Before NASA's Habitable Worlds Observatory Can Search for Life, It Has a List of 17 Gaps

Imagine a space telescope that does not simply find planets around other stars. It collects the light reflected from their atmospheres, separates that light into a spectrum, and looks for gases that might hint at a living world. That is the ambition behind NASA's future Habitable Worlds Observatory, or HWO, recommended by the 2020 astronomy and astrophysics decadal survey, Astro2020.

But before such a mission can be built, NASA needs to know what it still does not know. The agency's Exoplanet Exploration Program, or ExEP, has posted its 2025 Science Gap List as arXiv:2507.18665. The document is dated January 7, 2025. It defines a science gap as either the difference between the knowledge needed to define requirements for specified future NASA exoplanet missions and the current state of the art, or knowledge needed to enhance the science return of current and future NASA exoplanet missions. It lists 17 gaps.

A 17-gap list for HWO's 25-planet goal

ExEP is chartered by NASA's Astrophysics Division to advance three goals: discover planets around other stars, characterize their properties, and identify candidates that could harbor life. The gap list is not a ranked to-do list. The gaps do not appear in a particular order, and being included means they are deemed important. It is updated annually with community input through the Exoplanet Program Analysis Group, ExoPAG. Program managers use it when evaluating new activities: if a proposed activity could close a gap, it may be considered for greater priority for program resources.

Astro2020, released in November 2021, recommended a future large near-infrared/optical/ultraviolet space telescope with a mirror about 6 meters across, capable of high-contrast imaging and spectroscopy—suppressing starlight by a factor of about 10 billion. Its goal is to spectrally characterize roughly 25 potentially temperate rocky exoplanets. The gap list lays out how far that goal is from today's capabilities.

Small exoplanets are the most common known planets, but their atmospheres remain largely out of reach. There have been only limited spectroscopic detections of atmospheres on planets smaller than Neptune. Some sub-Neptunes and super-Earths have provided spectral constraints, but detecting spectral features from a temperate Earth-sized planet is beyond current capabilities. So far there are no imaging detections of small exoplanets at all.

JWST is changing the picture, but also exposing difficulties. Initial results indicate that small exoplanets are hard targets for transit spectroscopy because of stellar contamination or atmospheric erosion by the radiation environments of low-mass stars. TESS has identified about 260 small, mostly hot exoplanets suitable for spectroscopic follow-up. JWST has observed or approved roughly 60 small exoplanets through Cycle 3, though results for only a fraction have been reported. The Pandora smallsat, launching in late 2025, will observe about a dozen exoplanets with simultaneous transit spectroscopy and optical photometry. These are steps, not solutions.

Two numbers that shape the telescope: eta-Earth and exozodiacal dust

Two quantities shape the HWO mission. The first is eta-Earth, the occurrence rate of rocky exoplanets in the habitable zones of Sun-like FGK stars. The habitable zone here is the orbital region where a planet's surface could support liquid water; for the Sun, the ExEP document adopts 0.95 to 1.67 astronomical units. Different published estimates of eta-Earth vary by almost an order of magnitude.

One analysis used by Astro2020 gave 68% confidence limits spanning 0.16 to 1.5, depending on assumptions about the habitable zone and the completeness of the final Kepler data. A later study using updated stellar parameters and final Kepler data estimated a related occurrence rate of 0.15 with uncertainties of +0.06 and -0.04, corresponding to eta-Earth of about 0.09 ± 0.03. That range matters because eta-Earth feeds estimates of HWO's science yield and the risk that the mission might not achieve its ~25-planet goal.

The second quantity is exozodiacal dust—warm dust around a star that is measured relative to the dust level in our solar system, in units called zodis. This dust can be brighter in a telescope resolution element than a planet's light, and its substructure can mimic a planet. The LBTI HOSTS survey measured warm exozodiacal dust around 38 stars. For the subsample of FGK stars, the median exozodi level was about three times that of the solar system, with a significant +1σ uncertainty of six zodis. Individual FGK stars only have upper limits around 120 zodis at 3σ. The gap list calls for better statistics, better models of dust sources and transport, and simulations of how dust affects exoplanet detection and spectra.

Stellar noise, lab data, and the caveats behind the list

Stars are not quiet backdrops. In transmission spectroscopy, astronomers watch a planet cross its star's disk and measure how the starlight changes with wavelength. But the stellar disk is mottled with spots, faculae, and plages. Those features can create spectral signals that mimic molecules in a planet's atmosphere. A JWST transmission spectrum of TRAPPIST-1 b, a planet thought to lack an atmosphere and therefore useful as a stellar-noise reference, showed stellar contamination signals an order of magnitude larger than the photon noise limit. The gap list calls for better observations and models of stellar heterogeneity, and for consensus on which exoplanet spectral features are least vulnerable to contamination.

Stellar noise also limits efforts to measure planet masses and orbits. Radial velocity detects the tiny wobble a planet induces in its star. Sun-like stars vary intrinsically at the few meters-per-second level, and more active stars are worse. An Earth twin around a solar twin would produce a radial velocity amplitude of about 9 centimeters per second, or an astrometric wobble of about 0.3 microarcseconds. Current extreme-precision spectrographs reach roughly 30 to 50 centimeters per second over months. To detect Earth analogs, relative radial velocity measurements would need uncertainties below about 10 centimeters per second over years to decades. Astrometric jitter for Sun-like stars is predicted to be about 0.05 microarcseconds—small but not negligible. NASA is supporting the NEID instrument, community access to other spectrographs, and the Extreme Precision Radial Velocity Research Coordination Network, but the gap remains open.

Even with perfect observations, interpreting an exoplanet spectrum depends on laboratory and theoretical data. The gap list points to imprecise line strengths, pressure broadening, and UV absorption cross-sections for molecules such as carbon dioxide, water, and methane. Aerosol refractive indices are limited, especially for hazes relevant to early Earth. Interior models need material properties—equations of state, transport properties, mixing—under the extreme pressures and temperatures inside super-Earths and sub-Neptunes. And the inventory of remotely observable biosignatures and their false positives is incomplete, including surface biosignatures and gases from alternative biochemistries. HWO's wavelength coverage and spectral resolution will need to be chosen with these signals in mind, including the ozone feature near 0.25 micrometers.

The Science Gap List is not a strategic plan on the level of a National Academies decadal survey. It is a program-level document meant to give NASA ExEP tactical guidance. The gaps are not ranked. The document treats HWO's design as still under study, with precursor work affecting its architecture and yield estimates. It also notes many mitigations already in progress: JWST observations, Pandora, the Roman Space Telescope's microlensing survey, Gaia data releases, the EPRV Research Coordination Network, and studies for future far-infrared missions. The list excludes science gaps specific to missions already in phases A through E, focusing instead on what can inform future mission design or enhance current science return.

The search for life beyond the solar system is often described as a question of better telescopes. The 2025 ExEP Science Gap List suggests it is just as much a question of understanding stars and their spots, dust and its false signals, molecules in laboratories, and models that turn spectra into meaning. Before HWO can pursue its goal, the field must address the gaps between what the mission needs and what it currently knows. The list is a map of those gaps—and a reminder that in science, knowing what you do not know is not a weakness. It is the next step.