sign in sign up
<<
Home , Planetary protection

including the and other celestial bodies, The COSPAR Panel on Planetary without discrimination, and to carry out Protection Role, Structure and scientific investigations. This freedom, however, comes with a responsibility described Activities in Article IX of the same Treaty. It states that [A. Coustenis (Laboratoire d’Etudes Spatiales space activities have to be conducted with due et d’Instrumentation en Astrophysique– regard to the corresponding interests of all LESIA, Paris Observatory, CNRS, France), G. other States Parties to the Treaty. The Kminek (, The avoidance of potentially harmful interference Netherlands), N. Hedman (Committee, Policy with activities of other States Parties is central. and Legal Affairs Section, Office for Outer The harmful contamination of the Moon and Space Affairs, United Nations Office at other celestial bodies and the need to ensure Vienna, Austria), E. Ammannito (Italian Space safety of the are highlighted in this Agency (ASI), Rome, Italy), E. Deshevaya context. With the entry into force of the Outer (Russian Federation State Research Center Space Treaty in 1967, planetary protection Institute of Biomedical Problems RAS— became part of international law. In observance IBMP, Russia), P.T. Doran (Department of of those treaty obligations, an international Geology and Geophysics, Louisiana State standard for planetary protection has been Univ., USA), O. Grasset (Nantes University, developed by the Committee on Space France), J. Green (NASA, USA), A. Hayes Research (COSPAR) which provides a forum (Cornell University, USA), L. Lei (NSSC, for international consultation and has formu- Chinese Academy of Sciences, China), A. lated a Planetary Protection Policy with Nakamura (Department Planetology, Kobe associated requirements that are put in place University, Japan) O. Prieto-Ballesteros after examination of the most updated relevant (Centro de Astrobiología—CSIC-INTA, scientific studies and recommendations made Spain), F. Raulin (LISA, Univ. Paris Est, by the COSPAR Panel on Planetary Protection.

CNRS, Univ. Paris, France), P. Rettberg 1. Introduction and context (German Aerospace Center (DLR), Institute of Aerospace Medicine, Radiation Biology COSPAR is the international scientific Department, Germany), P. Sreekumar (Indian COmmittee for SPAce Research of the Space Research Organisation—ISRO, India), International Council for Science (ICS), S. Tsuneta (Japan Aerospace Exploration established in 1958. The main objectives of Agency—JAXA, Institute of Space and COSPAR are to promote at an international Astronautical Science–ISAS, Japan, M. Viso level scientific research in space, with (Centre National des Etudes Spatiales—CNES, emphasis on the exchange of results, infor- France), M. Zaitsev (Planetary physics mation and opinions, and to provide a forum, department, Space Research Institute of open to all scientists and stakeholders in Russian Academy of Sciences—IKI RAS, general, enabling discussions and exchanges Russia), M.-P. Zorzano-Mier (Group of on problems that could play a role and affect —GAS, Luleå University scientific space research. The objectives of of Technology, Sweden, and CSIC-INTA, COSPAR are mainly achieved through the Spain] organization of scientific assemblies and publications. COSPAR’s organizational struc- [The views expressed in this article do not ture consists of scientific commissions necessarily represent the views of the respective representing each and every scientific entities and organizations.] discipline involved in space research and of The exploration and use of outer space is the panels designed to deal with crosscutting issues province of all humankind. This principle in that can affect particular segments of the Article I of the UN international space research community, and guarantees the freedom to explore outer space, often for which there is an urgent need for input. In its first years of existence COSPAR, as an the Treaty.” In implementing the requirements apolitical scientific body, played an important under Article IX of the treaty, it is important to role as an open bridge between East and West keep this central provision of responsibility in for cooperation in space. When this role mind. This overarching responsibility is became less prominent with the decline in fundamental for the principles of “due-regard”, rivalry between the east and west, COSPAR, as “harmful contamination” and “harmful an interdisciplinary scientific organization, interference” set out in Article IX of the treaty. focused its objectives on the progress of all There is a complex legal connection between kinds of research carried out in space those principles, and they are subject to legal (including balloons). COSPAR has eight interpretation. Moreover, the 1968 Rescue and scientific commissions and ten technical panels Return Agreement (ARRA), in its Article 5(4) on a variety of topics, from planetary introduces the concept of returning space exploration and planetary protection to space objects of “hazardous and deleterious ”. weather, scientific ballooning, Space agencies globally have maintained dynamics, radiation belts, and capacity compliance with the Outer Space Treaty by building (with a fellowship sub-Panel). following the COSPAR Planetary Protection One element of the COSPAR activities is to Policy. Furthermore, the important role of maintain a planetary protection policy for COSPAR in setting up and promoting spacefaring nations, both as an international planetary protection policy guidelines for the standard to avoid organic and biological benefit of spacefaring nations has been contamination in the exploration and use of recognized