National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: 18 Planetary Defense: Defending Earth through Applied Planetary Science
Suggested Citation:"19 Human Exploration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Origins, Worlds, and Life: A Decadal Strategy for Planetary Science and Astrobiology 2023-2032. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26522.
×
Page 526
Suggested Citation:"19 Human Exploration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Origins, Worlds, and Life: A Decadal Strategy for Planetary Science and Astrobiology 2023-2032. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26522.
×
Page 527
Suggested Citation:"19 Human Exploration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Origins, Worlds, and Life: A Decadal Strategy for Planetary Science and Astrobiology 2023-2032. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26522.
×
Page 528
Suggested Citation:"19 Human Exploration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Origins, Worlds, and Life: A Decadal Strategy for Planetary Science and Astrobiology 2023-2032. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26522.
×
Page 529
Suggested Citation:"19 Human Exploration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Origins, Worlds, and Life: A Decadal Strategy for Planetary Science and Astrobiology 2023-2032. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26522.
×
Page 530
Suggested Citation:"19 Human Exploration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Origins, Worlds, and Life: A Decadal Strategy for Planetary Science and Astrobiology 2023-2032. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26522.
×
Page 531
Suggested Citation:"19 Human Exploration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Origins, Worlds, and Life: A Decadal Strategy for Planetary Science and Astrobiology 2023-2032. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26522.
×
Page 532
Suggested Citation:"19 Human Exploration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Origins, Worlds, and Life: A Decadal Strategy for Planetary Science and Astrobiology 2023-2032. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26522.
×
Page 533
Suggested Citation:"19 Human Exploration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Origins, Worlds, and Life: A Decadal Strategy for Planetary Science and Astrobiology 2023-2032. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26522.
×
Page 534
Suggested Citation:"19 Human Exploration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Origins, Worlds, and Life: A Decadal Strategy for Planetary Science and Astrobiology 2023-2032. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26522.
×
Page 535
Suggested Citation:"19 Human Exploration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Origins, Worlds, and Life: A Decadal Strategy for Planetary Science and Astrobiology 2023-2032. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26522.
×
Page 536
Suggested Citation:"19 Human Exploration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Origins, Worlds, and Life: A Decadal Strategy for Planetary Science and Astrobiology 2023-2032. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26522.
×
Page 537
Suggested Citation:"19 Human Exploration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Origins, Worlds, and Life: A Decadal Strategy for Planetary Science and Astrobiology 2023-2032. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26522.
×
Page 538
Suggested Citation:"19 Human Exploration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Origins, Worlds, and Life: A Decadal Strategy for Planetary Science and Astrobiology 2023-2032. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26522.
×
Page 539
Suggested Citation:"19 Human Exploration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Origins, Worlds, and Life: A Decadal Strategy for Planetary Science and Astrobiology 2023-2032. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26522.
×
Page 540
Suggested Citation:"19 Human Exploration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Origins, Worlds, and Life: A Decadal Strategy for Planetary Science and Astrobiology 2023-2032. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26522.
×
Page 541
Suggested Citation:"19 Human Exploration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Origins, Worlds, and Life: A Decadal Strategy for Planetary Science and Astrobiology 2023-2032. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26522.
×
Page 542
Suggested Citation:"19 Human Exploration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Origins, Worlds, and Life: A Decadal Strategy for Planetary Science and Astrobiology 2023-2032. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26522.
×
Page 543
Suggested Citation:"19 Human Exploration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Origins, Worlds, and Life: A Decadal Strategy for Planetary Science and Astrobiology 2023-2032. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26522.
×
Page 544

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

19 Human Exploration THE PIVOTAL ROLE OF SCIENCE IN HUMAN EXPLORATION Human exploration of space inspires our nation and the world while simultaneously benefiting our technology development, economic standing, and scientific knowledge. 1 Human and robotic exploration of the solar system over the next decade and beyond will benefit from a logical, sustained, and science-focused approach. In this chapter, the committee addresses the opportunities for science within the context of current human exploration plans and priorities, as well as areas of planetary science that can support human flight activities. Although humans may eventually travel to the far reaches of the solar system, the committee focuses on the surfaces of the Moon and Mars as the most likely near-term, science-rich destinations, based on stated NASA and commercial exploration plans. There are many important motivations for human exploration of the Moon and Mars. The committee’s discussion and recommendations reflect an overarching premise: that a robust science program—i.e., one capable of addressing decadal-level science 2—is a required element to ensure the maximum value and longevity of human exploration programs such as Artemis for the Moon and planned exploration of Mars. The promise of exciting discovery is a core element of ambitious and enduring space programs, as evidenced by the success of sustained robotic programs such as the Hubble Space Telescope and the Mars Exploration Program. Merging human exploration with scientific discovery benefits our nation’s investments in its trailblazing planetary exploration program. Finding: Human exploration is an aspirational and inspirational endeavor, and NASA’s Moon-to-Mars exploration plans hold the promise of broad benefits to the nation and the world. Human exploration can potentially enable breakthrough science at the Moon and Mars. Communicating the process and importance of scientific discovery, as enhanced by human explorers, will inspire the next generation of STEM professionals 3. Recommendation: Conducting decadal-level science should be a central requirement of the human exploration program. 1 A glossary of acronyms and technical terms can be found in Appendix F. 2 Decadal-level science is that which results in significant, unambiguous progress in addressing at least one of the survey’s 12 priority science questions.” 3 c.f. Historical Studies in the Societal Impact of Human Spaceflight, Steven Dick (ed), 2015, NASA SP-2015- 4803, p 530. PREPUBLICATION COPY – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION 19-1

BOX 19.1 Sustainability NASA has used the word “sustainable” to describe one goal for human lunar exploration through Artemis. As “sustainable” has not yet been defined in this context, we provide our working definition of “sustainable” as meaning that there are widely accepted reasons to continue human lunar exploration that justify the continued investment, commitment, and risk beyond a few missions. The reasons to continue the lunar program include ongoing scientific discoveries, investing in potential commercial development, technology development, educating the next generation of STEM (science, technology, engineering, math) professionals and a scientifically literate public, and inspiring the public about our individual and collective opportunities and future. SCIENCE ENABLED BY HUMAN EXPLORERS Planetary Science and Astrobiology field studies benefit from an astronaut’s ability to observe sites in striking detail, recognize unexpected observations, analyze critically in real-time to create and refine conceptual models, and react to changing conditions, hypotheses, and interpretations while in the field (McPhee and Charles 2020). Humans can efficiently make targeted in situ measurements and conduct sampling activities that require careful but relatively rapid decisions based on local geological context. Even as robotic exploration capabilities have grown, human explorers can conduct scientific operations much more rapidly than robotic assets (Bartels 2018) and are particularly adept at installing and operating complex infrastructure and scientific assets, especially when unforeseen issues or difficulties require decision-making and on-the-spot innovation (Slakey and Spudis 2008). These points are reflected in one of the greatest legacies of NASA’s human exploration program to date: the scientific bonanza afforded by the Apollo in situ measurements and sample collections, which continue even today to yield breakthrough discoveries about the Earth-Moon system, e.g., as new analytical approaches are applied to lunar samples in terrestrial laboratories. Science benefitted tremendously from the Apollo program, which helped to create the field of planetary science by inspiring a generation of scientists and engineers from chemistry, physics, and the geosciences to turn their attention to the Moon— many of these individuals have become the leaders of the space program. Major investments in analytical instrumentation, the enlisting of a substantial cohort of students and postdoctoral scientists, an explosion of the planetary literature, and the launch of one of the premier annual meetings in planetary science can all be traced to Apollo. Certain key science objectives at the Moon and Mars (Table 19.1) can be strongly enabled by future human missions. Of primary importance is the ability of human missions to return carefully chosen samples with increased quality, diversity, and volume. Similarly, in situ investigations, e.g., of surface and subsurface ice samples on the Moon and Mars, can be enabled by the ability of humans to manipulate complex sampling tools as well as the potential to return intact samples and/or ice cores at cryogenic temperatures. Other measurements that could be facilitated by humans include those requiring deployment of geophysical/subsurface investigations and modern atmosphere/exosphere measurement packages. PREPUBLICATION COPY – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION 19-2

