DOCSLIB.ORG

E Solar System Exploration

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
E Solar System Exploration Planetary Protection in Future Solar System Exploration E S P I PERSPECTIVES 64 Planetary Protection in Future Solar System Exploration Arne LAHCEN Project Manager at the European Space Policy Institute This Perspective analyses the importance of planetary protection in the future exploration of the Solar System. A major obstacle in this respect seems to be the contested scope of planetary protection. Although the more specific issue of planetary contamination has been addressed by the United Nations and various national space agencies, none of them have developed a holistic and all-embracing concept of planetary protection. As a consequence, the increasing number of planetary exploration probes, the prospect of a sample return mission - and maybe even manned missions to Mars in the long run - might have side-effects that limit future options, resulting in catastrophic events, or putting humankind in a position that might be regretted in the future, given the changing relationship between the environment and ourselves. Although the exploration of Mars is most relevant in this respect, the issues addressed in this Perspective might be relevant in establishing a sustainable relationship with the Solar System as a whole. 1. Introduction returned from other solar system bodies”1. This definition clearly exposes the two major Literally, planetary protection (PP) could be motivations for planetary protection. understood as the combination of all practices and actions that help protect one or more celestial The first one aims at protecting science as the bodies. In this wide interpretation, space utilisation unbiased implementation of exobiological has been an enabling asset in protecting the Earth experiments must be ensured in order to avoid and its inhabitants. Satellites have given us the false conclusions. In the context of forward opportunity to gather a diverse set of information, contamination this could lead to false positives which in turn helps us address issues of land use, (e.g. the discovery of traces of life on an climate change, atmospheric and oceanic extraterrestrial (ET) sample, while it is not monitoring, etc. indigenous), whereas false negatives are more likely to occur in the event of a planet-wide Most of the time, however, that is not the contamination by terrestrial life that would destroy presumed substance of the concept ‘planetary existing extraterrestrial life. protection’. Initially, the concept was postulated to prevent, or at least minimise, the impacts that can The second argument relates to safety. Often arise in the interplanetary exploration of celestial administered in the context of backward bodies by means of probes, robots or human contamination, it states Earth’s biosphere and the exploration. A major matter of concern in this Moon must be protected against possible respect is planetary contamination. According to contamination by extraterrestrial forms of life, which could be embedded in return samples or NASA, planetary protection is the term given to 2 “the practice of protecting solar system bodies carried by return probes or crews. For backward such as planets, moons, comets, and asteroids from contamination by Earth life, and protecting 1 Earth from possible life forms that may be Conley, C., Planetary Protection: About Planetary Protection, NASA, 2010, http://planetaryprotection.nasa.gov/about/. 2 Goh, G.M. and Kazeminejad, B., “Mars Through the Looking Glass: an Interdisciplinary Analysis of Forward and Backward Contamination” Space Policy 20 (2004): 217–225. ESPI Perspectives No. 64, December 2012 1 Planetary Protection in Future Solar System Exploration contamination, the potential effects that are of matter and, where necessary, shall adopt concern about biohazards can be divided into appropriate measures for this purpose.”4 three broad categories: (1) large-scale negative pathogenic effects in humans; (2) destructive COSPAR, responsible for the compliance with the impacts on Earth’s ecological systems or PP provisions of the OST, has elaborated working environments; and (3) toxic and other effects methods for determining the bioburden5 threshold attributable to microbes, their cellular structures, on spacecraft and their components. As a result of or extracellular products.3 new knowledge about the habitability of other celestial bodies and the capability of terrestrial Various measures in terms of legislation and microorganisms to survive in extreme engineering have been developed to ensure a environments, COSPAR’s methodology has proper implementation and execution of planetary changed over time. Between 1964 and the mid- contamination practices. 