National Academies Press: OpenBook
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Planetary Protection Considerations for Missions to Solar System Small Bodies: Report Series--Committee on Planetary Protection. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26714.
×
PageR1
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Planetary Protection Considerations for Missions to Solar System Small Bodies: Report Series--Committee on Planetary Protection. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26714.
×
PageR2
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Planetary Protection Considerations for Missions to Solar System Small Bodies: Report Series--Committee on Planetary Protection. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26714.
×
PageR3
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Planetary Protection Considerations for Missions to Solar System Small Bodies: Report Series--Committee on Planetary Protection. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26714.
×
PageR4
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Planetary Protection Considerations for Missions to Solar System Small Bodies: Report Series--Committee on Planetary Protection. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26714.
×
PageR5
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Planetary Protection Considerations for Missions to Solar System Small Bodies: Report Series--Committee on Planetary Protection. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26714.
×
PageR6
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Planetary Protection Considerations for Missions to Solar System Small Bodies: Report Series--Committee on Planetary Protection. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26714.
×
PageR7
Page viii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Planetary Protection Considerations for Missions to Solar System Small Bodies: Report Series--Committee on Planetary Protection. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26714.
×
PageR8
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Planetary Protection Considerations for Missions to Solar System Small Bodies: Report Series--Committee on Planetary Protection. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26714.
×
PageR9
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Planetary Protection Considerations for Missions to Solar System Small Bodies: Report Series--Committee on Planetary Protection. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26714.
×
PageR10
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Planetary Protection Considerations for Missions to Solar System Small Bodies: Report Series--Committee on Planetary Protection. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26714.
×
PageR11
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Planetary Protection Considerations for Missions to Solar System Small Bodies: Report Series--Committee on Planetary Protection. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26714.
×
PageR12
Page xiii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Planetary Protection Considerations for Missions to Solar System Small Bodies: Report Series--Committee on Planetary Protection. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26714.
×
PageR13
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Planetary Protection Considerations for Missions to Solar System Small Bodies: Report Series--Committee on Planetary Protection. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26714.
×
PageR14

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Prepublication Copy – Subject to Further Editorial Correction Planetary Protection Considerations for Missions to Small Bodies in the Solar System Report Series—Committee on Planetary Protection Committee on Planetary Protection Space Studies Board Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences Board on Life Sciences Division on Earth and Life Studies National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine National Academies Press Washington, DC Consensus Study Report PREPUBLICATION COPY – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 This study is based on work supported by Contract NNH17CB02B/NNH17CB01T with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of any agency or organization that provided support for the project. International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-XXXXX-X International Standard Book Number-10: 0-309-XXXXX-X Digital Object Identifier: https://doi.org/10.17226/26714 Copies of this publication are available free of charge from: Space Studies Board National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine Keck Center of the National Academies 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 This publication is available from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Keck 360, Washington, DC 20001; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313; http://www.nap.edu. Copyright 2022 by the National Academy of Sciences. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine and National Academies Press and the graphical logos for each are all trademarks of the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. Suggested citation: National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Planetary Protection Considerations for Missions to Small Bodies in the Solar System: Report Series—Committee on Planetary Protection. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/26714. PREPUBLICATION COPY – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION

The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, nongovernmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering. Dr. C. D. Mote, Jr., is president. The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president. The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions. The National Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine. Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www.nationalacademies.org. PREPUBLICATION COPY – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION

Consensus Study Reports published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine document the evidence-based consensus on the study’s statement of task by an authoring committee of experts. Reports typically include findings, conclusions, and recommendations based on information gathered by the committee and the committee’s deliberations. Each report has been subjected to a rigorous and independent peer-review process and it represents the position of the National Academies on the statement of task. Proceedings published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine chronicle the presentations and discussions at a workshop, symposium, or other event convened by the National Academies. The statements and opinions contained in proceedings are those of the participants and are not endorsed by other participants, the planning committee, or the National Academies. Rapid Expert Consultations published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine are authored by subject-matter experts on narrowly focused topics that can be supported by a body of evidence. The discussions contained in rapid expert consultations are considered those of the authors and do not contain policy recommendations. Rapid expert consultations are reviewed by the institution before release. For information about other products and activities of the National Academies, please visit www.nationalacademies.org/about/whatwedo. PREPUBLICATION COPY – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION

