Skip to main content

Currently Skimming:

2 Historical Context
Pages 14-40

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.


From page 14...
... PLANETARY PROTECTION BEFORE THE OUTER SPACE TREATY The international community expressed concern that space exploration could potentially contaminate planetary bodies, jeopardizing their biological exploration and posing risks to Earth's biosphere, even before Sputnik began the spaceflight era. In 1956, the International Astronautical Federation (IAF)
From page 15...
... However, states parties have a clear obligation under Article VI of the OST to authorize and continually supervise the space activities of nongovernmental entities.7 As this report discusses below,8 potential private-sector missions to Mars raise planetary protection questions, which Articles VI and IX of the OST require states parties to address. The planetary protection obligations of Article IX provide that states parties shall conduct space exploration "so as to avoid harmful contamination" of celestial bodies and to avoid "adverse changes in the environment of the Earth resulting from the introduction of extraterrestrial matter." Thus, Article IX imposes obligations to avoid forward and backward contamination and provides that states parties "shall adopt appropriate measures" to do so.
From page 16...
... . would cause potentially harmful interference with the activities of other states parties in the peaceful exploration and use of outer space."10 Further, Article IX permits a state party to request consultations if it has reason to believe the space activities of another state party might "cause potentially harmful interference with activities in the peaceful exploration and use of outer space."11 Thus, when implementing their treaty obligations on planetary protection, states parties are required to consider the interests of other states parties in the exploration and use of space and consult with other states parties where these interests may be seriously affected.
From page 17...
... States parties to the OST have not experienced serious disagreements on the meaning of, or compliance with, the treaty's planetary protection provisions. Finding: Planetary protection policies and requirements for forward and backward contamination apply equally to both government-sponsored and private-sector missions to Mars.
From page 18...
... Finding: All spacefaring nations, including new entrants to space exploration, have declared they will comply with COSPAR guidance on planetary protection. Such commitment highlights the importance of the COSPAR planetary policy development process to the behavior of spacefaring nations, including state party efforts to comply with their planetary policy obligations in the OST.
From page 19...
... Verification of bioburden level is based on pre-sterilization bioburden assessment and knowledge of reduction factor of the sterilization modality." NOTE: The table also shows examples of the solar system bodies assigned to each category and the corresponding principal planetary protection requirements. Note that the table does not incorporate all of the nuances of current planetary protection policy for Category III and IV missions to Europa and Enceladus or Category V missions to Mars, Europa, Enceladus or small solar system bodies.
From page 20...
... The Middle Years of Planetary Protection In the period between the early 1960s and the late 1980s, the SSB and its various committees drafted some dozen reports for NASA on various aspects of planetary protection policy. Many of the reports issued in this period were concerned with the estimation of key numerical parameters -- particularly Pg, the probability of growth -- appearing in the probabilistic equations providing the requirements flowing from planetary protection policies 22  National Research Council (NRC)
From page 21...
... Protection Requirements for Assessment of Planetary Protection Requirements for Mars Sample Return Missions Spacecraft Missions to Icy Solar System Bodies (2012) Assessment of the NASA Astrobiology Institute (2007)
From page 22...
... Stabekis, and J Barengoltz, Refinement of planetary protection policy for Mars missions, Advances in Space Research 18:314, 1994.
From page 23...
... NASA commissioned the SSB to address the planetary protection implications of sample return in the context of the then-current scientific understanding of the prospects for indigenous life on Mars and its potential to cause harm to Earth's biosphere. A 1997 report addressing these issues recommended that any samples returned to Earth be strictly contained and that any release from containment be contingent on the results of a biohazard assessment.36 The report's recommendations were accepted by NASA and subsequently were incorporated into COSPAR policy.
From page 24...
... 38  NRC, The Curation and Certification of Martian Samples, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2002. 39  NRC, Assessment of Planetary Protection Requirements for Mars Sample Return Missions, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2009.
From page 25...
... NASA's failure to provide a formal, written response to the SSB's 2012 report precluded any definitive discussion of its perceived deficiencies. NASA POLICY Planetary Protection Policy Development Within NASA NASA's involvement in planetary protection began in earnest soon after it was established.
From page 26...
... Yano, COSPAR Planetary Protection Policy, Space Research Today, No. 200, December 2017, pp.
From page 27...
... Pugel, "Restricted by Whom? A Historical Review of Strategies and Organization for Restricted Earth Return of Samples from NASA Planetary Missions," presentation to the Committee on Planetary Protection Policy Development Processes, Space Studies Board, National Academy of Sciences, July 2017, Slide 14.
From page 28...