1980s, a probabilistic approach was followed. It implied that space faring nationals had to conduct 2. The Focus on Planetary Contamination their unmanned exploration in such a way that the total probability of contamination during a –3 The idea of planetary protection already emerged specified quarantine period did not exceed 10 . In during the formation of the space program in the 1984, this quantitative policy was replaced by an United States. The International Astronautical entirely new and categorical approach, in which Federation (IAF) first took a look at the problem in the requirements for bioburden reduction were 1956, a year before Sputnik. Later, during the dependant upon the target body and the type of 1960s, the International Council of Scientific mission. Unions established the Committee on Space Research (COSPAR). Despite its position as a To this effect, expertise and various practices consultative body of the United Nations only, this have been developed in-house by the different multidisciplinary committee has been able to space agencies engaged in solar system determine the standards upon which national exploration programmes. The bioburden practices has been based for over the past 40 assessment throughout spacecraft assembly, test years. and launch operations is based upon cleanroom cleanliness. Active bioburden reduction is mainly At the same time, the UN had created the achieved by dry-heat sterilisation and physical Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space cleaning methods by means of alcohol swaps. (UNCOPUOS). This committee has played a vital The latest developments include alternative role in the development of space law as a sterilisation methods such as gas plasma respected field of international law, and has treatment and UV irradiation. eventually led to a first legal basis for planetary protection. The first reference to the concept was Note that abovementioned legislation and included in the “Declaration of Legal Principles practices are only concerned with the issue of Governing the Activities of States in the planetary contamination. A genuine planetary Exploration and Use of Outer Space”. This UN protection conceptualisation, however, is wider resolution, however, did not contain any specific and requires a holistic, overarching perspective. mention of biological contamination. COSPAR in the meantime adopted resolution 26, which 3. Towards an Integrated PP Approach? provided the first international standards for planetary quarantine. One could, for example, argue that we need to extend the interpretation of planetary protection The crowning achievement in terms of planetary beyond the instrumental protection of scientific protection legislation was the “Treaty on Principles resources as expressed in the planetary Governing the Activities of States in the contamination policy.6 In this view, the objective of Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the planetary protection is much wider than merely Moon and Other Celestial Bodies”, also referred to avoiding planetary contamination. From a more as the “Outer Space Treaty” (OST). Adopted by distant perspective, this discussion on planetary the UNCOPUOS in 1963, article IX of the OST protection fits in a wider tradition of environmental defines that states “shall pursue studies of outer ethics. Different motivations in support of this space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, and conduct exploration of them so as to avoid their harmful contamination and also adverse changes in the environment of the Earth 4 United Nations, 1966: Res. No. 2222, art. IX 5 resulting from the introduction of extraterrestrial Bioburden is the level of microbial contaminion, measured as the total number of microbes or by considering the microbial density. 3 U.S. National Research Council, Assessment of Planetary 6 Cockell, S.C. et al., “Effects of a Simulated Martian UV Flux Protection Requirements for Mars Sample Return Missions, on the Cyanobacterium, Chroococcidiopsis sp. 029.” Washington D.C.: The National Academies Press, 2009. Astrobiology 5.2 (2005): 127–140. ESPI Perspectives No. 64, December 2012 2 Planetary Protection in Future Solar System Exploration notion have been developed; basically they can reasonable objective measurement of value. This be grouped into four categories of arguments:7 might also be helpful in dealing with value based questions involving issues such as interaction with 1. The necessity argument implies that we need unaltered indigenous primitive extraterrestrial life forms.9 wilderness areas to create a complete and healthy concept of ‘culture’ and ‘civilisation’. Without them, we are more philosophically barbaric. Some scholars argue that 4. Future Challenges in some way wilderness areas, such as the concept of ‘planetary reserves’ represent ‘intelligence’, since the label wilderness is a product of an animal that
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Prebiological Evolution and the Metabolic Origins of Life
