NASA DARES to Establish an Astrobiology-Specific Technology Development Program

Herein is a copy of the official White Paper submission to NASA-DARES 2025 Request for Information by the Agnostic Life Finding Association (ALFA)

1. Recommendation and Introduction

1.1 Recommendation

This recommendation is the fourth in a series of submissions by the authors to inform the development of NASA’s 2025 Decadal Astrobiology Research and Exploration Strategy (NASA-DARES 2025). NASA’s Science Mission Directorate (SMD), Planetary Science Division (PSD), Space Technology Mission Directorate (STMD), and Astrobiology Program are recommended by the Agnostic Life Finding Association (ALFA) [1] to establish a competitive, highly-focused, science-requirements-driven technology development program to advance astrobiological instrumentation towards and beyond Technology Readiness Level (TRL) 6. This program shall ascertain, and develop to flight readiness, whichever agnostic life detection instruments are needed to actualize NASA’s decadal astrobiology strategy.

1.2 Introduction

Origins, Worlds, and Life: A Decadal Strategy for Planetary Science and Astrobiology 2023-2032 (OWL) [2] recommended that the Mars Exploration Program’s (MEP) “next priority medium-class mission” seek signs of extant life in the Martian subsurface, exemplified by the Mars Life Explorer (MLE) mission concept study [3]. Additionally, OWL recommends that “the second highest priority new Flagship mission for the decade” seek signs of extant life at Enceladus, exemplified by the Enceladus Orbilander mission concept study [4] (the primary recommendation was a mission to Uranus, with no direct relevance to astrobiology). Finally, as a future flagship mission, OWL recommended a lander be sent to Jupiter’s moon, Europa, to seek signs of extant life, exemplified by the Europa Lander (EL) mission concept study [5]. Clearly, community-wide enthusiasm for missions to seek signs of extant life in the Solar System exists; however community-wide agreement as to how to conduct such a search is lacking. Further, no mission to search for extant life has flown since 1976 [6]. Therefore, the OWL-recommendations represent a dramatic shift in NASA’s operating paradigm.

The 1976 Viking missions’ methods to search for life were ambiguous [6, 7] and their final conclusions are refuted [6-10]. To ensure that future missions searching for extant life can seek unambiguous biosignatures, a coherent astrobiology strategy must be developed. Relevant to NASA-DARES 2025 RFI’s Response Topics 2 and 4, the recommendation herein expands upon key recommendations [2, 11] to improve upon technology development programs that are directed to (but not fulfilling the mandate to) identify and develop technologies capable of detecting unambiguous signs of extant life, having the potential to transform astrobiology.

2. Community Recommendations

2.1 Vision and Voyages (V&V) Decadal Survey for 2013-2022

Vision and Voyages for Planetary Science in the Decade 2013-2022 (V&V) [11] had many priorities properly addressed and funded by NASA. Impressively, V&V’s top two flagship missions were realized: M2020 (Perseverance) Rover and Europa Clipper.

Relevant here, V&V also recommended improvements to the technology development efforts of NASA. V&V urged for dedicated instrument development programs, emphasizing the need to close the “mid-TRL crisis,” where many instruments and technologies were being developed up to TRL-4, but not advanced to TRL-6. To accommodate such development needs, V&V suggested NASA devote 6-8% of the PSD budget for technology development.

An assessment from the Vision into Voyages: A Midterm Review [12] (VVMR) highlighted that, “NASA created… programs to provide sustained, broad-based science instrument development through TRL 6, as recommended by [V&V]. The high number of proposals submitted to these programs, relative to the funding available, shows a strong community demand for these programs.” Also, VVMR remarked that “SMD has funded two specific programs targeted at technologies for extreme environments: Concepts for Ocean Worlds Life Detection Technology (COLDTech), for Europa, Titan, Enceladus, Callisto, Ganymede, and Ceres; and… HOTTech. [The] COLDTech portfolio is a spacecraft-based instruments and technology program for surface and subsurface exploration of ocean worlds with emphasis on the detection of evidence of life,” [12]. Notice that, at this point, it seems that Mars was not considered to be an ocean world, nor that life detection technology concepts for Mars were worth considering. Nonetheless, VVMR was pleased that NASA had delivered the requested funding. In fact, PSD actually met or exceeded the 6-8% funding requests during the first half of the V&V period [12].

2.2 Origins, Worlds, and Life (OWL) A Decadal Strategy for 2023-2032

Note that, unlike OWL, V&V’s title has no mention of astrobiology, and accordingly lacks any recommendations for missions to actually seek life [2, 11]. However, the Network for Life Detection (NfoLD) [13] and other Research Coordination Networks (RCNs), established during the V&V period, directly influenced the astrobiology community. The paradigm has shifted, and the community is finally showing that it values missions to seek signs of extant alien life [2-5].

