International Committee Against Mars Sample Return: Difference between revisions

no edit summary
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 17:
{{bq|Having planetary/cometary samples certified as "biosphere safe" in space or in-situ before they are transferred to the Earth’s surface is our main goal and intention.<ref>[http://www.icamsr.org/charter.html ICAMSR - Charter]</ref>}}
 
The NRC and ESF studies concludedare in agreement that, though the potential for large-scale negative effects appears to be very low, it is not demonstrably zero<ref name=NRC2009>
"Assessment of Planetary Protection Requirements for Mars Sample Return Missions", National Research Council, 2009, chapter 5, "The Potential for Large-Scale Effects".
 
Line 38:
</ref> .
 
TheThese NRC and ESF findings on risks of [[Environmental degradation|environmental disruption]] are accepted by most participants in this debate (with the notable exception of Robert Zubrin<ref name=zubrin>Robert Zubrin "Contamination From Mars: No Threat", [http://www.planetary.org/explore/the-planetary-report/ The Planetary Report] July/Aug. 2000, P.4–5</ref><ref name=zubrin-interview>[http://astronomy.nmsu.edu/cwc/Teaching/SpaceCol/sts497i/Zubrin/transcript.txt transcription of a tele-conference interview with ROBERT ZUBRIN] conducted on March 30, 2001 by the class members of STS497 I, "Space Colonization"; Instructor: Dr. Chris Churchill</ref>). As a result, it is agreed by most researchers that a full and open public debate of the back contamination issues is needed at an international level.<!--(NASA and ESF surveys both say this as well as other sources e.g.) --><ref name=esf2012_PP-debate>{{cite report |title=Mars Sample Return backward contamination - strategic advice |publisher= European Science Foundation |year=2012 |chapter=5: "The Potential for Large-Scale Effects"|url=http://science.nasa.gov/media/medialibrary/2013/01/17/ESF_Mars_Sample_Return_backward_contamination_study.pdf|quote=''RECOMMENDATION 10:
Considering the global nature of the issue, consequences resulting from an unintended release
could be borne by a larger set of countries than
Line 46:
and are open to representatives of all countries.''}}</ref> This is also a legal requirement.<ref name=esf2010_RALOS>[http://science.nasa.gov/media/medialibrary/2013/01/17/ESF_Mars_Sample_Return_backward_contamination_study.pdf Mars Sample Return backward contamination – Strategic advice and requirements] see 7.2: Responsibility and liability of States</ref><ref name=race>M. S. Race [http://salegos-scar.montana.edu/docs/Planetary%20Protection/AdvSpaceResVol18(1-2).pdf Planetary Protection, Legal Ambiguity, and the Decision Making Process for Mars Sample Return] Adv. Space Res. vol 18 no 1/2 pp (1/2)345-(1/2)350 1996</ref>
 
The view of NASA, the ESA and the Office of Planetary Protection is that these risks can be contained and that a sample return can be carried out safely provided the correct precautions are taken. TheFor reportsdetails stresssee the[[Mars needSample forReceiving theseFacility precautions.and Thesample ESF report, for instance, recommends that release of a Martian particle under 0.05 microns is unacceptable under any circumstances.containment]]
Because of these concerns, there are proposals to build a Mars Sample Receiving Facility. This needs to be of a novel design, as it has to function both as a clean room and as a biohazard laboratory
<ref name=MSRRF-clean-room-quote>{{cite report |title=Mars Sample Return
Receiving Facility - A Draft Test Protocol for Detecting Possible Biohazards in Martian Samples Returned to Earth |year=2002 |url=http://www.lpi.usra.edu/pss/presentations/200803/04-Atlas-PPSonMSR.pdf|quote=''A Sample Return Facility will require combining technologies used for constructing maximum containment laboratories (e.g. Biosafety Level 4 labs), which will be needed to ensure protection of Earth from the Mars samples, with cleanroom technologies, which will be needed to protect the Mars samples from Earth contamination.<br><br>• Such an integrated facility is not currently available.<br><br>Planetary Protection Requires Negative Air Flow to Protect Against Environmental Contamination Planetary Science and Planetary Protection Require Positive Air Flow to Protect Samples from Terrestrial Contamination''}}</ref>. It also has to contain possibly novel unknown lifeforms.
 
The view of NASA, the ESA and the Office of Planetary Protection is that these risks can be contained and that a sample return can be carried out safely provided the correct precautions are taken. The reports stress the need for these precautions. The ESF report, for instance, recommends that release of a Martian particle under 0.05 microns is unacceptable under any circumstances.
 
 
==See also==