization Act, which states: “This section may be cited as the ‘George E. Brown, Jr. Near-Earth Object Survey Act.’” The committee uses the terms “George E. Brown” and “George E. Brown Act” throughout this report. The goals established by the George E. Brown Act were primarily derived from NASA: “Study to Determine the Feasibility of Extending the Search for Near-Earth Objects to Smaller Limiting Diameters. Report of the Near-Earth Object Science Definition Team,” August 22, 2003, https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/pdco-neoreport030825.pdf.

³ A 2017 report indicated that it would take 9-25 years to complete the survey, depending on search methods (and equipment) that were employed. This places the earliest date for completing the survey in the later 2020s (G.H. Stokes et al., 2017, Report of the Near-Earth Object Science Definition Team: Update to Determine the Feasibility of Enhancing the Search and Characterization of NEOs, NASA Science Mission Directorate, p. iv).

diameter NEOs and 90 percent completion). Any effort to develop a survey of NEOs must have goals to compare to, and most studies and proposals for NEO searches since the act have used its goals as the baseline.

In addition to detecting NEOs and determining their orbits, it is necessary to estimate their mass to quantify their destructive potential. An NEO’s diameter is the most readily available indicator of its mass, a value that can be improved when a density estimate is available. This is the rationale for the 140-meter-diameter requirement included in the act—finding 90 percent of that population or larger would eliminate 90 percent of the hazard to human populations from NEOs (at the time of the publication of the Stokes et al. [2003] report).⁴ In the 14 years since the passage of the George E. Brown Act, there have been several studies that have reiterated the validity of the 140-meter-diameter requirement and indicated that even smaller size asteroids can pose a significant threat. The asteroid that exploded over Chelyabinsk, for example, is estimated to have been approximately 20 meters in diameter. It damaged more than 7,000 buildings and injured approximately 1,600 people. In comparison, Arizona’s Meteor Crater, which is approximately 50,000 years old, is believed to have been created by a significantly denser (nickel/iron) object approximately 50 meters in diameter (see Figure S.1). Asteroids smaller than 140 meters in diameter are much more numerous than those larger than this size. Although they are far more difficult to detect and track, many of them are still detected in the search for larger asteroids. Although asteroids smaller than the size established in the George E. Brown Act pose a hazard, it is not currently practical to implement systems capable of detecting and tracking a significant proportion of them, and the committee concluded that the requirements established in the George E. Brown Act remain valid.

Recommendation: Objects smaller than 140 meters in diameter can pose a local damage threat. When they are detected, their orbits and physical properties should be determined, and the objects should be monitored insofar as possible.

The committee concluded that the accuracies of NEO diameters derived from thermal-infrared measurements and simple modeling usually far exceed those based on measurements of visible brightness alone. For this reason, thermal-infrared detection and tracking of asteroids, which can be accomplished only by a space-based platform (due to the properties of Earth’s atmosphere, which block infrared wavelengths), is highly valuable. A thermal-infrared search program that can detect NEOs, determine their orbits, and measure NEO sizes to 25 percent typical uncertainty or better is preferable to separate search and characterization programs. To gain the same information about an NEO’s size with ground observations would require both a search program and a separate characterization program.

Characterization—that is, determining the physical properties of NEOs—is critical for a full understanding of the impact hazard. Characterization observations include radar as well as photometry and spectroscopy in the visible and near infrared. Although planetary defense missions are not science driven, significant scientific input is essential to optimally design a planetary defense task.

SPACE-BASED NEO DETECTION AND TRACKING

After hearing from representatives of different organizations, including persons who had sought to develop alternative proposals for both ground- and space-based NEO detection systems, the committee concluded that a space-based thermal-infrared telescope designed for discovering NEOs is the most effective option for meeting the George E. Brown Act completeness and size requirements in a timely fashion (i.e., approximately 10 years) (see Figure S.2). The most important justification for a shorter time span is that mitigation by deflection requires early detection.

A thermal-infrared discovery survey will provide an immediate measure of asteroid diameters—and hence a mass estimate—even without a measurement of the asteroids’ optical brightness. An optical discovery survey is not able to provide this diameter measurement/mass estimate with the same accuracy within a similar timeframe, as it depends on thermal-infrared follow-up observations. Furthermore, the availability of an observation asset capable of obtaining this thermal-infrared follow-up is not guaranteed (ground-based observations are strongly limited in wavelength range and sensitivity, while future space-based infrared observatories like the James Webb Space Telescope are not able to perform quick-turnaround observations of nearby NEOs). Hence, only a space-based thermal-infrared survey is capable of meeting the requirement of obtaining a diameter/mass estimation. A major

___________________

⁴ The probability of impact by long-period comets (LPCs) is much lower than the probability of impact by NEOs.

advantage of an infrared space-based system is its ability to provide the diameter shortly after detection, as soon as orbital parameters are available. Visible light and near-infrared measurements are severely compromised for size determination, whereas even relatively simple analyses of mid-infrared measurements can return accurate sizes for NEOs. Visible, ground-based surveys are also compromised by the day-night cycle and weather, as compared to space-based surveys. As a result, a space-based infrared survey is better able to detect and characterize the NEO population to meet the requirements of the George E. Brown Act goal. A detailed study of a mid-infrared mission has concluded that the proposed system can reach the George E. Brown Act goal more quickly than currently

considered alternatives.⁵ (See Appendix C for a summary table of advantages and disadvantages of ground- and space-based options for infrared and visible observations of NEOs.)

The committee found that in-space infrared telescopes

• Are more effective at detecting NEOs than visible wavelength in-space telescopes,
• Provide diameter information that visible wavelength telescopes cannot provide, and
• Do not cost significantly more than in-space visible wavelength telescopes (a primary driver of space telescope cost is aperture).

Although ground-based visible telescopes can be significantly less expensive than space telescopes, currently existing and planned visible ground-based telescopes (such as the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope [LSST]) cannot accomplish the goals of the George E. Brown Act. The committee heard from experts on LSST that in 10 years LSST would be 50-60 percent complete for NEOs with an absolute magnitude (H) of less than 22. When combined with other search efforts, this would be approximately 77 percent.⁶

Recommendation: If the completeness and size requirements given in the George E. Brown, Jr. Near-Earth Object Survey Act are to be accomplished in a timely fashion (i.e., approximately 10 years), NASA should fund a dedicated space-based infrared survey telescope. Early detection is important to enable deflection of a dangerous asteroid. The design parameters, such as wavelength bands, field of view, and cadence, should be optimized to maximize near Earth object detection efficiency for the relevant size range and the acquisition of reliable diameters.

For more than a decade, NASA has provided technology development funding for a space-based, passively cooled, thermal-infrared telescope designated NEOCam, but has not pursued this project to full-scale development. The committee heard from representatives from NEOCam. The committee also heard from a representative from NASA Goddard Space Flight Center who had proposed alternative space-based telescope projects and a representative from the Jet Propulsion Laboratory who is proposing a small satellite (SmallSat) telescope constellation. Proposed alternatives include visible wavelength ground- and space-based telescopes and SmallSat constellations. The committee concluded that, at the moment, none of these alternatives is competitive with a thermal-infrared space telescope in terms of detection capabilities or cost.

To date, opportunities for a space-based NEO survey telescope have been primarily available via the Discovery program. However, Vision and Voyages for Planetary Science in the Decade 2013-2022 (the 2011 planetary science decadal survey), a report that prioritizes the planetary science program and exerts great influence on the selection of Discovery mission proposals, explicitly does not address “issues relating to the hazards posed by near Earth objects and approaches to hazard mitigation.”⁷ As a result, there is a bias against selection of planetary defense-focused missions in this program or any other program without an explicit planetary defense component.

Recommendation: Missions meeting high-priority planetary defense objectives should not be required to compete against missions meeting high-priority science objectives.

CURRENT NASA NEO SURVEY EFFORTS

NASA currently funds several ground-based telescopes for NEO detection, including the Catalina Sky Survey, Pan-STARRS, among others. It also funds the space-based NEOWISE spacecraft, which will likely not operate much longer (possibly less than 1 year). No existing ground- or space-based platform can satisfy the size and completeness requirements of the George E. Brown Act goals in the foreseeable future. A new, dedicated survey mission is required to achieve the George E. Brown Act goals.

___________________

⁵ G.H. Stokes, et al., 2017, Report of the Near-Earth Object Science Definition Team: Update to Determine the Feasibility of Enhancing the Search and Characterization of NEOs, NASA Science Mission Directorate, p. 187.

⁶ “LSST’s Projected NEO Discovery Performance,” Steve Chesley & Peter Vereš, Briefing to NAS Committee on Near Earth Object Observations in the Infrared and Visible Wavelengths, Irvine, California, February 25, 2019.

⁷ NRC (National Research Council), 2011, Vision and Voyages for Planetary Science in the Decade 2013-2022, Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, p. S-2.

The LSST, which is expected to enter into operation in 2023, has—in addition to a number of astrophysics missions—the mission to detect solar system objects and NEOs at a higher rate than current ground-based telescopes. However, LSST will not achieve the George E. Brown Act goals even after a decade. Contrary to what was expected when LSST was still in a concept phase, even a dedicated LSST optimized for NEO detection would not achieve the George E. Brown Act goals for several decades. The committee heard from representatives of LSST about its capabilities for NEO detection and concluded that, even though it cannot meet the completeness goal at the appropriate time, it would be useful for NASA to fund work to discover NEOs in the LSST archive as a complement to other methods.

Observation by ground-based systems equipped with specific instrumentation is necessary for subsequent characterization of NEOs after discovery.

Recommendation: If NASA develops a space-based infrared near Earth object (NEO) survey telescope, it should also continue to fund both short- and long-term ground-based observations to refine the orbits and physical properties of NEOs to assess the risk they might pose to Earth, and to achieve the George E. Brown, Jr. Near-Earth Object Survey Act goals.

ARCHIVAL RESEARCH AND CATALOGUING NEOS

Archival research can and has played an important role in detecting and characterizing NEOs. Archiving all data and images to support future improved thermal modeling, searching for serendipitous “precovery” observations (i.e., NEOs that were imaged but not noted at the time, but are located when data is later reviewed), and other types of studies not considered during the survey mission are critical to detecting and characterizing NEOs. The current system for archiving NEO data is not optimized for accessing data and analyzing data in an automated fashion. As new systems become operational, such as LSST and a space-based infrared telescope, this will become a more pressing issue.

Recommendation: All observational data, both ground- and space-based, obtained under NASA funding supporting the George E. Brown, Jr. Near-Earth Object Survey Act, should be archived in a publicly available database as soon as practicable after it is obtained. NASA should continue to support the utilization of such data and provide resources to extract near Earth object detections from legacy databases and those archived in future surveys and their associated follow-up programs.

There is currently no consistent NASA policy on archiving NEO survey data, especially images. Access to archived data is important for future threat evaluation and research by the general science and planetary defense community.

ORGANIZATION OF THIS REPORT

This report is divided into seven chapters. Chapter 1 provides an introduction and background, including an explanation of the recent policy history for planetary defense. Chapter 2 discusses the challenges of conducting planetary defense in terms of estimating key parameters for NEOs. Chapter 3 discusses current and near-term observation systems, which are primarily ground-based telescopes funded by NASA. Chapter 4 explains the advantages of space-based platforms and addresses infrared versus visual space-based telescopes in terms of capability and costs. Chapter 5 discusses techniques to obtain NEO sizes, a key factor in determining their mass and therefore their destructive potential if they impact Earth (and one of the components of the George E. Brown Act requirements for NEO survey and detection). Chapter 6 addresses the importance of archiving the large amounts of data generated by NEO survey systems. Last, Chapter 7 discusses some other relevant objects that are not part of the George E. Brown Act survey criteria, but that are nevertheless important for understanding the overall impact threat.

5.4 Planetary Protection Classification of Sample Return Missions from the Martian Moons

A Report of the ad hoc Committee on Planetary Protection Requirements for Sample Return Missions from Martian Moons, a joint project of the SSB and the European Science Foundation’s European Space Sciences Committee

Summary

In 2016, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the European Space Agency (ESA) issued parallel requests to the National Academies and the European Science Foundation (ESF), respectively, to undertake a study to determine the planetary protection classification of robotic sample return missions to the martian moons. In response to these requests to their parent organizations, the Space Studies Board (SSB) and the European Space Science Committee (ESSC) established a joint committee to address the requested tasks. (See “Statement of Task” in the Preface.)

Chapter 1 provides background to the statement of task and is organized in five sections: planetary protection policies, current understanding of the martian moons, background on martian meteorites, the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) planned Martian Moons Exploration (MMX) mission, and a brief overview of research in support of MMX conducted by ESA (via the so-called SterLim team) and JAXA.

Chapter 2 contains a detailed overview of the work conducted in support of the planetary protection aspects of MMX by JAXA and the SterLim team sponsored by ESA. Chapter 2 also includes the committee’s detailed critique and assessment of the research activities undertaken by the JAXA and SterLim teams.

Chapter 3 summarizes the committee’s assessment of the JAXA and SterLim methodology, assumptions, and findings. This final chapter also investigates some additional arguments regarding planetary protection requirements for a sample return mission from the martian moons, and contains the committee’s recommendations.

The first item in the committee’s statement of task was as follows (see Preface):

1. Review, in the context of current understanding of conditions relevant to inactivation of carbon-based life, recent theoretical, experimental, and modeling research on the environments and physical conditions encountered by Mars ejecta during the following processes:
   1. Excavation from the martian surface via crater-forming events;
   2. While in transit through cismartian space;
   3. During deposition on Phobos or Deimos; and
   4. After deposition on Phobos or Deimos.