TABLE 19.1 Science Objectives (Non-Exhaustive List) Enabled or Facilitated by Humans at the Moon and/or Mars Priority Science Human Expertise Science Objective Questions Astronauts can be well-equipped to conduct Determine the origin, composition, and history 4.3, 5.5, 6.1, sorties and sample and return intact cores of ice deposits 10.3, 10.4 deeper (>1 m) than easily accomplished by robotic missions Establish internal heat flow and determine 5.2, 5.5 near-surface stratigraphy using geophysical probes and cores Astronauts can collect more and better Establish the impact flux through time in the 2.4, 3.1, 3.2, 4.1, geologic samples than static robotic inner solar system, the nature of impactors, 4.2, 9.1, 10.2 missions by virtue of their ability to more and whether there was a late heavy rapidly assess geologic context to select the bombardment optimal samples, conduct traverses to allow for increased sample diversity, and to Probe of volcanic, tectonic and magmatic 3.5, 4.3, 5.2, 5.3, return larger sample quantities. Astronauts processes, including the formation of planetary 5.6, 8.2, 8.3 could also retrieve samples robotically cached. On Mars, astronauts could deploy dichotomy/asymmetry more widespread and sophisticated in situ monitoring to track gas fluxes and conduct sophisticated life detection investigations. Determine the timing and characteristics of the 3.3, 4.3 giant impact that produced the Earth-Moon system Determine changes in the ancient atmosphere, 3.6, 4.3, 5.3, 5.4, climate, and habitable environments with 6.1, 6.2, 10.1, liquid water 10.2, 10.3, 10.5, 10.7 Determine whether there is/was life 11.1, 11.3, 11.4 Astronauts can efficiently deploy stations Measure interactions of atmospheres and 4.1, 6.5, 10.2 over a wide area to make measurements of exospheres with the space environment modern properties, can conduct in situ tests to determine optimal layouts pre- deployment, and can conduct tests using an Determine interior structure and history of the 3.3, 4.4, 5.1, 5.2, initial layout and re-deploy as necessary magnetic field 8.2 post-testing. Determine if liquid water currently exists in 10.1, 10.3 subsurface aquifers PREPUBLICATION COPY – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION 19-3

Astronauts are most effective when they are well trained not only in the engineering and operations of vehicle and hardware components but also in field geology (and astrobiology, where appropriate) and scientific research techniques. The remarkable science derived from the Apollo “J” missions (Apollo 15, 16, 17) was in part due to the geologic field training of the astronauts prior to the flights (Phinney 2015). While this basic geological training of the Apollo astronauts was sufficient for short lunar sorties, future astronauts exploring the Moon and Mars will require more comprehensive scientific training (Hodges and Schmitt 2019). Training activities are most effective when classroom and laboratory learning is complimented by intense field training. Sustained field experiences are critical to master the iterative observational and interpretive skills needed to translate field observables into scientific hypotheses by the astronaut onsite, thereby capitalizing on the powerful human ability to understand large amounts of interrelated data (Compton 1985; Logfren et al. 2011). The quality and utility of these scientific interpretations, however, are highly dependent upon the field scientist’s experience (Schmitt et al. 2011). The complex mental processes of developing and refining working hypotheses directly influences tactical decision-making for determining priorities, tasks, and handling contingencies while conducting fieldwork. Therefore, astronauts need to be exquisitely trained to develop the science knowledge base and mental thought processes to optimize scientific measurements, sample collection and high grading, and operational activities while conducting fieldwork on the lunar and/or martian surface. Involvement of some professionally trained planetary scientists in astronaut teams would be ideal, in keeping with the successful record of Dr. Harrison Schmitt’s involvement in the scientifically impactful Apollo 17 mission. Finding: A crucial driver of sustained human exploration is the ability of human explorers—with appropriate training and mission planning—to conduct and enable the highest quality, decadal-level science that expands humankind’s understanding of Earth, the solar system, and the universe. Recommendation: NASA should engage with the science community to 1) define scientific goals for its human exploration programs at the early stages of program planning; and 2) ensure scientific expertise in field geology, planetary science, and astrobiology in its astronaut teams. NEAR-TERM HUMAN EXPLORATION PLANS, RELATIONSHIP TO SCIENCE, AND IN SITU RESOURCE UTILIZATION Multiple entities have ambitious plans for exploration of the Moon and Mars in the coming decades. NASA’s Artemis Plan calls for landing humans near the south polar region of the Moon within the 2020s in pursuit of the development of a basecamp designed for longer stays. Artemis consists of several elements including the SLS (Space Launch System) rocket, Orion spacecraft, Human Landing System (HLS), and the Gateway (an orbiting outpost in a highly elliptical rectilinear halo lunar orbit). Artemis plans for Orion to be launched on an SLS, rendezvous with a crew transfer to the HLS, and then for the HLS vehicle (SpaceX Starship) to deliver astronauts to the lunar surface and back to Orion for return to Earth. Early Artemis missions are to focus on proving various architecture elements through short duration missions to the lunar surface. Artemis missions are planned to enable longer surface expeditions with enhanced capabilities. NASA plans for an Artemis Base Camp (Figure 19.1) that will include advanced elements such as an unpressurized lunar terrain vehicle, a habitable mobility platform (a pressurized rover), habitat module, power systems, and in situ resource utilization (ISRU) capabilities. 4 Building upon the Artemis experiences on the Moon, NASA intends to fly humans to Mars perhaps as soon as the late-2030s. In addition to NASA, U.S. commercial entities and non-U.S. space agencies and entities have expressed interest and plans for sending humans to the Moon and Mars, as discussed further in the final sections of this chapter. 4 See https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/artemis_plan-20200921.pdf. PREPUBLICATION COPY – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION 19-4