also by the United Nations space, and to guide compliance with the Outer Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space Treaty (OST). The treaty was opened for Space (COPUOS) at its sixtieth session in signature in the United States, the United 2017. This is an important element for Kingdom, and the Soviet Union on 27 January consideration because it clearly establishes the 1967, and entered into force on 10 October role of the COSPAR Planetary Protection 1967. As of January 2019, 109 countries are Policy in ensuring the compliance with the parties to the treaty, while another 23 have Outer Space Treaty despite its non-legally signed the treaty but have not completed binding aspect under international law, as will ratification. be further described below in detail. The Outer Space Treaty contains the Guided by this international legal framework, fundamental principles of international space planetary protection processes and law. Article VI of the Outer Space Treaty is requirements have been developed at the important to all activities in the exploration and national level to meet the requirements of the use of outer space, including the Moon and treaty obligations. In addition, the COSPAR other celestial bodies, and describes the Planetary Protection Policy is the only international responsibility of States: “States international science-based guidance and Parties to the Treaty shall bear international standard framework, founded on two responsibility for national activities in outer rationales: space, including the Moon and other celestial The conduct of scientific investigations of bodies, whether such activities are carried on possible forms, precursors, by governmental agencies or by non- and remnants must not be jeopardized. governmental entities, and for assuring that national activities are carried out in The Earth must be protected from the potential conformity with the provisions set forth in the hazard posed by extraterrestrial matter carried present Treaty. The activities of non- by a spacecraft returning from another planet. governmental entities in outer space, including As a consequence, for certain space missions the Moon and other celestial bodies, shall or planet-targeted combinations, requirements require authorization and continuing to control terrestrial biological contamination supervision by the appropriate State Party to are imposed in accordance with these symptoms. After a few weeks, an increased rationales. As explained below, the correct number of these researchers exhibit similar implementation of these requirements is the symptoms and, although not incompatible with responsibility of the various space agencies. the winter season in a university environment, these cases are noted by the local public health Planetary protection is a definition for agreed officials and eventually make their way into the international practices applied in the media. Are the symptoms the result of the exploration of the solar system in order to trailing edge of a typical flu season, or are they avoid contamination of the Earth and the other instead linked to the initial investigations of the planets. It is promulgated by the Committee on extraterrestrial samples? Has there be a Space Research (COSPAR) which provides sufficient level of scrutiny of the space guidelines to be considered in the design of activities from public authorities and do we space missions, with the goal to protect really know whether the extraterrestrial investigated solar system bodies from material brought to Earth is not dangerous? biological contamination and to ensure the same for the Earth in the case of sample-return Hypothetical case 3: After several decades of missions. Planetary protection is critical for international cooperation for sample return enabling scientists to study the natural from , a research laboratory detects environments of foreign bodies without signatures of recent metabolic activity on the interfering with lifeforms that could possibly external surface of one of the samples. Are emerge and develop there. Most importantly, it those signatures indigenous from Mars? or also helps to protect Earth from possible were they produced during the manipulation? contamination by extraterrestrial imported or are they signatures produced on Earth by material. microbial activity that was preserved dormant in the samples and was activated once on Perhaps the best way to consider the scope and Earth? importance of planetary protection, however, is to consider case studies involving current or These hypothetical examples provide glimpse near-term mission architectures: into the importance of planetary protection. We have had planetary protection measures in Hypothetical case 1: After more than a decade place for more than half a century to avoid of work a robotic explorer on Mars detects cases like 1 and 2. Planetary Protection is an evidence for life. The sophisticated science enabling element in the exploration and use of package can look for life in different ways and space and the reason why COSPAR has a all the lights are green. This would arguably be dedicated panel of experts to make educated the most important scientific discovery ever recommendations, based on community input, made. The consequences would be dramatic in for implementation of the planetary protection terms of basic understanding of the origin and guidelines. The guidelines are also there to distribution of life in our solar system and in prevent false positives for life or biomarker the universe in general. It would also affect detection in samples returned by missions by very much how future robotic and human guaranteeing the safe, isolated, manipulation of