Humans in Space to Accomplish Science Objectives (ACR24 white paper)¶
Document: Humans in Space to Accomplish Science Objectives, a four-page white paper headed
"2024 Moon to Mars Architecture" and footed "2024 Moon to Mars Architecture Concept Review". No
date is printed beyond the year; the download path is 2024/12. Files: text
sources/text/docs/2024-12-acr24-humans-in-space-accomplish-objectives.txt; raw
sources/raw/docs/2024-12-acr24-humans-in-space-accomplish-objectives.pdf (fetched
2026-10-01T07:22:46Z from
https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/acr24-humans-in-space-accomplish-objectives.pdf,
per sources/manifest.csv). Page numbers: the printed numbers (1–4) match the PDF pages and
the text file's [page N] markers. All four pages were checked against the PDF.
Which paper this is. NASA's White Papers web page lists it under "2024 Architecture Concept Review": "Describes unique capabilities of human explorers and how humans and robots can work together to maximize scientific returns" (White Papers page, fetched 2026-10-01). It doesn't cite the ADD. It is 2024 context, older than ADD Rev C.
Summary. "Teleoperated robotic probes are the primary means to conduct space science, but human explorers can enable or enhance particular types of science" (p. 1). The paper says what astronauts add (judgment about samples and context, fine manipulation, placing and fixing instruments, reacting to the unexpected) and quotes four science-community and NASA reports that call for "well-designed partnerships between astronauts and robotic explorers" (p. 4). It also records that NASA adopted the decadal survey's three planetary science themes "as the basis for the first three Lunar and Planetary Science Objectives" (p. 3). The content is on Why Moon to Mars; the objectives point is on Objectives.
Contents¶
| Page | Section | Wiki home |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Introduction; The Benefits of Crewed Science (what "exploration" and "science" mean here; the Human Research Program and the ISS) | Why Moon to Mars |
| 2 | Benefits to Planetary Science ("suitcase science", instrument siting); Science Community Documents: the National Research Council (2007) and the National Academies (2022) | same |
| 3 | The decadal's three themes and the LPS objectives; the Artemis III Science Definition Report; the MEPAG Tiger Team report (2023); Summary | same; Objectives |
| 4 | Key Takeaways; References 1–8 | this page |
What the PDF shows that the text layer loses¶
- A boxed motto under "The Benefits of Crewed Science": "Science enables exploration; exploration enables science." (p. 1). The text layer keeps the words but not the box.
- Report covers. Each of the four quoted reports is shown with a small image of its cover beside the quotation (pp. 2–3). The text layer drops the images.
- Italics. "exploration" and "science" are italicized where the paper defines them (p. 1), and the four report quotations are set in italics.
The four reports it quotes¶
Headings and years as printed (pp. 2–3):
| Heading | Report | What the paper takes from it |
|---|---|---|
| Science Community Report: National Research Council [2007] | The Scientific Context for Exploration of the Moon | "Well-designed human-robotic partnership will be central to the success of the activities." Its criteria for science priorities, "in order of importance": "Scientific Merit", "Opportunity and Realism for Achieving a Goal", "Technological Readiness". |
| Science Community Report: National Academies [2022] | Origins, Worlds, and Life (the 2023–2032 planetary science decadal) | South Pole-Aitken basin sample return "represents an ideal synergy between NASA's human and robotic exploration of the Moon. It would produce flagship-level science at the cost of a medium-class mission". Its three themes: "Solar System History", "Geologic Processes", "Water and Volatiles". |
| NASA Document [2015] | Artemis III Science Definition Report | "Procedures and operations techniques, particularly for sample acquisition and curation, developed for the Artemis III mission will influence future Artemis missions…and future expeditions to Mars." The report "builds on the seven overarching Artemis III science objectives". |
| Science Community Report: Mars Exploration Program Analysis Group (MEPAG) [2023] | Report of MEPAG Tiger Team on Mars Human-Mission Science Objectives | "the capabilities of human missions have the potential to change both the objectives and the priorities — and can definitely accelerate the pace — for Mars scientific exploration." SMD "tasked MEPAG with identifying science objectives for the Moon to Mars Architecture's Humans to Mars segment." |
Key takeaways (p. 4)¶
- "Crewed exploration offers particular advantages for accomplishing space science objectives."
- "NASA's scientific objectives are informed by a variety of sources, many of which highlight the need for human explorers to achieve priority investigations and conduct groundbreaking science."
- "Reports from the space science community and NASA documents have consistently called for well-designed partnerships between astronauts and robotic explorers."
What changed by Rev C¶
These comparisons are the wiki's. The paper predates Rev C.
- The goals already say it. The LPS goal asks for science "best accomplished by on-site human explorers on and around the Moon and Mars, aided by surface and orbiting robotic systems", and the SE goal is to "Develop integrated human and robotic methods and advanced techniques" (ADD Rev C, p. 15; Objectives). Appendix A's science pillar says "robotic and human exploration of other bodies in the solar system ultimately reap more data more effectively" (ADD p. 106). Neither cites the paper.
- MEPAG. Rev C lists the Mars Exploration Program Analysis Group among the forums for international partnerships, "responsible for providing the science input needed to plan and prioritize Mars exploration activities" (ADD p. 87; RT-1). It doesn't mention the Tiger Team report (search of its text).
- Artemis III no longer lands. The paper's Artemis III report describes a landing mission's science. Since March 2026, Artemis III is an Earth-orbit test and the first landing is Artemis IV (Going back to the Moon, pp. 1–2; Human Lunar Return).
References that are other architecture documents¶
The paper cites eight references (p. 4). As printed:
| Ref. | Title, as printed | Among the wiki's sources? |
|---|---|---|
| 4 | Exploration Lessons Learned from the Space Station, 2023 Moon to Mars Architecture White Paper | no |
| 7 | NASA's Moon to Mars Objectives | yes, Moon to Mars Objectives (2022) (same file name in the link) |
The others: Origins, Worlds, and Life; the "Artemis III Science Definition Team Report"; the
National Academies' Thriving in Space (biological and physical sciences); The Scientific Context
for Exploration of the Moon; New Frontiers in the Solar System; and the MEPAG Tiger Team report.
"No" means no file in sources/manifest.csv or sources/text/pages/ has a matching name.
Oddities¶
As printed, PDF checked:
- The Artemis III report's date. Its heading says "NASA Document [2015]" (p. 3). The reference
link is
…/uploads/2015/01/artemis-iii-science-definition-report-12042020c.pdf(p. 4). The wiki records both and doesn't date the report. - Two names for it: "Artemis III Science Definition Report" (heading, p. 3) and "Artemis III Science Definition Team Report" (reference 2).
- "National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine" (pp. 1, 2), where the 2024 international partnerships paper has "Sciences" (source page).
Related pages¶
Why Moon to Mars · Objectives: the ten goals · Priority Science Objectives (ACR24) · Utilization Systems · RT-4 Crew Time · Humans to Mars · Human Systems