pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.18749 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-20 · 🌌 astro-ph.EP · astro-ph.IM

Laser-based mass spectrometry for the detection of signatures of life within our Solar System

Andreas Riedo , Salome Gruchola , Nikita J. Boeren , Peter Keresztes Schmidt , Luca N. Knecht , Youcef Sellam , Marek Tulej , Peter Wurz This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 03:13 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.IM
keywords laser ionisation mass spectrometrybiosignatureslife detectionspace explorationorganic moleculesisotope fractionationastrobiologymass spectrometry
0
0 comments X

The pith

Laser Ionisation Mass Spectrometry can detect microstructures, sulphur isotope ratios, and organic molecules as biosignatures for space missions.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper shows that Laser Ionisation Mass Spectrometry measures several classes of life-related signatures directly relevant to current astrobiology missions. It performs chemical depth profiling to locate microstructures inside geological material, records sulphur isotope fractionation, and identifies various organic molecules. The resulting mass spectra can be processed through network and machine learning routines to support unbiased or even agnostic biosignature detection. These capabilities position the technique as a practical tool for in-situ analysis on spacecraft exploring Solar System bodies.

Core claim

Laser Ionisation Mass Spectrometry detects microstructures within complex geological hosts by chemical depth profiling, measures sulphur isotope fractionation signatures, and identifies various classes of organic molecules. The recorded mass spectrometric data can be fed into network and machine learning analysis routines for the unbiased detection of signatures of life, including agnostic biosignatures.

What carries the argument

Laser Ionisation Mass Spectrometry, which ionizes sample material with a laser and analyzes the resulting ions by mass-to-charge ratio to produce chemical composition profiles and molecular identifications.

If this is right

  • Spacecraft on future life-detection missions can carry a single instrument capable of multiple biosignature classes.
  • Machine-learning analysis of LIMS data can reduce reliance on Earth-based assumptions when interpreting potential life signals.
  • Chemical depth profiling enables non-destructive examination of subsurface material without separate sampling hardware.
  • Agnostic biosignature detection becomes feasible through pattern recognition in mass spectra rather than targeted compound lists.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The approach could be combined with existing rover or lander mobility systems to map biosignature distributions across a landing site.
  • Data from LIMS could serve as ground truth for remote-sensing instruments on orbiters that lack direct sample access.
  • If the technique works in flight, mission planners might shorten the list of required instruments by consolidating chemical analysis into one unit.

Load-bearing premise

Laboratory performance of Laser Ionisation Mass Spectrometry in detecting biosignatures will translate without major loss to the vacuum, radiation, and power limits of actual flight instruments.

What would settle it

A flight-qualified LIMS instrument that cannot resolve sulphur isotope fractionation or detect target organic molecules in a realistic planetary analog sample under space-like conditions would falsify the claim of readiness for life-detection missions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.18749 by Andreas Riedo, Luca N. Knecht, Marek Tulej, Nikita J. Boeren, Peter Keresztes Schmidt, Peter Wurz, Salome Gruchola, Youcef Sellam.

Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The mass spectrum of the filament reveals the presence of numerous metallic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The search for signatures of life beyond Earth has been a major goal of space research and astrobiology for decades. The combination of expanded knowledge on Solar System bodies from past missions and advancements in in-situ detection technologies may place humanity on the verge of discovering extraterrestrial life. Here, we highlight the current measurement capabilities of Laser Ionisation Mass Spectrometry for the detection of several classes of signatures of life of high relevance to current astrobiology-focused missions. This includes the detection of microstructures within complex geological hosts by chemical depth profiling, sulphur isotope fractionation signatures, and the detection of various classes of organic molecules. The recorded mass spectrometric data can be fed into network and machine learning analysis routines, which are powerful tools for the unbiased detection of signatures of life, including agnostic detection of biosignatures. We demonstrate that Laser Ionisation Mass Spectrometry is a novel and promising technology for future application. on space exploration missions devoted to life detection.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript reviews laboratory results on Laser Ionisation Mass Spectrometry (LIMS) for chemical depth profiling of microstructures in geological hosts, sulphur isotope fractionation measurements, detection of organic molecules, and downstream network/ML analysis for biosignature identification. It concludes that these capabilities demonstrate LIMS as a novel and promising technology for in-situ life-detection missions in the Solar System.

