Bold statement: Understanding Mars through science is not just about reaching the red planet, it’s about answering humanity’s most profound questions about life, habitability, and our place in the universe. And this is where the story gets controversial: prioritizing life-detection over other compelling goals could reshape how missions are funded, designed, and executed. Here’s a rewritten, expanded version that preserves the original meaning while making it accessible, clear, and engaging.
A new report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine identifies the top science objectives for the first human mission to Mars and places the search for evidence of life—whether existing or extinct—at the forefront. In addition to pursuing life-detection, the report highlights exploring Mars’ environment, water and carbon dioxide cycles, the planet’s geological history, and how Mars’ conditions affect human, plant, and animal health. Dust storms and the potential for in situ resource utilization (ISRU) to support future living, propulsion, and industrial needs also appear among the 11 prioritized science goals.
The document lays out four potential science campaigns for human Mars exploration. Each campaign consists of a sequence of three missions designed to advance specific science objectives. For every campaign, the report explains which questions could be answered, the likely roles for crew members, and the strengths and weaknesses of that approach for achieving scientific goals.
A prominent voice in the report is Linda T. Elkins-Tanton, director of the UC Berkeley Space Sciences Laboratory and co-chair of the writing committee. She emphasizes that placing science at the core of human Mars exploration will unlock extraordinary knowledge about our place in the cosmos, Mars’ habitability potential, and more.
Science objectives, ranked by priority, are outlined as follows:
1) Search for Life — Assess whether evidence of existing or past life can be found on Mars, evaluate the planet’s habitability, and investigate indigenous prebiotic chemistry.
2) Water and CO2 on Mars — Investigate Mars’ water and CO2 cycles to understand their history and evolution.
3) Mars Geology — Map and characterize the rock record to illuminate Mars’ geological evolution.
4) Impact on Crews — Assess how Mars’ environment affects physiology, cognition, mood, and team dynamics.
5) Dust Storms — Identify factors driving the initiation and evolution of major Martian dust storms that influence atmospheric variability.
6) Explore Resources — Characterize the local environment for in situ resource utilization, with early focus on water and propellants and later resources to support permanent habitation.
7) Effect of Mars on Genomes and Reproduction — Explore whether Martian conditions affect reproduction or genome function across generations in at least one plant and one animal species.
8) Understanding Microbes — Study microbial population dynamics and diversity in Martian contexts and their effects on astronaut health and performance.
9) Martian Dust — Examine how dust impacts human health and spacecraft hardware.
10) Plants and Animals in an Ecosystem — Investigate how Mars’ environment influences plant and animal physiology and development across generations within an integrated ecosystem of plants, microbes, and animals.
11) Radiation Sampling — Measure radiation levels at key crew habitats and astrobiological sites to contextualize sampling and refine mission risk estimates.
Four Campaigns for Mars Science
The top-ranked campaign envisions a 30-sol human landing, followed by an uncrewed cargo delivery and a longer 300-sol mission, all conducted at a single exploration-zone site about 100 kilometers across with features such as ancient lava flows and known dust-storm activity. A broad suite of scientific instruments, drilling equipment, and meteorological gear would travel to Mars, complemented by a habitat laboratory on the planet and subsequent sample analysis back on Earth.
The second-ranked campaign focuses on maximizing the common science measurements needed across objectives, offering more flexibility about landing-site selection and reducing site-specific constraints while still pursuing essential data.
The third-ranked campaign concentrates specifically on life-detection, prioritizing a site with accessible liquid water for deep drilling, core collection, and on-site preliminary analysis, with the majority of samples returned to Earth for in-depth study of habitability and life history.
The fourth campaign proposes three shorter missions at different Mars locations to explore diverse environments, including (a) a site with igneous and impact-melt geology, (b) a sedimentary-site to search for ancient life or prebiotic processes, and (c) glaciers within a region prone to dust storms.
According to committee co-chair Dava Newman of MIT, these varied options demonstrate that human exploration can be designed to yield transformative scientific breakthroughs while keeping science central to mission planning. The report emphasizes a synergistic approach that connects human exploration with robotic tools and artificial intelligence to enhance scientific outcomes.
Recommendations for NASA
The report offers several recommendations to help NASA prepare for these science goals. Key steps include continuing to refine planetary-protection guidelines to safeguard both science results and public health, ensuring that Mars mission plans include a surface laboratory, and returning samples from every human mission. It also suggests establishing a recurring summit to improve collaboration among human explorers, robotic systems, and AI to support future Mars missions.
The study, prepared by the Committee for a Science Strategy for the Human Exploration of Mars and sponsored by NASA, reflects the National Academies’ role in providing independent, evidence-based guidance to inform national policy in science, engineering, and medicine. The National Academies operate under a congressional charter dating back to 1863.
What’s your take on placing the search for life at the top of Mars science goals? Do you think this prioritization could influence mission design, funding, or timelines in meaningful ways? Share your thoughts in the comments: would you prioritise life-detection above all else, or balance it with other objectives? Would you support a campaign focused specifically on deep drilling for life evidence, or prefer a more diversified, multi-site approach?