FIGURE 19.1. Artist rendition of a planned Artemis Base Camp. SOURCE: NASA. There are destinations and measurements that will help both robotic and human exploration to achieve their common scientific goals in this decade, as discussed in the 2019 CAPS (Committee on Astrobiology and Planetary Science) report “Review of the Planetary Science Aspects of NASA SMD’s Lunar Science and Exploration Initiative”. Precursor missions can enable monitoring measurements that contribute to both science and to optimizing crew safety and planetary protection compliance. Examples include characterization of radiation environments, dust properties, thermophysical environments, and, on Mars, properties of chemical, mineral, and trace organic constituents in the soils (form, abundance) that would inevitably be brought into human habitats. Additionally, high spatial resolution landing site reconnaissance for landing site safety, efficient traverse planning, and planning for infrastructure placement (landforms, roughness, geotechnical properties, compositional variation) enables well-planned human activities while simultaneously advancing science objectives by the acquisition of datasets that meet science observation requirements and improve our ability to deftly target the most scientifically meaningful landing sites. A particular issue relevant to both exploration and science is the substantial overlap between studies to characterize the potential for in situ resource utilization (ISRU) and scientific measurements desired to quantify the state and evolution of near-surface volatile reservoirs (e.g., depth, distribution, and composition, in particular of water ice) at the Moon and Mars. Measurement and characterization of lunar polar volatiles is central to scientific questions pertaining to the age, origin, and evolution of lunar and solar system volatiles (e.g., the INSPIRE mission concept study report). Similar measurements are critical for informing the design and development of ISRU pilot demonstration systems as well as full-scale ISRU processing plants envisioned to enable long-term human presence on the Moon (and eventually Mars). While in situ resource prospecting goals for science and exploration share commonalities, these goals and synergies will begin to diverge when extraction activities commence. The Artemis Accords (see final section of this chapter) call for the sustainable utilization of resources from the Moon. A reasonable interpretation in the context of the Accords is that resources are utilized in a manner that appropriately balances consumptive uses (e.g., using lunar polar water ice to manufacture rocket fuel or for human uses) with scientific uses (e.g., using lunar polar water ice to study the lunar volatile cycle). Such resource allocations will ultimately require identifying the nature and occurrence of a resource, PREPUBLICATION COPY – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION 19-5

determining the extent of resource recoverability, understanding variability that may make some deposits more scientifically important than others, and development of means to ensure oversight and equitable use. Therefore, to ensure the availability of resources, especially water ice, for scientific use, the capability for NASA to map and understand the resources is critical. Such an understanding would be used as input into allocation for different purposes. An oversight structure could be employed to appropriately allocate resources, again to ensure their availability for both science and utilization by humans; such an oversight structure would have to be international, to account for the international participation in the Artemis program and to ensure equitable allocation of resources within a sustainable manner. In parallel, NASA would benefit from convening a team of experts to review the ethics of planetary ISRU and determine optimal plans and processes to ensure sustainable and responsible resource utilization. Humans are the trustees of our planetary environments for future generations. Finding: With a renewed national human spaceflight program for destinations beyond Earth, as well as commercial entrants with interests in establishing space-based economic activities, there is ample opportunity for decadal Science objectives to infuse, and ideally drive, choices of human destinations and activities on the Moon and Mars. Finding: A strategic plan is needed to identify measurements most critical to informing ISRU architecture options, ensuring sustainable exploration, and the connection to addressing decadal-level science questions. INTEGRATING SCIENCE INTO HUMAN EXPLORATION The decadal survey “Vision & Voyages for Planetary Science in the Decade 2013-2022” report emphasized the importance of budgetary firewalls between human and robotic spaceflight, reduction of “turmoil” caused by incorporation of human exploration requirements in robotic science mission post- selection, and the importance of carefully crafted collaboration. For this decade with a near-term plan for human exploration of the Moon and preparatory activities at Mars, the committee emphasizes the importance of carefully crafted collaboration. A program of scientific exploration can be constructed this decade whereby science enables human exploration and human exploration enables science. The National Research Council’s Committee on Human Exploration (CHEX 1997) included among their principles for management of science in programs of human exploration the need for an integrated science program, specifying that the “scientific study of specific planetary bodies, such as the Moon and Mars, should be treated as an integral part of an overall solar system science program and not separated out simply because there may be concurrent interest in human exploration of these bodies.” Integrated science programs at the Moon and Mars are critical to the successful integration of science in plans for human exploration. Integrated programs of science for the Moon and Mars are only one component of ensuring the success of science in human exploration endeavors. Of critical importance is how the identified science goals and objectives for the Moon and Mars are incorporated into systems-level requirements, e.g., for Artemis. As described in the following section, the organizational structure currently in place for determining science requirements for human exploration diminishes the great potential of Artemis to accomplish transformational science. NASA PROGRAMMATIC CONSIDERATIONS FOR ARTEMIS AND BEYOND: CHALLENGES OF INTEGRATING SCIENCE AND HUMAN EXPLORATION The United States embarked on a new era of human space exploration with the advent of Space Policy Directive-1 (SPD-1) in 2017. SPD-1 set a new national space policy direction and stated that “the United PREPUBLICATION COPY – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION 19-6

States will lead the return of humans to the Moon for long-term exploration and utilization, followed by human missions to Mars and other destinations”. In response, NASA PSD (Planetary Science Division) created the Lunar Discovery and Exploration Program (LDEP) in 2019. The 2019 CAPS (Committee on Astrobiology and Planetary Science) report concluded that “PSD has taken early measures to ensure participation of the lunar science community and that decadal lunar science priorities are or will be addressed in its Lunar Discovery and Exploration Program”. This early commitment in SMD to supporting human exploration activities was promising, and here the committee evaluates subsequent SMD activities as well as interactions with the human exploration directorates within NASA. NASA has a framework for governance and strategic management as well as defined roles for each of its directorates. In this agency structure, the Science Mission Directorate (SMD) is responsible for planning and executing the science priorities established by decadal surveys for the five scientific disciplines assigned to SMD while also considering factors such as cost, technical readiness, and programmatic balance. From the outset of Artemis planning, HEOMD (Human Exploration & Operations Mission Directorate) was to be responsible for planning, developing, and operating human exploration systems. In September 2021, HEOMD was divided into two separate directorates, a Space Operations Mission Directorate (SpaceOps) to focus on launch and space operations, and an Exploration Systems Development Mission Directorate (ESDMD), which will define and manage development of the Artemis program and NASA’s Moon-to-Mars exploration approach. This high-level structure implies that it would be the role of SMD to provide the science priorities and requirements to the human exploration directorates (particularly ESDMD), which then would implement these within the context of overall human exploration plans. Implementing Lunar Scientific Exploration in Artemis: Misaligned Responsibilities, Accountability, and Authority across NASA’s Science and Human Exploration Directorates Maximizing the science that can be accomplished by Artemis requires the scientific enterprise to be fully integrated into human exploration planning, thus necessitating cross-directorate collaboration among SMD, ESDMD, SpaceOps, and STMD (Space Technology Mission Directorate) that reflects the roles and responsibilities assigned to these directorates. Barriers to such collaboration can be bureaucratic, cultural, or due to political factors (such as the cancelation of programs and/or changing program capabilities that can leave science wary of relying on human exploration to accomplish its high-priority goals). The challenge of integrating science requirements into NASA human spaceflight planning and programs is not new, dating back to the beginning of the Agency as early as 1962 (Beattie 2001). With science planned on decadal timescales, human exploration is encouraged to have similarly long-term continuity of purpose in order to be successfully integrated into science planning and to maximize the collaborative scientific output between robotic and human exploration. SMD’s Planetary Science Division (PSD) has the responsibility to accomplish the goals and priorities for lunar science identified by the decadal survey, including development of missions, instruments and technologies needed by such missions, and research and analysis to identify and answer priority science questions. PSD relies on the decadal survey for long-term prioritization of lunar science and on independent science assessment groups (e.g., the Lunar Exploration Analysis Group, LEAG) to provide community input to assist with planning the achievement of decadal priorities. The PSD Director is responsible for the scientific exploration of the Moon. However, as detailed below, currently neither the PSD Director nor the SMD Associate Administrator have the authority to implement science objectives within the Artemis program. This basic structural conflict compromises the Agency’s ability to achieve decadal-level science through human exploration and undermines the optimal synergies between science and human exploration programs. PREPUBLICATION COPY – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION 19-7