In this context, the committee reviewed the work of the SterLim and JAXA teams and issued the following findings:

• Even if life exists on Mars, the cell density and even its biochemical nature is unknown. Therefore, the value employed by the SterLim and JAXA teams is, as appropriate for a planetary protection calculation, a very conservative estimated based on current understanding of life as it exists in Mars-like extreme environments on Earth. (See “Potential Microbial Density on the Martian Surface” in Chapter 2.)
• The reason for the significant discrepancy in the amount of material transported to the martian moons as determined by the SterLim and JAXA teams could not be identified. Nevertheless, these uncertainties represent, in some sense, the current state of the art. (See “Mars Ejecta Formation and Transportation from the Martian Surface” in Chapter 2.)

___________________

NOTE: “Summary” reprinted from NASEM, 2019, Planetary Protection Classification of Sample Return Missions from the Martian Moons, The National Academies Press, Washington, DC, https://doi.org/10.17226/25357, pp. 1-5.

• Shock heating during impacts is a highly localized process. When trying to resolve this adequately in numerical simulations, very high spatial resolutions are required. (See “Sterilization During Mars Ejecta Formation” in Chapter 2.)
• The survival rate during hypervelocity impacts cannot be determined based on the information available. However, the proposed survival rate of 10 percent is a reasonable estimate; albeit one lacking significant experimental evidence. (See “Sterilization During Mars Ejecta Formation” in Chapter 2.)
• The JAXA team’s conclusion that particles smaller than 10 cm do not escape the martian atmosphere is not well supported. Therefore, subsequent analyses relying on this limit should be treated with care. (See “Sterilization by Aerodynamic Heating of Mars Ejecta” in Chapter 2.)
• The JAXA team’s conclusion that aerodynamic heating of ejecta during passage through the martian atmosphere does not cause any significant sterilization is valid. (See “Sterilization by Aerodynamic Heating of Mars Ejecta” in Chapter 2.)
• The experimental hypervelocity impact data generated during the SterLim study is limited with respect to the large spectrum of possible impact conditions on the martian moons, could be biased, and is not conclusive. Given the small footprint of the data within the vast parameter space, extrapolations drawn from the experimental data currently available seemed ill-advised. SterLim’s impact data was used to calibrate the exponential function used by the JAXA group to estimate and extrapolate the likely sterilization due to impact. (See Sterilization During Hypervelocity Impact on Phobos/Deimos Surfaces” in Chapter 2.)
• The estimations of the two teams as to the distribution and fate of Mars ejecta fragments deposited on the martian moons were based on different and limited experimental data. Therefore, a factor of uncertainty remains in the fraction deposited at the first impact. (See “Distribution of Mars Ejecta Fragments by Impacts, Recirculation, and Reimpact” in Chapter 2.)
• The SterLim team’s use of aluminum, rather than a chemically inert surface, as a simulant environment for irradiation on Phobos/Deimos is problematic. In addition, the samples were irradiated in a frozen state, whereas the surface temperatures on the surfaces of the martian moons is frequently above the freezing point of water. (See “Sterilization by Radiation on Phobos/Deimos Surfaces” in Chapter 2.)
• Diurnal temperature cycling is an extremely significant factor in determining the survival of martian organisms deposited on the surfaces of Phobos or Deimos. Desiccation is bactericidal to even the most radiation-resistant microbes in a matter of months. (See “Sterilization by Radiation on Phobos/Deimos Surfaces” in Chapter 2.”)
• The effect of meteoroid impacts following deposition of martian material on the surface of Phobos and Deimos has a minimal sterilizing effect due to the low flux of impactors. However, the fragmentation of ejecta due to the effects of thermal fatigue could significantly enhance the rate at which any organic matter present is degraded by exposure to the radiation. (See “Phobos/Deimos Surface Reformation by Natural Meteoroid Impacts” in Chapter 2.)

The second item in the committee’s statement of task was as follows (see Preface):

2. Recommend whether missions returning samples from Phobos and/or Deimos should be classified as “restricted” or “unrestricted” Earth return in the framework of the planetary protection policy maintained by the ICSU Committee on Space Research (COSPAR).

A key factor in answering this question focused on whether or not an unidentified large (>10 km), young (<<1 million years) crater might exist on Mars. The committee finds that it is highly unlikely that such a large, young crater exists and has somehow escaped detection. (See Task 2 in Chapter 3.)

In determining whether samples returned from Phobos or Deimos should be classified as restricted or unrestricted Earth return, the committee considered the following factors:

• The work of the SterLim and JAXA teams can be considered as state of the art in regard to the modeling of the process of deposition of martian material on the surface of the martian moons. However, significant deficiencies exist in understanding, and there remain experimental and computational challenges associated with the quantitative estimation of ejecta mass and temperature distributions. Nevertheless, their work is

• convincing in showing that there is significant sterilization introduced throughout the chain of events. (See Task 2 in Chapter 3.)
• The issue of desiccation—as a result of diurnal thermal cycling on the surface of the martian moons—on any martian microbes was not considered by the SterLim and JAXA teams. At temperatures above the freezing point of water, desiccation is bactericidal to even the most radiation-resistant microbes in a matter of months. (See Task 2 in Chapter 3.)
• The relative influx of martian microbes from a Phobos/Deimos sample return mission versus the natural influx of direct Mars-to-Earth transfer can be shown to be smaller by several orders of magnitude. (See Task 2 in Chapter 3.)

Recommendation: After considering the body of work conducted by the SterLim and JAXA teams, the effect of desiccation on the surfaces of the martian moons, and the relative flux of meteorite- to spacecraft-mediated transfer to Earth, the committee recommends that samples returned from the martian moons be designated unrestricted Earth return.

The third item in the committee’s statement of task was as follows (see Preface):

3. In what specific ways is classification of sample return from Deimos a different case than sample return from Phobos?

The different orbits and cross-sectional areas of Phobos and Deimos result in differences in the velocities associated with impacts of martian ejecta to their surfaces and in the total mass of material delivered to each moon. Both factors affect the total likelihood that microbes could survive delivery to the moons from Mars, and therefore raise the important question of whether Phobos and Deimos should be treated differently with respect to planetary protection requirements. While the studies conducted by the JAXA team did suggest that more martian material was likely to be present on Phobos than on Deimos, they also suggested that more organisms could theoretically survive transfer from Mars to Deimos. However, the latter conclusion was strongly dependent on the specific ejection geometries and velocities associated with modeling of a particular impact on Mars. (See Task 3 in Chapter 3.)

Recommendation: Given the uncertainty associated with impact sterilization assumptions, the committee recommends that Phobos and Deimos should not currently be treated differently in their planetary protection requirements.

The fourth item in the committee’s statement of task was as follows (see Preface):

4. What relevant information for classification of sample return is available from published studies of martian meteorites on Earth?

An overview of the literature is included in Chapter 1 (see “Earth Inventory of Martian Meteorites”). The committee finds that the study of martian meteorites provides important context for studies of Mars and its moons and limited information (e.g., mass and flux to Earth) of relevance to planetary protection considerations. The unambiguous detection of an indigenous martian organism in a meteorite would be of great scientific and societal significance. (See Task 4 in Chapter 3.)

The fifth item in the committee’s statement of task was as follows (see Preface):

5. What are the planetary protection consequences of taking a surface sample at depths of 0-2 cm versus taking a sample extending down to depths of 2-10 cm or deeper?

The committee identified two factors that could cause microbial survival probabilities to be different in these two depth ranges: ultraviolet irradiation and diurnal temperature cycling. Irradiation decreases microbe survival rates at the surface of Phobos or Deimos, but such radiation is attenuated within the top few millimeters of surface material. Therefore, this effect has no impact on sampling depth. Diurnal temperature changes are a significant factor in the top few cm. Therefore, samples from shallower depths on Phobos or Deimos have a lower risk

for microbial contamination that those at a greater depth due to sterilization by thermal cycling. However, this additional factor is not needed to give confidence that samples from 2-10 cm depth will be below the established planetary protection limits for expected microbial contamination. (See Task 5 in Chapter 3.)

Recommendation: The committee recommends that no differences need to be made in planetary protection requirements for samples collected on the martian moons from depths 0-2 cm versus samples from 2-10 cm.

The sixth item in the committee’s statement of task was as follows (see Preface):

6. Suggest any other refinements in planetary protection requirements that might be required to accommodate spacecraft missions to and samples returned from Phobos or Deimos.

With respect to this last task, the committee limits its response to comments on three specific topics: uncertainty quantification, implications of the present work for Mars sample return missions, and the need to publish the work undertaken by the SterLim and JAXA teams.

Uncertainty quantification—The work of the SterLim and JAXA teams are prime examples of attempts to reach a specific conclusion about real-world activities based on combining the results from multiple numerical simulations and laboratory experiments. Each individual calculation or experiment is subject to various degrees of uncertainty. The science of uncertainty quantification seeks to determine the likelihood of specific outcomes for a system given that specific aspects of it are unknown or only weakly constrained. (See Task 6 in Chapter 3.)

Recommendation: The committee recommends that a significant effort be made by the planetary protection community to formally develop an uncertainty quantification protocol that can be used to estimate the cascading uncertainties that result from the integration of multiple computational models or other factors relevant to the quantitative aspects of planetary protection. Specific attention should be given to consideration of the significant uncertainties in the model inputs that exist because of limited available experimental or observational data.

Implications for Mars sample return—What implications for a Mars sample return (MSR) mission can be drawn from this study and the work of the JAXA and SterLim teams? The main differences between MSR and Phobos/Deimos sample return missions are as follows:

• MSR sampling sites will be specifically selected to maximize sampling of evidence of extinct or extant life, whereas materials deposited on the martian moons originates from randomly distributed crater impact sites.
• Martian material present in a Phobos/Deimos sample would have undergone several physical sterilization processes (e.g., excavation by impact, collision with Phobos, and exposure to radiation), before it is actually sampled. Material collected on the surface of Mars will not have undergone such processes.
• MSR material might come from sites that mechanically cannot survive ejection from Mars and thus any putative life-forms would de facto not be able to survive impact ejection and transport to space. Such mechanical limitations do not apply for material collected on Mars.

Therefore, the committee finds that the content of this report and, specifically, the recommendations presented in it do not apply to future sample return missions from Mars itself. (See Task 6 in Chapter 3.)

Publication of the work of the SterLim and JAXA teams—The planetary protection, astrobiology, and planetary science communities would greatly benefit from the publication of the work undertaken by the SterLim and JAXA teams if for no other reason than to demonstrate the care and attention given to the investigation of planetary protection issues. (See Task 6 in Chapter 3.)

Recommendation: The committee recommends that the SterLim and JAXA teams formally publish the details of and results from their studies or make them readily available in some publicly accessible form.

5.5 Report Series: Committee on Astrobiology and Planetary Science: Review of the Commercial Aspects of NASA SMD’s Lunar Science and Exploration Initiative

A Report of the SSB discipline Committee on Astrobiology and Planetary Science

Introduction

During its September 2018 meeting, the Committee on Astrobiology and Planetary Science (CAPS) was instructed to prepare a concise report reviewing the commercial aspects of the NASA Science Mission Directorate (SMD) lunar science and exploration initiative. This CAPS short report addresses the following topics requested by SMD:

1. Discuss how new commercial ventures could provide realistic opportunities to address meaningful lunar science and exploration objectives; and
2. Suggest other activities that might be undertaken before the completion of the next planetary science decadal survey that could expand our lunar knowledge and capabilities and that are consistent with Vision and Voyages for Planetary Science in the Decade 2013-2022 (Vision and Voyages).¹

As briefly discussed in a previous CAPS short report titled Review of the Planetary Science Aspects of NASA SMD’s Lunar Science and Exploration Initiative² (hereafter referred to as Review of the Planetary Science Aspects), the program affords opportunities for cross-disciplinary science, particularly with heliophysics and astronomy. The current report focuses on opportunities for lunar planetary science. The reader is referred to the 2007 National Academies report The Scientific Context for the Exploration of the Moon (hereafter Scientific Context)³ as well as findings from the 2007 NASA Advisory Council Workshop on Science Associated with the Lunar Exploration Architecture⁴ for thorough discussions of cross-disciplinary opportunities for lunar science.

BACKGROUND

Vision and Voyages recommended that NASA’s Planetary Science Division (PSD) consider two medium-class, New Frontiers lunar missions for selection between 2013 and 2022: South Pole-Aitken Basin Sample Return and Lunar Geophysical Network.⁵ Although these missions have not yet been selected for flight, the 2018 decadal midterm review Turning Visions into Voyages for Planetary Sciences in the Decade 2013-2022: A Midterm Review⁶ noted key lunar scientific advances coming out of U.S. and international lunar missions, ongoing sample analysis, and other research.⁷ These advances, made since publication of Vision and Voyages, are summarized in Review of the Planetary Science Aspects.

___________________

NOTE: Reprinted from NASEM, 2019, Report Series: Committee on Astrobiology and Planetary Science: Review of the Commercial Aspects of NASA SMD’s Lunar Science and Exploration Initiative, The National Academies Press, Washington, DC, https://doi.org/10.17226/25374,pp. 1-16.

¹ National Research Council (NRC), 2011, Vision and Voyages for Planetary Science in the Decade 2013-2022, The National Academies Press, Washington, DC; commonly referred to as Vision and Voyages.

² National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM), Review of the Planetary Science Aspects of NASA SMD’s Lunar Science and Exploration Initiative, The National Academies Press, Washington, DC; herein referred to as Review of the Planetary Science Aspects.

³ NRC, 2007, The Scientific Context for Exploration of the Moon, The National Academies Press, Washington, DC.