OWL recognized that V&V recommendations were successful in improving NASA’s technology developments. Quoting OWL, “The approach to technology development within NASA has changed multiple times through the decades… At the beginning of the V&V decadal survey, technology development within SMD was uncoordinated and lacked focus, and the V&V decadal survey recommended that the PSD reestablish a cohesive technology program. At that time [NASA] also did not have a focused mission directorate for technology… PSD implemented the V&V recommendations and established several new programs, while NASA established [STMD],” [2]. However, in its review of the field, OWL was critical of unmet and slipping budgets and timelines. OWL found that, although “NASA’s PSD efforts over the first half of the decade had generally met V&V… goals, NASA has not been able to financially sustain the [funding.] During the second half of the decade… funding fell short of the recommended 6–8% declining to about 4%… [remarking] that technology funding [should] not be used to cover overrun costs of missions,” stating, “Reallocating technology funds to cover tactical exigencies is tantamount to ‘eating the seed corn’… [Funding for technology development] is now significantly below the level of investment recommended in V&V,” [2]. To compensate, OWL urged NASA to strive for technology developments that continue to be funded at the level of 6-8% of the PSD budget.

The recommendation herein urges for similar attention be paid to technology developments, but goes beyond this. ALFA advises NASA’s Astrobiology program to realize that substantial technology development is required to ensure that missions searching for extant life can seek unambiguous biosignatures. On top of this, the current development programs are insufficient in their identification and funding of technologies which can provide truly unambiguous, agnostic detection strategies. Meanwhile, the PSD funding landscape is only becoming more dire. Thus, a competitive, highly-focused instrument development program is required, in order to identify technologies capable of detecting unambiguous signs of extant life, having the potential to transform astrobiology, and to ascertain the most robust, agnostic life detection strategies. Investments shall prioritize methods that apply to all water worlds.

3. Current and Future Technology Development Programs

3.1 The Planetary Exploration Science Technology Office (PESTO)

The Planetary Exploration Science Technology Office (PESTO) manages the investment strategy of current technology development programs [14]. These programs include Planetary Instrument Concepts for the Advancement of Solar System Observations (PICASSO), Maturation of Instruments for Solar System Exploration (MatISSE), Development and Advancement of Lunar Instrumentation (DALI), Concepts for Ocean worlds Life Detection Technology (COLDTech), Hot Operating Temperature Technology (HOTTech) and Planetary Science and Technology Through Analog Research (PSTAR).

Quoting OWL: “In 2017 PSD established… PESTO at Glenn Research Center (GRC) to (1) manage planetary technology investments that are not yet specific to a mission in development; (2) coordinate planetary-relevant technology investments across PSD and other NASA organizations; and (3) meet the goal of maximizing infusion into specific missions… [PESTO] recommends annual technology investment strategies… and updates the roadmap to achieve the strategic goals, based primarily on future mission needs. PESTO manages the development of technologies… and… promote[s] cross-directorate collaboration,” [2]. Whereas a specific mission to search for signs of extant life remains understandably not chosen, it is time for NASA to decide on the strategy it will apply in a future mission sent to seek extant life. In turn, this strategy, developed within NASA-DARES 2025, must directly inform PESTO’s “strategic goals” and “investment strategies” to develop the technologies which will yield an effective return on investment.

Additionally, as mentioned, PESTO is primarily managed through the PSD of SMD. Unfortunately, recent reporting [15] (at the time of writing) suggests that SMD is likely to be highly defunded, and PSD will likely be the most defunded division within SMD. This creates a major problem for NASA: if NASA is serious about searching for signs of extant alien life in the Solar System in this decade (or the next), NASA needs an adequately focused and funded program to identify which life detection strategies are worthwhile, and then develop them for flight. Right now, there is a vanishingly small budget to accomplish this gargantuan task. While investments in these endeavors better answer their call to the taxpayer than many government investments, their ability to be fought for when appropriations are being made is limited. Alas, the adage applies, if you are not at the table, you are on the menu.

3.1.1 Concepts for Ocean Worlds Life Detection Technology (COLDTech)

Under the direction of PESTO, the current technology development programs state they prioritize developing instrumentation “with an emphasis on…in-situ search for life” [14]. Given the inherent uncertainty of future life detection missions and the strategies those missions might implement, PICASSO and MatISSE have done the best they could to satisfy their mandate. However, when an applicant examines the names of the programs directed by PESTO, COLDTech would seemingly be the program to which they should propose in order to get their ocean-world life-finding instrument funded. However, the Concepts for Ocean Worlds Life Detection Technology (COLDTech) program has only released one solicitation since its inception, which states that “Specific technologies sought for this COLDTech opportunity are: (1) Autonomy for landed operations, (2) Technology to enable communication through many kilometers of ice thickness, [and] (3) Radiation-hard digital devices,” [16]. The projects funded under the COLDTech program reflect this solicitation: they are all “platforms” (not “instruments”) that advance radiation hardening and automation technologies, of which, numerous projects have had their information removed from NASA’s TechPortwebsite [16].