Significance. If the laboratory performance metrics can be shown to survive translation to flight hardware under vacuum, radiation, thermal, and resource constraints, LIMS could offer a compact, high-resolution tool for chemical and isotopic mapping on future astrobiology missions. The manuscript does not supply the quantitative validation or modeling needed to establish this translation, so the significance remains prospective rather than demonstrated.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract / Conclusion] Abstract and concluding paragraph: the headline claim that the authors 'demonstrate' LIMS as 'a novel and promising technology for future application on space exploration missions' is unsupported. The text cites only terrestrial laboratory performance and contains no quantitative data, error bars, detection limits, or analysis of vacuum ionization efficiency, radiation hardness, mass/power budgets, or thermal-cycling effects.
  2. [Results / Capabilities sections] Sections describing depth profiling, sulphur isotopes, and organic detection: all capabilities are presented as established without reference to specific performance figures (e.g., depth resolution in nm, isotope ratio precision in ‰, or minimum detectable organic concentration) or to any validation experiments against standards under relevant conditions.
  3. [ML / Network analysis subsection] Discussion of network/ML analysis: the assertion that these routines enable 'unbiased' or 'agnostic' biosignature detection is not accompanied by any quantitative assessment of false-positive rates, training-set limitations, or robustness when applied to the sparse, noisy data expected from a flight instrument.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract contains a typographical error: 'application. on space exploration' should be 'application on space exploration'.
  2. [Throughout] The manuscript would benefit from a dedicated table summarizing key laboratory performance metrics (resolution, sensitivity, isotope precision) for each claimed capability, with references to the original studies.
  3. [Methods / Data analysis] Notation for mass-spectral features and ML outputs is introduced without a consistent glossary or symbol list, making cross-referencing between text and figures difficult.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 1 unresolved

We thank the referee for the detailed and constructive comments. We address each major point below and indicate where revisions will be made to the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract / Conclusion] Abstract and concluding paragraph: the headline claim that the authors 'demonstrate' LIMS as 'a novel and promising technology for future application on space exploration missions' is unsupported. The text cites only terrestrial laboratory performance and contains no quantitative data, error bars, detection limits, or analysis of vacuum ionization efficiency, radiation hardness, mass/power budgets, or thermal-cycling effects.

    Authors: We agree that the manuscript presents laboratory results and does not contain quantitative assessments of flight hardware performance under space conditions. The term 'demonstrate' was intended to refer to the laboratory capabilities shown, which we view as promising for future missions. We will revise the abstract and conclusion to use more qualified language (e.g., 'laboratory results indicate that LIMS shows promise as') and add an explicit statement that translation to flight hardware will require separate validation of vacuum, radiation, thermal, and resource constraints. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Results / Capabilities sections] Sections describing depth profiling, sulphur isotopes, and organic detection: all capabilities are presented as established without reference to specific performance figures (e.g., depth resolution in nm, isotope ratio precision in ‰, or minimum detectable organic concentration) or to any validation experiments against standards under relevant conditions.

    Authors: The manuscript is a review of laboratory demonstrations. We will insert the specific performance metrics (depth resolution, isotope ratio precision, minimum detectable concentrations) drawn from the cited laboratory studies into the relevant sections. We will also clarify that these figures are from terrestrial laboratory conditions and that validation against standards under vacuum or other space-relevant conditions lies outside the scope of the present work. revision: partial

  3. Referee: [ML / Network analysis subsection] Discussion of network/ML analysis: the assertion that these routines enable 'unbiased' or 'agnostic' biosignature detection is not accompanied by any quantitative assessment of false-positive rates, training-set limitations, or robustness when applied to the sparse, noisy data expected from a flight instrument.