⁴ NASA, 2008, NASA Advisory Council Workshop on Science Associated with the Lunar Exploration Architecture, NP-2008-08-542-HQ, Washington, DC.

⁵Vision and Voyages, p. 127.

⁶ NASEM, 2018, Visions into Voyages for Planetary Sciences in the Decade 2013-2022: A Midterm Review, The National Academies Press, Washington, DC; referred to as the “decadal midterm.”

⁷ Decadal midterm, p. 28.

The lunar science priorities identified in Vision and Voyages drew on the earlier Scientific Context report, which provided 8 prioritized lunar science concepts along with related goals and recommendations.⁸ Based upon recent advances in lunar science, these 8 science concepts were augmented by 3 additional concepts identified by the Lunar Exploration and Analysis Group Special Action Team Report on Advancing the Science of the Moon (ASM-SAT).⁹ All 11 lunar science priorities are listed here:

1. The bombardment history of the inner Solar System is uniquely revealed on the Moon. The Apollo program provided limited spatial and temporal coverage of the Moon’s impact history. The flux of impactors through the early inner solar system is a key constraint on models of planetary accretion and early evolution of planetary bodies and life. Samples from the Moon paired with lunar surface crater densities are the linchpin for extrapolation of ages of processes on planetary surfaces across the entire inner Solar System. This goal can be addressed by sample return from impact melts from craters and basins. In situ age dating is a new technology that could be utilized as well.
2. The structure and composition of the lunar interior provide fundamental information on the evolution of a differentiated planetary body. The differences in the nature of the crust and style of volcanism between the lunar near and far sides point to large-scale lateral variation in lunar evolution. Regional- and hemispheric-scale variations in composition can be assessed through remote sensing, surface measurements, and sample return. Modern seismometer technology would enable a future lunar geophysical network of even one or two stations to answer questions about the Moon’s interior, thermal history, and differentiation.^10,11
3. Key planetary processes are manifested in the diversity of lunar crustal rocks. Orbital data obtained in recent years have shown that the current sample collections (Apollo, Luna, and lunar meteorites) are not fully representative of the materials present on the surface of the Moon. In situ analysis and sample return would reveal new lithologies and details of their formation processes.
4. The lunar poles are special environments that may bear witness to the volatile flux over the latter part of Solar System history. Recent data have shown water ice in polar, permanently shadowed regions. A key question is whether the surface volatile deposits are sourced from delivery by exogenous impactors, release of water from the lunar interior, or creation from the solar wind. Information on volatile composition, abundance, and distribution are also critical for exploration purposes, as they are needed to evaluate the resource potential that could support a prolonged human presence on the lunar surface.
5. Lunar volcanism provides a window into the thermal and compositional evolution of the Moon. Precise isotopic measurements (e.g., tungsten, titanium, oxygen, neodymium, ruthenium, etc.) on returned samples from regions not sampled by Apollo are needed to assess isotopic heterogeneity, placing constraints on formation and subsequent evolution. Addressing this science priority will require targeting areas that contain rocks of diverse composition and age for sample return or in situ analyses.
6. The Moon is an accessible laboratory for studying the impact process on planetary scales. By observing the formation of new craters, the continuation of Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter for over 9 years has allowed a better estimate of the current impact rate and regolith gardening. Impact bombardment of the Moon can also be monitored seismologically and structures determined by regional geology or seismology.
7. The Moon is a natural laboratory for regolith processes and weathering on anhydrous airless bodies. The Moon remains the archetypal laboratory for studying regolith formation and evolution, as well as space weathering and the influence of solar wind and micrometeorite impacts on airless bodies. Regolith samples from areas of distinct composition would improve understanding of the major agents of space weathering.
8. The atmosphere and dust environment of the Moon are accessible for scientific study. Remaining gaps in understanding the lunar atmosphere and dust include identifying sources of midlatitude surface hydroxyl

___________________

⁸Scientific Context, p. 3.

⁹ See Lunar Exploration Analysis Group, 2018, Advancing Science of the Moon: Report of the Lunar Exploration Analysis Group Special Action Team, February, https://www.lpi.usra.edu/leag/reports/ASM-SAT-Report-final.pdf.

¹⁰ M.P. Panning, E. Beucler, M. Drilleau, A. Mocquet, P. Lognonne, and W.B. Banerdt, 2015, Verifying single-station seismic approaches using Earth-based data: Preparation for data return from the InSight mission to Mars, Icarus 248:230-242.

¹¹ P. Lognonne and W.T. Pike, 2015. Chapter 3, Planetary Seismometry, pp. 36-48 in Extraterrestrial Seismology (V.C.H. Tong and R.A. Garcia, eds.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, http://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107300668.006.

8. and water, determining whether hydrogen products migrate poleward to the cold trap reservoirs, and the search for evidence of 40Ar release from seismic events and near-surface electrostatic dust lofting.
9. The origin of the Moon. The leading hypothesis for the origin of the Moon is that it formed as the result of the impact of a large object with proto-Earth. Many details of the processes are as yet unclear, including the composition of the impactor in comparison to the proto-Earth. Recent work on Apollo samples suggests that the lunar mantle, although depleted of volatiles, contains volatiles including hydrogen, an observation that has the potential to inform giant-impact lunar formation models. These details can be further constrained by studies of lunar samples and the lunar interior structure.
10. The lunar volatile cycle. Different lines of evidence point to the existence of a lunar volatile cycle. Key measurements are of the abundance, distribution, and phases of volatiles as well as if and how the size of the volatile reservoirs varies with time. Orbital measurements, in situ data, and samples all play a role in tracing these processes.
11. Lunar tectonism and seismicity. High-resolution image coverage of the lunar surface has led to improved knowledge of tectonic landforms. Lobate scarps formed by thrust faults may still be active and may be the origin of the largest and rarest magnitude moonquake type: shallow moonquakes or high-frequency teleseismic events.

LUNAR DISCOVERY AND EXPLORATION PROGRAM

As described in Review of the Planetary Science Aspects, the fiscal year 2019 (FY2019) PSD budget request allocates approximately $200 million for the new Lunar Discovery and Exploration Program. This program is intended to support partnerships with industry as well as new, innovative approaches to accomplishing lunar science research and human exploration goals. Under the Lunar Discovery and Exploration Program, research and technology developments in support of the new lunar initiative are being implemented (Early Science & Technology Initiative; see Figure 1). The Solar System Exploration Research Virtual Institute (SSERVI) has released its third Cooperative Agreement Notice (CAN) draft, with a potential focus on lunar research teams and in situ resource utilization (ISRU). Additional elements to the augmented lunar science research program include the Apollo Next-Generation Sample Analysis campaign (ANGSA), deployment of lunar CubeSats and small satellites (three are slated to be launched as secondary payloads on Exploration Mission-1 [EM-1] of NASA’s Space Launch System), and the solicitation of proposals for small lunar missions through the Small Innovative Missions for Planetary Exploration (SIMPLEx) Third Stand Alone Missions of Opportunity Notice (SALMON-3).

Further near-term lunar science and technology initiatives begun by SMD include the Development and Advancement of Lunar Instrumentation (DALI) program. This program will support development of all lunar instrument types including lander/rover-based instruments and orbital instruments, although the emphasis will be placed on instruments intended for small, stationary landers. Instrument providers are encouraged to use the opportunity to propose instruments that support NASA’s broader lunar exploration goals, including science, human exploration, and ISRU—enabling technologies for the future that may include cryogenic sample return, sealed sample return, and extreme temperature survival to assist in lunar night and polar regions missions. NASA has now received 47 Step 2 proposals¹² that include instrumentation for the following:

• Ultraviolet/visible/infrared/thermal spectrometers, mass spectrometers, Raman spectrometers, and neutron/gamma ray spectrometers;
• Dust/plasma/solar wind instruments;
• Seismic instruments and heat flow probe;
• Lunar laser ranging;
• Magnetometers and radar;
• Lidar, laser-induced breakdown spectroscopy, and X-ray powder diffraction/fluorescence; and
• Volatiles detection and radiation detection.

___________________

¹² J.A.R. Rall, 2018, “SBAG Meeting: Planetary Science Division,” presentation to the Small Bodies Assessment Group (SBAG) of the Lunar and Planetary Institute, June 13, https://www.lpi.usra.edu/sbag/meetings/jun2018/presentations/rall.pdf.

In addition to the DALI solicitation, NASA is preparing a SALMON-3 Program Element Appendix (PEA) Announcement of Opportunity (AO) for payloads that are ready, or nearly ready, to fly. These could include engineering models, student-built hardware, and modified off-the-shelf hardware, as well as the instruments developed for the recently cancelled Lunar Resource Prospector.

COMMERCIAL LUNAR PAYLOAD SERVICES

Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS) is an element of the new Lunar Discovery and Exploration Program that allows SMD to contract with commercial companies for transportation and mission infrastructure services able to send small robotic landers to the Moon. Its purpose is to acquire end-to-end commercial payload services between the Earth and the lunar surface, but it also permits proposals to additional destinations (for example, lunar orbit or Lagrangian points) that may result from the contractor’s mission architecture. The contractor is asked to provide all activities necessary to safely integrate, accommodate, transport, and operate NASA payloads using contractor-provided assets, including launch vehicles, lunar lander spacecraft, lunar surface systems, Earth reentry vehicles, and associated resources. A formal request for proposals (RFP) from commercial lunar lander providers was released in September 2018;¹³ proposals were received in October 2018, and the first selections were announced in November 2018. Over 30 companies showed interest in responding to this RFP; 9 companies were selected in the first round of competition. The CLPS acquisition approach is to issue an indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity (IDIQ) type contract with a number of contractors and then to issue task orders to selected contractors for each flight opportunity. These task orders are anticipated to be firm fixed price. First flights are anticipated in the 2020/2021time frame.

___________________

¹³ NASA, 2018, Commercial Lunar Payload Services Solicitation Number: 80HQTR18R0011R, Office of Procurement, https://www.fbo.gov.

This program represents a step in the agency’s expanding efforts to create a sustainable lunar exploration program combined with support for the development of a commercial space industry extending beyond low Earth orbit. As such, it is envisioned that future landers will be increasingly larger, more capable, mobile (rovers), and carry payloads with increasingly large demands on lander or rover resources. Ultimately, commercial lunar landers and rovers could comprise an important element of a future lunar exploration infrastructure, which may encompass such human-tended elements as NASA’s proposed lunar orbiting Gateway.

While the first opportunities for these companies are to deliver payloads for science and exploration, some have an eye toward potentially more profitable activities ranging from delivery of personal artifacts to tourism and mining.¹⁴ The CLPS program is designed to provide on-ramps for more providers to engage in competition at later dates should commercial capabilities increase to midsized landers and rovers.

By acting as a customer and by providing technical expertise and input, NASA is in a unique position to provide on-ramps to deep space activities for private companies that may contribute to their commercial success. Some of the landers under development could collect hundred-gram samples, which could then be transported to the proposed lunar Gateway; any complex activities such as robot deployment would benefit from proximal human-tended communications. By facilitating science mission partnership with the emerging market of these “lunar delivery services,” NASA will, hopefully, help create an international standard for future lunar exploration that can protect the scientific integrity and natural heritage of the Moon.

Examples of Capabilities of Commercial Providers and Their Readiness

CAPS heard presentations from Astrobotic Technology,¹⁵ Masten Space Systems,¹⁶ and Axiom Research Labs¹⁷ outlining their lunar lander development programs. These programs were initiated as potential contenders for the Google Lunar X-Prize and, as presented, illustrated varying levels of technical maturity. Table 1 summarizes projected payload hosting capabilities. The capabilities represent the range of those presented by the companies to the committee rather than the capabilities of a single company or those of other companies that have shown interest in responding to the RFP.

Given that lunar soft landings were repeatedly demonstrated 50 years ago (e.g., for the Surveyor, Apollo, and Luna missions), and again as recently as January 2019 (the Chinese Chang’e 4 mission), it is reasonable to conclude that soft landings on the Moon can be accomplished by commercial providers. Demonstration of such a landing, or even achieving lunar orbit, would nevertheless be a notable accomplishment. The recent commercial provider RFP stipulates that the offeror provide an intact lunar landed mission that delivers at least 10 kg of NASA payload to the lunar surface before December 31, 2021.¹⁸

Capabilities of Science Instruments and Their Readiness

A request for information (RFI) for science instruments was released in spring 2018 with responses due at the end of June 2018. The committee was not provided details of instruments, as this information is competition sensitive, but it did receive a high-level overview of NASA’s assessment. Several dozen responses were received, many of which were regarded as fairly mature and near-ready to fly. Some instruments are technology demonstrations whereas others are science-ready. These instruments were officially solicited in October 2018; the solicitation was amended in January 2019 with a revision to the proposal due date.¹⁹

___________________

¹⁴ Japan Airlines, 2017, “Japan Airlines and Lunar Exploration Company ispace Announce Partnership,” http://press.jal.co.jp/en/release/201712/004532.html.

¹⁵ A. Solorzano, Astrobotic Lead Systems Engineer, 2018, “Astrobotic Peregrine Lunar Lander: Technology-Driven Capabilities and Challenges,” presentation to the Committee on Astrobiology and Planetary Science, September 11.

¹⁶ M. Kuhns, 2018, “Masten Space Systems: Capability-Driven Lunar Services,” presentation to the Committee on Astrobiology and Planetary Science, September 11.

¹⁷ A. Kothandhapani, 2018, “Lunar Lander Capabilities: Axiom Labs—TeamIndus,” presentation to the Committee on Astrobiology and Planetary Science, September 12.

¹⁸ NASA, Office of Procurement, 2018, Commercial Lunar Payload Services Solicitation Number: 80HQTR18R0011R, Final CLPS_RFP_9.16.18, p. 86.