missions to Mars would need to be designed samples. and managed. However, how do we know that the life found by our robotic explorer is 2. Context and basic elements of planetary actually martian life and not terrestrial life that protection hitchhiked a ride to Mars? With planetary protection, it is important to Hypothetical case 2: A university research understand the legal and policy background. laboratory announces that they have been Article IX of the Outer Space Treaty addresses selected as part of the initial examination team three major areas: for samples from Mars. Soon after the samples the provision of cooperation and mutual are received, a number of the researchers assistance and due regard to the corresponding examining them develop influenza-like interests of all other States Parties; Outer Space in 1959, and in the 1964 COPUOS report the COSPAR planetary quarantine the provision for the avoidance of harmful requirements recommended by the contamination of solar system bodies (forward Consultative Group on Potentially Harmful contamination) and avoidance of changes in Effects of Space Experiments were given the environment of the Earth (back important consideration by the re-print in that contamination) resulting from the introduction report of the full COSPAR resolution of May of extraterrestrial matter and 1964. It is in this context important to note the the provision that when there is a reason to development of scientific measures on believe that space activities or experiments planetary protection and the way such planned would cause potentially harmful considerations found their way into the legal interference with activities of other states and policy framework of international parties, appropriate international consultations cooperation in the peaceful uses of outer space, shall be undertaken. with the provision of Article IX of the Outer There exists a correlation between those three Space Treaty as the legal framework for core provisions given the inherent nature of planetary protection. COPUOS in its report in protecting the interest of all States Parties to the 2017 noted the long-standing role of COSPAR Treaty. The provisions of due regard and in maintaining Planetary Protection Policy as a harmful interference were covered by the 1963 reference standard for spacefaring nations and Declaration of Legal Principles Governing the in guiding compliance with Article IX of the Activities of States in the Exploration and Uses Outer Space Treaty. There is an on-going and of Outer Space. The dedicated component on close link between COSPAR and COPUOS planetary protection in Article IX states: since the late 1950s, which is evident by the “States Parties to the Treaty shall pursue history of the work of COPUOS which goes studies of outer space, including the Moon and back to 1958–the same year as the creation of other celestial bodies, and conduct exploration COSPAR. For more information on the of them so as to avoid their harmful historical aspects of the development of the contamination and also adverse changes in the Planetary Protection see: environment of the Earth resulting from the https://planetaryprotection.nasa.gov/history/ introduction of extraterrestrial matter and, With the status given to planetary protection where necessary, shall adopt appropriate measures through Article IX of the Outer measures for this purpose”. Considering the Space Treaty, the issue of application and evolution of planetary protection measures at implementation must be addressed. According the international level, through the studies and to Article VI of the Outer Space Treaty, recommendations made by COSPAR since the state responsibility for national space activities early 1960s, today COSPAR Planetary performed also by non-governmental entities Protection Policy is the only international (including among other private research instrument of this type that enforces the institutes, industry and private sector) is procedures for planetary protection based on subject to application by various nations and its scientific arguments. implementation through continuous help in The involvement of COPUOS in the evolution building safe planetary missions. Article VI of the international planetary protection makes the national implementation framework is noteworthy in this context. The requirement clear by stating that “The five United Nations treaties and five sets of activities of non-governmental entities in outer principles on outer space, thus including the space, including the Moon and other celestial 1963 Declaration and 1967 Outer Space bodies, shall require authorization and Treaty, have been negotiated within the continuing supervision by the appropriate framework of COPUOS. Contamination State Party to the Treaty”. concerns were raised, inter alia, in the report of The COSPAR Planetary Protection Policy is a the Ad Hoc Committee on the Peaceful Uses of scientific guidance framework and not a legal planets, , asteroids, etc.) and the type instrument binding under international law, but of mission (e.g., orbiter, lander, gravity assist, the observation by COPUOS in 2017 is sample return, etc). With respect to the target important as an indication of the role of the body, missions aimed to investigate solar Planetary Protection Policy in the compliance system objects that have a high astrobiological of the Outer Space Treaty. It must be clearly potential and afford habitable conditions for noted that it is the prerogative of States Parties the emergence of life will be subject to more to implement the obligations under Article VI, stringent constraints– at the present time such including the activities of non-governmental objects are limited