    Prebiological Evolution and the Andrew J. Pratt* Metabolic Origins of Life University of Canterbury Keywords Abiogenesis, origin of life, metabolism, hydrothermal, iron Abstract The chemoton model of cells posits three subsystems: metabolism, compartmentalization, and information. A specific model for the prebiological evolution of a reproducing system with rudimentary versions of these three interdependent subsystems is presented. This is based on the initial emergence and reproduction of autocatalytic networks in hydrothermal microcompartments containing iron sulfide. The driving force for life was catalysis of the dissipation of the intrinsic redox gradient of the planet. The codependence of life on iron and phosphate provides chemical constraints on the ordering of prebiological evolution. The initial protometabolism was based on positive feedback loops associated with in situ carbon fixation in which the initial protometabolites modified the catalytic capacity and mobility of metal-based catalysts, especially iron-sulfur centers. A number of selection mechanisms, including catalytic efficiency and specificity, hydrolytic stability, and selective solubilization, are proposed as key determinants for autocatalytic reproduction exploited in protometabolic evolution. This evolutionary process led from autocatalytic networks within preexisting compartments to discrete, reproducing, mobile vesicular protocells with the capacity to use soluble sugar phosphates and hence the opportunity to develop nucleic acids. Fidelity of information transfer in the reproduction of these increasingly complex autocatalytic networks is a key selection pressure in prebiological evolution that eventually leads to the selection of nucleic acids as a digital information subsystem and hence the emergence of fully functional chemotons capable of Darwinian evolution. 1 Introduction: Chemoton Subsystems and Evolutionary Pathways Living cells are autocatalytic entities that harness redox energy via the selective catalysis of biochemical transformations.
    [Show full text]
  • Why Can't Cosmology Be More Open?
    ISSN: 2641-886X International Journal of Cosmology, Astronomy and Astrophysics Opinion Article Open Access Why can’t Cosmology be more open? Jayant Narlikar* Inter-University Centre for Astronomy and Astrophysics, Ganeshkhind, Post Bag 4, Pune-411007, India Article Info Keywords: Cosmology, Galaxy, Big Bang, Spectrum *Corresponding author: More than two millennia back, Pythagoreans believed that the Earth went round a Jayant Narlikar central fire, with the Sun lying well outside its orbit. When sceptics asked,” Why can’t we Emeritus Professor see the fire?”, theorists had to postulate that there was a ‘counter-Earth’ going around Inter-University Centre for Astronomy and Astrophysics the central fire in an inner orbit that blocked our view of the fire. The sceptics asked Ganeshkhind, Post Bag 4 again: why don’t we see this ‘counter-Earth’? The theorists replied that this happened Pune, India because Greece was facing away from it. In due course this explanation too was also Tel: +91-20-25604100 shot down by people sailing around and looking from other directions. Fax: +91-20-25604698 E-mail: [email protected] I have elaborated this ancient episode because it holds a moral for scientists. When you are on the wrong track, you may have to invoke additional assumptions, like the Received: November 5, 2018 counter-Earth, to prop up your original theory against an observed fact. If there is no Accepted: November 15, 2018 other independent support for these assumptions, the entire structure becomes suspect. Published: January 2, 2019 The scientific approach then requires a critical re-examination of the basic paradigm.
    [Show full text]
  • Using a Nuclear Explosive Device for Planetary Defense Against an Incoming Asteroid
    Georgetown University Law Center Scholarship @ GEORGETOWN LAW 2019 Exoatmospheric Plowshares: Using a Nuclear Explosive Device for Planetary Defense Against an Incoming Asteroid David A. Koplow Georgetown University Law Center, [email protected] This paper can be downloaded free of charge from: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/2197 https://ssrn.com/abstract=3229382 UCLA Journal of International Law & Foreign Affairs, Spring 2019, Issue 1, 76. This open-access article is brought to you by the Georgetown Law Library. Posted with permission of the author. Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub Part of the Air and Space Law Commons, International Law Commons, Law and Philosophy Commons, and the National Security Law Commons EXOATMOSPHERIC PLOWSHARES: USING A NUCLEAR EXPLOSIVE DEVICE FOR PLANETARY DEFENSE AGAINST AN INCOMING ASTEROID DavidA. Koplow* "They shall bear their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks" Isaiah 2:4 ABSTRACT What should be done if we suddenly discover a large asteroid on a collision course with Earth? The consequences of an impact could be enormous-scientists believe thatsuch a strike 60 million years ago led to the extinction of the dinosaurs, and something ofsimilar magnitude could happen again. Although no such extraterrestrialthreat now looms on the horizon, astronomers concede that they cannot detect all the potentially hazardous * Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center. The author gratefully acknowledges the valuable comments from the following experts, colleagues and friends who reviewed prior drafts of this manuscript: Hope M. Babcock, Michael R. Cannon, Pierce Corden, Thomas Graham, Jr., Henry R. Hertzfeld, Edward M.
