A Science Strategy for the Human Exploration of Mars
Exploration as a scientific endeavor exemplifies great American innovation. The first human steps on Mars will be a watershed moment for humanity and for science. The endeavor to bring humans to Mars will profoundly change the scientific understanding of the solar system and our place in it.
The Artemis Accords (NASA 2020) embody an international consensus and commitment to peaceful exploration and the expansion of knowledge and provide an essential underpinning to the global partnerships essential to the exploration of Mars. U.S. National Space Policy is clear in the guidelines for civil space: “The United States shall lead an innovative and sustainable program of scientific discovery, technology development, and space exploration . . . the United 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” (National Space Policy of the United States of America 2020).
NASA contacted the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to convene an ad hoc committee to address the topic of “High Priority Science Campaigns for Human Explorers on the Surface of Mars.” The National Academies have also been commissioned by NASA to conduct a sister study for the Moon, “Key Non-Polar Destinations Across the Moon to Address Decadal-Level Science Objectives with Human Explorers.”
Human exploration on Mars will be guided by the highest priority science objectives. The initial human exploration campaigns to the surface of Mars presented in this report are designed to focus on science across and within disciplines. The steering committee was supported by four panels: the Panel on Astrobiology, the Panel on Atmospheric Science and Space Physics, the Panel on Biological and Physical Sciences and Human Factors, and the Panel on Geosciences.
The 58 volunteer experts were joined by 54 invited speakers across 14 open session meetings. The panels gathered information on the top science objectives for crewed missions to Mars within their respective disciplines (see Appendixes B–E). This information was presented to the steering committee, which met in person five times over the course of 1 year to prioritize across disciplines and develop campaigns.
In addition, the committee hosted two virtual town halls with approximately 300 participants. Members of the committee and panels attended approximately 70 conferences, workshops, and meetings on related topics over the course of this study to gather information. This report does not define how this highest priority science is to be done; those determinations and technology developments lie in the future.
Science stands at the beginning, the center, and the end of this report. To fulfill this imperative in the context of crewed missions to Mars, a deep understanding by NASA of the scientific objectives and priorities that will drive the architectures, technology development, operations concepts, and systems development is essential. This process is necessarily iterative; developing the mission and systems concepts will require understanding the capabilities needed to execute a robust science plan in sufficient detail to drive technology and systems development priorities.
The committee has explicitly focused on the functional capabilities needed to achieve the science objectives and avoided specifying how those capabilities might be provided. Yet even the level of detail in this report depends in part on imagining the capability limitations and constraints, for example, to what degree a given measurement process might be robot assisted and AI driven in the future.
To be of enduring value, this report lays out the scientific objectives at a high level, with capability descriptions that allow for iteration while preserving the intent of the committee’s priorities. Over the course of this study, the Moon to Mars Architecture was updated by NASA. The committee has remained true to its statement of task in addressing synergies with the Moon to Mars Architecture (see Chapter 5) and makes clear any assumptions that may have affected the campaigns (see Chapters 2 and 3).
The campaigns presented in this report are illustrative rather than definitive. They represent high-value combinations of science objectives expected to drive landing site selection, technical capabilities, and operations concepts with their complementary and contextual investigations that may or may not also be drivers of that selection. Some objectives are more agnostic to high-level operational concepts but remain drivers for surface duration, crew time, and other constraints. If an imagined path proves too difficult or an advancement opens a new opportunity, the pathways will be clear to revise the details while remaining true to the overall objectives.
The Summary of the report presents the science priorities, campaign options, and recommendations. Chapter 1 provides the context for this report. Chapter 2 contains the necessary background for discussing the campaigns recommended by this report. Chapter 3 presents the four options for campaigns in priority order. Chapter 4 presents more detail on the committee’s prioritized science objectives by discipline and how those were ranked. Chapter 5 focuses on the synergies with NASA’s existing Moon to Mars strategy. The work of the study panels is captured in Appendixes B–E and additional information on new technology and what to do if life is found on Mars are in Appendixes G and H.
This report was made possible by the sponsorship of NASA. Special thanks are due to Debra Needham, program scientist in NASA’s Exploration Science Strategy and Integration Office, who was the main point of contact. Thanks to all the invited speakers and town hall participants for their contributions to the information gathering.
Linda T. Elkins-Tanton, Co-Chair
Dava J. Newman, Co-Chair
Committee on a Science Strategy for the Human Exploration of Mars
October 2025
Full report
Astrobiology, Space Life Science, Planetary Protection,