to Mars, Jupiter’s satellite entities. It is the State that ultimately will be and Saturn’s satellite . As for held responsible for wrongful acts committed type of mission, the most stringent constraints by its jurisdictional subjects. The Outer Space will be in place for sample return missions Treaty does not require States Parties to use the from Mars, Europa and Enceladus to Earth. COSPAR guidance framework on planetary The different planetary protection categories protection in fulfilling Article IX obligations. (I-V) reflect the level of interest and concern However, States Parties have for fifty years that contamination can compromise future implemented Article IX by using COSPAR and investigations or the safety of the Earth; the following its planetary protection guidance categories and associated requirements depend framework. It is true that this long-standing on the target body and mission type commitment to the COSPAR process has combinations and are summarized hereafter. helped in developing and upholding the only international standard on planetary protection. Category I: All types of mission to a target Therefore, for certain space mission/target body which is not of direct interest for planet combinations, requirements to control understanding the process of chemical terrestrial biological contamination are evolution or the origin of life imposed in accordance with these rationales. Category II: All types of missions (gravity As explained below, the correct assist, orbiter, lander) to a target body where implementation of these requirements is the there is significant interest relative to the responsibility of the various space agencies. process of chemical evolution and the origin of This strategy has led so far to the categorization life, but where there is only a remote1 chance of certain combinations of mission types and that contamination carried by a spacecraft solar system objects as described for instance could compromise future investigations in https://planetaryprotection.nasa.gov/about- categories/. Categorizations are continuously Category III: Flyby (i.e. gravity assist) and examined in light of new scientific results of orbiter missions to a target body of chemical relevance (like for instance those discussed evolution and/or origin of life interest and for below having to do with sample return and which scientific opinion provides a significant2 habitable worlds in the solar system). chance of contamination which could compromise future investigations Within the scope of the COSPAR Planetary Protection Policy, the breadth of planetary Category IV: Lander (and potentially orbiter) protection constraints applied to specific missions to a target body of chemical evolution missions depends on the targeted celestial and/or origin of life interest and for which object of the mission (e.g., Moon, Mars, scientific opinion provides a significant2

2 Implies the presence of environments where 1 Implies the absence of environments where terrestrial could survive and replicate, terrestrial organisms could survive and replicate, and some likelihood of transfer to those places or a very low likelihood of transfer to by a plausible mechanism environments where terrestrial organisms could survive and replicate chance of contamination which could these objects of high astrobiological interest. In compromise future investigations the case of investigations with an orbiter, it is important to ensure through a secure trajectory Category V: Two subcategories exist: planning and mission design that the spacecraft unrestricted Earth return for solar system will not impact the body. In the case of landers bodies deemed by scientific opinion to have no and rovers, the only way to avoid a possible indigenous life forms and restricted Earth terrestrial biological contamination is to return for all others control and limit the contamination on the This categorisation is revisited and changes spacecraft itself via extensive bioburden considered when new scientific results control processes. This constraint is taken on challenge the current perception and indicate board at the level of the mission development the necessity for updates (for instance with the where a set of measures is assumed: tech- discovery of new habitats in the solar system nicians using full-body garments in bio- among the icy of the giant planets) and logically controlled , various when challenges appear from new players in solvents, dry heat bioburden reduction, plasma the space field or from new requests by sample and ionizing radiation to reduce the conta- return missions from Mars and its moons. mination and barrier systems (purging, filters, The COSPAR Planetary Protection Policy has seals) to avoid the re-contamination on the evolved since its inception and follows spacecraft. carefully the development of scientific Missions that acquire and return samples from knowledge. The rationale being that planetary Mars, Europa or Enceladus to Earth have to protection requirements are constantly meet not only stringent planetary protection developing along with new and updated constraints for the outgoing part of the journey, scientific knowledge. In this context, it is but to comply with the second rationale (“the important to point out that today no technical Earth must be protected from the potential planetary protection requirements under the hazard posed by extraterrestrial matter carried COSPAR Planetary Protection Policy apply to by a spacecraft returning from another missions (one way and sample return) to the planet.”) and therefore establish additional Moon (documentation requirement only) and strict controls of any possible contamination on to the majority