    Authors: We will expand the machine-learning subsection to report quantitative measures available from our laboratory datasets, including observed false-positive rates and training-set characteristics. We will also add a discussion of the additional challenges expected when the same routines are applied to the lower signal-to-noise data anticipated from a flight instrument. The term 'unbiased' is used to indicate that the method does not presuppose particular molecular targets; we will qualify this with the current limitations. revision: yes

standing simulated objections not resolved
  • Quantitative analysis of vacuum ionization efficiency, radiation hardness, mass/power budgets, or thermal-cycling effects for actual flight hardware, because the manuscript is limited to laboratory experiments and does not include space-qualified instrument testing or modeling.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: descriptive summary without derivations or self-referential reductions.

full rationale

The manuscript is a review-style summary of laboratory LIMS results for biosignature detection (microstructures, isotopes, organics, ML analysis) followed by an assertion of promise for space missions. No equations, fitted parameters, predictions, or derivations appear in the provided text. The central claim does not reduce to any input by construction, self-definition, or self-citation chain; it is an unsupported extrapolation from terrestrial data, which is a correctness issue rather than circularity. No load-bearing self-citations, ansatz smuggling, or renaming of known results are present. The paper is self-contained as a descriptive overview and receives the default non-circularity finding.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper is a review of established instrumentation capabilities and contains no mathematical models, free parameters, axioms, or newly postulated entities.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5492 in / 1053 out tokens · 31156 ms · 2026-05-10T03:13:57.169448+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

72 extracted references · 68 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Soffen, C.W

    G.A. Soffen, C.W. Snyder, Science193(4255), 759 (1976). DOI 10.1126/science.193.4255.759

    work page doi:10.1126/science.193.4255.759 1976

  2. [2]

    Oyama, Icarus16(1), 167 (1972)

    V.I. Oyama, Icarus16(1), 167 (1972). DOI 10.1016/0019-1035(72)90144-3

    work page doi:10.1016/0019-1035(72)90144-3 1972

  3. [3]

    Mahaffy, C.R

    P.R. Mahaffy, C.R. Webster, M. Cabane, et al., Space Science Reviews170(1), 401 (2012). DOI 10.1007/s11214-012-9879-z

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-012-9879-z 2012

  4. [4]

    Grotzinger, J

    J.P. Grotzinger, J. Crisp, A.R. Vasavada, et al., Space Science Reviews170(1), 5 (2012). DOI 10.1007/s11214-012-9892-2

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-012-9892-2 2012

  5. [5]

    Royle, E

    S.H. Royle, E. Oberlin, J.S. Watson, et al., Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets123(7), 1901 (2018). DOI 10.1029/2018je005615

    work page doi:10.1029/2018je005615 1901

  6. [6]

    Tulej, A

    M. Tulej, A. Neubeck, M. Ivarsson, et al., Astrobiology15(8), 669 (2015). DOI 10.1089/ast.2015.1304

    work page doi:10.1089/ast.2015.1304 2015

  7. [7]

    Sellam, S

    Y. Sellam, S. Gruchola, M. Tulej, et al., Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences12(2025). DOI 10.3389/fspas.2025.1503042

    work page doi:10.3389/fspas.2025.1503042 2025

  8. [8]

    Riedo, V

    A. Riedo, V. Grimaudo, J. Aerts, et al., Front. Astron. Space Sci.8(2021). DOI 10.3389/fspas.2021.726373

    work page doi:10.3389/fspas.2021.726373 2021

  9. [9]

    Ligterink, V

    N. Ligterink, V. Grimaudo, P. Moreno-Garcia, et al., Scientific Reports10, 9641 (2020). DOI 10.1038/s41598-020-66240-1

    work page doi:10.1038/s41598-020-66240-1 2020

  10. [10]

    Boeren, S

    N.J. Boeren, S. Gruchola, C.P. de Koning, et al., The Planetary Science Journal 3(10), 241 (2022). DOI 10.3847/PSJ/ac94bf

    work page doi:10.3847/psj/ac94bf 2022

  11. [11]

    Boeren, P

    N.J. Boeren, P. Keresztes Schmidt, M. Tulej, et al., The Planetary Science Journal6(2), 28 (2025). DOI 10.3847/PSJ/ad9de9

    work page doi:10.3847/psj/ad9de9 2025

  12. [12]

