Anonymous user
Planetary protection: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| (4 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) | |||
Line 1:
[[File:Viking Oven.jpg|thumb|right|300px|<center>A Viking lander being prepared for [[dry heat sterilization]]{{snd}} this remains the "Gold standard"<ref>[http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/docs/PPCCTECHREPORT3.pdf Assessment of Planetaryabou Protection and Contamination Control Technologies for Future Planetary Science Missions], Jet Propulsion Laboratory, January 24, 2011<br>''3.1.1 Microbial Reduction Methodologies:'' {{bq|"This protocol was defined in concert with Viking, the first mission to face the most stringent planetary protection requirements; its implementation remains the gold standard today."}}</ref> of present-day planetary protection.
The Viking spacecraft were heat=treated for 30 hours at 112 °C, nominal 125 °C (five hours at 112 °C was considered enough to reduce the population tenfold even for enclosed parts of the spacecraft, so this was enough for a million-fold reduction of the originally low population).<ref name=JPL2011/>
</center>NASA's introduction to planetary protection:
<youtube width="300" height="150">fnX_FGKENx8</youtube>
First video on [https://planetaryprotection.nasa.gov/overview overview page of the NASA Office of Planetary Protection]
Line 61 ⟶ 63:
For restricted Category V missions, the current recommendation<ref name=ESFsection12>[http://www.esf.org/fileadmin/Public_documents/Publications/MarsSampleReturn.pdf Mars Sample Return backward contamination – Strategic advice and requirements] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130819141409/http://www.esf.org/fileadmin/Public_documents/Publications/MarsSampleReturn.pdf |date=2013-08-19 }}- foreword and section 1.2</ref> is that no uncontained samples should be returned unless sterilized. Since sterilization of the returned samples would destroy much of their science value, current proposals involve containment and quarantine procedures. For details, see [[#Containment and quarantine for restricted Category V sample return|Containment and quarantine]] below. Category V missions also have to fulfill the requirements of Category IV to protect the target body from forward contamination.
(COSPAR,2020, COSPAR Policy on Planetary Protection : 2)
Line 83 ⟶ 86:
===Category II===
{{quotation|… where there is significant interest relative to the process of chemical evolution and the origin of life, but where there is only a remote<sup>1</sup> chance that contamination carried by a spacecraft could compromise future investigations.
1: “Remote” here implies the absence of environments where terrestrial organisms could survive and replicate, or a very low likelihood of transfer to environments where terrestrial organisms could survive and replicate.
<ref name=smallsolarsystembodies/><ref name=PlanetaryProtectionCategories/><ref name="PlanetaryProtectionCategories2020">{{cite web |last=COSPAR|title=COSPAR Policy on Planetary Protection |url=
https://hal.science/hal-03017948/document |date=2020}}</ref>}}
* Callisto, comets, asteroids of category P, D, and C, Venus,<ref>[http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11584 Assessment of Planetary Protection Requirements for Venus Missions -- Letter Report]</ref> Kuiper belt objects (KBO) < 1/2 size of Pluto.
Line 297 ⟶ 304:
<br><br>
Recommendation: Approaches to achieving planetary protection for missions to icy Solar System bodies should employ a series of binary decisions that consider one factor at a time to determine the appropriate level of planetary protection procedures to use.}}
==Laws for a restricted category V sample return==
Although the forwards direction is only covered by the Outer Space Treaty there are many other laws that protect us in the backwards direction of a sample returned from Mars (say) to Earth. Margaret Race looked in detail at the legal processes that would have to be completed before we can return a sample from Mars to Earth, even to a purpose built receiving facility.
Before a sample return, we have to accomplish, in this order
* Several years: Formal environment impact statement for NEPA + laws on quarantine to be enacted, involving broad public consultation. The average length of time for an EIS in the twelve months ending 30th September 2016 was 46 months (see the DOE's Lessons Learned Quarterly Report).
* Several years: Presidential review of potential large scale effects on the environment. This has to be done after all the other domestic legislation is completed.
* Can be done alongside the other work: International treaties to be negotiated and domestic laws of other countries
This covers only a few of the main points
In more detail, summary of Margaret Race's findings<ref name=race>Race, M.S., 1996. [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11538983 Planetary protection, legal ambiguity and the decision making process for Mars sample return.] Advances in Space Research, 18(1-2), pp.345-350.</ref>:
She found that under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (which did not exist in the Apollo era) a formal environment impact statement is likely to be required, and public hearings during which all the issues would be aired openly. This process is likely to take up to several years to complete.
During this process, she found, the full range of worst accident scenarios, impact, and project alternatives would be played out in the public arena. Other agencies such as the Environment Protection Agency, Occupational Health and Safety Administration, etc, may also get involved in the decision making process.
The laws on quarantine will also need to be clarified as the regulations for the Apollo program were rescinded. In the Apollo era, NASA delayed announcement of its quarantine regulations until the day Apollo was launched, so bypassing the requirement for public debate - something that would be unlikely to be tolerated today.
It is also probable that the presidential directive NSC-25 will apply which requires a review of large scale alleged effects on the environment and is carried out subsequent to the other domestic reviews and through a long process, leads eventually to presidential approval of the launch.
Then apart from those domestic legal hurdles, there are numerous international regulations and treaties to be negotiated in the case of a Mars Sample Return, especially those relating to environmental protection and health. She concluded that the public of necessity has a significant role to play in the development of the policies governing Mars Sample Return}}
<!-- included with author permission from https://www.science20.com/robert_walker/likely_2040_before_mars_samples_returned_safely_legally_yet_not_likely_to_return_life_needs_to_be_detected_in_situ -->
==Containment and quarantine for restricted Category V sample return==
| |||