The Development of Planetary Protection Requirements for Human Mars Missions: a History

Planetary Protection Knowledge Gaps for Human Extraterrestrial Missions (2015) 1010.pdf

THE DEVELOPMENT OF PLANETARY PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS FOR HUMAN MARS MISSIONS: A HISTORY. J. D. Rummel1, M. S. Race2, and G. Kminek3, 1East Carolina University, Greenville, NC 27858 USA, [email protected], 2SETI Institute, Mountain View, CA 94043, [email protected], 3ESA/ESTEC, Noordwijk, The Netherlands, [email protected].

Introduction: Although NASA’s preparations for [4]. As it turned out there would be plenty of subse- the Apollo lunar missions had only a limited time to quent chances to continue to hone the effort to under- consider issues associated with the protection of the stand the challenges and consequences associated with Moon from biological contamination and the quaran- humans and their microbial “load” in an exploration tine of the astronauts returning to Earth, they learned setting. many valuable lessons (both positive and negative) in One of the first attempts to directly involve both the process. As such, those efforts represent the base- human mission planners, developers, and medical per- line of planetary protection preparations for sending sonnel in the process of setting planetary protection humans to Mars. Neither the post-Apollo experience or requirements took place in Pingree Park, Colorado in the Shuttle and other follow-on missions of either the June 2001 [5]. This workshop began a series of fo- US or Russian human spaceflight programs could add cused discussions among agency and mission-planner many additional insights to that baseline. Current mis- that continued in the first half of that decade. An im- sion designers have had the intervening four decades portant contribution a short while after was the Safe on for their consideration, and in that time there has been Mars report of the National Research Council [6], much learned about human-associated microbes, about which considered all of the hazards associated with Mars, and about humans in space that has helped pre- sending humans to Mars, including chemical and bio- pare us for a broad spectrum of considerations regard- logical ones. A consensus effort came together in April ing potential biological contamination in human Mars 2005 with a comprehensive workshop at the Lunar and missions and how to control it. Planetary Institute in Houston [7] that involved the life This paper will review the approaches used in get- support and habitation personnel from the human space ting this far, and highlight some implications of this flight community. At that workshop the participants history for the future development of planetary protec- established three principles: 1) avoid forward contami- tion provisions for human missions to Mars. The role nation of Mars or interference with scientific explora- of NASA and ESA’s planetary protection offices, and tion from terrestrially associated microbial contami- the aegis of COSPAR have been particularly important nants; 2) protect astronauts from harmful contamina- in this ongoing process. tion from martian life forms; and 3) control back con- Shuttle Era Efforts: As the Space Shuttle was de- tamination from the spacecraft, astronauts and materi- veloped and eventually flown (1981), NASA was in- als that are returned to Earth. Finally to wrap up the terested in Shuttle-delivered modules as the basis of workshops on planetary protection and humans, a joint space activities, and for some those modules were best NASA/ESA workshop was held at ESTEC in The envisioned as a space station (then TBD). Of signifi- Netherlands in May of 2005 [8]. That workshop in- cance to the development of planetary protection think- cluded splinter group discussions organized around ing in this era was the Antaeus Report [1], which iden- three main areas with implications for planetary pro- tified specific needs for an orbiting space-station asso- tection on human rated systems: ciated module that might be dedicated to the quaran- • Advanced Life Support Systems (ALS); tine of a Mars sample. The report suggested the use of • Extravehicular Activities (EVA); and the smallest available biological test systems that could • Operations and Support (OPS). be emplaced by the Space Shuttle, then under devel- These splinter-group discussions considered operations opment. The human element was essential for making and technology concerns, science activities and opera- this concept feasible. tions, backward contamination prevention require- Humans Exploring Space?: With a Presidential ments, and the protection of both the human habitat on announcement of a Moon/Mars destination for NASA Mars and the Earth upon crew return. They also identi- (1989), NASA’s initial examination of the challenge fied future research and development needs for ALS, [2] and other workshops [3] considered the issues of EVA, and Mars robotic missions, including specific Mars exploration by humans and the planetary protec- precursor mission information necessary to understand tion challenges associated with the then-current think- and prepare for human support systems and science ing about life on Mars. Sometimes the issues were operations on long duration Mars missions. well-considered, and sometimes less well conceived Planetary Protection Knowledge Gaps for Human Extraterrestrial Missions (2015) 1010.pdf