    MacKenzie, M

    S.M. MacKenzie, M. Neveu, A.F. Davila, et al., The Planetary Science Journal 2(2), 77 (2021). DOI 10.3847/PSJ/abe4da

    work page doi:10.3847/psj/abe4da 2021

  13. [13]

    K. Hand, A. Murray, J. Garvin, et al., (2017)

    2017

  14. [14]

    Rohner, J.A

    U. Rohner, J.A. Whitby, P. Wurz, Measurement Science and Technology14(12), 2159 (2003). DOI 10.1088/0957-0233/14/12/017

    work page doi:10.1088/0957-0233/14/12/017 2003

  15. [15]

    Riedo, A

    A. Riedo, A. Bieler, M. Neuland, et al., Journal of Mass Spectrometry48(1), 1 (2013). DOI 10.1002/jms.3104

    work page doi:10.1002/jms.3104 2013

  16. [16]

    Wiesendanger, V

    R. Wiesendanger, V. Grimaudo, M. Tulej, et al., Journal of Analytical Atomic Spectrometry34(10), 2061 (2019). DOI 10.1039/C9JA00235A

    work page doi:10.1039/c9ja00235a 2061

  17. [17]

    Neubeck, M

    A. Neubeck, M. Tulej, M. Ivarsson, et al., International Journal of Astrobiology 15(2), 133 (2015). DOI 10.1017/S1473550415000269 20 LIMS for Detecting Signatures of Life

    work page doi:10.1017/s1473550415000269 2015

  18. [18]

    Wiesendanger, D

    R. Wiesendanger, D. Wacey, M. Tulej, et al., Astrobiology18, 1071 (2018). DOI 10.1089/ast.2017.1780

    work page doi:10.1089/ast.2017.1780 2018

  19. [19]

    Grimaudo, P

    V. Grimaudo, P. Moreno-Garc´ıa, A. Riedo, et al., Journal of The Electrochem- ical Society166(1), D3190 (2019). DOI 10.1149/2.0221901jes

    work page doi:10.1149/2.0221901jes 2019

  20. [20]

    Grimaudo, M

    V. Grimaudo, M. Tulej, A. Riedo, et al., Rapid Communications in Mass Spectrometry34(14), e8803 (2020). DOI 10.1002/rcm.8803

    work page doi:10.1002/rcm.8803 2020

  21. [21]

    Gruchola, P.K

    S. Gruchola, P.K. Schmidt, M. Tulej, et al., The Planetary Science Journal 5(12), 280 (2024). DOI 10.3847/PSJ/ad90b6

    work page doi:10.3847/psj/ad90b6 2024

  22. [22]

    Riedo, N.J

    A. Riedo, N.J. Boeren, P. Keresztes Schmidt, et al., CHIMIA79(1-2), 70 (2025). DOI 10.2533/chimia.2025.70

    work page doi:10.2533/chimia.2025.70 2025

  23. [23]

    Riedo, M

    A. Riedo, M. Neuland, S. Meyer, et al., Journal of Analytical Atomic Spec- trometry28(8), 1256 (2013). DOI 10.1039/C3JA50117E

    work page doi:10.1039/c3ja50117e 2013

  24. [24]

    Riedo, M

    A. Riedo, M. Tulej, U. Rohner, P. Wurz, Review of Scientific Instruments88(4), 045114 (2017). DOI 10.1063/1.4981813

    work page doi:10.1063/1.4981813 2017

  25. [25]

    Becker,Inorganic mass spectrometry : principles and applications(John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, England ; Hoboken, NJ, 2007)

    J.S. Becker,Inorganic mass spectrometry : principles and applications(John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, England ; Hoboken, NJ, 2007)

    2007

  26. [26]

    Grimaudo, P

    V. Grimaudo, P. Moreno-Garc´ıa, A. Riedo, et al., Analytical Chemistry87(4), 2037 (2015). DOI 10.1021/ac504403j

    work page doi:10.1021/ac504403j 2037

  27. [27]