NASA’s Organizational Structure for Incorporating Science into Artemis NASA’s Artemis activities to date have been primarily conducted within HEOMD, and these are the focus of discussion here. How the Fall 2021 reorganization of HEOMD into ESDMD and SpaceOps will affect Artemis is unclear at this time. However, the committee notes that this reorganization presents an opportunity for NASA to rectify issues in how science is being incorporated into the human exploration program. As HEOMD has been the primary entity driving the planning and architecture for Artemis, the organizational structure of HEOMD in relation to SMD is of key interest in terms of understanding how planetary science and astrobiology objectives would be incorporated into Artemis. Figure 19.2 shows a detailed NASA organizational chart with the key directorates contributing to Artemis (HEOMD, SMD, STMD). The HEOMD Deputy Associate Administrator (DAA) for Systems Integration and Engineering has managed five offices, including the Science and Technology Utilization (S&TU) Office. There is not yet an Artemis science team, but a Multicenter Support Team (sometimes referred to as a “Multicenter Science Team”) was formed from select NASA centers, reporting to the S&TU Office. The role of the S&TU Office has been to “integrate science and technology goals from mission directorates and international partners to develop HEO utilization goals, objectives, and requirements for Artemis missions, and the cross-platform research strategy to prepare for human missions to Mars.” 5 Thus, it would presumably be through this office that SMD goals and objectives would be translated into requirements for Artemis, with S&TU representatives providing a “strategic view of competing priorities to optimize the advancement of knowledge from human spaceflight missions.”1 Given this information, science requirements were to be developed for Artemis by the Utilization, Coordination, and Integration Group (UCIG) formed by the S&TU Office. UCIG has three co-chairs—one each from HEOMD, STMD, and the Exploration Surface Strategy Integration Office (ESSIO) within SMD—and additional members that represent HEOMD and the seven Directorates within the Agency that have interest in utilizing Artemis assets 6. UCIG leadership does not include PSD. This group has been working to create the HEO-006 Utilization Plan 7, which would define SMD’s utilization goals and objectives for Artemis (as well as those for HEOMD and STMD) and include three relevant annexes that define the plan and requirements for both individual Artemis missions and the long-term program (ten-year timeframe) 8. 5 9 April 2020 presentation from J. Robinson to Panel on Mercury and the Moon. 6 Seven Mission Directorate Representatives that fund utilization: SMD/ESSIO, SMD/BPSD, SMD/DAA Programs, STMD, HEOMD/HRP, HEOMD/AES Enabling Capabilities, Office of Planetary Protection. 7 “HEO Double 0 Documents” (about eight in total) represent the top-level HEOMD technical policy. The HEO- 006 Utilization Plan will include plans for all HEOMD platforms, including ISS, commercial LEO, and Artemis. 8 Annex 1, titled “Cornerstone Utilization Capabilities that Enable Multiple Objectives” includes the highest-level priorities (e.g., traverse approaches, sampling strategies, extended duration surface missions, robotic utilization of HEOMD assets, instruments, PSR operations, science team coordination). Annex 2 defines the “Ten-Year Utilization Phasing Plan” for how to build capabilities over time to accomplish the highest-priority science goals. Annex 4 is where the utilization objectives and requirements are described for each individual Artemis mission. PREPUBLICATION COPY – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION 19-8

FIGURE 19.2. NASA organization structure highlighting the lunar-relevant entities within SMD, human exploration, and STMD. The most visible effort of SMD to provide input into Artemis was through the Artemis III SDT (Science Definition Team), established by the SMD Associate Administrator. The SDT was composed of eleven NASA civil servants and three consultants from outside NASA 9. The SDT sought additional input by soliciting white papers and then community comments on the draft report. The SDT operated under a short timeline: white papers were solicited on 20 August 2020 and were due on 8 September, and a draft report was released on 16 October 2020. Input on landing site selection was not solicited; the landing site was specified as to be within 6° of the south pole and consequently the SDT prioritized science that can be accomplished at a polar landing site. However, whether and how the SDT recommendations will be translated into requirements is currently at the discretion of the human exploration directorates. The PSD Director is accountable for the scientific exploration of the Moon without the proper authority to accomplish this responsibility. SMD planning for near- and long-term utilization of Artemis is being led by ESSIO, which is not part of PSD and therefore limits PSD participation in this process (despite having one PSD scientist part-time in ESSIO). ESSIO does not have demonstrated authority to levy requirements within the human exploration directorates, where current ownership of Artemis science utilization and requirements resides. Finding: The separation of roles and responsibilities across multiple Divisions and offices therein is not conducive to the development or implementation of a cohesive lunar science and exploration program. ESSIO has also not demonstrated the existence of a process for determining lunar science requirements for Artemis nor has ESSIO shown any plan or prioritization of specific science goals for The three Artemis III SDT consultants included the LEAG chair, the SSERVI chief scientist, and the 9 CAPTEM Lunar Sample Subcommittee chair. PREPUBLICATION COPY – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION 19-9