    [Show full text]
  • View Conducted by Its Standing Review Board (SRB)
    Science Committee Report Dr. Wes Huntress, Chair 1 Science Committee Members Wes Huntress, Chair Byron Tapley, (Vice Chair) University of Texas-Austin, Chair of Earth Science Alan Boss, Carnegie Institution, Chair of Astrophysics Ron Greeley, Arizona State University, Chair of Planetary Science Gene Levy, Rice University , Chair of Planetary Protection Roy Torbert, University of New Hampshire, Chair of Heliophysics Jack Burns, University of Colorado Noel Hinners, Independent Consultant *Judith Lean, Naval Research Laboratory Michael Turner, University of Chicago Charlie Kennel, Chair of Space Studies Board (ex officio member) * = resigned July 16, 2010 2 Agenda • Science Results • Programmatic Status • Findings & Recommendations 3 Unusual Thermosphere Collapse • Deep drop in Thermospheric (50 – 400 km) density • Deeper than expected from solar cycle & CO2 4 Aeronomy of Ice in the Mesosphere (AIM) unlocking the secrets of Noctilucent Clouds (NLCs) Form 50 miles above surface in polar summer vs ~ 6 miles for “norm79al” clouds. NLCs getting brighter; occurring more often. Why? Linked to global change? AIM NLC Image June 27, 2009 - AIM measured the relationship between cloud properties and temperature - Quantified for the first time, the dramatic response to small changes, 10 deg C, in temperature - T sensitivity critical for study of global change effects on mesosphere Response to Gulf Oil Spill UAVSAR 23 June 2010 MODIS 31 May 2010 ASTER 24 May 2010 Visible Visible/IR false color Satellite instruments: continually monitoring the extent of
    [Show full text]
  • Planetary Protection Requirements for Human and Robotic Missions to Mars
    Concepts and Approaches for Mars Exploration (2012) 4331.pdf PLANETARY PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS FOR HUMAN AND ROBOTIC MISSIONS TO MARS. R. Mogul1, P. D. Stabekis2, M. S. Race3, and C. A. Conley4, 1California State Polytechnic University, Pomona, 3801 W. Temple Ave, Pomona, CA 91768 ([email protected]), 2Genex Systems, 525 School St. SW, Suite 201, Washington D.C. 20224 ([email protected]), 3SETI Institute, Mountain View, CA 94043, 4NASA Head- quarters, Washington D.C. 20546 ([email protected]) Introduction: Ensuring the scientific integrity of mission. Hardware involved in the acquisition and Mars exploration, and protecting the Earth and the storage of samples from Mars must be designed to human population from potential biohazards, requires protect Mars material from Earth contamination, and the incorporation of planetary protection into human ensure appropriate cleanliness from before launch spaceflight missions as well as robotic precursors. All through return to Earth. Technologies needed to ensure missions returning samples from Mars are required to sample cleanliness at levels similar to those maintained comply with stringent planetary protection require- by the Viking project, in the context of modern space- ments for this purpose, recent refinements to which are craft materials, are yet to be developed. reported here. The objectives of planetary protection policy are As indicated in NASA Policy Directive NPD the same for both human and robotic missions; howev- 8020.7G (section 5c), to ensure compliance with the er, the specific implementation requirements will nec- Outer Space Treaty planetary protection is a mandatory essarily be different. Human missions will require component for all solar system exploration, including additional planetary protection approaches that mini- human missions.
