Consensus Study Report

NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001

This study was supported by Contract 80HQTR22DA001 between the National Academy of Sciences and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of any organization or agency that provided support for the project.

International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-73173-7
Digital Object Identifier: https://doi.org/10.17226/28594

This publication is available from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Keck 360, Washington, DC 20001; (800) 624-6242; https://nap.nationalacademies.org.

The manufacturer’s authorized representative in the European Union for product safety is Authorised Rep Compliance Ltd., Ground Floor, 71 Lower Baggot Street, Dublin D02 P593 Ireland; www.arccompliance.com.

Copyright 2026 by the National Academy of Sciences. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine and National Academies Press and the graphical logos for each are all trademarks of the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Printed in the United States of America.

Suggested citation: National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2026. A Science Strategy for the Human Exploration of Mars. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/28594.

The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, nongovernmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president.

The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering. Dr. Tsu-Jae Liu is president.

The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president.

The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent, objective analysis, and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions. The National Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine.

Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www.nationalacademies.org.

Consensus Study Reports published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine document the evidence-based consensus on the study’s statement of task by an authoring committee of experts. Reports typically include findings, conclusions, and recommendations based on information gathered by the committee and the committee’s deliberations. Each report has been subjected to a rigorous and independent peer-review process and it represents the position of the National Academies on the statement of task.

Proceedings published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine chronicle the presentations and discussions at a workshop, symposium, or other event convened by the National Academies. The statements and opinions contained in proceedings are those of the participants and are not endorsed by other participants, the planning committee, or the National Academies.

Rapid Expert Consultations published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine are authored by subject-matter experts on narrowly focused topics that can be supported by a body of evidence. The discussions contained in rapid expert consultations are considered those of the authors and do not contain policy recommendations. Rapid expert consultations are reviewed by the institution before release.

For information about other products and activities of the National Academies, please visit www.nationalacademies.org/about/whatwedo.

COMMITTEE ON A SCIENCE STRATEGY FOR THE HUMAN EXPLORATION OF MARS

LINDA T. ELKINS-TANTON (NAS), University of California, Berkeley, Co-Chair

DAVA J. NEWMAN, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Co-Chair

DOMINIC (TONY) ANTONELLI, Antonelli Consulting Company LLC

PENELOPE J. BOSTON, NASA Ames Research Center

CHRISTOPHER E. CARR, Georgia Institute of Technology

BARBARA A. COHEN, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center

JONATHAN H. JIANG, Jet Propulsion Laboratory (retired), California Institute of Technology

JAMES F. KASTING (NAS), Pennsylvania State University (retired)

PASCAL LEE, SETI Institute

JAMES A. PAWELCZYK, Pennsylvania State University

NILTON O. RENNO, University of Michigan

MICHAEL G. RYSCHKEWITSCH, Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory

JULIANNA M. SCHEIMAN, Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX)

WANDA A. SIGUR (NAE), Independent Consultant

ERIKA B. WAGNER, The Exploration Company

Study Staff

ABIGAIL SHEFFER, Senior Program Officer, Study Co-Director

KELSIE M. KRAFTON, Program Officer, Study Co-Director

LINDA M. WALKER, Senior Program Assistant

COLLEEN N. HARTMAN, Director, Space Studies Board (until May 2025)

ARUL MOZHI, Senior Program Director for Aeronautics, Space, and Astronomy (as of September 2025)

MIA BROWN, Research Associate

ARTHUR CHARO, Senior Program Officer

DWAYNE A. DAY, Senior Program Officer

TARINI KONCHADY, Associate Program Officer

SAM MYSZKOWSKI, Senior Program Assistant

GAYBRIELLE HOLBERT, Senior Program Assistant

DIONNA WISE, Program Coordinator

Panel on Astrobiology

KATHLEEN E. MANDT, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Chair

LAURIE BARGE, Jet Propulsion Laboratory

HUGO CASTILLO, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University

JOHN M. EILER (NAS), California Institute of Technology

DREW GORMAN-LEWIS, University of Washington

BETÜL KAÇAR, University of Wisconsin–Madison

MICHAEL A. MEYER, NASA’s Mars Exploration and Mars Sample Return Programs (retired)

JORGE I. NÚÑEZ, Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory

LAURA E. RODRIGUEZ, Lunar and Planetary Institute

NICOLE SCHMITZ, German Aerospace Center (DLR) Institute of Planetary Research

AMY J. WILLIAMS, University of Florida

Panel on Atmospheric Science and Space Physics

LESLIE K. TAMPPARI, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Chair

CHRISTOPHER BOXE, Howard University

YAIRESKA COLLADO-VEGA, National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

JASPER S. HALEKAS, University of Iowa

ALAIN S.J. KHAYAT, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center

RALPH D. LORENZ, Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory

SARA NAVARRO LÓPEZ, Centro de Astrobiología

CLAIRE E. NEWMAN, Aeolis Research

SUSANNE P. SCHWENZER, Open University

ALEJANDRO SOTO, Southwest Research Institute

MARK THIEMENS (NAS), University of California, San Diego

Panel on Biological and Physical Sciences and Human Factors

BARRETT S. CALDWELL, Purdue University, Co-Chair

ANNA-LISA PAUL, University of Florida, Co-Chair

DANIEL AMMON (NAE), Regenity Biosciences

SERENA MARIA AUÑON-CHANCELLOR, Texas A&M University

JAY C. BUCKEY, Dartmouth College

ANA DIAZ ARTILES, Texas A&M University

NICK KANAS, University of California, San Francisco (Professor Emeritus)

