Assessment of the Report of NASA's Planetary Protection Independent Review Board (2020) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
1 Introduction
1 Introduction
Pages 8-13
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 8... ...
and recommended that the recently established COSPAR assume responsibility for deliberating on matters of planetary protection.4 The 1967 Outer Space Treaty formalized the international legal requirements for states parties to avoid "harmful contamination" of celestial bodies and "adverse changes in the environment of the Earth." COSPAR guidelines have evolved in response to new scientific and technical developments, and all major space-faring nations have adopted these guidelines in connection with their exploration and study of solar system bodies.5 BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT Tensions developed in the earliest years of the Space Age between the space science and engineering communities concerning the need for and implementation cost of planetary protection policies.6 According to one per 1 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) , Review and Assessment of Planetary Protection Policy Develop ment Processes, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2018, p.
|
From page 9... ...
Third, NASA established the Planetary Protection Independent Review Board (PPIRB) to provide more input on the challenges facing planetary protection policy in the future.
|
From page 10... ...
. In its analysis, the 2018 report identified a number of fundamental aspects of the planetary protection policy development process that remain relevant and vital today, including the following: • The Outer Space Treaty as the policy and legal foundation for both government-sponsored and non governmental space activities; • COSPAR's role in fostering international cooperation on planetary protection guidelines; • The centrality of science-based decision making; • The involvement of many scientific communities; and • U.S.
|
From page 11... ...
.9 The 2018 report noted that this placement created "an inherent conflict of interest because the dispute resolution official was directly responsible for science missions as well as planetary protection."10 Moving OPP to the Office of Safety and Mission Assurance (OSMA) would allow OPP to "function more like a NASA technical authority and disagreements between the OPP and flight projects on planetary protection issues can be resolved through formal OSMA conflict resolution procedures that have worked well in other areas within OSMA's purview."11 One concern the 2018 report raised about moving OPP from SMD to OSMA focused on the small planetary protection research program (see Figure 3.1)
|
From page 12... ...
At its January 2019 meeting -- held at the United Nations Center in Vienna, Austria -- the panel discussed and reached consensus on two major items.14 First, in response to input from the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) , a consortium supported by the European Space Agency, and the National Academies, the PPP proposed recommendations on the categorization of samples of Phobos or Diemos to be returned to Earth by JAXA's Martian Moons Exploration spacecraft.15 Second, based on input from an international consortium organized by the European Science Foundation, the PPP made recommendations on planetary protection issues for missions to the icy satellites of the giant planets.
|
From page 13... ...
currently is establishing a Planetary Protection Independent Review Board, of approximately 10-15 members and short-term in nature, to assess and provide updates to biological contamination guidelines developed by the international Committee on Space Research (COSPAR)
|
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.