Artemis. This situation is exacerbated by the lack of an LDEP (Lunar Discovery and Exploration Program) director and/or “chief scientist” role for lunar science with the required authority to ensure that lunar science in PSD is optimized through a unified program that uses human exploration as one implementation option to achieve decadal-level science. As a result of this organizational structure (Figure 19.2), SMD has no authoritative mechanism to influence the Artemis design to accomplish lunar science objectives. The S&TU Office allowed for collaboration in terms of how SMD will “utilize” HEOMD assets, but not the required capabilities of those assets. Science requirements are thus not a priori considerations for Artemis activities, and instead SMD presently retrofits science objectives to be compatible with the capabilities provided by the human exploration program. The responsibilities, authority, and accountability for executing the Planetary Science and Astrobiology decadal survey are misaligned within NASA, and the prioritization of human exploration capabilities have not been consistent with the current lunar science priorities. This situation makes it unlikely that Artemis will address priority lunar science goals outlined by the decadal survey, absent reform. Finding: The systems engineering approach needed to incorporate science objectives and requirements needs to occur in the early stages of human mission planning and hardware development. The later such integration occurs, the greater the risk of prohibitive expense associated with scientific requirements and/or the exclusion of priority science altogether. Finding: The organizational structure for lunar science and exploration within NASA at the outset of Artemis has compromised the Agency’s ability to ensure that the highest-priority scientific goals will be accomplished at the Moon because science requirements have not been adequately provided to or incorporated into the human exploration architecture. As a result, the scientific return from the first human landings in the Artemis program will not be as significant as it could be, and may be minimal. Although Artemis leaders at NASA state that science requirements will be added onto subsequent missions, after the HLS hardware has proven itself initially, NASA has not demonstrated that actions are being taken now that will result in the effective and timely integration of science into the program. Finding: Absent an integrated, coherent strategy, it is unlikely decadal-level planetary science will be accomplished at the Moon through Artemis. Human exploration can be used to achieve lower-level science goals until Artemis incorporates top-level requirements capable of achieving decadal science priorities. Recommendation: PSD should develop a strategic lunar program that includes human exploration as an additional option to robotic missions to achieve decadal-level science goals at the Moon. Recommendation: NASA should adopt an organizational approach in which SMD has the responsibility and authority for the development of Artemis lunar science requirements that are integrated with human exploration capabilities. NASA should consider establishing a joint program office at the Associate Administrator level for the purpose of developing Artemis program-level requirements across SMD, ESDMD, SpaceOps, and other Directorates as appropriate. Human Enabled Decadal-Level Science at the Moon As human exploration advances into the solar system it is essential that science is a driving motivation and that the science and human directorates within NASA work together efficiently and effectively. This PREPUBLICATION COPY – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION 19-10

desired synergy is exemplified by the Endurance-A rover mission (see Chapter 22 and Appendix C). 10 Endurance-A would traverse diverse terrains and robotically collect a large (~100 kg) suite of carefully selected samples from scientifically important locations across the SPA basin and deliver them to a human landing site for retrieval by astronauts and return to Earth. This mission would conduct the highest priority lunar science to revolutionize our understanding of the Moon and the early history of the solar system recorded in its most ancient impact basin. SCIENTIFIC AND HUMAN EXPLORATION OF MARS Past Cooperation and Plans for the Next Decade and Beyond As noted by the Mars Architecture Strategy Working Group (MASWG) 2020 report, although “human Mars exploration has been limited to a series of architecture studies, current national policy explicitly calls for eventual human missions to Mars (Review of US Human Spaceflight Plans Committee et al. 2009; von Braun 1969).” Scientific robotic exploration of Mars, coordinated by the Mars Exploration Program, has benefitted the human Mars program by assisting in risk mitigation for crewed systems. For example, dust storm solar illumination data collected by rovers has been instrumental in sizing human surface power system concepts to allow tighter contingency margins, reducing mass and cost (Rucker et al. 2016). Future weather satellites and landed measurements are likely to be needed for landing/return launch operations. The Radiation Assessment Detector (RAD) instrument on the Mars Science Laboratory measured radiation during cruise and landing to understand doses likely to be experienced by astronauts. The Mars Oxygen In Situ Resource Utilization Experiment (MOXIE) on the Perseverance rover has manufactured oxygen from carbon dioxide, demonstrating in situ utilization of martian resources. Landing and return technologies are also a key area where benefit is likely. Present approaches require upscaling to meet human crew needs but may then benefit scientific payloads. As discussed above in the context of the Artemis lunar program, human Mars missions will require coordination and advanced planning within and between SMD and the human exploration directorates. Human missions to Mars are being planned by NASA to fly in the late 2030s; thus, internal NASA interactions and conceptual development of missions to support both scientific and programmatic objectives need to appear in long-term planning now. Robotic missions often have lead times of 4 to 7 years and development needs to begin early enough for scientific payloads to be available for precursor flight missions and for any robotic precursor missions to inform the human mission designs. Astronaut EVAs (extravehicular activities) can benefit from scientific field tools now common in terrestrial geology (e.g., hand-held compositional sensors, scene multispectral or hyperspectral imagers), well beyond the simple mechanical tools that were state of the art for Apollo. Such spaceflight qualification would need to begin now. Keys to successful implementation of science-driven human exploration at Mars include: (1) Integrating science and human exploration planning and expertise to ensure that adequate, accurate, and appropriate Mars-specific knowledge and experience are provided in support of human missions, and that scientific progress will be sustained and advanced by human missions to Mars. (2) Identification of robotic science missions with overlap with human exploration precursor measurement needs, human landing site-specific knowledge, or infrastructure capability, including delineating “required” versus “desired” data. (3) Providing opportunities within PI-led science mission competitions for additional funding if the mission can also serve the human exploration needs in (2). (4) Funding that transparently follows from the entity setting requirements to the entity implementing the project or mission such that both funding and management responsibility reside within the same office or organization. 10 The full Endurance mission study report is available at https://tinyurl.com/2p88fx4f PREPUBLICATION COPY – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION 19-11

Community engagement and selection of a science planning team to work with the mission-architecture team would be central to accomplishing many of these goals. Recommendation: PSD should have the authority and responsibility for integrating science priorities into the human exploration plans for Mars. Key issues to be addressed for Mars include defining the science goals and requirements for human missions and identifying areas where scientific expertise and/or robotic mission data are needed prior to the development of the mission architecture and hardware. Science and Preparation for Human Missions to Mars Human missions to the Moon offer opportunities to reduce risk for future human missions to Mars, e.g., learning how to operate for long periods of time in a harsh planetary environment while being only three days away from Earth in case of a problem or emergency and developing hardware for use on a planetary surface that might be utilized on Mars as well. However, there are other risk-reduction areas for human missions to Mars for which scientific research and analysis is needed but is not being carried out or planned at a sufficient level of detail. These risk areas include, for example, mitigating the effects on humans of solar and galactic radiation and microgravity effects in space, dust on the surface and in the atmosphere of Mars, the potential physical/chemical effects on humans of perchlorates and other oxidizing agents in the regolith, and the effects on humans of trace amounts of liquid water in the regolith or dust that are associated with deliquescent minerals that are present (the MEPAG Goals document includes a comprehensive list of topics where precursor measurements at Mars can be used to reduce risk to human Missions, (MEPAG 2020)). Confirming prioritization of these areas of investigation and mapping these to required precursor flight missions early would provide sufficient time for robotic Mars missions that might be able to address specific concerns prior to human exploration. Human missions to Mars also need to consider the issues of planetary protection (PP) and mitigate against both forward from Earth and back contamination from Mars (Coustenis et al. 2021; NASEM 2021). PP is critical both for maintaining the integrity of scientific investigations that seek to determine if life exists or existed on Mars, to protect the crew from any harmful indigenous martian life forms, and to protect the terrestrial biosphere from a potentially harmful release of martian life on Earth (Spry et al. 2020). NASA has plans to send humans to Mars in the late 2030s while the commercial sector is describing plans for human flights to the Red Planet as early as the mid-2020s. It would be prudent for NASA to consider the earliest plausible human Mars mission scenario and develop a p protocol in accordance with this timeline. The general approach to planetary protection is to minimize the risk of both forward and back contamination. Characterizing organic constituents, understanding the natural transport of contamination on Mars (e.g., atmospheric and/or subsurface transport), and understanding microbial survivability in martian environments are identified areas of planetary protection knowledge gaps to be addressed in advance of human exploration of Mars, particularly at the human landing sites (Spry et al. 2020; McKay et al. 2020; National Research Council Safe on Mars report (2002); NASEM 2021; NASA Interim Directive 8715.129). Many of these goals have measurement similarities to the Mars Life Explorer medium-class mission prioritized by the decadal survey for Mars (see “Mars Exploration Program” in Chapter 22), highlighting an opportunity for science and human exploration collaboration. 11 Finding: NASA has not yet developed a planetary protection plan and related research activities specifically tailored to understand and mitigate the risk of forward and back contamination from human missions to Mars on timescales consistent with the earliest plausible human missions. 11 The full Mars Life Explorer mission study report is available at https://tinyurl.com/2p88fx4f. PREPUBLICATION COPY – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION 19-12