COMMITTEE ON PLANETARY PROTECTION JOSEPH K. ALEXANDER, Alexander Space Policy Consultants, Co-Chair AMANDA R. HENDRIX, Planetary Science Institute, Co-Chair ANGEL ABBUD-MADRID, Colorado School of Mines ANTHONY COLAPRETE, NASA Ames Research Center MICHAEL J. DALY, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences DAVID P. FIDLER, Council on Foreign Relations SARAH A. GAVIT, Jet Propulsion Laboratory ANDREW D. HORCHLER, Astrobotic Technology, Inc. EUGENE H. LEVY, Rice University ROBERT E. LINDBERG, JR., Independent Consultant MARGARITA M. MARINOVA,1 Project Kuiper A. DEANNE ROGERS, Stony Brook University, The State University of New York GERHARD H. SCHWEHM, European Space Agency (retired) TRISTA J. VICK-MAJORS, Michigan Technological University Staff DANIEL NAGASAWA, Program Officer, Space Studies Board, Study Director NANCY CONNELL, Senior Scientist, Board on Life Sciences ALEXANDER BELLES, Mirzayan Science & Technology Policy Graduate Fellow, Space Studies Board MEGAN CHAMBERLAIN, Senior Program Assistant, Space Studies Board COLLEEN N. HARTMAN, Director, Space Studies Board and Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board 1 Recused from this study. PREPUBLICATION COPY – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION v

SPACE STUDIES BOARD MARGARET G. KIVELSON, NAS,1 University of California, Los Angeles, Chair JAMES H. CROCKER, NAE,2 Lockheed Martin Space Systems Company (retired), Vice Chair GREGORY P. ASNER, NAS, Carnegie Institution for Science ADAM BURROWS, NAS, Princeton University DANIELA CALZETTI, NAS, University of Massachusetts Amherst JEFF DOZIER, University of California, Santa Barbara MELINDA D. DYAR, Mount Holyoke College ANTONIO ELIAS, Orbital ATK, Inc. (retired) VICTORIA HAMILTON, Southwest Research Institute DENNIS P. LETTENMAIER, NAE, University of California, Los Angeles ROSALY M. LOPES, Jet Propulsion Laboratory STEPHEN J. MACKWELL, American Institute of Physics DAVID J. MCCOMAS, Princeton University LARRY J. PAXTON, Johns Hopkins University ELIOT QUATAERT, University of California, Berkeley MARK SAUNDERS, Independent Consultant J. MARSHALL SHEPARD, NAS/NAE, University of Georgia BARBARA SHERWOOD LOLLAR, University of Toronto HOWARD SINGER, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration HARLAN E. SPENCE, University of New Hampshire ERIKA B. WAGNER, Blue Origin, LLC PAUL D. WOOSTER, Space Exploration Technologies EDWARD L. WRIGHT, NAS, University of California, Los Angeles ENDAWOKE YIZENGAW, The Aerospace Corporation Staff COLLEEN N. HARTMAN, Director TANJA PILZAK, Manager, Program Operations CELESTE A. NAYLOR, Information Management Associate MARGARET A. KNEMEYER, Financial Officer RADAKA LIGHTFOOT, Financial Associate 1 Member, National Academy of Sciences. 2 Member, National Academy of Engineering. PREPUBLICATION COPY – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION vi