¹⁹ NASA Research Announcement, 2019, Lunar Surface Instrument and Technology Payloads, Solicitation: NNH18ZDA001N-LSITP, https://nspires.nasaprs.com.

TABLE 1 Summary of Projected Near-Term Capabilities of Commercial Hosts for Lunar Payloads

NOTE: The information in this table is an amalgamation of capabilities presented to the committee, and no single provider achieved all of the high-end capabilities.

Hosted Payloads—Lessons Learned from Other NASA Programs and Agencies

In addition to hearing from commercial lunar lander providers, the committee received presentations from the Earth System Science Pathfinder (ESSP) Program Multi-Angle Imager for Aerosols (MAIA) project.^20,21 These presentations emphasized lessons learned from the ESSP program efforts to host Earth science instruments on commercial satellites. ESSP has been trailblazing this approach with Earth Venture Instrument Projects.

The ESSP Program Office MAIA mission manager shared her experiences on different Earth Venture projects and the revisions to their acquisition approaches they made based on experiences with these projects. She offered the following lessons that could be applicable to the lunar commercial opportunities:

• Involve industry early and often to develop solid relationships and flow of information. Keep industry updated regularly (e.g., they released strategy highlights to industry right after procurement strategy meeting approval). Further, industry can help clarify requirements and expectations for the final RFP, resulting in fewer amendments and questions.
• Align the procurement schedule as much as practical to the mission schedule and when requirements will be mature enough to be used in a firm fixed price solicitation. Such an alignment of schedule helps to avoid substantial RFP amendments and proposal submission extensions, thereby reducing risk to both the agency and proposing companies.
• Define a common instrument interface definition as early as possible. NASA’s Earth Science Division (ESD) was able to identify a common set of Earth science instrument-to-spacecraft interface guidelines that improved the likelihood that these instruments could become secondary payloads on missions of opportunity. Doing so worked extremely well for the MAIA project.

The MAIA project manager then provided specific examples of how the selected acquisition approach affected development of their instrument and how they dealt with the uncertainties of an unknown spacecraft and ground system. He explained how complicated the interface between the instrument and the contractor’s flight and ground systems was going to be and described their significant efforts to minimize the potential for changes to either side of the interface after contracts have been awarded. He concluded by identifying critical areas that need to be considered when trying to match instruments to commercial entities and again reiterated the importance of interface specification as early as practicable.

___________________

²⁰ B. Hilton, NASA Earth System Science Pathfinder Program Office, MAIA Mission Manager, 2018, “Commercial Hosting Lessons Learned from the Multi-Angle Imager for Aerosols (MAIA) Project,” presentation to the National Academies’ Committee on Astrobiology and Planetary Science, September 11.

²¹ K.A. Burke, MAIA Project Manager, 2018, “Multi-Angle Imager for Aerosols (MAIA): Commercial Hosting Lesson Learned from the MAIA Earth Venture Instrument Project and Instrument Development without a Host,” presentation to the National Academies’ Committee on Astrobiology and Planetary Science, September 11.

The lessons learned from the ESSP hosted payloads program align with those recently reported by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) in a report on the Department of Defense’s (DOD) use of commercially hosted payloads.²² Relevant to NASA’s application of hosted payloads, the GAO cited cost savings, faster on-orbit capability, and continued technology upgrades and industrial base stability as benefits to commercially hosted payloads.²³ The GAO found that the DOD’s use of hosted payloads, however, has been limited by the following dominant factors:²⁴

• Logistical difficulty in matching the payload to the host. Payload size, weight, power, and spectrum requirements complicate finding a host capable of accommodating the payload without increasing project cost or development time. Furthermore, it is challenging to align the government instrument development timeline with the service acquisition timeline; in a best-case scenario, the government adopts and adheres to the commercial host’s timeline.
• Limited access to information or fragmented information. Commercially hosting government payloads is a relatively nascent model with limited, localized (fragmented) information and little substantiated cost-benefit analysis. Lessons learned are not collected by a central office that can then disseminate the knowledge, which can lead to agency-wide resistance to adopting hosted payloads.

In conclusion, the GAO determined that commercially hosted payloads have great potential and that “centralized collection and assessment of agency-wide data would help enable DOD to mitigate the logistical challenges inherent in matching payloads to hosts, and better position DOD to make reasoned, evidence-based decisions on whether a hosted payload would be a viable solution.”²⁵

Assessment of Readiness to Integrate Science Instruments with Commercial Landers

As noted above in the CLPS RFP, the contractor is being asked to provide all activities necessary to safely integrate, accommodate, transport, and operate NASA payloads using contractor-provided assets, including launch vehicles, lunar lander spacecraft, lunar surface systems, Earth reentry vehicles, and associated resources. During presentations to the committee and in reviewing the RFP, the committee learned that the CLPS RFP has not defined potential interfaces with science instrumentation or any potential instrument concepts or operations needs. The lack of interface guidelines or definitions suggests that the RFP assumes that the selected contractors will be able to handle the science instrument interface requirements. The committee also heard that the instrument solicitation will not define the detailed capabilities of the landers, only that the landers will provide the interface and must accommodate a 10 kg payload.

As highlighted by the GAO report and by the ESSP Program Office and MAIA project, early identification of instrument requirements (size, weight, and power) or defining a common interface between commercial providers and potential instruments was important in ensuring that their selected instruments and commercial providers would be able to find a match between commercial host and payload. The ESSP MAIA project manager described how important the interface match between instrument and the contractor’s flight and ground system must be in order for the instrument to achieve its science objectives. If these interface requirements could not be met, then the instrument could not achieve the science objectives without a major redesign and associated cost and schedule increase or the science objectives would require reevaluation to accommodate the instrument’s potentially reduced performance.

It is not clear to the committee that this step has been sufficiently accomplished by the SMD Lunar Discovery and Exploration Program at this point in time.

___________________

²² Government Accountability Office (GAO), 2018, Military Space Systems: DOD’s Use of Commercial Satellites to Host Defense Payloads Would Benefit from Centralizing Data, GAO-18-493, July, Washington, DC.

²³ GAO-18-493, pp. 4-5.

²⁴ GAO-18-493, p. 14.

²⁵ GAO-18-493, p. 23.

SCIENCE FROM LUNAR LANDERS

Several measurements are possible with the commercial lunar landers described to the committee. These measurements map to the science objectives of the community-consensus lunar science concepts presented at the beginning of this short report. Commercial landers might lead to an economy of scale that could allow efficient exploration of diverse, scientifically significant areas, although such an economy of scale remains to be seen. Furthermore, the initial commercial landers could provide reconnaissance services for later, higher-capability landers with science, commercial, or human exploration missions. Some scientific questions do appear resolvable with the first-generation lunar landers. Others—those relating to the geologic diversity of the Moon, long-term monitoring, or science undertaken in special areas such as rough terrains or permanently shadowed regions—likely require greater capabilities than those envisioned by the first generation of commercial lunar landers.

Measurements Possible with Short-Term Static Landers

The nearest term lunar landers will have a range of capabilities represented by those listed in Table 1. These capabilities provide for stationary landers with lifetimes less than or equal to a lunar day (<14 Earth days). Examples of several scientifically valuable measurements that could be acquired by instrumentation on such landers are listed below, along with key considerations that require further analyses to match scientific requirements with commercial landing system capabilities:

• Lunar retroreflectors. These require only placement and then subsequent monitoring. Their emplacement across the lunar surface would provide practical services such as enhancing determination of lander position and therefore positioning of scientific instruments, providing fixed location references on the lunar surface, and providing landmarks for landing future spacecraft. Furthermore, additional lunar retroreflectors (beyond those emplaced during the Apollo mission) could be used to assist in determining the Love number, which constrains properties of the deep interior and addresses lunar science priority 2 (see list of community consensus priorities above), and in cross-disciplinary science studies, such as in precision tests of gravitation and general relativity.
• Short-term monitoring of solar wind, radiation, dust, and the lunar atmosphere. Monitoring over the course of the lunar day is possible with static landers. Key measurements include those that would measure the flux, charge, velocity, and mass of lofted dust particles as well as plasma and solar wind particle experiments. Such measurements respond to lunar science priority 8 and could inform longer-term studies of these topics when long-lived landers become available.
• Chemistry, mineralogy, and volatiles of specific lunar sites. These characteristics could be significantly refined relative to orbital data and knowledge from the Apollo sample collection, which was acquired from a restricted set of locations on the lunar near side. Various in situ and landed remote sensing techniques with ready-for-flight instruments include X-ray, gamma ray, neutron, ultraviolet, infrared, laser Raman, and laser-induced breakdown spectroscopies (LIBS). Bulk chemistries, including minor and trace elements, and bulk mineralogies could be determined. If there is sufficient sensitivity, OH/H₂O could be measured and monitored for change. Two key technical considerations are (1) the accessibility of terrains of interest given commercial landing system capabilities and their ability to target key locations identified from orbit with sufficient spatial precision (e.g., potassium, rare-earth elements and phosphorous, young basalts, spinel-rich terrains, lunar swirls); and (2) whether the instrument requires placement at a specific distance relative to the surface (possibly easy to accommodate) or incorporation of its sample handling system (possibly more complex, as the three commercial providers asked had not investigated lander stability

• with an arm deployed). The measurements that could be made respond to lunar science priorities 2, 3, 4, 5, and 10.
• Lunar interior measurements. Seismology is a key geophysical approach to understanding lunar structure and evolution. Seismic methods have advanced in the past decade, and it is no longer necessary to have a long-lived network of stations in order to achieve significant scientific results. Although longer-term monitoring is required for understanding the frequency of moonquakes and impacts, seismology from a fixed lander is possible if there is an active seismic source. Such measurements could address the heterogeneity of the Moon if acquired at multiple sites. Data from a seismic experiment that included seismometers or vibration-sensitive equipment on commercial landers could respond to lunar science priorities 2, 9, and 11. Magnetometers could additionally support the investigation of lunar science priority 2.
• Electromagnetic induction. Magnetic field measurements on the ground in conjunction with those from orbit can be used to determine the electrical conductivity of the interior and improve characterization of the small iron core. Since the Moon is compositionally heterogeneous, it may be possible to use measurements made at different locations to establish the extent of this heterogeneity, which may be large if water content is highly variable, in mantle conductivity. Investigation of the magnetic field would address lunar science priorities 2, 9, and 11.

Another set of science measurements may be possible with short-lived stationary landers if the lander providers or the payload providers devise ways for the payload system to interact with lunar materials. This set of measurements includes some types of measurements to study the chemistry, mineralogy, and volatiles of specific lunar sites (as above) as well as the following:

• In situ age dating. Instruments that address key science objectives, such as in situ geochronology (e.g., Rb-Sr and K-Ar), are also in development^26,27,28 and have matured such that in situ age dates are possible to accuracies of tens of millions to hundreds of millions of years. Such age constraints are suitable to answer some scientific questions. Key considerations are (1) how samples of regolith or rock adjacent to the lander are delivered to the processing system of the instrument and (2) the payload mass capabilities of the commercial provider given that such science instrument and sample handling systems together are on the upper end of the payload mass capabilities reported in Table 1. The measurements that could be made respond to lunar science priorities 1, 3, 5, 6, and 9.
• Heat flow measurements. Apollo heat flow measurements showed spatial variability in heat flow; determining the extent to which this variability is related to lunar structure versus measurement considerations requires additional data. Accurate measurement of heat flow requires drilling at least a few tens of cm—that is, below the depth of the day-night thermal cycle. There is no inherent reason such a measurement could not be made by a short-term, static lander. A key consideration is platform stability during a drilling operation. The measurements that could be made respond to lunar science priority 2.

___________________

²⁶ B. Cohen, 2016, The Potassium-Argon Laser Experiment (KArLE): In situ geochronology for planetary robotic missions, pp. 1-10 in IEEE Aerospace Conference, doi: 10.1109/AERO.2016.7500945.

²⁷ K.A. Farley, J.A. Hurowitz, P.D. Asimow, N.S. Jacobson, and J.A. Cartwright, 2013, A double-spike method for K-Ar measurement: A technique for high precision in situ dating on Mars and other planetary surfaces, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 110:1-12.

²⁸ F.S. Anderson, J. Levine, and T.J. Whitaker, 2015, Dating the martian meteorite Zagami by the ⁸⁷Rb-⁸⁷Sr isochron method with a prototype in situ resonance ionization mass spectrometer, Rapid Communications in Mass Spectrometry 29(2):191-204.

Measurements Possible with Short-Term Mobile Platforms

Some of the proposed near-term lunar landers may allow the ability to deploy a rover or to move the whole platform to another location as many as tens of meters away. Such mobility enables a different set of geologic investigations involving traversing spatially heterogeneous areas of the lunar surface or moving from a safe landing site to a high-priority area.

• Lava tube investigation. Since their identification, lava tubes have garnered interest as a means to access the interiors of lava flows and as potential habitats for lunar explorers. A deployable asset (rover or hopper) with the ability to enter and image the inside of the tube or to deploy instruments within the tube could access these sites. This investigation responds to lunar science priority 5 as well as human exploration objectives.
• Lunar swirls. The high-low albedo contrasts of regolith within the lunar swirls is almost certainly related to magnetic anomalies occurring on small spatial scales. Traversing a swirl with a rover equipped with a camera and magnetometer would reveal the fine-resolution structure. Investigating lunar swirls could respond to lunar science priorities 7 and 8.
• Investigation of geologic processes (impact cratering, lava emplacement). Any site with discrete landforms, outcrops, or contacts between geologic units of different ages might benefit from investigations of spatial relationships at meters to grain scale for geologic structures and petrologic studies, responding to lunar science priorities 1, 3, 5, 6, and 11.