    Grimaudo, P

    V. Grimaudo, P. Moreno-Garc´ıa, A. Riedo, et al., Analytical Chemistry89(3), 1632 (2017). DOI 10.1021/acs.analchem.6b03738

    work page doi:10.1021/acs.analchem.6b03738 2017

  28. [28]

    Riedo, P

    A. Riedo, P. Wahlstroem, J.A. Scheer, et al., Journal of Applied Physics108(11), 114915 (2010). DOI 10.1063/1.3517832. URL http://aip.scitation.org/doi/abs/10.1063/1.3517832

    work page doi:10.1063/1.3517832 2010

  29. [29]

    Tulej, A

    M. Tulej, A. Riedo, M.B. Neuland, et al., Geostandards and Geoanalytical Research38(4), 441 (2014). DOI 10.1111/j.1751-908X.2014.00302.x. URL https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-908X.2014.00302.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1751-908x.2014.00302.x 2014

  30. [30]

    Moreno-Garc ´ıa, V

    P. Moreno-Garc ´ıa, V. Grimaudo, A. Riedo, et al., Rapid Communications in Mass Spectrometry30(8), 1031 (2016). DOI 10.1002/rcm.7533. URL https://doi.org/10.1002/rcm.7533

    work page doi:10.1002/rcm.7533 2016

  31. [31]

    Hays, H.V

    L.E. Hays, H.V. Graham, D.J.D. Marais, et al., Astrobiology17(4), 363 (2017). DOI 10.1089/ast.2016.1627

    work page doi:10.1089/ast.2016.1627 2017

  32. [32]

    Farquhar, B.A

    J. Farquhar, B.A. Wing, K.D. McKeegan, et al., Science298(5602), 2369 (2002). DOI 10.1126/science.1078617

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1078617 2002

  33. [33]

    Farquhar, B.A

    J. Farquhar, B.A. Wing, Earth and Planetary Science Letters213(1), 1 (2003). DOI 10.1016/S0012-821X(03)00296-6

    work page doi:10.1016/s0012-821x(03)00296-6 2003

  34. [34]

    King, S.M

    P.L. King, S.M. McLennan, Elements6(2), 107 (2010). DOI 10.2113/gselements.6.2.107

    work page doi:10.2113/gselements.6.2.107 2010

  35. [35]

    S. Ding, R. Dasgupta, C.T.A. Lee, M. Wadhwa, Earth and Planetary Science Letters409, 157 (2015). DOI 10.1016/j.epsl.2014.10.046

    work page doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2014.10.046 2015

  36. [36]

    Chela-Flores, International Journal of Astrobiology pp

    J. Chela-Flores, International Journal of Astrobiology pp. 1–4 (2018). DOI 10.1017/S1473550418000393

    work page doi:10.1017/s1473550418000393 2018

  37. [37]

    Wortmann, S.M

    U.G. Wortmann, S.M. Bernasconi, M.E. Boettcher, Geology29(7), 647 (2001). DOI 10.1130/0091-7613(2001)029¡0647:Hdbies¿2.0.Co;2

    work page doi:10.1130/0091-7613(2001)029 2001

  38. [38]

    Chela-Flores, International Journal of Astrobiology5(1), 17 (2006)

    J. Chela-Flores, International Journal of Astrobiology5(1), 17 (2006). DOI 10.1017/S1473550406002862 LIMS for Detecting Signatures of Life 21

    work page doi:10.1017/s1473550406002862 2006

  39. [39]

    W. Bach, M. Rosner, N. J¨ons, et al., Earth and Planetary Science Letters311(3), 242 (2011). DOI 10.1016/j.epsl.2011.09.021

    work page doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2011.09.021 2011

  40. [40]

    Krijgsman, F.J

    W. Krijgsman, F.J. Hilgen, I. Raffi, et al., Nature400(6745), 652 (1999). DOI 10.1038/23231

    work page doi:10.1038/23231 1999

  41. [41]

    Hs¨ u, W.B.F

    K.J. Hs¨ u, W.B.F. Ryan, M.B. Cita, Nature242(5395), 240 (1973). DOI 10.1038/242240a0

    work page doi:10.1038/242240a0 1973

  42. [42]