CRAIG E. KUNDROT, NASA (retired)

BRUCE M. LINK, Amentum

DONNA ROBERTS, Center for the Advancement of Science in Space

LUIS ZEA, Jaguar Space, LLC

Panel on Geosciences

JENNIFER L. HELDMANN, NASA Ames Research Center, Chair

WILLIAM B. BANERDT, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology (retired)

ALI BRAMSON, Purdue University

VERONICA BRAY-DURFEY, University of Arizona

ALEX HALLIDAY (NAS), Columbia University

JEFFREY ROY JOHNSON, Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory

JOHN F. MUSTARD, Brown University

CHIANG SHIH, Florida State University and Florida A&M University

KIRSTEN LEIGH SIEBACH, Rice University

MARCELLA AVELINE YANT, Lockheed Martin

Space Studies Board

MARGARET G. KIVELSON (NAS), University of California, Los Angeles, Chair

TAHLLEE BAYNARD, Ignite; Lockheed Martin (retired)

DANIELA CALZETTI (NAS), University of Massachusetts Amherst

ROBIN M. CANUP (NAS), Southwest Research Institute

DEEPTO CHAKRABARTY, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

MELINDA D. DYAR, Mount Holyoke College

ANTONIO L. ELIAS (NAE), Orbital ATK, Inc. (retired)

JED J. HANCOCK, Dynamics Laboratory, Utah State University Space

DANIEL M. HART (NAE), HarTechnologies, LLC

PETER I. MESZAROS (NAS), Pennsylvania State University (Professor Emeritus)

RICHARD M. OBERMANN, U.S. House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology (retired)

NELSON PEDREIRO (NAE), Hardware, Zoox

CHRISTA D. PETERS-LIDARD (NAE), NASA Goddard Space Flight Center

TARA M. RUTTLEY, Blue Origin

MARK P. SAUNDERS, Independent Consultant

HOWARD J. SINGER, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

KEIVAN G. STASSUN, Vanderbilt University

CHRIS WOLVERTON, Ohio Wesleyan University

ENDAWOKE YIZENGAW, The Aerospace Corporation

GARY P. ZANK (NAS), University of Alabama in Huntsville

Staff

COLLEEN N. HARTMAN, Director, Space Studies Board (until May 2025)

ARUL MOZHI, Senior Program Director for Aeronautics, Space, and Astronomy (as of September 2025)

TANJA PILZAK, Manager, Program Operations

Reviewers

This Consensus Study Report was reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in making each published report as sound as possible and to ensure that it meets the institutional standards for quality, objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process.

We thank the following individuals for their review of this report:

Although the reviewers listed above provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations of this report, nor did they see the final draft before its release. The review of this report was overseen by MICHAEL MANGA, University of California, Berkeley, and KATHERINE H. FREEMAN, Pennsylvania State University. They were responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with the standards of the National Academies and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content rests entirely with the authoring committee and the National Academies.

Contents

PREFACE

SUMMARY

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Scope of the Consensus Study

1.2 History of Human-Performed Science on Planetary Bodies

1.3 Map of the Report

2 DEFINING THE SCIENCE FOR CAMPAIGNS

2.1 What Comprises a Campaign to Mars?

2.2 Science Objectives and Themes

2.3 Assumptions and Caveats for Campaign Planning

2.4 Enabling Technologies

2.5 Campaign Architecture Alternatives

3 CAMPAIGNS

3.1 Prioritizing Campaigns

3.2 Common Biological and Physical Sciences in Space and Human Factors Requirements for All Campaigns

3.3 Mars Science Across an Expanded Exploration Zone (30-Cargo-300)

3.4 Synergy of Mars Science Measurements (30-Cargo-300)

3.5 Seeking Life Beneath the Martian Icy Crust (30-Cargo-300)

3.6 Investigating Mars at Three Sites (30-30-30)

4 DISCIPLINARY SCIENCE PRIORITIES

4.1 Ranked Science Objectives

4.2 Summaries of Science Input from the Panels

5 PUTTING SCIENCE IN THE MOON TO MARS ARCHITECTURE

5.1 Overview of the Moon to Mars Architecture

5.2 The Sub-Architecture Framework Applied to Science on Mars

5.3 Translating Science Objectives into Design Reference Requirements

5.4 Continuity of Technology and Science: The Promise of Moon to Mars

6 SYNOPSIS

REFERENCES

APPENDIXES

A Statement of Task

B Panel on Astrobiology: Context for Science Traceability Matrix

C Panel on Atmospheric Science and Space Physics: Context for Science Traceability Matrix

D Panel on Biological and Physical Sciences and Human Factors: Context for Science Traceability Matrix

E Panel on Geosciences: Context for Science Traceability Matrix

F Implications of Artificial Intelligence for Human Mars Exploration

G If Life Is Found

H Acronyms and Abbreviations

I Committee and Staff Biographical Information

J Science Traceability Matrices for Panels

Preface

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