Fundamental Science and Engineering Questions in Planetary Cave Exploration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nearly half a century ago, two papers postulated the likelihood of lunar lava tube caves using mathematical models. Today, armed with an array of orbiting and fly-by satellites and survey instrumentation, we have now acquired cave data across our solar system-including the identification of potential cave entrances on the Moon, Mars, and at least nine other planetary bodies. These discoveries gave rise to the study of planetary caves. To help advance this field, we leveraged the expertise of an interdisciplinary group to identify a strategy to explore caves beyond Earth. Focusing primarily on astrobiology, the cave environment, geology, robotics, instrumentation, and human exploration, our goal was to produce a framework to guide this subdiscipline through at least the next decade. To do this, we first assembled a list of 198 science and engineering questions. Then, through a series of social surveys, 114 scientists and engineers winnowed down the list to the top 53 highest priority questions. This exercise resulted in identifying emerging and crucial research areas that require robust development to ultimately support a robotic mission to a planetary cave-principally the Moon and/or Mars. With the necessary financial investment and institutional support, the research and technological development required to achieve these necessary advancements over the next decade are attainable. Subsequently, we will be positioned to robotically examine lunar caves and search for evidence of life within Martian caves; in turn, this will set the stage for human exploration and potential habitation of both the lunar and Martian subsurface.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".