A TALE OF TWO ORBITERS: LRO AND IMIM A key tenet of enabling high-priority planetary science and astrobiology investigations to be accomplished through human exploration is the importance of carefully crafted collaboration between SMD and the human exploration directorates. NASA has utilized different approaches to this cross-directorate collaboration in various capacities, and here the committee considers a case study by comparing two mission examples—Lunar Reconnance Orbiter (LRO) and the international Mars Ice Mapper (iMIM)— with varying degrees of success in the coupling of science-human exploration programmatics. Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter: A Case Study of Well-Coupled Science-Human Programmatics During the Vision for Space Exploration: Moon, Mars, and Beyond (2004) era, science was a prominent driver for future human exploration activity. It was decided by NASA leadership that before lunar exploration could be well planned, a thorough reconnaissance of the surface was to be performed from orbit to map and characterize the Moon in unprecedented detail. To accomplish this, a multi-directorate “Objectives Requirements Definition Team” was assembled following the model of a science definition team traditionally performed in SMD. This coupled SMD-HEOMD team, composed of NASA and outside experts across both science and human spaceflight disciplines, successfully defined the highest priority measurements, from which instruments were competed in the scientific community. The mission became the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO), funded by NASA’s human exploration program but executed according to SMD project management fundamentals at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center. After exploration objectives were achieved, LRO was transferred to PSD where it has continued to yield important scientific data. Results from LRO are essential for the planning of future human and robotic exploration missions. Instruments aboard LRO have enabled scientists to produce the most detailed 3-D map of the lunar surface, map the mineralogy of the Moon, characterize the radiation environment and its biological impacts, and enable the search for lunar volatiles, including water ice. Finding: LRO is perhaps the most successful example of cooperation and mission performance in a joint SMD and human exploration project and represents a template for how to initiate and manage joint collaborations between science and human exploration directorates at NASA in the future. International Mars Ice Mapper: A Case Study of the Need for Better Coupled Science-Human Programmatics Mapping near-surface ice on Mars is an area of high potential synergy between the measurement requirements of the robotic science and human exploration programs (Campbell and Zurek 2015; Jakosky et al. 2020; MEPAG 2020). Systematic mapping of near surface ice would help us to understand Mars’s climate and recent climate change (see Chapters 5, 6, and 10) as well as determine the potential of ice for martian ISRU. The international Mars Ice Mapper is in pre-Phase A at the time of this writing. iMIM has been promulgated by NASA as a mission joint between NASA, CSA (Canada), JAXA (Japan), and ASI (Italy) with a primary goal of mapping the distribution of the depth to mid-latitude ground ice. iMIM was presented to the decadal survey as having originated in priorities for human exploration (planning for resource access and science goals) and assigned to SMD to implement because of PSD/MEP expertise in executing robotic missions 12. However, unlike LRO, the initial concept was developed without significant input from the Mars science community on the objectives or on the measurement requirements. As currently articulated, the radar chosen for iMIM would determine the depth to the upper surface of ground ice in 12 Presentation to decadal survey Mars Panel, 23 November 2020 by J. Watzin, R. Davis et al. PREPUBLICATION COPY – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION 19-13

select locales but would not have the ability to determine properties relevant to the Mars climate science goals, such as the distribution of ice below its upper surface, the ice purity, or the degree of pore filling. Furthermore, there is concern that the measurements (as presented 23 November 2020, Mars Panel and 21 June 2021, MEPAG) would not achieve the mission objectives for radar penetration depth due to the scattering properties of Mars’s near-surface at the proposed radar wavelength, which is significantly shorter (higher frequency) than that chosen by multiple recent Mission Concept Studies (MORIE, Calvin et al. 2021; MOSAIC, Lillis et al. 2021). At the time of this writing, iMIM’s relationship to either the robotic Mars science program or the human Mars program is unclear. At the most recent public discussion 13, NASA presented iMIM as an agency priority assigned to SMD to implement as a science-based mission, and that, while of interest to human exploration, it was not a mission that HEOMD was supporting. Despite a rocky start, the mission concept has potential to follow a more LRO-like path where the scientific and human exploration communities work to define priority measurements. NASA is in the process of convening a Measurement Definition Team (MDT) that could reevaluate the measurement objectives and requirements and formulate a mission that meets both the scientific and human precursor exploration goals. For example, the MDT may consider changing the radar frequency and/or adding a second, longer wavelength band to the sounder mode meet the science objectives. iMIM is a case study for how stronger programmatic coupling and organizational structures are needed between the science and human exploration communities to ensure that precursor and eventual human missions to Mars collect meaningful scientific measurements while simultaneously supporting human exploration precursor measurement needs. Finding: iMIM measurements presently articulated do not or only minimally address the prioritized science goals and measurement requirements for Mars ice mapping as defined in the MEPAG Goals document, the Mars planetary mission concept studies prepared for the decadal survey (MORIE, MOSAIC), and this decadal survey. Finding: With engagement of the scientific community in measurement definition, iMIM has the potential to be a pathfinding example of how Mars human exploration objectives can simultaneously advance high priority science questions related to Mars climate and how scientific expertise can help successfully realize human exploration objectives for ISRU. Additional discussion and two recommendations regarding iMIM are given in the MEP section of the Recommended Program chapter (Chapter 22). RESEARCH PROGRAMS TO ENABLE AND OPTIMIZE HUMAN EXPLORATION With NASA’s goal to send Artemis astronauts to the lunar surface within this decade, multiple research and technology development investments are required now to enable and optimize high-priority lunar science activities with humans at the Moon. Table 19.2 is a non-exhaustive list of example high-priority areas that require dedicated funding from SMD to enable high priority lunar science research via Artemis. A significant portion of this work will also be extensible to human exploration of Mars. To adequately include science requirements in lunar human exploration plans, an Artemis Science Team is necessary to identify and advocate for the highest-priority science questions to be addressed for Artemis. SMD/PSD need to define both near and long-term science goals that are keyed to specific Artemis design decisions (e.g., landing sites, landed capabilities, upmass/downmass requirements, etc). NASA’s human exploration directorates are forging ahead with architecture and capability decisions, and SMD does not have an Artemis Science Team in place to provide timely inputs to influence Artemis capabilities. 13 MEPAG community meeting, 27 September 2021. PREPUBLICATION COPY – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION 19-14