Key technical considerations for each of these three science investigations include (1) the precision with which the system can land near features of geological interest, the traverse speed, and the range of the rover; and (2) the ability of the rover (mass, power, communications) to accommodate a suitable science payload.

Measurements Enabled by Longer-Term Lander Survival of the Lunar Night

In addition to those measurements able to be carried out by short-term lunar landers, several lander-based investigations are greatly enhanced by longer duration—in particular, the ability to last longer than the ~14 Earth-day lunar day.

• Long-term monitoring of lunar seismic activity (moonquakes and impacts). Short-duration landers could accomplish interior studies given an active seismic source. A longer-term mission that can survive the lunar night has the ability to monitor the natural rate of moonquakes and impact events. The former may be used to probe the interior structure of the Moon and, with sufficient coverage, create a three-dimensional (3D) map of the lunar interior. Thus, the Lunar Geophysical Network mission envisioned by Vision and Voyages could, in theory, be executed by small commercial landers. A key technical consideration is whether the seismometer could remain on the lander or whether it must be placed on and coupled with the lunar surface. The measurements that could be made respond to lunar science priorities 2, 6, and 11.
• Long-term monitoring of solar wind/radiation/dust environment. The ability to monitor the behavior of lunar and exospheric particles at night and during the dusk and dawn transitions would expand on the short-term monitoring ability outlined above. Additionally, a long-term mission would have greatly expanded opportunities for monitoring transient radiation effects of large solar flares on the lunar environment and changes in the solar wind. Such missions would address lunar priority 7.

• Geodetic measurements (tidal deformation). A heterogeneous Moon will respond to the time-varying tidal potential with a surface deformation that is spatially more complicated than would result from homogeneity. As a result, geodetic measurements of surface deformation contain information about the nonuniform mantle viscosity and elastic lithosphere that can further improve knowledge of the lunar interior. These measurements would address lunar priority 2.

Measurements Requiring More Advanced Lander Capabilities

A few valuable types of measurements appear to be outside the scope of currently planned commercial lander system capabilities. For example, in situ sampling of volatiles in permanently shadowed regions appears to be outside the power or mobility capabilities of commercial lander-rover systems, although simple remote sensing observation of volatiles in a shadowed region from an adjacent lander is feasible. Enabling technologies for a commercial mission to a permanently shadowed region may be similar to those required to survive a lunar night, although further work is needed to understand how to enable missions that satisfy lunar science priority 4 and exploration objectives to find lunar volatile deposits (e.g., water ice) by sample collection or in situ measurement. As another example, return of samples to Earth for the types of chemical and isotopic investigations required to answer questions about lunar origin is not in the near-term plans of any commercial provider, although several providers include this in their long-term objectives, possibly paired with sample delivery to a lunar Gateway.

TABLE 2 Summary of Scientific Instruments and Measurements That Would Enable Priority Lunar Science to Be Accomplished from Commercial Hosts on the Lunar Surface

ON-ORBIT COMMERCIAL CAPABILITIES

NASA has selected CubeSats to fly on the Exploration Mission-1 (EM-1) of the Space Launch System (SLS), and two of three companies that spoke to CAPS also highlighted the ability to provide on-orbit services. The plethora of orbiters over the last decade of lunar exploration has achieved many key scientific objectives from orbit, demonstrating the value added by a continued orbital presence in cislunar space. There remain some measurements that are best attainable from lunar orbit that have not been achieved, including mid-infrared/far-infrared spectroscopy for mineralogic composition, high spatial resolution global compositional basemaps at all wavelengths (including ultraviolet, visible and near-infrared, short-wave infrared, mid-infrared, and far-infrared), temporal monitoring of lunar volatiles, measurements of magnetic field heterogeneity of select regions from regions at high spatial resolutions and from low altitudes,²⁹ and possible innovative laser-based interrogations for volatiles or seismology. A program of measurements on platforms spanning small satellites to large satellites could be envisioned to fulfill orbit-based science priorities at the Moon.

Capabilities of commercial cislunar satellites have the opportunity to enable science. For example, a lunar global positioning system network in orbit could allow precision navigation by commercial lunar science platforms using technologies similar to those used on Earth. Provision of an orbit-based communications network or a communications orbiter would increase data return from landers without requiring high power systems on landers. This capability is essential for exploration from the lunar far side. Lunar orbiters might also provide imaging and telemetry of mission-critical events like descent and landing of surface missions. A lesson may be learned from the Mars program, which has relied upon orbiters to enhance the science return from landed missions. The Mars programs’ ability to integrate orbital assets and landed assets was enabled by a program-wide systems engineering approach that ensured that capabilities necessary from individual missions were incorporated into each mission—for example, ultra high frequency telecommunication between landers and orbiters for transmission of science data back to Earth. When attempting such a systems-wide approach integrating science with commercial services, the recent experience of the Earth Ventures team or that relayed by the GAO report on the DOD is relevant in that clearly defined and documented capabilities, requirements, and interfaces would enable greater use of standardized commercial lunar orbital platforms.

USE OF THE GATEWAY BY COMMERCIAL PROVIDERS

NASA’s plans for the next decade include the launch, assembly, and operations of a human-tended space station in high lunar orbit, beginning with precursor activities in 2022. As currently envisioned Gateway would include two habitation modules (one from the United States, one contributed internationally) and support crewed and uncrewed missions by the Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate (HEOMD). While not required for any of the possible lunar science activities discussed here, once in place, Gateway would provide significant support for lunar science, allowing staging of operations and human-tending of robotic payloads on the surface. Most relevant for this short report, some of the commercial companies are pursuing reusable lander capabilities that would be able to make return trips from the lunar surface to Gateway to enable targeted sample collection from diverse areas. At present, however, the timeline is uncertain. The capabilities of Gateway and its uses for science are still evolving, and further details about capabilities and possible links to scientific exploration will be needed to assess its potential contribution to lunar science and exploration goals.

___________________

²⁹ D. Hemmingway and I. Garrick-Bethell, 2012, Magnetic field direction and lunar swirl morphology: Insights from Airy and Reiner Gamma, Journal of Geophysical Research 117:E10012.

ACTIVITIES IN ADVANCE OF DECADAL SURVEY

Industry has demonstrated interest in and potential capability to provide both landed and orbital commercial services that might be able to accommodate NASA science instrumentation valuable to lunar science. This short report has identified quality lunar science that can potentially be accommodated through such commercial services. NASA is in the process of soliciting both commercial services and science instrumentation that could be integrated to achieve this science. There are, however, many unknowns that have the potential to affect the viability of this commercially driven approach to science. Many of these unknowns are identified in the findings above.

The first steps that NASA has taken with the Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program—to establish a new generation of lunar lander capabilities and interfaces—allow a preliminary assessment of the science potential of these new public-private partnerships. These steps, if implemented with a systems engineering approach that considers long-term capabilities and establishes reasonable interface definition to ensure the accommodation of quality science instruments, will begin to clarify the economic feasibility of the commercially driven approach. CAPS was told that NASA expects the cost of accommodating science payloads on commercial hosts will be approximately $1 million/kg. It is not yet clear that this target price is viable. The current path, however, is a good test that can help both industry and NASA determine how best to move forward.

One of CAPS’s concerns is long-term program viability as it affects science return on investment—one of the key decision criteria in Vision and Voyages. If the cost of flying science instruments on commercial lunar spacecraft exceeds the current estimate, the science return may not be as attractive. A number of factors now and will in the future drive how well commercial industry can provide services at a reasonable cost. The next decadal survey could greatly benefit from understanding these factors as its members evaluate how to approach the next decade of planetary science. These factors, in the form of questions, are

• Are all the requirements for key science questions achievable with commercial systems? That is, what might be achievable at certain price points and what is worth achieving?
• What are the fundamental instrument-to-spacecraft interfaces required for lunar science instrumentation, and can industry provide these at acceptable cost?
• Which lunar infrastructure needs (e.g., orbital telecommunication services for downlinking science data) could enable a higher return on science investment when considered from a programmatic perspective?
• What are the key enabling commercial technologies needed for future lunar science exploration? Are these commercial technologies consistent with industry’s basic business plan? If not, how would these capabilities be funded?
• Does industry need a certain flight cadence to support its business plan?

There may be many more factors that can be evaluated prior to and during the next decadal survey. Industry and NASA can help each other by developing a mutual understanding of what industry and the science community need to make this partnership work effectively. The presentation by the ESSP Office gave one example of how the partnership could be carried out more effectively.

As always, there will continue to be some budget uncertainty with continuing resolutions and appropriations. A stable program foundation with a strong systems engineering approach can help ensure sustainability.

CAPS notes that in its previous consensus study report, Getting Ready for the Next Planetary Science Decadal Survey,³⁰ it was recommended that among various priority medium- and large-class planetary missions that might be studied in advance were those focused on lunar interior processes and polar volatiles. Such studies might also consider the utility of one or more commercially hosted payloads to accomplish these and similar scientific goals.

___________________

³⁰ NASEM, 2017, Committee on Astrobiology and Planetary Science: Getting Ready for the Next Planetary Science Decadal Survey, The National Academies Press, Washington, DC.

science decadal survey, the more useful it will be in planning for the next decade of lunar science and exploration. Similarly, mission studies in advance of the decadal survey could assess the utility and feasibility that decadal-priority lunar science could be accomplished through commercial-provided lunar landers.

5.6 Report Series: Committee on Astrobiology and Planetary Science: Review of the Planetary Science Aspects of NASA SMD’s Lunar Science and Exploration Initiative

A Report of the SSB discipline Committee on Astrobiology and Planetary Science

Introduction

On December 11, 2017, President Donald Trump signed Space Policy Directive-1 (SPD-1).¹ The new directive replaced original text in the National Space Policy of the United States of America² and instructed the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) to

While retaining the existing long-term human spaceflight aspirations, the new policy refocuses on the interim steps required to achieve success—on building an exploration system defined not only by the spacecraft and supporting ground- and space-based architectures but also by a workforce and network of partnerships that draw on the complementary strengths of government, private industry, and foreign nations. SPD-1 acknowledges that such an exploration system is necessary to sustain exploration activities long into the future.

Before humans reach the lunar surface again, however, the exploration—for scientific gain, for resource prospecting, and for the sake of exploring—will be carried out by robotic missions. The U.S. robotic missions currently operating do so under the purview of NASA’s Science Mission Directorate (SMD). Thus, in response to and in support of the vision expressed in SPD-1, NASA’s fiscal year 2019 (FY2019) budget proposal for the Planetary Science Division (PSD) included a line item to support lunar exploration and discovery.³ Following submission of the budget request, James L. Green, then directonr of PSD, requested that the Committee on Astrobiology and Planetary Science (CAPS) author a short report addressing the science aspects of this new lunar initiative. The committee’s statement of task for this report follows.

STATEMENT OF TASK

At the CAPS March 2018 meeting, the committee will prepare a concise report reviewing the planetary science aspects of the Administration’s lunar science and exploration initiative. The short report will address the following topics:

1. Review the Planetary Science Division portion of NASA’s plans for the lunar science and exploration initiative; and
2. Determine if NASA’s plans are consistent with Vision and Voyages for Planetary Science in the Decade 2013-2022⁴ and other National Academies reports.

___________________

NOTE: Reprinted from NASEM, 2019, Report Series: Committee on Astrobiology and Planetary Science: Review of the Planetary Science Aspects of NASA SMD’s Lunar Science and Exploration Initiative, The National Academies Press, Washington, DC, https://doi.org/10.17226/25373, pp. 1-10.

¹ Federal Register v. 82 no. 239, pp. 59501-59502.

² The original text of Presidential Policy Directive 4: National Space Policy of the United States of America read, “Set far-reaching exploration milestones. By 2025, begin crewed missions beyond the moon, including sending humans to an asteroid. By the mid-2030s, send humans to orbit Mars and return them safely to Earth.” See https://www.hsdl.org/?abstract&did=22716.

³ Listed at $218 million in J.L. Green, NASA Science Mission Directorate, 2018, “Status Report: Planetary Science Division,” presentation to the committee on March 27.

⁴ National Research Council (NRC), 2011, Vision and Voyages for Planetary Science in the Decade 2013-2022, The National Academies Press, Washington, DC; referred to as Vision and Voyages.

In response to the above charge, this report first reviews decadal and other community-guided lunar science priorities as context for NASA’s current lunar plans and then presents and evaluates the actions being taken by NASA PSD to support lunar science. At the request of NASA PSD, plans for commercial partnerships, lunar infrastructure development, and related aspects of NASA’s lunar science and exploration initiative are the subject of a separate short report titled Report Series: Committee on Astrobiology and Planetary Science—Review of the Commercial Aspects of NASA SMD’s Lunar Science and Exploration Initiative.

COMMUNITY-GUIDED LUNAR SCIENCE PRIORITIES: 2007-PRESENT

In reviewing NASA’s plans for the current lunar science and exploration initiative, it is useful to understand the recent evolution of community consensus lunar science priorities. NASA’s lunar science program has a strong history of being guided by these community consensus goals and priorities. The 2007 National Research Council (NRC) report The Scientific Context for the Exploration of the Moon⁵ (hereafter Scientific Context) provided prioritized lunar science concepts, goals, and recommendations that have informed subsequent consensus studies and lunar community activities and documents through the present. The Scientific Context committee identified and, based on scientific merit, prioritized eight science concepts to guide future lunar science and exploration. These are reproduced below in their original priority order.⁶

1. The bombardment history of the inner solar system is uniquely revealed on the Moon.
2. The structure and composition of the lunar interior provide fundamental information on the evolution of a differentiated planetary body.
3. Key planetary processes are manifested in the diversity of lunar crustal rocks.
4. The lunar poles are special environments that may bear witness to the volatile flux over the latter part of solar system history.
5. Lunar volcanism provides a window into the thermal and compositional evolution of the Moon.
6. The Moon is an accessible laboratory for studying the impact process on planetary scales.
7. The Moon is a natural laboratory for regolith processes and weathering on anhydrous airless bodies.
8. Processes involved with the atmosphere and dust environment of the Moon are accessible for scientific study while the environment remains in a pristine state.