BOARD ON LIFE SCIENCES BARBARA A. SCHAAL, NAS,1 Washington University in St. Louis, Chair A. ALONSO AGUIRRE, George Mason University VALERIE H. BONHAM, Ropes & Gray LLP DOMINIQUE BROSSARD, University of Wisconsin–Madison SEAN M. DECATUR, Kenyon College SCOTT V. EDWARDS, NAS, Harvard University GERALD L. EPSTEIN, National Defense University ROBERT J. FULL, University of California, Berkeley ROBERT NEWMAN, The Aspen Institute STEPHEN J. O’BRIEN, NAS, Nova Southeastern University LUCILA OHNO-MACHADO, NAM,2 University of California, San Diego CLAIRE POMEROY, NAM, Albert and Mary Lasker Foundation SUSAN RUNDELL SINGER, Rollins College DAVID R. WALT, NAE3/NAM, Harvard Medical School PHYLLIS M. WISE, NAM, University of Colorado Staff KAVITA BERGER, Director FRAN SHARPLES, Advisor JO HUSBANDS, Scholar and Senior Project Director NANCY D. CONNELL, Senior Scientist STEVEN MOSS, Program Officer AUDREY THÉVENON, Program Officer MATTHEW ANDERSON, Financial Business Partner JESSICA DE MOUY, Senior Program Assistant 1 Member, National Academy of Sciences. 2 Member, National Academy of Medicine. 3 Member, National Academy of Engineering. PREPUBLICATION COPY – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION vii

Reviewers This Consensus Study Report was reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in making each published report as sound as possible and to ensure that it meets the institutional standards for quality, objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We thank the following individuals for their review of this report: Linda T. Elkins-Tanton, NAS,1 Arizona State University, Victoria E. Hamilton, Southwest Research Institute, Henry Hsieh, Planetary Science Institute, G. Scott Hubbard, Stanford University, Chris Lewicki, Planetary Resources, Harry “Hap” Y. McSween, NAS, University of Tennessee, Carol Raymond, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, and Edgard G. Rivera-Valentin, Lunar and Planetary Institute. Although the reviewers listed above provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations of this report nor did they see the final draft before its release. The review of this report was overseen by A. Thomas Young, NAE,2 and by Melissa A. McGrath, SETI Institute. They were responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with the standards of the National Academies and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content rests entirely with the authoring committee and the National Academies. 1 Member, National Academy of Sciences. 2 Member, National Academy of Engineering. PREPUBLICATION COPY – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION ix

Contents PREFACE xiii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-1 1 INTRODUCTION 1-1 2 SMALL BODIES: BACKGROUND AND CONSIDERATIONS 2-1 3 CRITERIA FOR PLANETARY PROTECTION CATEGORIZATION OF SMALL BODY MISSIONS 3-1 4 IMPLICATIONS OF PLANETARY PROTECTION CATEGORY I VERSUS CATEGORY II FOR SMALL BODY MISSIONS 4-1 5 PLANETARY PROTECTION, SMALL SOLAR SYSTEM BODIES, AND THE COMMERCIAL SPACE INDUSTRY 5-1 APPENDIXES A Statement of Task A-1 B COSPAR Planetary Protection Requirements for Category I and Category II Missions B-1 C Acronyms and Abbreviations C-1 D Committee and Staff Biographies D-1 PREPUBLICATION COPY – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION xi