SMD/PSD needs to identify long-lead activities and fund work to close knowledge gaps and develop key hardware and capabilities to enable high priority science within Artemis missions (e.g., develop astronaut tools and hand-held instruments for use on the Moon, long-lived deployable instrument packages, next generation sample collection systems for volatiles, cryogenic sample collection and curation capabilities, etc). The absence of these capabilities will undoubtedly inhibit the ability to conduct decadal-level science by humans on the Moon. Finding: SMD has not formulated an Artemis Science Team nor developed a plan for creating the science capabilities required for achieving high priority lunar science through human exploration. SMD has the potential to conduct higher priority science through Artemis by expeditiously identifying outstanding issues that need to be addressed in order to optimize Artemis science return and developing a funded program to conduct this work. ROLE OF COMMERCIAL SPACE AND HUMAN-SCALE VEHICLE CAPABILITIES Multiple commercial companies are developing vehicles for human flights to the surface of the Moon and Mars. These human-scale vehicles have the potential to provide unprecedented payload capacity and the distinct possibility of lowering the cost of surface access. Commercial vehicles designed for human planetary exploration thus provide tremendous scientific research potential, but NASA currently lacks a mechanism for the planetary science and astrobiology community to develop or fly payloads on these platforms to either the Moon or Mars. To capitalize on such opportunities, NASA could develop a funded program aligned with the development approach of the commercial vendor pool, including a rapid development schedule, relatively high-risk tolerance compared to traditional planetary science missions, and ultimately a high ratio of potential science value for the dollars spent if successful. Such a program would enable the planetary community to participate in sending science and exploration payloads to these planetary destinations, which will advance science objectives outlined in the decadal survey for Planetary Science & Astrobiology (this document), the NASA Strategic Plan, and similar guiding documents. While NASA’s PRISM (Payloads and Research Investigations on the Surface of the Moon) and CLPS (Commercial Lunar Payload Services) programs are pathways for some robotic lunar mission payloads to reach the Moon via commercial lander services, NASA does not have a similar on-ramp for the planetary community to develop or fly payloads that could fully take advantage of human flights to the Moon (or Mars). As an example, the committee considers the SpaceX Starship that has been selected by NASA for the first HLS (Human Landing System) contract, although the same logic applies to any vendor providing human surface access to the Moon and/or Mars. Starships can accommodate payloads that are significantly larger and heavier than traditional NASA planetary payloads, significantly reducing the need for the costly reductions in size and mass required for traditional NASA payloads. Starships can fly multiple payloads and instruments on individual flights to reduce overall risk, and significantly more power can be available for the payload. Additionally, SpaceX’s intended mission cadence provides more frequent flight opportunities, which has several advantages for enabling increased science and broadening community participation in planetary science and astrobiology activities. Along with their role in HLS, SpaceX also has a stated goal of sending humans to Mars in the mid-late 2020s, with cargo flights of Starship to Mars followed by crewed missions to the martian surface (Figure 19.2). At the time of this writing, Starship development is in the early stages and planned capabilities have not yet been demonstrated in orbit or in space, but both cargo and crew flights to Mars offer significant potential science opportunities. PREPUBLICATION COPY – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION 19-15

TABLE 19.2 Representative SMD Research and Development Activities to Enable and Optimize High- Priority Science from Artemis Activity Description Cold sampling and curation Laboratory studies to determine how to sample, transport, and curate volatile samples at cold temperatures to optimize sample integrity and science return. Identify and develop facilities required to handle, store, and analyze volatile samples from the lunar pole, including cryogenic transport and curation Sample science Determine sampling details for all sample types (sample masses, types, containers, collection operations, contamination knowledge, curation, lab analysis, etc). In situ measurements Identify required measurements to, for example, characterize samples (including volatiles) prior to collection, in situ science measurements not associated with sample collection (identify specific in situ instrumentation required, path to flight qualification of handheld science instruments, concepts of operations for data acquisition), and develop long-lived instrument packages Science requirements Develop science requirements for Artemis missions (near-term and long-term strategic), feed forward to required surface capabilities, landing site selection. Landing Site Selection Provide assessments and inputs regarding landing site selection to optimize science return from human missions. Science accommodation trades Analyze science return and high grading for decisions on what assets to deliver to lunar surface (e.g., trading sample sizes vs tools vs in situ instruments), develop a process for decision-making within SMD for science trades, assess options for upmass/downmass to surface, e.g., CLPS for Moon, commercial options for Mars, HLS. Planetary Protection Develop plans to mitigate forward and back contamination, identify and fly required precursor missions. Imaging and situational Low-angle light and limited illumination present significant challenges to awareness surface operations near the lunar south pole. Requires assessment for Artemis planning (e.g., required cameras, lighting, and a priori mapping) for both science and safe surface operations. Science concept of operations Detailed science planning to enable near-real time science support from Earth- based science team, optimization of science ConOps, crew time / scheduling / activities, mobility requirements. Crew training Develop crew training curriculum (classroom, fieldwork, lab work); comprehensive science/geology/astrobiology training required. To take advantage of such capabilities, a funding mechanism within NASA is needed to provide the opportunity for members of the community to fly robotic payloads on these high-capacity human flights. This program has to be consistent with the mission timelines for rapid flights planned by SpaceX (and other vendors as appropriate), especially if commercial entities send test or human flights to Mars prior to NASA. Traditional cost modeling and estimating practices based on historical data and traditional approaches would need to be revised given this new paradigm of planetary flight opportunity. To be most effective, PREPUBLICATION COPY – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION 19-16

