Review and Assessment of Planetary Protection Policy Development Processes (2018) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
3 Summary and Assessment of the Current Process
3 Summary and Assessment of the Current Process
Pages 41-67
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 41... ...
In assessing the effectiveness of the current process, the committee considered a number of best practices -- for example, broad stakeholder engagement and participation, clarity of roles and responsibilities, transparency, access to new scientific and technical knowledge, timeliness, and consistency -- that are important for effective policy development and implementation. Notwithstanding the successes achieved over many years, whether the current process will continue to function as well in the future will depend on how well the processes of planetary protection policy development embrace these practices.
|
From page 42... ...
and international planetary protection policy development. NOTE: Acronyms defined in Appendix G
|
From page 43... ...
that temporarily modifies policy directives or implementation requirements.2 (See Figure 3.2 on the structure of NASA policy documents.) Current NASA planetary protection policy is contained in: • One NPD, revalidated in 2013, that establishes the high-level objectives and defines agency office roles and responsibilities for planetary protection; and • One NID, adopted in 2017, that provides the implementation requirements for robotic missions.3 Both documents appear to be silent on whether a particular individual or office has the responsibility to develop and maintain NASA's planetary protection policies.4 To date, NASA has not developed procedural requirements for planetary protection concerning human missions to Mars, but the agency has issued a NASA Policy Instruction (NPI)
|
From page 44... ...
8020.109: Planetary Protection Provisions for Robotic Extraterrestrial Mis sions Responsible Office: Science Mission Directorate, effective date March 30, 2017, https://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/ OPD/OPD_list.cfm. Formally, NASA assigns most of the responsibilities for administering the agency's planetary protection policy to the planetary protection officer (PPO)
|
From page 45... ...
Current NASA Planetary Protection Policies NASA's overarching policy document for planetary protection is applicable to all spaceflight missions, including human spaceflight.7 This NPD explicitly incorporates its implementing requirements document,8 and consequently, the requirements document is considered a part of the NASA planetary protection policy. The 2017 NID sets forth NASA's biological and organic contamination control requirements applicable to robotic planetary flight programs and specifically addresses two topics.
|
From page 46... ...
Under this pattern, changes in NASA and COSPAR policy occur synergistically, although COSPAR has no authority to compel NASA to change NASA's planetary protection policies. Chapter 4 describes how COSPAR operates, and the present subsection focuses on the NASA process for developing or modifying planetary protection policy.
|
From page 47... ...
Indeed, NASA officials were enjoined from mentioning the possibility of returning samples from Mars to Earth prior to an August 28, 2017, presentation by NASA Associate Administrator Thomas Zurbuchen to the National Academies' planetary science decadal survey's midterm review committee.14 The reality of a sample return campaign became even more apparent in April 2018, when NASA and the European Space Agency (ESA) signed a statement of intent to develop a joint Mars sample return plan under which each agency would have lead responsibilities for specific mission elements.
|
From page 48... ...
As a result of this ambiguity, a conflict between the PPO and the mission implementation arose early in the Mars 2020 planning because MSL had not been subjected to the planetary protection requirements that the PPO believed would be needed for, what was in essence, the first phase of an officially unacknowledged sample return campaign. Dry heat sterilization that had been used for Viking, for example, would likely damage Mars 2020 hardware irreparably or result in large amounts of organic outgassing.
|
From page 49... ...
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Mars 2020 Planetary Protection Key Decision Point A Program-level Plan signed by • High heritage requirements Headquarters, • Built-to-print approach approval, including Planetary Protection • Cost constrained level-1 planetary Officer, and Project protection requirements Systems-approach Key Decision Point C Planetary architecture • Agency approval for Protection defined mission Officer – Project implementation discussions on • Baseline schedule implementation and budget continued • Cost cap FIGURE 3.4 Timeline of major Mars 2020 development milestones and planetary protection events. SOURCE: Compiled by the committee from various NASA sources.
|
From page 50... ...
The planetary protection requirements for surface cleanliness could be satisfied by alternative techniques, provided that the project demonstrates the efficacy of the alternative method. Mars 2020 Planetary Protection Issue Resolution Deliberations among the science community, NASA officials, and Mars 2020 project managers determined that controlling total organic carbon would be the driving requirement for the hardware design and cleanliness.
|
From page 51... ...
and often contentious discussion between the Mars 2020 project team and the OPP suggests several lessons for any new policy development: 1. Early discussions and agreement between a given project team and PPOs, preferably at the mission definition stage, on the mission's planetary protection requirements and approach are of paramount importance.
|
From page 52... ...
Recommendation 3.1: NASA's process for developing planetary protection policy for sample return missions should include early consultation with mission developers and managers, mission and receiv ing facility science teams, and microbiologists and include providing a means to use the best available biological and technological knowledge about back contamination and containment. LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE EUROPA CLIPPER MISSION The most recent planetary science decadal survey listed as its second highest priority a mission to Europa, the moon of Jupiter where the Galileo spacecraft identified the presence of a subsurface salty liquid water ocean, and thus a potential habitat for life.22 In 2011, after a series of reviews, NASA concluded that a Europa mission, named Europa Clipper (see Figure 3.5)
|
From page 53... ...