Preface The Space Studies Board (SSB; and its predecessor, the Space Science Board) of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine has been involved in shaping the U.S. planetary protection policy for 60 years. Through those years, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has sponsored studies through the SSB, seeking independent, scientific advice on how to craft its planetary protection policies. NASA’s policies, in turn, have formed a basis upon which the global space science community has developed consensus international planetary protection policies through the International Council for Science’s Committee on Space Research (COSPAR). In 2016, NASA asked the SSB to perform a study on the development of planetary protection policies. The resultant report, Review and Assessment of Planetary Protection Policy Development Processes, was released in 2018, followed by a separate 2019 report of NASA’s Planetary Protection Independent Review Board.1 Both studies concluded that there was a need for NASA to “reestablish an independent and appropriate advisory body and process to help guide formulation and implementation of planetary protection adequate to serve the best interests of the public, the NASA program, and the variety of new entrants that may become active in deep space operations in the years ahead.”2 At NASA’s request, the newest discipline committee of the SSB was formed in July 2020, the Committee on Planetary Protection (CoPP), to serve as the standing forum for the discussion of planetary protection issues critical to NASA. For the committee’s third report, NASA’s Science Mission Directorate and Office of Safety and Mission Assurance leadership requested that the CoPP draft a report discussing the planetary protection considerations for outbound missions to small bodies in the solar system. More specifically, NASA asked CoPP to consider whether identifiable populations within the solar system are so numerous or of sufficiently low scientific interest as to merit relief from planetary protection requirements in order to simplify possible future exploration and commercial ventures. Given interest in developing a robust exploration program, as discussed in the Planetary Science and Astrobiology Decadal Survey 2022,3 and in the burgeoning private space sector, this is a timely issue to address. To gather information and discuss the issues, the CoPP met five times in 2021 and 2022, virtually during the COVID-19 pandemic, on the following dates: 30 November to 2 December 2021, 19 January 2022, 9 February 2022, 2 March 2022, and 21–24 March 2022. A completed draft of this report was assembled in April 2022. The committee would like to thank J. Nick Benardini (NASA), Athena Coustenis (COSPAR Panel on Planetary Protection), Lori Glaze (NASA), Stefanie Milam (Small Bodies Assessment Group), Harry McSween (University of Tennessee), Daniel Britt (University of Central Florida), Clark Chapman (Southwest Research Institute [SwRI]), David Trilling (Northern Arizona University), Lori Feaga (University of Maryland), Henry Hsieh (Planetary Science Institute), William Bottke (SwRI), Cathy Olkin (SwRI), Kelvin Coleman (Federal Aviation Administration [FAA]), Jeff Parker (Advanced Space), Joel Sercel (TransAstra), Robert Jedicke (University of Hawaii), Andy Rivkin (Johns Hopkins University), Brent Buffington (Jet Propulsion Laboratory-California Institute of Technology [JPL- 1 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Assessment of the Report of NASA’s Planetary Protection Independent Review Board. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, https://doi.org/10.17226/25773. 2 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Review and Assessment of Planetary Protection Policy Development Processes. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, https://doi.org/10.17226/25172, Recommendation 3.6. 3 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Origins, Worlds, and Life: A Decadal Strategy for Planetary Science and Astrobiology 2023–2032. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, https://doi.org/10.17226/26522. PREPUBLICATION COPY – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION xiii

Caltech]), Mark Wallace (JPL-Caltech), Jason Dworkin (NASA-Goddard Space Flight Center), Alexandra Pontefract (Georgetown University), Harrison Smith (Earth-Life Science Institute), Frank Groen (NASA), Steph Earle (FAA), Tom Hammond (U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics), Ezinne Uzo-Okoro (Office of Science and Technology Policy), and Pamela Whitney (U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics) for their presentations to CoPP. PREPUBLICATION COPY – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION xiv

Next: Executive Summary »
Planetary Protection Considerations for Missions to Solar System Small Bodies: Report Series--Committee on Planetary Protection Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $23.00
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

The ultimate goal of planetary protection for outbound missions is to prevent harmful contamination that would inhibit future measurements designed to search for evidence of the existence or evolution of extraterrestrial life. Preventing harmful contamination is achieved by following specific guidelines based on existing scientific knowledge about the destination and the type of mission. This report responds to NASA's request for a study on planetary protection categorization of missions to small bodies, including whether there are particular populations of small bodies for which contamination of one object in the population would not be likely to have a tangible effect on the opportunities for scientific investigation using other objects in the population. In addressing NASA's request, the authoring committee considered surface composition of target bodies and their importance for prebiotic chemistry, along with size of the small-body populations, the current state of knowledge on the types of objects, the likelihood of a future scientific mission returning to any specific object, active object surface processes, and the size.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!