of the asteroids. Nor do any the way back. These additional controls are planetary protection constraints apply to complex and involve a careful containment or missions operating in Earth’s orbit. Similarly, sterilization of the extraterrestrial material and protecting solar system bodies for their own a scientific analysis up front of the samples to sake, protecting unique solar system environ- find out what they are made of and if there is ments or historical sites are specifically not potential danger for the Earth’s . All included in the COSPAR Planetary Protection these measures are part of the protocol applied Policy. Protecting Earth from man-made space in sample return handling facilities or sample objects (i.e. ), and the objectives of receiving facilities which follow the planetary defense (i.e. protecting Earth from recommendation of the SSB (1997) for the impact of large asteroids or ), are not “rigorous physical, chemical, and biological covered in the COSPAR Planetary Protection analyses [should] confirm that there is no Policy either. indication of the presence of any exogenous As indicated above, even one-way missions to biological entity.” And act to ensure proper Mars, Europa and Enceladus have to adhere to quarantine of the samples as well as the stringent planetary protection measures to protection of the samples from any chemical or abide by the first rationale for planetary biological contamination. The principles of the protection to not interfere with “scientific such functions are described in the Draft test investigations of possible extraterrestrial life protocol for detecting possible biohazards in forms, precursors, and remnants” and not to Martian Samples returned to Earth which is impose terrestrial biological contamination to evolving as needed to take into account the From https://doctorlinda.wordpress.com/2018/11/20/planetary-protection-dont-mess-with-it/

January 2019 Meeting of the COSPAR Panel on Planetary protection, Vienna, Austria most recent developments in science planetary protection such as (astro)biology, instrumentation and scientific results. planetary sciences, geology and geophysics, , sample treatment, and In general, space mission concepts that come ethics, among other, and relies on information forward for guidance on planetary protection brought forward by the various communities items appreciate the attention and help from the though workshops and studies. COSPAR Panel on Planetary Protection, even though implementing the related planetary The current COSPAR Panel on Planetary protection constraints comes with a cost in time Protection is therefore a group of thematic experts and funding. From a practical point of view, this from the science community of different countries requires: 1) having access to technologies and (e.g. China, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, products that can be used to bioburden control the the Russian Federation and the United States) and materials, hardware and spacecraft components; representatives from their national space agencies 2) manipulating the flight model within a "clean and other stakeholders for a total of 19 members room" environment (which is any way a (co-authors of this article). The structure and requirement for any space mission, to avoid composition of the panel can be found at the particulate contamination of the hardware, optical COSPAR web site dedicated page: and electrical components); and 3) having contact https://cosparhq.cnes.fr/scientific-structure with a microbiological laboratory that can analyse /ppp. The COSPAR Panel on Planetary Protection a set of samples taken in-situ for detection of maintains and updates the COSPAR Planetary microbes, that are used to certificate that the clean- Protection Policy regularly in various ways. For level requirement is met. Additionally, planetary instance when a space mission is being developed, protection requires documenting the full the project team may present a request to the PPP procedure and undergoing some reviews, as with a specific combination of mission happens to all other procedures related to space architecture or targets. Or scientific results have missions. Planetary protection may require some come forward showing that there is a need for a previous planning in the design phase to select or change or an adaptation/update of some part of the design spacecrafts components and parts that can policy. In both cases, the Panel will review all be easily sterilised. But again, this is standard available scientific knowledge through existing or practice for space mission design, where other commandeered studies performed by a group or constraints like electromagnetic compatibility, committees of experts who review the information vibration and shock resistance, outgassing levels, and make a recommendation to the Panel. thermal vacuum and radiation response, etc have Workshops, dedicated scientific and technical to be tested, documented and reviewed and the meetings and independent peer review are all designs has to be based on elements and integral part in updating the COSPAR Planetary components that guarantee that these requirements Protection Policy. Taking these documented will be met inputs into account, the Panel will recommend (or not) to the COSPAR Bureau and Council possible Suggesting changes and adaptations to take new modifications to the policy. Such updates are done developments into account and to help future in a careful and balanced way to ensure that the missions construct a robust and safe architecture, right measures are envisaged to fulfill the is the purpose of the COSPAR Panel on Planetary rationales for planetary protection. The purpose