    Barker, J.P

    D.C. Barker, J.P. Bhattacharya, Planetary and Space Science151, 97 (2018). DOI 10.1016/j.pss.2017.11.012

    work page doi:10.1016/j.pss.2017.11.012 2018

  43. [43]

    Schopf, J.D

    J.W. Schopf, J.D. Farmer, I.S. Foster, et al., Astrobiology12(7), 619 (2012). DOI 10.1089/ast.2012.0827

    work page doi:10.1089/ast.2012.0827 2012

  44. [44]

    Roveri, R

    M. Roveri, R. Flecker, W. Krijgsman, et al., Marine Geology352, 25 (2014). DOI 10.1016/j.margeo.2014.02.002

    work page doi:10.1016/j.margeo.2014.02.002 2014

  45. [45]

    Bellanca, A

    A. Bellanca, A. Caruso, G. Ferruzza, et al., Sedimentary Geology140(1), 87 (2001). DOI 10.1016/S0037-0738(00)00173-1

    work page doi:10.1016/s0037-0738(00)00173-1 2001

  46. [46]

    Allwood, I

    A. Allwood, I. Burch, J. Rouchy, M. Coleman, Astrobiology13(9), 870 (2013). DOI 10.1089/ast.2013.1021

    work page doi:10.1089/ast.2013.1021 2013

  47. [47]

    Riedo, C.d

    A. Riedo, C.d. Koning, A. Stevens, et al., Astrobiology20(10), 1224 (2020). DOI 10.1089/ast.2019.2087

    work page doi:10.1089/ast.2019.2087 2020

  48. [48]

    MacKenzie, M

    S. MacKenzie, M. Neveu, J.I. Lunine, et al. Enceladus orbilander: A flagship mission concept for the planetary decadal survey (2020)

    2020

  49. [49]

    Goesmann, W.B

    F. Goesmann, W.B. Brinckerhoff, F. Raulin, et al., Astrobiology17(6-7), 655 (2017). DOI 10.1089/ast.2016.1551

    work page doi:10.1089/ast.2016.1551 2017

  50. [50]

    E. National Academies of Sciences, Medicine,Origins, Worlds, and Life: A Decadal Strategy for Planetary Science and Astrobiology 2023-2032(The National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2023). DOI 10.17226/26522

    work page doi:10.17226/26522 2023

  51. [51]

    Sephton, O

    M.A. Sephton, O. Botta, International Journal of Astrobiology4(3-4), 269 (2005). DOI 10.1017/S1473550405002806

    work page doi:10.1017/s1473550405002806 2005

  52. [52]

    Kipfer, N.F.W

    K.A. Kipfer, N.F.W. Ligterink, J. Bouwman, et al., The Planetary Science Journal3(2), 43 (2022). DOI 10.3847/PSJ/ac4e15

    work page doi:10.3847/psj/ac4e15 2022

  53. [53]

    Georgiou, D.W

    C.D. Georgiou, D.W. Deamer, Astrobiology14(6), 541 (2014). DOI 10.1089/ast.2013.1134

    work page doi:10.1089/ast.2013.1134 2014

  54. [54]

    Schwander, N.F

    L. Schwander, N.F. Ligterink, K.A. Kipfer, et al., Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences9(2022). DOI 10.3389/fspas.2022.909193

    work page doi:10.3389/fspas.2022.909193 2022

  55. [55]

    Lukmanov, C

    R.A. Lukmanov, C. de Koning, P.K. Schmidt, et al., Frontiers in Space Tech- nologies3(2022). DOI 10.3389/frspt.2022.718943

    work page doi:10.3389/frspt.2022.718943 2022

  56. [56]

    Lukmanov, M

    R.A. Lukmanov, M. Tulej, N.F.W. Ligterink, et al., Journal of Chemometrics 35(10), e3370 (2021). DOI 10.1002/cem.3370

    work page doi:10.1002/cem.3370 2021

  57. [57]

    UMAP: Uniform Manifold Approximation and Projection for Dimension Reduction

    L. McInnes, J. Healy, J. Melville. Umap: Uniform manifold approximation and projection for dimension reduction (2018). DOI 10.48550/arXiv.1802.03426