Taking into account the findings of the Scientific Context report, the NRC planetary science decadal survey Vision and Voyages for Planetary Science in the Decade 2013-2022 (hereafter Vision and Voyages) recommended that PSD consider two medium-class, New Frontiers lunar missions for selection between 2013 and 2022.

1. Lunar South Pole-Aitken Basin Sample Return. This mission was adopted from the 2003 planetary science decadal survey New Frontiers in the Solar System: An Integrated Exploration Strategy.⁷ Vision and Voyages continued to support the mission as “among the highest priority activities for solar system science”⁸ because of the mission’s importance in constraining the bombardment history of the inner Solar System, directly measuring the composition and age of the Moon’s lower crust and mantle, characterizing a large lunar impact basin, understanding lunar thermal evolution and differentiation, and identifying differences in mantle source regions on the lunar far side, which has yet to be accessed by human missions.⁹
2. Lunar Geophysical Network. Also identified as a mission concept in the 2003 decadal survey in planetary science, the geophysical network would comprise a global, long-lived network of identical landers carrying suites of geophysical instruments selected to help understand the structure and evolution of the lunar interior. The Lunar Geophysical Network would also investigate early differentiation processes, early planetary dynamics, the initial composition of the Earth-Moon system, the Moon’s thermal evolution, and the distribution and origin of current lunar seismicity.

___________________

⁵ NRC, 2007, The Scientific Context for Exploration of the Moon, The National Academies Press, Washington, DC.

⁶ NRC, 2007, Scientific Context, p. 3.

⁷ NRC, 2003, New Frontiers in the Solar System: An Integrated Exploration Strategy, The National Academies Press, Washington, DC.

⁸Vision and Voyages, p. 127.

⁹ The China National Space Administration accomplished the first successful lunar far side landing with the Chang’e 4 mission on January 3, 2019.

Vision and Voyages highlighted that, because of the Moon’s proximity, those areas not prioritized in large- and medium-class mission concepts, such as the study of lunar surface processes and the nature and distribution of volatiles, could be competitively selected for small, Discovery-class missions.¹⁰ The survey report noted that contemporary planned and launched lunar missions—the orbital Gravity Recovery and Interior Laboratory (GRAIL) and Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) missions, the Lunar Crater Observation and Sensing Satellite (LCROSS) impactor, and the Lunar Atmosphere and Dust Environment Explorer (LADEE)—offered significant science return at Discovery-class size or smaller. Furthermore, lunar landers could be accommodated in the Discovery mission class.

In anticipation of a renewed focus on scientific and other exploration of the Moon, the Planetary Science Division recently asked the lunar community to revise the existing consensus priorities, taking into account discoveries made since publication of the 2007 Scientific Context and 2011 Vision and Voyages reports. In August 2017, the Lunar Exploration Analysis Group (LEAG) convened the Advancing Science of the Moon Specific Action Team (ASM-SAT).¹¹ The ASM-SAT was charged with evaluating progress made in the past decade toward accomplishing the goals of the Scientific Context report and identifying how to proceed toward accomplishing these goals.

The ASM-SAT found that progress has been made in addressing many of the main concepts in the Scientific Context report. Based on a decade of advances in lunar science, the ASM-SAT identified or, more precisely, reemphasized three additional science concepts that augment the list presented in the Scientific Context report. These represent revitalized avenues of inquiry based largely on advanced analyses of existing lunar samples and results from the recent lunar missions highlighted above. In no priority order, these additional concepts are

1. The origin of the Moon.
2. The lunar volatile cycle.
3. Lunar tectonism and seismicity.

Many of these key lunar discoveries—made since publication of both Scientific Context and Vision and Voyages—were subsequently summarized in the 2018 decadal survey midterm report, Visions into Voyages for Planetary Sciences in the Decade 2013-2022: A Midterm Review (hereafter referred to as the “decadal midterm”).¹² The summary is included below as a quote (parenthetical references and figure callouts have been removed from the original text for brevity).

___________________

¹⁰Vision and Voyages, p. 134.

¹¹ Lunar Exploration Analysis Group, 2018, Advancing Science of the Moon: Report of the Lunar Exploration Analysis Group Special Action Team, https://www.lpi.usra.edu/leag/reports/ASM-SAT-Report-final.pdf.

¹² NASEM, 2018, Visions into Voyages for Planetary Sciences in the Decade 2013-2022: A Midterm Review, The National Academies Press, Washington, DC (referred to as the “decadal midterm”), p. 28.

The 2018 decadal midterm additionally notes that lunar science addresses numerous crosscutting investigation themes identified in Vision and Voyages, particularly the accretion, accretion timing, water supply, chemistry, and differentiation of their inner planets, the role of early bombardment, and current volatile composition and distribution.¹³ The ASM-SAT, however, found that, despite significant progress in lunar science, knowledge gaps still exist for all eight concepts. Seven of the eight concepts have not been investigated by dedicated missions, even though missions to address Concepts 1 and 2 are specified in Vision and Voyages.

Groundbreaking lunar science has also been accomplished through a growing number of international lunar collaborations and missions—notably China’s Chang’e 1, 2, and 3 (2010-2013); Japan’s Kaguya (2007-2009); and India’s Chandrayaan-1 (2008-2009). These orbiters and landers have made important lunar science discoveries and have signaled a growing prioritization of lunar exploration by other nations. For example, Chandrayaan-1, carrying the NASA Moon Mineralogy Mapper spectrometer (M3), identified and mapped lunar surface water (OH or H2O) within sunlit terrains.¹⁴ The Japanese Space Agency (JAXA) Kaguya Lunar Radar Sounder discovered intact lava tubes near the Marius Hills and elsewhere,¹⁵ and provided a global lunar survey with surface compositional (mineralogical, elemental abundance) information, topography, and gravity. In the near-term, Chang’e 4 and 5 and Chandrayaan-2 are recently-landed or planned future missions to the Moon involving orbiters, landers with rovers, and sample return. NASA’s international collaborations with such missions have the opportunity to continue to advance lunar science. Such collaborations are in agreement with Vision and Voyages, which “strongly supports international efforts and encourages the expansion of international cooperation on planetary missions.”¹⁶

THE NEW LUNAR DISCOVERY AND EXPLORATION INITIATIVE

The FY2019 Planetary Science Division budget request allocates approximately $200 million for the new Lunar Discovery and Exploration Program, with that budget projection remaining flat in the out years.¹⁸ The new program is not intended to replace funding for prioritized, community consensus lunar missions (i.e., Discovery- and New Frontiers-class missions). Rather, the program is intended to support partnerships with industry as well as new, innovative approaches to accomplishing lunar science research and human exploration goals. These elements are incorporated into the evolving NASA Exploration Campaign (see Figure 1).

___________________

¹³ Decadal midterm, pp. 28.

¹⁴ C.M. Pieters, J.N. Goswami, R.N. Clark, M. Annadurai, J. Boardman, B. Buratti, J.-P. Combe, et al., 2009, Character and spatial distribution of OH/H₂O on the surface of the Moon seen by M³ on Chandrayaan-1, Science 326(5952):568-572.

¹⁵ T. Kaku, J. Haruyama, W. Miyake, A. Kumamoto, K. Ishiyama, T. Nishibori, K. Yamamoto, et al., 2017, Detection of intact lava tubes at Marius Hills on the Moon by SELENE (Kaguya) Lunar Radar Sounder, Geophysical Research Letters 44(20):10155-10161.

¹⁶Vision and Voyages, p. 67.

¹⁷Vision and Voyages, p. 67.

¹⁸ J.L. Green, NASA Science Mission Directorate, 2018, “Status Report: Planetary Science Division,” presentation to the Committee on Astrobiology and Planetary Science, March 27.

Research and technology developments in support of the new lunar initiative are being implemented (Early Science and Technology Initiative; see Figure 1) as both new programs and refocusing of existing programs toward lunar science. The Solar System Exploration Research Virtual Institute (SSERVI) has released its third Cooperative Agreement Notice (CAN) draft. Although SSERVI is not a new program, the newest solicitation has a potential focus on lunar nodes (teams) and in situ resource utilization (ISRU). The primary role of SSERVI is to provide a virtual collaboration platform for research teams investigating fundamental research on the Moon, near-Earth asteroids, the martian moons, and the near space around these targets.¹⁹ Through its digital collaboration tools, SSERVI offers researchers studying different target bodies a means of accessing the resources and knowledge of other teams, and of promoting the incorporation of cross-disciplinary ideas and methods into research.

Additional elements will be added to programs supporting the analysis of existing lunar samples. Under the enhanced lunar sample analysis campaign, there will be development of an archiving system for lunar (and other) sample data, the digitization of lunar curation data, and the Apollo Next Generation Sample Analysis Program (ANGSA),²⁰ which will be funded under Research Opportunities in Earth and Space Science 2018 (ROSES-18) and has solicited proposals for studying selected, specially curated samples including vacuum-sealed drive tube samples from Apollo missions 15 and 17.

The near-term lunar exploration campaign also includes a concentrated effort to increase deployment of lunar CubeSats and small satellites through both SMD and HEOMD (see Figure 1). Within SMD, the Lunar Polar Hydrogen Mapper (LunaH-Map) is a lunar CubeSat that has been selected under the Small Innovative Missions for Planetary Exploration (SIMPLEx) call to fly as a secondary payload on the first Exploration Mission (EM-1)

___________________

¹⁹ See the Solar System Exploration Research Virtual Institute website at https://sservi.nasa.gov/.

²⁰ NASA, 2018, “Amendment 12: New Opportunity in C.24 Apollo Next Generation Sample Analysis,” May 14, https://science.nasa.gov/researchers/sara/grant-solicitations/roses-2018/amendment-12-new-opportunity-c24-apollo-next-generation-sample-analysis.

of the Space Launch System (SLS).²¹ LunaH-Map will observe lunar hydrogen abundances at less than 10 km spatial scales and examine the relationship between hydrogen and permanently shadowed regions, such as craters, at the Moon’s poles, with an emphasis on the south polar region. Additional lunar CubeSats have also been selected through HEOMD to fly on EM-1 as technical demonstrations. In keeping with the demonstrated efficacy of international collaboration, and in support of Vision and Voyages’ positive tone toward such endeavors, NASA will also be providing an instrument and participating scientists for the Korea Aerospace Research Institute’s Korea Pathfinder Lunar Orbiter (KPLO), scheduled for launch in 2020. A similar cooperative agreement, or other collaboration, with the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) on its upcoming Chandrayaan-2 mission is also planned. Additionally, the Third Stand Alone Missions of Opportunity Notice (SALMON-3) through its SIMPLEx Program Element is soliciting proposals for small lunar missions, among others.

Further near-term lunar science and technology initiatives begun by SMD include the Development and Advancement of Lunar Instrumentation (DALI) call, also funded out of ROSES-18. The call will support development of all lunar instrument types including lander/rover-based instruments and orbital instruments, although the emphasis will be placed on instruments intended for small, stationary landers.²² Instruments are encouraged to support NASA’s broader lunar exploration goals including science, technology, human exploration, and ISRU. Enabling science instrument technologies for the future may include cryogenic sample return or sealed sample return (solar wind studies). Example instruments include, but are not limited to, small (<10 kg) seismometers and mass spectrometers or tunable laser spectrometers for isotopic measurements of volatiles. Larger (>10 kg) instruments that address key science objectives, such as in situ geochronology (e.g., Rb-Sr and K-Ar),^23,24,25 could either be incorporated into larger, medium-class landers or potentially further miniaturized to fit into smaller payloads. The DALI funding will support technologies that could reach flight readiness (technology readiness level, or TRL, of at least 6) as early as 2021.

The augmented lunar science research program described by SMD to CAPS²⁶ directly addresses several high-priority lunar science questions as outlined in Vision and Voyages, the decadal midterm, and the Scientific Context report. New SSERVI nodes with lunar emphases can address an even broader array of lunar science and exploration questions. The near-term exploration campaign, for example, through LunaH-Map, is focused on exploring the lunar polar volatile cycle (i.e., Scientific Context science concept 4 and ASM-SAT concept 2). Future lunar instrumentation, developed under DALI and future programs, can address a broad variety of lunar science questions, but the potential for in situ geochemical and geophysical science is especially great. Future CubeSats and small satellites (<180 kg)²⁷ also hold promise for lunar surface and interior studies.

The augmented program described to CAPS comprises both existing and new capabilities. In some cases, existing programs are enhanced or given an increased lunar focus (e.g., ANGSA, SSERVI), whereas in others (e.g., DALI), new capabilities are being developed. Certain programs that already have lunar elements (e.g., SIMPLEx) will continue. In addition, the existing orbital platform, LRO, continues to serve as a valuable asset for geological exploration (for example, by monitoring the present-day impact flux on the Moon’s surface). Itself initially an Exploration Systems Mission Directorate (precursor to HEOMD) mission, LRO is also a potentially valuable asset in support of future science and robotic and human exploration (for example, by providing context and change detection for future landed missions).

___________________

²¹ See the LunaH-Map website at http://lunahmap.asu.edu/.