COSPAR’s Interim Provisions: The results of the [4] Synthesis Group (US), & Stafford, T. P. (1991). various workshops and considerations regarding hu- America at the threshold: report of the synthesis group mans were largely consolidated by the NASA/ESA on America's Space Exploration Initiative. US Gov- workshop in 2005. Subsequently, those results were ernment Printing Office. reported to COSPAR in Beijing in 2006, although no [5] Criswell, M. E., Race, M. S., Rummel, J. D., & action was taken by the Panel on Planetary Protection Baker, A. (2005). Planetary protection issues in the at that time. The matter was presented and further dis- human exploration of Mars. NASA Conference Publi- cussed in 2008 at the COSPAR Assembly in Montréal cation 2005-213461, NASA, Moffett Field, CA. [10], which resulted in a Panel on Planetary Protection [6] Committee on Precursor Measurements Neces- resolution that went forward to the Bureau and sary to Support Human Operations on the Surface of COSPAR Council, and was approved by both groups. Mars, National Research Council. (2002). Safe on As a result, new section was added to the COSPAR Mars: Precursor Measurements Necessary to Support Planetary Protection Policy [11] that includes “Princi- Human Operations on the Surface of Mars. National ples and Guidelines for Human Missions to Mars,” Academies Press, Washington, DC. with the following policy statement as a preamble: [7] Hogan, J. A., Race, M. S., Fisher, J. W., Joshi, The intent of this planetary protection policy is J. A., & Rummel, J. D. (2006). Life Support and Habi- the same whether a mission to Mars is conduct- tation and Planetary Protection Workshop. Final Re- ed robotically or with human explorers. Ac- port, NASA Technical Memorandum 2006-213485, cordingly, planetary protection goals should not NASA, Moffett Field, CA. be relaxed to accommodate a human mission to [8] Kminek, G., Rummel, J., & Race, M. (2007). Mars. Rather, they become even more directly Planetary Protections and Human System Research & relevant to such missions—even if specific im- Technology. In ESA-NASA Workshop Rept, ESA WPP- plementation requirements must differ. 276, ESTEC, Noordwijk, The Netherlands. Presently: The current planetary protection policy [9] Race, M. S., Kminek, G., & Rummel, J. D. documents do not stipulate detailed requirements for (2006). Planetary protection and humans missions to future human missions to Mars, but rather provide Mars: summary results from two workshops sponsored principles and guidelines of what will be needed for by NASA and NASA/ESA. In 36th COSPAR Scientific implementation of any successful mission and provide Assembly (Vol. 36, p. 3252). the basis to move forward to develop agency-level and [10] Conley, C., & Rummel, J. (2008). Require- eventually mission-level requirements. Appropriate ments for human exploration of Mars. In 37th agency-level documents are (will?) embodying the COSPAR Scientific Assembly (Vol. 37, p. 575). new requirements as they come forward. Such re- [11] COSPAR. (2011) COSPAR Planetary Protec- quirements are essential complements to future human tion Policy (20 October 2002, amended 24 March missions beyond Earth orbit, and can contribute to 2011). COSPAR, Paris. technology development and science activities on the [12] Rummel, J. D., Beaty, D. W., Jones, M. A., Moon as well as to planning for human mission to Bakermans, C., Barlow, N. G., Boston, P. J., ... & Mars and use of its resources. As long as there is a Wray, J. J. (2014). A New Analysis of Mars “Special possibility that Mars may have indigenous life, or that Regions”: Findings of the Second MEPAG Special there are places on Mars where Earth organisms might Regions Science Analysis Group (SR-SAG2). Astrobi- survive and grow (cf., 12], planetary protection provi- ology, 14, 887-968. sions will be an essential part of activities and exploration on Mars. References: [1] Devincenzi, D. L., & Bagby, J. (1981). Orbiting Quarantine Facility (OQF): The Antaeus Report. NASA SP-454, NASA, Washington DC. [2] Cohen, A. et al. (1989). Report of the 90-day study on human exploration of the Moon and Mars. National Aeronautics and Space Administration. [3] Devincenzi, D. L., Klein, H. P., & Bagby, J. R. (1991). Planetary protection issues and future Mars missions. NASA Conference Publication 10086, NASA, Moffett Field, CA.