Sending astronauts to the moon and Mars must be more than a photo op

The only way to create a sustainable program of exploring the moon and Mars with humans, beyond the initial flush of achievement, is by fully integrating science into our planning. We won’t be able to answer the important science questions without human missions, and we can’t fly the human missions without science support from the robotic program. Because they need to work together, we should have a single space exploration program that integrates both the human and robotic components.

Over three administrations, the NASA justification for sending humans into space has been a triad of co-equal components — scientific exploration of the world around us; inspiring us with “audacious challenges” that excite young people and draws them into scientific and technical fields; and creating a national posture that allows us to develop new technologies and businesses and to exert leadership and influence around the world. The current structure of the human moon and Mars program has not integrated science in an effective way into the planning process, but there still is time to make that happen.

Together, the human space program and the robotic science program can address our objectives.  Ensuring that we have a coherent and integrated program that addresses our goals is especially important today, with dramatic changes in NASA’s plans for human exploration and with proposed massive cuts to NASA science — as outlined in the president’s budget request.

Within our own solar system, NASA’s robotic exploration program has been exploring the nature of planets and their atmospheres, their formation and evolution, the materials from which they formed and how planetary systems work. Both in our solar system and beyond, we are focused largely on finding habitable environments in which life could have existed, and on determining whether there is life elsewhere.

Separately, the NASA program of humans in space began as a cold war effort but has evolved significantly, especially since the end of the Shuttle era. The short-term goal for humans is embodied in the Artemis program to return astronauts to the moon using commercially provided human landing systems. The long-term goal is to send humans to Mars. 

However, we feel that these human missions should aim higher. Beyond just sending astronauts, these missions can allow deep exploration of both worlds. We expect that human exploration of the moon and Mars will be necessary to answer our most important questions about planetary evolution and the occurrence of life elsewhere, as humans have capabilities far beyond those of robotic spacecraft. Our eyes and our brains, and our ability to take in information, process it and reach conclusions about what we are seeing, cannot be duplicated using robotic spacecraft, even with support from AI or from large teams of scientists back here on Earth.

At the same time, robotic spacecraft have the ability to explore more places more cheaply than with human missions — all without risking human lives. But they are slower, taking years to do what an astronaut could do better in days, and can carry only a very limited number of scientific instruments. Plus, plans typically are locked in years in advance.

Our program should not be an “either/or.” Human explorers could carry out scientific investigations that go way beyond what robotic missions can do, and they inspire us in a way that robotic missions cannot. But this can happen only if science is built into the architecture and mission planning from the beginning. And it can happen only if a vigorous program of robotic missions supports the human missions through the necessary activities of helping us develop the scientific goals or objectives to carry out, identify landing sites and plan astronaut traverses and assess hazards and risks.

Having a single program will require combining human missions and science from robotic missions in a way that NASA is not doing today. The person leading development of the Artemis and Mars human programs must have responsibility and authority as well for the science to be carried out by them, and they must fully embrace that role. Only then can the science and the mission architecture and hardware be integrated effectively. This integration should start with the return of samples from the surface of Mars to the Earth, both for the science it will return and as a necessary component of risk reduction in preparing for sending humans to Mars. And we should maintain a vigorous moon and Mars robotic program, both for the sake of science and to support the human program.

We have the opportunity to design and implement the moon and Mars programs so that they will contribute substantially to all of NASA’s goals for exploration of the solar system. We shouldn’t sell the program short by stove-piping the human program as being separate from the robotic program or by cutting science to below a viable level. If we do, we’ll get cool photographs from Mars but little else.

Bruce Jakosky is an Emeritus Professor and Senior Research Associate at the Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics, University of Colorado Boulder, has almost 50 years’ experience as a Mars researcher, and was the Principal Investigator of the MAVEN spacecraft mission that has been orbiting and exploring Mars for more than ten years.

Scott Hubbard is the former Director of NASA’s Ames Research Center, was the first NASA Mars Program Director, and has been active in space exploration for more than 50 years. Now a semi-retired member of the Stanford Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics faculty, he founded the Stanford Center for Commercial Space Transportation and the peer-reviewed journal New Space.

SpaceNews is committed to publishing our community’s diverse perspectives. Whether you’re an academic, executive, engineer or even just a concerned citizen of the cosmos, send your arguments and viewpoints to opinion@spacenews.com to be considered for publication online or in our next magazine. The perspectives shared in these opinion articles are solely those of the authors.