²² These are envisaged as part of NASA’s new Commercial Lunar Payload Services program, which is addressed in detail in Report Series: Committee on Astrobiology and Planetary Science—Review of the Commercial Aspects of NASA SMD’s Lunar Science and Exploration Initiative.

²³ B. Cohen, 2016, “The Potassium-Argon Laser Experiment (KArLE): In situ geochronology for planetary robotic missions,” pp. 1-10 in 2016 IEEE Aerospace Conference, doi:10.1109/AERO.2016.7500945.

²⁴ K.A. Farley, J.A. Hurowitz, P.D. Asmow, N.S. Jacobson, and J.A. Cartwright, 2013, A double-spike method for K-Ar measurement: A technique for high precision in situ dating on Mars and other planetary surfaces, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 110:1-12.

²⁵ F.S. Anderson, J. Levine, and T.J. Whitaker, 2015, Dating the martian meteorite Zagami by the ⁸⁷Rb-⁸⁷Sr isochron method with a prototype in situ resonance ionization mass spectrometer, Rapid Communications in Mass Spectrometry 29:191-204.

²⁶ J.L. Green, NASA Science Mission Directorate, 2018, “Status Report: Planetary Science Division,” presentation to the Committee on Astrobiology and Planetary Science, March 27.

²⁷ NASA, 2015, “What are SmallSats and CubeSats?,” February 26, https://www.nasa.gov/content/what-are-smallsats-and-cubesats.

FURTHER CONSIDERATIONS

Lunar science community events organized by the Lunar Exploration Assessment Group (LEAG) and NASA SMD have promoted involvement in the new lunar initiative. The first such event was the Lunar Science for Landed Missions Workshop,²⁸ held in January 2018. The workshop participants examined the existing science priorities from Vision and Voyages, Scientific Context, the ASM-SAT, and other reports and identified 14 landing sites²⁹ that would address high-priority lunar science and, in many cases, exploration questions. This trend continued with the “Survive and Operate Through the Lunar Night” workshop that took place in November 2018.³⁰

As noted, efforts are under way to develop new lunar instrumentation. Instruments are being solicited through the DALI competition, which is open to other SMD divisions, including Heliophysics and Astrophysics, as well as to HEOMD for the development of ISRU instrumentation. Several aspects of lunar science and exploration have goals that crosscut SMD divisions and science communities. For example, new generation retroreflectors—multimirror instruments that allow the Earth-Moon distance to be precisely measured—could be placed on the lunar surface. Augmentation of the preexisting Apollo lunar retroreflector network would not only benefit the planetary science community by better constraining lunar tidal responses but would also potentially benefit the astrophysics community, which can use retroreflectors as a test of fundamental physics.³¹ The potential for crosscutting interdisciplinary science and exploration concepts that can be addressed at the Moon warrant continued attention.

The synthesis of human exploration and science goals that is portrayed in the roadmap of the new lunar initiative (see Figure 1) raises an additional point—the interplay between science and human exploration. Adopting a positive view of the synergistic relationship between science and human exploration, Vision and Voyages also discussed the potential of robotic missions, particularly those in operation (e.g., LRO) or planned for the near-term exploration of the Moon, and human exploration to be mutually beneficial. The survey report urged “the human exploration program to examine this decadal survey and identify—in close coordination and negotiation with the SMD—objectives whereby human-tended science can advance fundamental knowledge.”³² This was done, however, under a cautionary note. Vision and Voyages endorsed³³ the following statement made by the Review of the U.S. Human Spaceflight Plans Committee: “It is essential that budgetary firewalls be built between [the human exploration program and the robotic scientific exploration program]. . . . Without such a mechanism, turmoil is assured and program balance endangered.”³⁴ It is notable that, despite apparent plans for future interfacing between these two mission directorates, the associated goals and program elements were not clearly defined to CAPS, presumably because they are still in formulation.

The Lunar Discovery and Exploration Program offers many opportunities to address high-priority lunar science questions. The lunar New Frontiers missions outlined in Vision and Voyages, however, particularly South Pole-Aitken Basin and Lunar Geophysical Network, require integrated suites of instruments or long-lived, globally distributed science payloads appropriate to a New Frontiers-class mission. With that in mind, the decadal midterm

___________________

²⁸ NASA Ames Research Center, 2018, “Lunar Science for Landed Missions Workshop,” June, https://lunar-landing.arc.nasa.gov/.

²⁹ E.R. Jawin, S.N. Valencia, R.N. Watkins, J.M. Crowell, C.R. Neal, and G. Schmidt, Lunar Science for Landed Missions Workshop Findings Report, accessed March 26, 2018, https://lunar-landing.arc.nasa.gov/downloads/LunarLandedScience_Summary_final_071818.pdf.

³⁰ Lunar and Planetary Institute, “Survive and Operate Through the Lunar Night Workshop: Final Announcement,” https://www.hou.usra.edu/meetings/survivethenight2018/.

³¹ D.E. Smith, M.T. Zuber, E. Mazarico, A. Genova, G.A. Neuman, X. Sun, M.H. Torrence, and D.-d. Mao, 2018, Trilogy, a planetary geodesy mission concept for measuring the expansion of the solar system, Planetary and Space Science 153:127-133.

³²Vision and Voyages, p. 26.

³³Vision and Voyages, p. 26.

³⁴ NASA, 2009, Seeking a Human Spaceflight Program Worthy of a Great Nation, Washington, DC, https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/396093main_HSF_Cmte_FinalReport.pdf, p. 114. Commonly referred to as the “Augustine Committee,” after the committee chair, Norman R. Augustine.

stated that new opportunities may present themselves that were not considered in a previous decadal survey.³⁵ These can take the form of new programmatic objectives (e.g., SPD-1), new technological capabilities (CubeSats and other small satellites, new instrument capabilities), or scientific developments and discoveries (as summarized above). The challenge is to find methods of taking advantage of new opportunities while not abandoning the carefully laid out plans and strategies from Vision and Voyages. The decadal midterm review committee concluded³⁶ that there is a middle ground in which NASA and the science community could give thoughtful consideration to potential deviations from the decadal plans laid out in Vision and Voyages. The decadal midterm highlighted that it is important to consider new opportunities while ensuring that they are consistent with the general philosophy and approach of Vision and Voyages. Furthermore, these new opportunities warrant input from the science community, including on the scientific value of possible deviations as well as the priorities relative to the previously established directions, which is valuable to incorporate into the decision process.

___________________

³⁵ Decadal midterm.

³⁶ Decadal midterm.

5.7 Review of the Draft 2019 Science Mission Directorate Science Plan

A Report of the SSB ad hoc Committee on the NASA Science Mission Directorate Science Plan

Summary

At the request of NASA’s Science Mission Directorate (SMD), the Space Studies Board (SSB) of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine initiated a study to review a draft of SMD’s 2019 Science Plan and provide feedback to SMD. The request for this review was made at a time when SMD is engaged in the development of a new vision for the advancement of space science goals via the codification of a series of leadership priorities and management principles. As such, the 2019 document represents a radical, but welcome, departure from more traditional science strategies and plans adopted by SMD over the past two decades. The draft document is potentially a very important one spelling out SMD’s values, priorities, and principles. The committee believes that its comments help to develop the document into the transformative, inspiring, ambitious, and forward-looking plan it was intended to be.

In conducting its review of the draft 2019 Science Plan (hereafter, the draft document), the Committee on the NASA Science Mission Directorate Science Plan was charged to comment on the following specific areas:

1. Level of ambition of the specified strategies in light of current and emerging opportunities to advance Earth and space science over the next 5 years (see Chapter 3, “Level of Ambition”);
2. Ability of SMD to meet the science objectives in the most recent decadal surveys through implementation of specified strategies (see Chapter 4, “Ability to Meet Science Objectives in Decadal Surveys”);
3. Identification of additional strategies for SMD’s consideration (see Chapter 5, “Identification of Additional Guiding Principles”); and
4. General readability and clarity of presentation (see Chapter 2, “Readability and Clarity of Presentation”).

In response to these four tasks, the committee offers 17 recommendations to SMD.

Very early in its review, the committee discovered issues related to the readability of the material contained in the draft document. However, the purpose and intent of the draft document were much more clearly presented in oral form by SMD officials during the committee’s one and only meeting. The committee’s attempts to address its four tasks as ordered in the statement of task led to difficulties in the organization of this report. Therefore, the committee has altered the order of discussion to lead with item four in the statement of task (i.e., the topic of readability and clarity of presentation). This reordering of the tasks allowed the committee to propose new language that enabled a clearer and more logical discussion of items one, two, and three.

READABILITY AND CLARITY OF PRESENTATION

The title of the draft document does not sufficiently describe its contents. Moreover, the draft document lacks a description of its purpose and target audience, and it does not contain necessary contextual information and definitions. Specific areas where these and other issues of readability and clarity were a concern are called out in subsequent sections of this report.

Recommendation: Change the title to Priorities and Principles for Leadership of NASA Science: A Vision for Scientific Excellence, or something similar, to better reflect its apparent purpose and content.

Recommendation: Include critical context explicitly in the introduction of the document. This information can be drawn, in part, from background information presented to the committee by NASA officials.

NOTE: “Summary” reprinted from NASEM, 2019, Review of the Draft 2019 Science Mission Directorate Science Plan, The National Academies Press, Washington, DC, https://doi.org/10.17226/25587, pp. 1-4.

Interpreting the draft document as a statement of leadership priorities and guiding principles that NASA SMD will employ in implementing its mission, instead of the focus areas and strategies in the draft, can directly benefit the SMD enterprise by providing a powerful tool for communication with internal and external stakeholders.

Recommendation: Rename focus areas as leadership priorities and strategies as guiding principles.

LEVEL OF AMBITION

The draft document’s stated guiding principles for SMD—pursuit of greater cross-disciplinary and cross-divisional collaboration, encouragement of a culture of entrepreneurship, and increased emphasis on research with high intellectual risk but potentially high impact—are ambitious. This approach will help the science divisions within SMD hew to a common vision of their integration of space missions and supporting scientific investigations. Some leadership priorities described in the draft document can be achieved in the short term, whereas others are broader statements of principle. Regrettably, the draft document does not effectively connect the leadership priorities contained in its first half with the division summaries contained in its second half.

Recommendation: Outline the ways in which SMD’s four science divisions will seek to embody the presented guiding principles.

Recommendation: Consistently frame the guiding principles, either as declarations of a desired state or as near-term directions or tasks.

ABILITY TO MEET SCIENCE OBJECTIVES

The draft document provides a solid framework for carrying out SMD’s mission; the leadership priorities and guiding principles highlight the need to tackle the science objectives outlined in the decadal surveys relevant to each of SMD’s four divisions, as well as participate in human exploration and technological innovation. The need to identify the optimal balance in risk-taking is also an important topic that spans intellectual and technological activities. However, the draft document does not specify, even via general examples,

1. How the guiding principles will be implemented,
2. How SMD’s management will evaluate the success of each of the four divisions in adopting the principles,
3. How the guiding principles are relevant to fulfilling decadal survey objectives. Most puzzling is the omission of any mention of the 2018 decadal survey of Earth science and applications from space.

These discrepancies are exemplified most strongly by the disconnect between the description of the guiding principles and leadership priorities and the subsequent summaries of the activities of SMD’s four divisions. In addition, although the guiding principles spell out the role of technology, the key role of foundational science is not well articulated.

Recommendation: Broaden the “Innovation” leadership priority to include aspects that go beyond technology and high-risk science.

Recommendation: Spell out clearly the key role of fundamental science as a foundation for exploration and technology development.

Recommendation: Highlight the means to implement science that spans multiple divisions and makes seamless collaboration across NASA directorates a target.

Recommendation: Outline how the fundamental science can be enhanced and widened in scope to encompass interactions with user communities, including universities, private industry, not-for-profit organizations, and other government agencies.

Recommendation: Elevate risk-taking from innovation to a wider context. For example, outline actions that would contribute to the realization of higher-risk projects that have high intellectual yield.

ADDITIONAL GUIDING PRINCIPLES

The draft document begins by reviewing NASA’s core values and adding a fifth one, leadership, under the umbrella of SMD. Although there is no doubt that leadership is required to deliver on NASA’s four core values, its addition to SMD’s list of core values risks the appearance of challenging the smaller list of core values that NASA has adopted at the highest level.

The mix of finite objectives and states of being that SMD wants to achieve could be better rationalized to support the establishment of these as enduring principles, as does the use of the term “strategies” instead of “guiding principles” and “focus areas” instead of “leadership priorities.” In addition, the draft document does not address how the presented principles might be pursued, which in turn hinders an understanding of how SMD will determine whether progress has been made.

The committee identified workforce development, mentoring, recruitment, and retention as a guiding principle that was not clearly called out in the draft document. Similarly, under the “Innovation” leadership priority, the draft document did not identify programmatic innovations that could improve efficiency and reduce costs. Examples could include management, contracting, oversight, and considerations for continuity of observations. Furthermore, increasing diversity of thought and backgrounds is best described as a contribution to the section on “Innovation” rather than the section on “Inspiration.”

The roles of universities, research institutions, and industry were not adequately stressed as a means of achieving excellence and diversity as well as contributing to workforce development.

Finally, the draft does not describe how NASA, SMD, and the broader science community would determine when these guiding principles have been implemented within SMD.

Recommendation: Do not insert leadership as a fifth core value. Rather, the importance of leadership should be asserted when introducing the four leadership priorities.

Recommendation: Describe the guiding principles in enough detail to provide definition, context, and examples whenever possible.

Recommendation: Describe the desired future state. The “2024 Future State” slide presented to the committee may be an appropriate starting point for a section on this topic.