... "Restricted by Whom? A Historical Review of Strategies and Organization for Restricted Earth Return of Samples from NASA Planetary Missions," presentation to the Committee on Planetary Protection Policy Development Processes, Space Studies Board, National Academy of Sciences, July 2017, Slide 9.
From page 29...
... HISTORICAL CONTEXT 29 FIGURE 2.2  The Apollo 11 astronauts in their so-called Biological Isolation Garments -- an aspect of the planetary protection procedures applied to the crew of the first lunar landing mission -- transit from their recovery helicopter to the mobile quarantine facility aboard the USS Hornet in the Central Pacific in July 1969. SOURCE: Project Apollo Archive, Apollo Image Gallery, Apollo Splashdown and Post-Flight Photos, Image S69-40753, http://www.
From page 30...
... Hall Memo to Associate Administrator for Space Science and others, "Soviet Planetary Quarantine Sterilization of Mars 1 and 2," June 1, 1972, and "Analysis of the Planetary Quarantine Effort in the U.S.S.R.," no date.
From page 31...
... NASA and COSPAR had previously discussed planetary protection in connection with Mars, but the Viking missions were the first time planetary protection measures were applied in connection with in situ, life detection experiments. The Viking project fully embraced planetary protection objectives and incorporated requirements established by NASA and guidance from COSPAR into the design of the spacecraft and the scientific instruments.
From page 32...
... These factors often limit the flexibility in how a project may be able to implement planetary protection policies. In addition, microbiology has developed significantly since the 1970s, especially in the area of genomics.
From page 33...
... . An independent review found that the failures resulted from an indiscriminate application of the concept of faster-better-cheaper.75 After the twin failures, the Mars Exploration Program underwent a thorough restructuring that, among other actions, reinstituted the rigorous systems engineering that is required of complex space missions.76 Beagle 2 The European Space Agency's (ESA's)
From page 34...
... many years past their prime mission.77 During this period leading up to launch of MSL in 2011, planetary protection was always a requirement for project implementation. However, the requirements were relatively straightforward, because the missions were focused on planetary geology rather than on life detection.
From page 35...
... The report, which was presented to the Planetary Protection Subcommittee of NASA Advisory Council, says, in part, that "Planetary Protection, as a discipline, does not follow effective systems engineering and management practices,"80 that the process of transmitting planetary protection requirements for MSL were not sufficiently clear, concise, and verifiable, and that various formal documents relating to planetary protection requirements for MSL had ambiguities. The thrust of the lessons learned report's planetary protection conclusion was that even if prior, less structured approaches for issuing requirements had worked in the past, those approaches were no longer satisfactory for increasingly complex new missions.
From page 36...
... During the second meeting, the NASA and ESA officials signed a formal set of documents agreeing that Roscosmos's proposed approach -- that is, treating Phobos-Grunt as if it were a restricted Earth return mission -- was consistent with COSPAR guidelines.88 Non-NASA Sample Return Missions As new national and international space agencies began to develop their own plans for planetary exploration missions, they were often able to build upon planetary protection policies and implementations used by prior U.S. and/or Soviet spacecraft.
From page 37...
... The PPAC reviewed the findings, evaluated the mission for the purpose of its categorization, and recommended that No special containment for samples returned from 1998 SF36 is required for the purposes of planetary protection, provided that subsequent information obtained prior to sample return remain consistent with the classification of that body as an undifferentiated metamorphosed asteroid. As such, we recommend that for NASA purposes, the mission be designated Planetary Protection Category V, "unrestricted Earth return."91 Because Hayabusa's samples were scheduled to return to Earth in the Woomera Prohibited Area in South Australia, ISAS and Environment Australia requested that COSPAR review the planetary protection aspects of the Hayabusa mission.
From page 38...
... Microbiological assays were not required. However, because of the Voyager discoveries, the Galileo planetary protection plan contained the following disposition requirement: In addition, the Project will supply data obtained bearing on the biological interest of the Jovian satellites to the Planetary Protection Officer in a timely manner.
From page 39...
... Scientific advice developed by the SSB, most of which has been incorporated, and policies designed by NASA have been the driving and determining factors in the formulation and implementation of COSPAR guidance on planetary protection. However, NASA has experienced difficulty in achieving an effective institutional design for planetary protection policy development, as evidenced by problems with the placement of the OPP within the agency and with the provision of external advice to the OPP (see Chapter 3)
From page 40...
... The space shuttle program and development of the International Space Station have not presented planetary protection issues. As the next four chapters explain, changes in space exploration and the science informing planetary protection create challenges that are likely to transform how countries and international cooperation mechanisms approach planetary protection and develop policy for it.


This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More information on Chapter Skim is available.