Protection (COSPAR PPP). obviously is to respond to the needs of space 3. The COSPAR Panel on Planetary Protection mission teams, while applying due diligence and One important purpose of the COSPAR activities expertise in the process. At the end the updated is to maintain the Planetary Protection Policy at an Policy is published. international level. Guidelines are put in place This method has been a long process in time in the with the view to enable space exploration in a past. But, in the modern era, new challenging mature and safe way and not to prevent any kind mission goals and scientific findings have required of investigations that would enhance our the panel to react more swiftly and to encompass understanding of the Solar System in accordance additional expertise from the different scientific with the OST. The Policy is therefore by necessity fields. The new reconstituted Panel is in itself a big based on the most up-to-date and comprehensive step, but the working method will always be scientific information available. This mandate is founded on scientific expertise and thorough covered by the COSPAR Panel on Planetary understanding of the celestial bodies as well as of Protection which includes a number of experts in our own planet and its specificities. The Panel is various space-related scientific fields attached to now meeting in person more regularly and having 9/12 more regular communication via email and formal consideration at the March 2019 meeting in telecons. The meeting structure now also has an Paris, where they were adopted and validated for open public session for transparency and the MMX mission. information exchange vis a vis all interested • Based on the current COSPAR Planetary parties, and a closed session gives the panel the Protection Policy, the COSPAR PPP recommends necessary structure get work done and decisions that the outbound portion of the MMX mission be made more expeditiously in the interest of the classified Planetary Protection Category III. broader scientific community (Terms of Reference for the new panel can be found at • Regarding the inbound portion of the https://cosparhq.cnes.fr/scientific-structure/ppp). MMX mission, two separate studies using several The new panel’s first meeting occurred in January types of analysis, simulations, and laboratory 2019 in Vienna at the United Nations, with a large experiments that incorporated current knowledge attendance for the open session and almost full of Martian moons, were independently reviewed membership attending in person or via telecon by a joint US National Academy of Sciences and during the closed session. European Science Foundation committee. Given the evidence presented and the discussion that Two issues discussed at that meeting are described followed, the Panel recommends that the inbound below. (Earth return) portion of the MMX mission, as 3.1 Recommendation on the categorization of currently planned by JAXA (ref. GNG-2018003A, the /Deimos sample return mission 15 Jan. 2019), be classified Planetary Protection Category V, unrestricted Earth return. The Panel was presented with the most recent scientific and technical plans of JAXA’s Martian 3.2 Planetary Protection for missions to the Moons eXploration (MMX: outer solar system http://mmx.isas.jaxa.jp/en/) mission. This mission The outer solar system is of high interest within will travel to Mars and explore the planet’s two the international scientific community with many moons, Phobos and Deimos to enhance our new findings from missions like Cassini, Galileo understanding of these objects. Part of this mission and . Reference was made to the impact of will involve sample from one of the Martian the results from the joint ESA/NASA Cassini- moons. The scientific goals of MMX are to Huygens mission, which had demonstrated that investigate the origin of the Martian moons and the discoveries a mission can make may be the formation and evolution of the Martian system. completely different from those expected and The Panel was asked to comment on the therefore the preparation for landing on foreign Phobos/Deimos sample return to Earth bodies needs to be done with the outmost care. categorization after considering the findings from Cassini-Huygens further demonstrated the three different studies by: 1) JAXA in its capacity importance of international collaboration in such as operator for the planned mission; 2) by the endeavors. Sterilization Limits “SterLim” Team (represented by Open University); and 3) by a joint committee Outer solar system missions are numerous and at of the National Academies of Science, various stages of development. The ESA JUICE Engineering and Medicine and the European (Jupiter Icy moons Explorer: Science Foundation as an independent review. http://sci.esa.int/juice/) mission scheduled to Large parts of these studies are published in a launch in 2022, has as a science goal to study the special issue of Life Sciences in Space Research planet and its moons, including flybys of Europa (2019, Volume 23). Having extensively discussed and an extended study of . The NASA the findings of the 3 studies presented in the open mission session, the Panel in its review recommended that (https://www.nasa.gov/europa) is expected to be samples returned from the Martian moons be launched in 2023 and will investigate the jovian designated unrestricted Earth return. The Panel satellite with several dozen flybys. The next New further assessed that the recommendation only Frontier mission will either return a sample from relates to this specific MMX mission and does not 67P/Churyumov Gerasimenko to Earth form a recommendation for other future missions. (CAESAR: http://caesar.cornell.edu) or visit Discussing safety issues, the panel noted the Saturn’s largest moon, with a quadcopter successful precedent of planetary protection drone (: http://dragonfly.jhuapl.edu/). A guidelines used for the JAXA Hyabusa mission. Saturn probe mission is being proposed by the The Panel submitted the following planetary community, and further-on possible recommendations to the COSPAR Bureau for missions to Uranus and Neptune and their