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.48550/arxiv.1802.03426 2018

  58. [58]

    2018 , publisher =

    L. McInnes, J. Healy, N. Saul, L. Großberger, Journal of Open Source Software 3(29), 2 (2018). DOI 10.21105/joss.00861

    work page doi:10.21105/joss.00861 2018

  59. [59]

    Narayan, B

    A. Narayan, B. Berger, H. Cho, Nature Biotechnology39(6), 765 (2021). DOI 10.1038/s41587-020-00801-7

    work page doi:10.1038/s41587-020-00801-7 2021

  60. [60]

    Journal of Open Source Software , author =

    L. McInnes, J. Healy, S. Astels, Journal of Open Source Software2(11), 2 (2017). DOI 10.21105/joss.00205 22 LIMS for Detecting Signatures of Life

    work page doi:10.21105/joss.00205 2017

  61. [61]

    Wilhelm, A

    M.B. Wilhelm, A. Ricco, D. Oehler, et al., Bulletin of the AAS53(4) (2021). DOI 10.3847/25c2cfeb.10b58580

    work page doi:10.3847/25c2cfeb.10b58580 2021

  62. [62]

    Aerts, W

    J. Aerts, W. R ¨oling, A. Elsaesser, P. Ehrenfreund, Life4(4), 535 (2014). DOI 10.3390/life4040535

    work page doi:10.3390/life4040535 2014

  63. [63]

    Wilhelm, T

    M.B. Wilhelm, T. Ricco, D. Buckner, et al., (Providence, RI, USA, 2024), Astrobiology Science Conference (AbSciCon)

    2024

  64. [64]

    Lunine, Acta Astronautica131, 123 (2017)

    J.I. Lunine, Acta Astronautica131, 123 (2017). DOI 10.1016/j.actaastro.2016.11.017

    work page doi:10.1016/j.actaastro.2016.11.017 2017

  65. [65]

    Seager, J.J

    S. Seager, J.J. Petkowski, P. Gao, et al., Astrobiology (2020). DOI 10.1089/ast.2020.2244

    work page doi:10.1089/ast.2020.2244 2020

  66. [66]

    Morowitz, C

    H. Morowitz, C. Sagan, Nature215(5107), 1259 (1967). DOI 10.1038/2151259a0

    work page doi:10.1038/2151259a0 1967

  67. [67]

    Cockell, Planetary and Space Science47(12), 1487 (1999)

    C.S. Cockell, Planetary and Space Science47(12), 1487 (1999). DOI 10.1016/S0032-0633(99)00036-7

    work page doi:10.1016/s0032-0633(99)00036-7 1999

  68. [68]

    von Zahn, V.I

    U. von Zahn, V.I. Moroz, Advances in Space Research5(11), 173 (1985). DOI 10.1016/0273-1177(85)90201-7

    work page doi:10.1016/0273-1177(85)90201-7 1985

  69. [69]

    Seager, J.J

    S. Seager, J.J. Petkowski, C.E. Carr, et al. Venus life finder missions motivation and summary (2022). DOI 10.3390/aerospace9070385

    work page doi:10.3390/aerospace9070385 2022

  70. [70]

    Seager, J.J

    S. Seager, J.J. Petkowski, C.E. Carr, et al. Venus life finder habitability mission: Motivation, science objectives, and instrumentation (2022). DOI 10.3390/aerospace9110733

    work page doi:10.3390/aerospace9110733 2022

  71. [71]

    Ligterink, K.A

    N.F.W. Ligterink, K.A. Kipfer, S. Gruchola, et al. The origin space instrument for detecting biosignatures and habitability indicators on a venus life finder mission (2022). DOI 10.3390/aerospace9060312

    work page doi:10.3390/aerospace9060312 2022

  72. [72]

    Buchanan, M

    W.P. Buchanan, M. de Jong, R. Agrawal, et al. Aerial platform design options for a life-finding mission at venus (2022). DOI 10.3390/aerospace9070363

    work page doi:10.3390/aerospace9070363 2022