Recommendation: Move the guiding principle “Increase the diversity of thought and backgrounds represented across the entire NASA Science portfolio through a more inclusive environment” from the section on “Inspiration” to the section on “Innovation.”

Recommendation: Spell out the aim and means to effectively collaborate with universities, research institutions, and industry in carrying out SMD’s programs as well as developing the diverse future workforce.

Recommendation: Expand the discussion of diversity and inclusion by recognizing the variety of approaches necessary to achieve this goal.

Recommendation: Add a new guiding principle 4.1, “Develop the Future SMD Workforce.” This principle should explicitly incorporate the importance of mentorship, recruiting, training, as well as link to the principle about increasing diversity of thought and backgrounds (in Innovation).

CONCLUSIONS

Unlike earlier SMD science strategies and plans, the 2019 draft does not include details about current scientific thrusts and plans for missions among its four science divisions. Instead, it focuses on guiding principles and leadership priorities that could effectively lead to fulfillment of recommendations in decadal surveys and in

the development and deployment of human capital. If the draft document can be revised as recommended here, the divisional commitment to the stated leadership priorities and guiding principles made more explicit, and the writing overall imbued with language equal to the magnitude of the vision, the draft document could guide SMD to a future that is ambitious, forward looking, and inspiring.

5.8 Strategic Investments in Instrumentation and Facilities for Extraterrestrial Sample Curation and Analysis

A Report of the SSB ad hoc Committee on Extraterrestrial Sample Analysis Facilities

Summary

The United States possesses a treasure trove of extraterrestrial samples that were returned to Earth via space missions over the past four decades. Following the Natioånal Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Apollo and USSR Luna sample return missions to the Moon in the late 1960s and early 1970s, samples of the solar wind (Genesis, 2004), a cometary coma and interstellar dust (Stardust, 2006), and an asteroid (Hayabusa, operated by the Japanese Space Agency, JAXA, 2010) have all been returned to Earth. In addition, there are two missions under way to primitive asteroids (JAXA’s Hayabusa2 and NASA’s Origins, Spectral Interpretation, Resource Identification, Security, Regolith Explorer, or OSIRIS-REx) that are expected to return samples in the 2020s. Plans are in the making to return samples from Mars, the martian moon Phobos, a cometary nucleus, additional samples from the Moon, and, perhaps eventually, ices from comets, lunar polar impact basins, and outer solar system moons. Analyses of previously returned samples have led to major breakthroughs in the understanding of the age, composition, and origin of the solar system. Having the instrumentation, facilities, and qualified personnel to undertake analyses of returned samples, especially from missions that take up to a decade or longer from launch to return, is thus of paramount importance if NASA is to capitalize fully on the investment made in these missions and to achieve the full scientific impact afforded by these extraordinary samples. Planetary science may be entering a new golden era of extraterrestrial sample return; now is the time to assess how prepared the scientific community is to take advantage of these opportunities.

In response to a request from NASA, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine established the Committee on Extraterrestrial Sample Analysis Facilities to determine the current capabilities within the planetary science community for sample return analyses and curation and where these facilities are located; to assess what capabilities are currently missing that will be needed for future sample return missions, as guided by the decadal survey;¹ to evaluate whether current laboratory support infrastructure and NASA’s investment strategy are adequate to meet these analytical challenges; and to advise how the community can keep abreast of evolving and new techniques in order to stay at the forefront of extraterrestrial sample analysis.

Readers are directed to the following chapters:

• Chapter 1: Introduction
• Chapter 2: Sample Return Missions and Other Collections
• Chapter 3: Current Sample Return Missions and Near-Future Priorities Outlined in the Planetary Science Decadal Survey
• Chapter 4: Current Laboratories and Facilities
• Chapter 5: Current and Future Instrumentation and Investments for Extraterrestrial Sample Analysis

The committee concludes that the planetary science analytical community has access to a wide range of instrumentation relevant to sample return missions that are currently flying, and there are no obvious gaps in instrumentation for analysis of rocks, glasses, minerals, and the current inventory of organic materials. However, the committee raises concerns about sample analysis capabilities needed for future missions, including the replacement of aging analytical facilities, the ability for laboratories to innovate and evolve from their current state, and the ability to maintain the technical support to sustain these laboratories. In addition, as many of the current planetary sample scientists will be retired before some of these missions are flown, laboratory sustainability requires train-

___________________

NOTE: “Summary” reprinted from NASEM, 2019, Strategic Investments in Instrumentation and Facilities for Extraterrestrial Sample Curation and Analysis, The National Academies Press, Washington, DC, https://doi.org/10.17226/25312, pp. 1-4.

¹ National Research Council, 2011, Vision and Voyages for Planetary Science in the Decade 2013-2022, The National Academies Press, Washington, DC, https://doi.org/10.17226/13117.

ing young scientists in analytical methods and instrumentation and growing the next crop of instrument developers. With the greater challenges of possible future sample return missions that seek to return martian samples, or possibly ices and gases, the committee concludes that developing new partnerships with related communities that analyze terrestrial samples, international collaboration, and finding ways for interdisciplinary discussion and knowledge sharing will be critical.

The above needs are superimposed upon a flat budget for purchasing instrumentation, which, because it does not track inflation, represents declining spending power. Thus, if NASA does not invest new funds into the replacement of current instrumentation and development of new technologies, technical staff support, and training the next generation of analysts, the current capabilities cannot be sustained, and development and adoption of new technologies will be impaired. Under such a scenario, NASA will need to plan for a reduction in the number of laboratories supported by the Planetary Science Division (PSD) funding program.

ADVICE TO NASA REGARDING FUNDING OF LABORATORIES

As currently formulated, NASA’s investment in analytical instrumentation is insufficient to provide for replacement of existing instruments, most of which can be assumed to have an average life span of 10 years. This typical time scale for depreciation and obsolescence of analytical instrumentation means a significant fraction of current capabilities will be gone by the time ongoing missions (Hayabusa2 and OSIRIS-REx) return samples to Earth, and most will be gone on the time scale of Mars sample return or other anticipated near-future missions. It follows that the currently robust analytical infrastructure for study of extraterrestrial samples is diminishing. Addition of new technological innovations further stretch the current funding programs. One solution to this dilemma is to leverage NASA funding of laboratory analysis of returned samples with contributions from other funding agencies or institutions, which has long been a key source of support for these efforts. The committee recommends that NASA Planetary Science Division should continue to engage in and encourage cost-sharing arrangements for laboratory analytical equipment with other funding sources. (Section 5.2.1)

Many scientists engaged in analyses of extraterrestrial materials utilize multiuser facilities for sample characterization that are funded through a variety of sources. While multiuser facilities can provide increased access to common instrumentation for many investigators, innovations and breakthroughs have historically occurred at individual principal investigator (PI) laboratories. Thus, the committee recommends that NASA Planetary Science Division should continue to invest in both multiuser facilities and individual principal investigator laboratories. (Section 5.2.1)

In addition to investing in equipment, having highly qualified technical staff is essential to keep laboratories running efficiently and to develop new methods and instrumentation. Most U.S. laboratories engaged in sample analyses are experiencing increased difficulty finding and retaining good technical support staff because these positions are generally supported by one or more short-term (~1-3 years) research grants (i.e., the “soft money” funding model common in many U.S. institutions). This funding model forces laboratories to distribute their efforts among a variety of tasks and to be accountable to a variety of funding sources, which degrades the specialized skills and sustained advances in capabilities that result from focused study of returned samples and other extraterrestrial materials. NASA’s investment in analytical facilities could be enhanced by providing sustained funding for technical support staff, so that the analytical work undertaken by a laboratory remains focused on extraterrestrial sample analyses. The committee recommends that NASA Planetary Science Division should provide means for longer term (e.g., 5-year) funding of technical staff support. (Section 5.2.2)

There are currently no missions under way or even planned that entail return of cryogenic materials. However, efforts are under way to undertake missions that could return gases within the next decades—for example, the Comet Astrobiology Exploration Sample Return mission to sample a comet surface that is currently under consideration—and eventually to return ices from the Moon, comets, or moons of the outer planets. If one or more of these mission concepts is pursued, it could reap tremendous scientific advances. Technology development focused on Cryogenic Comet Sample Return, as recommended by the decadal survey, is warranted, and exploring technologies already available in related communities that analyze terrestrial samples of ices, gases, and organic matter could benefit the extraterrestrial sample analysis community. Given that development of curatorial facilities and instrumentation to handle these challenging materials will likely take decades to complete, the committee recommends that NASA Planetary Science Division should make appropriate investments in the technological development of novel instrumentation and unconventional analytical techniques, specifically for curation, as

well as characterization and analysis of nontraditional samples that are expected to be returned from future missions. These would likely include gases, ices, and organic matter, including volatile organic compounds and related hybrids and complexes. (Section 5.3.1)

In particular for organic matter, the committee recommends that with the rapid developments in related fields such as molecular biology, and concomitant advances in bio-organic analytical methodologies, NASA should consider partnerships with relevant federal agencies (e.g., the Department of Energy and the National Institutes of Health) and laboratories (e.g., the National Laboratories). NASA should implement information exchange activities (e.g., joint workshops) to enhance cross-fertilization and cooperative development of analytical instrumentation and methods, specifically to enhance analysis of organic matter (both macromolecular/polymeric and molecular-moderate molecular masses, as well as volatiles—low molecular weight compounds), in the study of extraterrestrial returned samples. (Section 5.3.1)

Many spacefaring nations have, like the United States, recognized the scientific potential of extraterrestrial sample return missions and have either executed such missions or are actively planning them. These nations have invested significantly in state-of-the art instrumentation and in developing a highly skilled workforce to carry out analyses of extraterrestrial samples. It would be advantageous for strategic alignment in investments in such facilities by international space agencies to maximize the availability to U.S. researchers. The committee recommends that NASA Planetary Science Division should continue to engage in strategic relationships with international partners to ensure that the best science possible is extracted from extraterrestrial samples with the limited resources available to all space agencies. (Section 5.3.1)

The committee further recommends that NASA Planetary Science Division should consider ways to facilitate the dissemination of information about present and future international, state-of-the-art facilities relevant to sample analysis. This could, for example, include organizing workshops to be held with existing international conferences. (Section 5.3.1)

Last, a highly qualified workforce that is able to perform both routine and state-of-the-art laboratory analyses, as well as develop the instruments of the future, is necessary to fulfill NASA’s goals for the characterization and analysis of future returned samples. The committee recommends that NASA Planetary Science Division should encourage principal investigators to specifically address in their research proposals how the work will contribute toward training future generations of laboratory-based planetary scientists. (Section 5.3.2)

ADVICE TO NASA ON MAINTAINING WORLD-CLASS CURATION AND DEVELOPING FUTURE CURATORIAL FACILITIES

The NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC) Astromaterials Acquisition and Curation Office is the world leader in curating and tracking returned samples, as well as in the types of analyses conducted on those samples. The impact of the JSC curatorial staff’s efforts go well beyond their immediate duties of curation, as they have been instrumental in helping to train the next generation of extraterrestrial materials scientists and have helped in the development of curatorial facilities at international partner institutions. It would be desirable to harness the expertise represented by the collective knowledge of the curatorial staff at JSC when future mission PIs are planning for sample return missions.

While JSC’s current expansion plans will provide adequate curatorial facilities for active (Hayabusa2 and OSIRIS-REx [Origins, Spectral Interpretation, Resource Identification, Security, Regolith Explorer]) and possible near-future missions such as martian moons sample return, there is a need to develop additional facilities for any future sample return in the 2030s and beyond. Such facilities will require advanced planning and new technologies for the return of significant organic matter, ices, and gases. To ensure that NASA and the science community continue to be at the forefront of extraterrestrial sample curation and analysis, the committee recommends that NASA Planetary Science Division should increase support for Johnson Space Center to develop appropriate curatorial and characterization facilities relevant to and necessary for future sample returns of organic matter, ices, and gases. (Section 5.3.3) In addition, the committee recommends that NASA Planetary Science Division should accelerate planning for curation of returned martian samples, seeking partnerships with other countries, as appropriate. (Section 5.3.3)

Last, there is a need to develop online archives of the analyses undertaken on all return samples, along with metadata (e.g., analytical precision, accuracy, etc.) associated with these analyses.

ADVICE TO NASA REGARDING INVESTMENT STRATEGY

As noted above, NASA’s investment in analytical instrumentation is insufficient to provide replacement of existing instruments as well as develop new instrumentation needed for future missions. Without modest to significant increases in funding by NASA in analytical instrumentation for sample analyses, either a decrease in capacity or a reduction in future capabilities seems inevitable, as well as the inability to support highly trained technical staff, train the next generation of extraterrestrial sample analysts and laboratory instrument developers, and begin planning for the curation and analyses of challenging new types of samples. The committee recommends that NASA Planetary Science Division should place high priority on investment in analytical instrumentation (including purchase, maintenance, technical oversight, and development) and curation (facilities and protocols) sufficient to provide for both replacement of existing capacity and development of new capabilities. This will maximize the benefit from the significant investment necessary to return samples for laboratory analysis from asteroids, comets, the Moon, and eventually Mars and outer solar system moons. (Section 5.4)

Lunar samples are excluded from one of the major sources of funding for analytical instrumentation within PSD—the Laboratory Analysis of Returned Samples program—and yet fundamental discoveries regarding the origin and nature of the Moon continue to derive from analyses of lunar return samples. Opportunities to propose lunar sample analysis to other research funding programs are limited by the focus of those programs—Solar System Workings and Emerging Worlds; see the discussion in Section 5.1. Thus, the committee recommends that NASA Planetary Science Division should consider opening the Laboratory Analysis of Returned Samples grant program to all mission-returned extraterrestrial samples. (Section 5.1)