10/12 satellites are being discussed. Finally, a Europa protection. It is not the job of the COSPAR PPP to lander mission is being studied at JPL. suggest ways to implement the requirements. Implementation of the COSPAR Planetary Given the strong and growing interest in missions Protection Policy is left to the agencies or to the outer solar system, particularly the icy organizations planning and executing the moons, it was considered of vital importance by missions. The best and most cost-effective means the Panel to re-examine the planetary protection to adhere to the COSPAR planetary protection issues for the icy moons because of the possible requirements is subject to certification of emergence of habitable worlds around giant compliance with the COSPAR planetary planets. A study was commissioned and organized protection requirements by the appropriate by the European Science Foundation with national or international authority international experts for studying the Planetary Protection for the Outer Solar System (PPOSS) 5. Plans for facing planetary protection aspects. The PPOSS Team’s main objective was challenges in the future to provide an international forum to consider and The panel discussions following the first 2019 approach the specificities of planetary protection meeting will continue in particular on the aspects for outer Solar system bodies, in the general of planetary protection categorization and context of planetary protection guidance and to guidelines for outer solar system bodies, i.e. the provide recommendations to the COSPAR icy moons who are potential habitats, following Planetary Protection Panel. The PPOSS study the PPOSS study described here. But in addition team presented a set of recommendations for to the items described above, planetary protection review by the Panel in the following areas which will be facing more challenges and needs for new were endorsed by the Panel after discussion in the guidelines in the future. One has to do with the open session: interest to return to the Moon, investigate new 1) The COSPAR Planetary Protection Policy regions, return more samples and eventually guidelines should include a generic definition of establish a human base. Related to this and part of the environmental conditions potentially allowing several international space agencies programs, is Earth organisms to replicate; the need to develop planetary protection guidelines for robotic and human missions to 2) The second paragraph of the Category Mars. Human missions to Mars touch on both III/IV/V requirements for Europa and Enceladus rationales for planetary protection – protect the text in the COSPAR Planetary Protection Policy’s Earth (i.e. astronauts and the humanity upon their appendix should be more specific on problematic return) and avoid compromising the search for species; extraterrestrial life. When we reach the stage 3) The COSPAR Planetary Protection Policy where human missions are developed, very guidelines should be updated to reflect the period different considerations will apply compared to of biological exploration of Europa and robotic missions. NASA and other space agencies, Enceladus. Requirements for Europa and along with COSPAR, have been actively Enceladus flybys, orbiters and landers, including addressing this issue for several years and it is bioburden reduction, shall be applied in order to clear that in order to have safe (for astronauts and reduce the probability of inadvertent the general human race) and productive human contamination of a European or Enceladan ocean missions to Mars, we need to better characterize to less than 1x10-4 per mission; the processes of how contamination will be 4) The COSPAR Planetary Protection Policy impacted by the natural Mars and environment and should acknowledge the potential existence of how it is transported on Mars. There is need, for Enhanced Downward Transport Zones at the example, for additional research on the additive or surface of Europa and Enceladus; these zones synergistic biocidal effects of the Mars should be defined and characterized by further environment, and collection of new data for studies. atmospheric circulations models with high spatial and temporal resolution. 4. How is the COSPAR Planetary Protection An additional aspect for consideration by Policy implemented planetary protection experts is the increased The COSPAR Panel on Planetary Protection interest in space exploration and utilisation by works intently to educate and inform the non-governmental entities (e.g. the private and international space community, e.g. COPUOS, as commercial sector). Planetary protection well as other concerned multilateral organizations, measures could be seen as an "insurance" for long- of policy consensus in the area of planetary

