Skip to main content

Currently Skimming:

3 Conclusions and Recommendations
Pages 41-52

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...
... AREAS OF CONSISTENCY The majority of findings and recommendations in the PPIRB report are consistent with the 2018 report. The consistencies highlight issues in planetary protection policy that many stakeholders recognize as important, and the committee commends the authors of both reports for reinforcing these important aspects of planetary protection.
From page 42...
... .3 The PPIRB and 2018 reports agreed that developments in science, technology, and private-sector space activities are changing the environment for the development and implementation of planetary protection policy. These developments include progress on a robotic Mars sample return mission, growing interest in low-cost, small satellite capabilities, accelerating plans to put humans on the Moon and Mars, and advanced mission planning for exploring ocean worlds, such as Europa, Titan, and Enceladus, with a variety of missions including orbiters and landers.
From page 43...
... government's policy of encouraging commercial exploration and uses of space.9 The 2018 report described the importance of U.S. leadership in ensuring that planetary protection policy is based, first and foremost, on the best available scientific evidence relevant to forward and back contamination.10 Both reports stress that the same planetary protection measures apply equally to both government and private-sector space activities.
From page 44...
... in the PPIRB report, arguments that NASA can relax planetary protection requirements for Mars samples brought to Earth are not scientifically persuasive to this committee. STRATEGIC FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS From its comparison of the PPIRB and 2018 reports and its examination of the topics considered only in the PPIRB report, the committee has identified three areas of strategic importance for planetary protection policy common to both reports on which it makes specific findings and recommendations: • The need to establish a new advisory process for the development of planetary protection policy; • The need to clarify the legal and regulatory framework applicable to private-sector space activities that implicate planetary protection; and • The need to improve the scientific and technological foundation of planetary protection policies for the human missions to Mars.
From page 45...
... Finding: The PPIRB and 2018 reports, independently and together, make the persuasive case that NASA establish a new process for gathering input from the community of relevant stakeholders to ensure that the planetary protection policy comprehensively reflects the new environment of public and private space activities, contributes to the success of government and private-sector space missions, and reinforces U.S. leadership on planetary protection.
From page 46...
... International Law: The Outer Space Treaty, Planetary Protection, and Private-Sector Space Activities At the level of international law, the PPIRB and 2018 reports described debates about how the United States, as a state party to the OST, is required to comply with its obligation to authorize and continually supervise planetary protection aspects of the space activities of nongovernmental entities.18 In its review of the OST and the debates surrounding it, the 2018 report concluded that "states parties have a clear obligation under Article VI of the OST to authorize and continually supervise the space activities of non-governmental entities," which is an obligation that encompasses authorization and supervision of such activities that implicate a core aspect of Article IX of the treaty -- planetary protection.19 The PPIRB heard conflicting presentations on the OST and took no position, merely noting that "[t] here is a lack of consensus as to how and when the Outer Space Treaty has legal relevance to non-governmental entities."20 The committee agrees with the conclusion reached by the 2018 report.
From page 47...
... n reviewing private-sector plans for lunar missions," the FAA "tested the scope of its regulatory authority, leading it to conclude that the FAA might need additional authority to evaluate future missions in order to ensure the United States complies with the [Outer Space Treaty] ."23 In addition, the 2018 report stated that "there is no explicit legislative or executive guidance about whether FAA's spacecraft reentry licensing authority extends to review or approval of plans to prevent back contamination from sample return missions."24 The PPIRB report found that various licensing mechanisms, including the FAA's launch and re-entry approval authorities, "could be improved to relieve administrative burdens and address misperceptions of legal uncertainty for private sector space activities, including private sector robotic and human planetary missions that do not have significant NASA involvement."25 In a presentation to the committee, a representative from the FAA stated that the agency had sufficient authority in its launch and re-entry licensing power to evaluate and regulate the planetary protection aspects of private-sector space missions conducted independent of NASA.26 The statements from the FAA representative appear to clarify the FAA's present position that it has clear and sufficient legal authority to vet the planetary protection aspects of vehicles and payloads under its power to license launch and re-entry activities and conduct payload reviews for private-sector actors.
From page 48...
... The committee takes no position on how the federal government can address the lack of clarity and uncertainties concerning the application of federal law and regulations to the planetary protection aspects of private-sector missions, especially those implemented without NASA participation. The 2018 report recommended congressional action to authorize a federal agency to authorize and continually supervise the space activities of nongovernmental entities for planetary protection purposes.30 Similarly, the PPIRB report recommended that "NASA should work with the Administration, the Congress, and private sector space stakeholders to identify the appropriate U.S.
From page 49...
... The reports also contained recommendations designed to help NASA develop planetary protection policy for human missions to Mars. The committee supports those recommendations.
From page 50...
... 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. Finding: Although NASA recognizes that existing planetary protection policy is inappropriate for human missions to Mars, it has not developed a strategy for producing practical planetary protection measures for such human missions.
From page 51...
... For example, marshaling the human spaceflight and science communities to conduct the necessary research to further define exploration zones and mission recategorization will not be a trivial exercise. However, NASA can make some rapid progress on important aspects of a new approach to planetary protection policy identified by the PPIRB report, the 2018 report, and this committee.
From page 52...
... Recommendation: NASA should undertake the following actions: • Develop a broad-based, representative advisory process to inform the development of planetary protection policy for small, low-cost spacecraft; • Identify, fund, and complete research and development priorities related to small, low-cost spacecraft (e.g., on analyzing base costs for planetary protection compliance and on crafting a standard planetary protection template) ; • Clarify the legal and regulatory environment for small, low-cost spacecraft used in missions that are not subject to agreements or contracts with NASA; and • Record, analyze, and communicate the lessons learned from specific small, low-cost spacecraft missions in order to inform the development and implementation of the new approach to plan etary protection policy as recommended in NASA's 2019 Planetary Protection Independent Review Board report and National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine's 2018 report Review and Assessment of Planetary Protection Policy Development Processes.


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.