Considering this program is funded by NASA’s SMD and PSD, these investment areas and strategies are inadequate for a program purportedly tasked with developing technologies to search for actual signs of alien life. To be clear, radiation-hard devices and autonomous operations are clearly required for operation in those environments. On the other hand, the impending presence of humans on Mars means that a search for extant life there is the only space endeavor that cannot wait. Therefore, Mars must be prioritized as the primary locale for NASA to seek extant life, and this does not require the COLDTech technology investments.

From the outside, greater transparency and a clearer direction is needed for the programs which tote their intention to develop astrobiological instrumentation, but really only seek technologies that may one day enable them. The COLDTech investments do not reflect the mandate given to the program by name, and are using funds that shall be used by an astrobiology community hoping to seek signs of alien life in this decade.

Therefore, NASA must deepen their cross-directorate collaboration, while narrowing the focus of PESTO’s technology investments. Considering the fact that these technology developments are funded by PSD (which is likely to have its funding slashed [15]), it is unlikely that NASA’s current strategy will significantly transform the instrument development pipeline in order to realize the OWL-recommendations of seeking signs of extant life in the Solar System in this decade. Even better would be for NASA Astrobiology to establish new funding pathways from STMD; afterall, it is NASA’s space technology branch.

3.2 The Needed Technology Development Program

In this new era, wherein community recommendations suggest searching for signs of extant life [4-6], NASA must ensure that its technology development programs have a clear science traceability. Put plainly, across all mission directorates, NASA needs to decide which life detection strategies are the most robust, agnostic and worthwhile, and commit to developing the instruments which enable those strategies to a flight-ready TRL, without adjacent technology investments taking money from the limited PSD budget. OWL found that, in order “to advance the search for life in the universe, NASA should accelerate the development and validation, in relevant environments, of mission-ready, life detection technologies,” [3]. We agree. NASA must also supply ample flight opportunities to test these technologies in relevant environments to ensure that concepts with the potential to transform astrobiology are mission ready.

Now, with the Commercial Lunar Payload Services and the Artemis Program, NASA is using the Moon as a “proving ground” to test critical technologies and capabilities that will be critical for Mars. Similarly, NASA-DARES 2025 shall consider Mars the “proving ground” for technologies seeking signs of extant life in the Solar System, whereby refined strategies and tested technologies can be leveraged to investigate signs of extant life on the icy moons of the Outer Solar System.

References

[1] ALFA Mars. “Is there life on Mars?” www.alfamars.org

[2] National Academies (2023). “Origins, Worlds, and Life: A Decadal Strategy for Planetary Science and Astrobiology 2023-2032.” Natl. Acad. Press. doi.org/10.17226/26522.

[3] Williams, A. (2021). “Mars Life Explorer Mission Concept Study.” NASA.

[4] MacKenzie, S. M., et al. (2021). “The Enceladus Orbilander Mission Concept: Balancing return and resources in the search for life.” Planetary Sci. Journal. doi.org/10.3847/psj/abe4da

[5] Hand, K. P., et al. (2017). “Europa Lander Study 2016 Report.” NASA.

[6] Klein, H. P. (1978). “The Viking Biological Experiments on Mars.” Icarus, 34(3), 666–674.

[7] McKay, C. P., Quinn, R. C., Stoker, C. R. (2025). “The Viking Biology Experiments on Mars Revisited.” Icarus, vol. 431. doi.org/10.1016/j.icarus.2025.116466

[8] Klein, H. P. (1998). “The Search for Life on Mars: What We Learned from Viking.” Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets, vol. 103, doi.org/10.1029/98je01722

[9] Benner, S. A., et al. (2000). “The Missing Organic Molecules on Mars.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 97, doi.org/10.1073/pnas.040539497.

[10] Levin, G., Straat, P. (2016). “The case for extant life on Mars and its possible detection by the Viking Labeled Release Experiment.” Astrobiology, vol. 16, doi.org/10.1089/ast.2015.1464.

[11] National Academies (2011). “Vision and Voyages for Planetary Science in the Decade 2013-2022,” Natl. Acad. Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/13117

[12] National Academies (2018). “Visions into Voyages for Planetary Science in the Decade 2013-2022: A Midterm Review.” Natl. Acad. Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/25186

[13] NfoLD. “NASA’s Network for Life Detection.” www.nfold.org

[14] NASA. “Planetary Exploration Science Technology Office” www1.grc.nasa.gov/space/pesto

[15] Berger, E. (2025) “White House May Seek to Slash NASA’s Science Budget by 50 Percent.” Ars Technica, 7 March 2025.

[16] NASA. “PESTO-COLDTech.” www1.grc.nasa.gov/space/pesto/investment-areas/coldtech