11/12 term investments by commercial and private C.A., Coustenis, A., Detsis, E., Doran, P., Grasset, sector entities. If a harmful contamination should O., Hand, K., Hajime, Y., Hauber, E., Kolmasová, occur, the liability for damage caused might be I., Lindberg, R.E., Meyer, M., Raulin, F., Reitz, high and this factor should be considered in the G., Rennó, N.O., Rettberg, P., Rummel, J.D., long-term planning of planetary missions by a Saunders, M.P., Schwehm, G., Sherwood, B., broader spectrum of space actors. Smith, D.H., Stabekis, P.D., and Vago, J., 2016. COSPAR Panel on Planetary Protection The Panel thus intends to help in all the above Colloquium Report, Space Res. Today, 195. concerns and anything more that will be brought to its attention. The panel is aware of and works in Kminek, G., Conley, C., Hipkin, V., Yano, H., conjunction with various national activities. The 2017. COSPAR’s Planetary Protection Policy. Panel will also investigate ways and means to Rummel J.D., Race M.S., DeVincenzi D.L., Schad increase awareness of the COSPAR Planetary P.J., Stabekis P.D., Viso M. and Acevedo S. E. Protection Policy and its applications, including eds.; .A Draft Test Protocol for Detecting Possible by Governments, space agencies, research Biohazards in Martian Samples Returned to institutions, and other actors in the broader space Earth; NASA/CP—2002–211842 (2002) community, both public and private, involved in https://planetary activities where planetary protection is a key protection.nasa.gov/summary/DraftTestProtocol. consideration in the chain of activities leading to planetary missions, thus confirming that COSPAR Rummel, J.D, Beaty, D.W., Jones, M.A, is a reliable and essential actor to count on. Bakermans, C., Barlow, N.G., Boston, P.J., Chevrier, V.F., Clark, B.C., de Vera, JP.P., Further Reading: Gough, R.V., Hallsworth, J.E., Head, J.W., D. W. Beaty, M. M. Grady, H. Y. Mcsween, E. Hipkin, V.J., Kieft, T.L., McEwen, A.S., Mellon, Sefton-Nash, B. L. Carrier, F. Altieri, Y. Amelin, M.T., Mikucki, J.A., Nicholson, W.L., Omelon, E. Ammannito, M. Anand, L. G. Benning, J. L. C.R., Peterson, R., Roden, E.E., Lollar, B.S., Bishop, L. E. Borg, D. Boucher, J. R. Brucato, H. Tanaka, K.L., Viola, D., and Wray, J.J., 2014. A Busemann, K. A. Campbell, A. D. Czaja, V. new Analysis of Mars “Special Regions”: Debaille, D. J. Des Marais, M. Dixon, B. L. Findings of the Second MEPAG Special Regions Ehlmann, J. D. Farmer, D. C. Fernandez-Remolar, Science Analysis Group (SR-SAG2), J. Filiberto, J. Fogarty, D. P. Glavin, Y. S. Goreva, 14, 887-968. L. J. Hallis, A. D. Harrington, E. M. Hausrath, C. United Nations, 1967.Treaty on principles D. K. Herd, B. Horgan, M. Humanyun, T. Kleine, governing the activities of states in the exploration J. Kleinhenz, R. Mackelprang, N. Mangold, L. E. and use of outer space, including the moon and Mayhew, J. T. Mccoy, F. M. Mccubbin, S. M. other celestial bodies, Article IX, U.N. Doc. Mclennan, D. E. Moser, F. Moynier, J. F. Mustard, A/RES/2222/(XXI) 25 Jan 1967; TIAS No. 6347. P. B. Niles, G. G. Ori, F. Raulin, P. Rettberg, M. A. Rucker, N. Schmitz, S. P. Schwenzer, M. A. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, Sephton, R. Shaheen, Z. D. Sharp, D. L. Schuster, and Medicine 2018. Review and Assessment of S. Siljestrom, C. L. Smith, J. A. Spry, A. Steele, T. Planetary Protection Policy Development D. Swindle, I. L. Ten Kate, N. J. Tosca, T. Usui, Processes. Washington, DC: The National M. J. Van Kranendonk, M. Wadhwa, B. P. Weiss, Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/25172. S. C. Werner, F. Westall, R. M. Wheeler, J. Zipfel, Special issue on Planetary Protection in Life and M. P. Zorzano (MSR Objectives and Samples Sciences in Space Research (2019, Volume 23), Team (iMOST)), 2019. The potential science and including: engineering value of samples delivered to Earth by Mars sample return. Meteoritics & Planetary  Galli and A. Losch. Beyond 54, Nr 3, 667–671; doi: protection: What is planetary 10.1111/maps.13232 sustainability and what are its implications for space research? T. Haltigin et al., A Draft Mission Architecture and Science Management Plan for the Return of  R. Gradini, F. Chen, R. Tan and L. Samples from Mars, report of the iMARS Newlin. A summary on cutting edge Working Group; Mary Ann Liebert (2018) advancements in sterilization and http://doi.org/10.1089/ast.2018.29027.mars cleaning technologies in medical, food, and drug industries, and its applicability Kminek, G., Hipkin, V.J., Anesio, A.M., to spacecraft hardware. Barengoltz, J., Boston, P.J., Clark, B.C., Conley,

12/12  K. Fujita, K. Kurosawa, H. Genda, R. Hyodo, S. Matsuyama, A. Yamagishi, T. Mikouchi and T. Niihara. Assessment of the probability of microbial contamination for sample return from Martian moons I: Departure of microbes from Martian surface.  K. Kurosawa, H. Genda, R. Hyodo, A. Yamagishi, T. Mikouchi, T. Niihara, S. Matsuyamma, and K. Fujita. Assessment of the probability of microbial contamination for sample return from Martian moons II: The fate of microbes on Martian moons.  M. Meyer, C. Bakermans, D. Beaty, D. Bernard, P. Boston, V. Chevrier, C. Conley, I. Feustel, R. Gough, T. Glotch, L. Hays, K. Junge, R. Lindberg, M. Mellon, M. Mischna, C. Neal, B. Pugel, R. Quinn, F. RAULIN, N. Rennó, J. Rummel, M. Schulte, A. Spry, P. Stabekis, A. Wang and N. Yee. Report of the Joint Workshop on Induced Special Regions.  M.R. Patel, V.K. Pearson, D.J. Evans, D.J. Summers, S. Paton, P. Truscott, T. Pottage, A. Bennett, J.P.D. Gow, M. Goodyear, J.P. Mason, R.D. Patel and M.R. Leese. The transfer of unsterilized material from Mars to Phobos.  N. Patel, Z. Dean, Y. Salinas, L. Shiraishi and L. Newlin. A Ground support biobarrier (GSB) for recontamination prevention.  J. Rummel and D. E. Pugel. Planetary protection technologies for planetary science instruments, spacecraft, and missions: Report of the Planetary Protection Technology Definition Team (PPTDT).  P. M. Sterns and L. I. Tennen. Lacuna in the updated planetary protection policy and international law.  D. Summers. Modelling the transfer of life between Mars and its moons.  M. Viso. Mars sample receiving facility or facilities? That is the question.