planning within NASA needs to begin immediately to prepare for payloads on the first uncrewed Starship flights, likely first to the Moon and then for Mars. Planetary science and astrobiology payloads sent to the Moon and Mars onboard human-scale vehicles (test flights as well as crewed missions) would bring much increased payload capacities that could provide uniquely science-enabling capabilities. The types of payloads that might be used to achieve SMD, human exploration, and STMD objectives could be much different than those designed for traditional NASA flight opportunities with their stringent mass and volume constraints. FIGURE 19.2. SpaceX Starship landers on Mars. SOURCE: SpaceX. Finding: Commercial human spaceflight missions to the lunar and martian surfaces will provide unprecedented payload capacity and potentially offer tremendous opportunities for planetary science. These vehicles may lower the cost of surface access, which can enable a new paradigm for planetary science and astrobiology investigations, technology development and testing, and human exploration of space. Recommendation: NASA should develop a strategy to utilize opportunities to fly science payloads on commercial test flights and crewed missions to the Moon and Mars as such opportunities arise. EXTERNAL COOPERATION Multiple entities including, but not limited to, NASA (via Artemis), private sector organizations, international entities such as non-U.S. space agencies and interest groups, have expressed interest in human exploration of the Moon, Mars, and beyond. To this end, NASA has established the Artemis Accords, which describe “a shared vision for principles, grounded in the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, to create a safe and transparent environment which facilitates exploration, science, and commercial activities for all of humanity to enjoy”. International cooperation will be a key component of human exploration within the solar system, and an important aspect of ensuring a common set of principles to guide these exploration PREPUBLICATION COPY – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION 19-17

activities. In addition, NASA benefits by working with other government agencies where appropriate to take advantage of government-wide expertise as applicable to support human exploration activities, such as USGS for resource prospecting and astronaut field training, and NSF (National Science Foundation) for field analog science and operations research in Antarctica. Finding: International participation in human programs has the benefit of (i) spreading the cost out over a larger number of participating entities and making it more affordable to each, (2) providing wider participation of scientists, engineers, and the public from different countries and cultures, and (3) enhancing international cooperation in peaceful endeavors. Finding: International participation carries with it enhanced risk, in terms of coordination and management of schedules, potential for increased cost, mismatch or miscommunication of requirements, and potential for withdrawal of partners at inopportune times. Finding: NASA’s continued encouragement of international participation in human missions in the solar system (the Moon, Mars, Near Earth Objects, other potential targets) is beneficial as a way of enhancing the scientific return from the missions and of providing a forum for constructive and peaceful interactions between countries. REFERENCES Artemis Plan, https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/artemis_plan-20200921.pdf. Beattie, D.A., 2001, Taking Science to the Moon, Baltimore, MD, The Johns Hopkins University Press. Bartels, M. (2018, Aug. 22) Why We Can’t Depend on Robots to Find Life on Mars. Retrieved from https://www.space.com/41551-finding-mars-life-robots-versus-humans.html Calvin, W.M., Putzig, N.E., Dundas, C.M., Bramson, A.M., Horgan, B.H., Seelos, K.D., Sizemore, H.G., Ehlmann, B.L., Morgan, G.A., Holt, J.W. and Murchie, S.L., 2021. The Mars Orbiter for Resources, Ices, and Environments (MORIE) Science Goals and Instrument Trades in Radar, Imaging, and Spectroscopy. The Planetary Science Journal, 2(2), p.76. Compton, R.R., 1985, Geology in the Field: New York, Wiley, 398 p. Coustenis, A., Kminek, G. and Hedman, N., 2021. The COSPAR Panel on Planetary Protection. 43rd COSPAR Scientific Assembly. Held 28 January-4 February, 43, p.2232. Hodges, K.V. and Schmitt, H.H., 2019. Imagining a new era of planetary field geology. Science Advances •11 Sep 2019 • Vol 5, Issue 9 • DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.aaz2484 Lillis et al. MOSAIC: A Satellite Constellation to Enable Groundbreaking Mars Climate System Science and Prepare for Human Exploration. Planet. Sci. Journal, 2:211, 2021. Lofgren, G.E., Horz, F., and D. Eppler. Geologic field training of the Apollo astronauts and implications for future manned exploration. Geological Society of America Special Papers 2011;483;33-48, doi: 10.1130/2011.2483(03). MEPAG NEX-SAG Report (2015), Report from the Next Orbiter Science Analysis Group (NEX-SAG), Chaired by B. Campbell and R. Zurek, 77 pages posted December, 2015 by the Mars Exploration Program Analysis Group (MEPAG) at http://mepag.nasa.gov/reports.cfm. Heldmann, J.L., and 24 others. Accelerating martian and lunar science through SpaceX Starship missions. White paper to decadal survey, 2020. Mars Architecture Strategy Working Group (MASWG), Jakosky, B. M., et al. (2020). Mars, the Nearest Habitable World—A Comprehensive Program for Future Mars Exploration. McPhee, J.C., and J.B. Charles. Human Planetary and Astrobiology Exploration: How will radiation, low gravity, and isolated and confined conditions affect our health? White paper to decadal survey, 2020. McKay, C., et al. Contamination Control Technology Study for Achieving the Science Objectives of Life- Detection Missions. white paper to decadal survey, 2020. PREPUBLICATION COPY – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION 19-18

MEPAG (2020), Mars Scientific Goals, Objectives, Investigations, and Priorities: 2020. D. Banfield, ed., 89 p. white paper posted March, 2020 by the Mars Exploration Program Analysis Group (MEPAG) at https://mepag.jpl.nasa.gov/reports.cfm. Musk, E. Making life multi-planetary. New Space 6, doi:10.1089/space.2018.29013.emu, 2018. NASA Interim Directive 8715.129, Biological Planetary Protection for Human Missions to Mars, Office of Safety and Mission Assurance, 2020. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM). 2021. Report Series: Committee on Planetary Protection: Evaluation of Bioburden Requirements for Mars Missions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/26336. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM). 2011. Vision and Voyages for Planetary Science in the Decade 2013-2022. National Research Council, Report from Committee on Human Exploration, 1997. Phinney, W. C., 2015. Science Training History of the Apollo Astronauts, NASA SP-2015-626. Rucker, M.A., Oleson, S.R., George, P., Landis, G., Fincannon, J., Bogner, A., McNatt, J., Turbull, E., Jones, R., Martini, M. and Gyekenyesi, J., 2016. Solar vs. fission surface power for Mars. In AIAA SPACE 2016 (p. 5452). Schmitt, H.H., Snoke, A.W., Helper, M.A., Hurtado, J.M., Hodges, K.V., and J.W. Rice, Jr. Motives, methods, and essential preparation for planetary field geology on the Moon and Mars. Geological Society of America Special Papers 2011;483;1-15, doi: 10.1130/2011.2483(01) Slakey, F. & Spudis, P.D. (2008, Feb. 1). Robots vs. Humans: Who Should Explore Space? Scientific American. Retrieved from https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/robots-vs-humans-who- should-explore/. PREPUBLICATION COPY – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION 19-19

Next: 20 Infrastructure for Planetary Science and Exploration »
Origins, Worlds, and Life: A Decadal Strategy for Planetary Science and Astrobiology 2023-2032 Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $90.00
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

The next decade of planetary science and astrobiology holds tremendous promise. New research will expand our understanding of our solar system's origins, how planets form and evolve, under what conditions life can survive, and where to find potentially habitable environments in our solar system and beyond. Origins, Worlds, and Life: A Decadal Strategy for Planetary Science and Astrobiology 2023-2032 highlights key science questions, identifies priority missions, and presents a comprehensive research strategy that includes both planetary defense and human exploration. This report also recommends ways to support the profession as well as the technologies and infrastructure needed to carry out the science.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!