The currently planned end-of-mission plan for Europa Clipper is a disposal at the moon Callisto.23 The outermost of Jupiter's four Galilean satellites, Callisto affords the energetically simplest solution (i.e., least demanding in terms of propulsion requirements) for disposal that satisfies the planetary protection requirements.
|
From page 54... ...
It is not intended for direct use in mathematical calculations. In the committee's discussion with the Europa Clipper project staff about their approach, several issues emerged that are relevant to future policy development.
|
From page 55... ...
These issues illuminate important lessons learned that are relevant to future planetary protection policy development and the need for an orderly process for developing and peer reviewing requirement details for missions for which there is no prior experience. BOX 3.2 Planetary Protection Officer Imposed Parameters in the Icy Bodies Planetary Protection Probabilistic Model 1.
|
From page 56... ...
If this and any other follow-on missions were to be implemented, the planetary protection requirements that apply to landing on a body potentially capable of supporting life will surely come into play. The formulation of planetary protection policies for such missions will need to be informed by new research.
|
From page 57... ...
However, very similar issues to Europa Clipper will exist including the ones listed in Box 3.2. ASSESSMENT OF NASA'S PLANETARY PROTECTION POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS Assessment of NASA Planetary Protection Policies While NASA's formal policy documents define the authority of NASA officials, including the PPO for planetary protection, for establishing top-level (i.e., level-1)
|
From page 58... ...
Failure to do so represents a shortcoming in NASA's planetary protection policy development processes. As an example of where the current policies fail to contain all the requirements that are necessary to implement planetary protection within a spaceflight mission, the current policy does not specify a period of biological exploration for the icy moons of the outer solar system.31 Typically, the PPO issues a categorization letter that defines the planetary protection category for that mission.
|
From page 59... ...
For example, the COSPAR Bureau approved changes in its planetary protection policy for Mars Special Regions (Appendix B) in March 2017.33 These changes originated as a result of discussions held at a COSPAR planetary protection colloquium held in September 2015.34 These changes had not been vetted by all affected NASA stakeholders.
|
From page 60... ...
Three pending developments will create a need for planetary protection policies that go beyond the demands of the past several decades:38 • A Mars sample return campaign and a mission to land and explore the ocean under the ice of Europa, both of which will include life detection objectives; • Human spaceflight to Mars possibly in the late 2030s; and • Potential Mars missions by space entrepreneurs, such as SpaceX. Developing planetary protection policies that encompass these initiatives will require negotiations that cross international boundaries (possibly via COSPAR for international planetary protection policy)
|
From page 61... ...
Recommendation 3.6: NASA should 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 39 Duringthe period 2012-2015, the PPS provided advice to NASA regarding the need to develop planetary protection requirements for human exploration missions, assess planetary protection lessons learned from the MSL mission, develop bioburden accounting software for future Mars sample return missions, and establish interactions between the OPP and OSMA. 40 The Genesis mission collected samples of the solar wind and the Stardust mission collected particles from the tail of a comet.
|
From page 62... ...
input to the deliberations of COSPAR's Panel on Planetary Protection; • Provide advice on opportunities, needs, and priorities for investments in planetary protection research and technology development; and • Act as a peer review forum to facilitate the effectiveness of NASA's planetary protection activities. Capturing Scientific Advances in the Development of Planetary Protection Policy The science that underpins planetary protection policies has always involved some uncertainty and debate about the basis for estimates of likelihood of viable organisms on a spacecraft or on a solar system body.
|
From page 63... ...
Based on data supplied to the committee by NASA's OPP, there are a few dozen very active participants in recent COSPAR planetary protection science meetings.52 Meeting organizers have had mixed success at recruiting microbiologists to participate in meetings where new scientific findings are considered for their implications for planetary protection policy. For example, scientists affiliated with the NASA Astrobiology Institute, which have been active in studies relating to extremophile microbes on Earth and what sorts of biochemistry they use and on origin of life, have not been substantially represented in such meetings.
|
From page 64... ...
Finding: The field of planetary protection science fills a rather small sector of modern science, and it has not been able to engage a substantial number of scientists who have been leading in important areas of modern sciences. For example, while the field of biology has made enormous advances in recent years many of those advances that could be applicable to improving approaches to planetary protection have not yet been fully integrated into the development of planetary protection policy or translated into practical approaches to implement policies.
|
From page 65... ...
Finding: NASA has not adequately funded the research necessary to advance approaches to implementing planetary protection protocols and verifying that those protocols satisfy NASA's increasingly complex plan etary protection requirements. For an agency program of solar system exploration and planning for human exploration missions, costing several billion dollars per year, an investment in relevant planetary protection research and technology of less than one-tenth of one percent of that total seems inadequate.
|
From page 66... ...
DEFINING A PERIOD OF PLANETARY PROTECTION Defining the length of time over which a solar system body needs to be protected from contamination in order to permit unimpaired biological study -- that is, the period of biological exploration -- has been a difficult issue throughout the history of planetary protection policy. Several definitions of the term have been used.
|
From page 67... ...
63 NRC, Assessment of Planetary Protection Requirements for Spacecraft Missions to Icy Solar System Bodies, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2012. 64 Outer Space Treaty, Article II.
|
Key Terms
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.