    [Show full text]
  • PLANETARY PROTECTION and REGULATING HUMAN HEALTH: a RISK THAT IS NOT ZERO Victoria Sutton1
    (3) FINAL MACRO VERSION - VICTORIA SUTTON ARTICLE (PP. 71-102) (DO NOT DELETE) 3/9/2020 9:40 AM 19 Hous. J. Health L. & Policy 71 Copyright © 2019 Victoria Sutton Houston Journal of Health Law & Policy PLANETARY PROTECTION AND REGULATING HUMAN HEALTH: A RISK THAT IS NOT ZERO Victoria Sutton1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................ 73 I. LESSONS FROM HUMAN HISTORY ........................................................... 75 II. U.S. LEADERSHIP, INTERNATIONAL LAW, AND GUIDELINES FOR BACK CONTAMINATION—A SHORT HISTORY OF PLANETARY PROTECTION AND BIOCONTAINMENT ................................................... 79 A. International Law and Biocontainment Binding All Nations .......................................................................................... 82 B. Private Space Travel Must Comply with Planetary Protection ...................................................................................... 84 C. Enforceability is a Weakness ......................................................... 85 III. POLICY INDICATIONS THAT A RENEWED FOCUS IS NEEDED FOR BACK CONTAMINATION ........................................................................ 86 A. The Elimination of Human Health and Quarantine from U.S. Planetary Protection Protocols ........................................... 86 1 Victoria Sutton, MPA, PhD, JD, is the Paul Whitfield Horn Professor at Texas Tech University School of Law. Dr. Sutton is the former Assistant Director at the White House Science Office
    [Show full text]
  • Biological Planetary Protection for Human Missions to Mars
    NASA NID 8715.129 Interim Effective Date: July 9, 2020 Directive Expiration Date: July 9, 2021 Subject: Biological Planetary Protection for Human Missions to Mars Responsible Office: Office of Safety and Mission Assurance Table of Contents Preface P.1 Purpose P.2 Applicability P.3 Authority P.4 Applicable Documents P.5 Measurement/Verification P.6 Cancellation Chapter 1. Mitigating Backward and Forward Harmful Biological Contamination from Human Missions to Mars 1.1 Overview 1.2 Guidance for Biological Planetary Protection for Human Missions to Mars 1.3 NASA Policy on Biological Planetary Protection for Human Missions to Mars Appendix A. References 1 Preface P.1 Purpose a. This directive defines NASA’s obligation to avoid harmful forward and backward biological contamination under Article IX of the Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies (the "Outer Space Treaty"), October 19, 1967. b. This directive specifically addresses the control of forward biological contamination of Mars and backward biological contamination of the Earth-Moon system associated with human presence in space vehicles intended to land, orbit, flyby, and return from Mars. c. The 1967 Outer Space Treaty provides in relevant part: “States Parties to the Treaty shall pursue studies of outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, and conduct exploration of them so as to avoid their harmful contamination and also adverse changes in the environment of the Earth resulting from the introduction of extraterrestrial matter and, where necessary, shall adopt appropriate measures for this purpose.” NASA recognizes that the 1967 Outer Space Treaty (OST) sets forth legal requirements on U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Planetary Protection Background & Motivation
    Planetary Protection Background & Motivation Gerhard Kminek Independent Safety Office European Space Agency ESA UNCLASSIFIED - For Official Use What planetary protection is not Fireball exploded above Chelyabinsk city in the morning of 15 Feb. 2013 It is not about asteroid defense → Covered in the Near Earth Objects (NEO) and Space Situational Awareness (SSA) programs Credit: ESA It is not about space debris → Covered in the Space Surveillance and Tracking (SST), space debris, and sustainability programs Credit: NASA-JPL/MER It is not about cultural or natural world heritage → Covered by UNESCO based on a convention (for Earth) and the COSPAR Panel on Exploration (for space) Credit: Mars Daily It is not a green party for space ESA UNCLASSIFIED - For Official Use Goals for planetary protection Ensure that scientific investigations related to the origin and distribution of life are not compromised Picture credit: A. L. Hildebrand Protect our investment in space science & exploration Unique opportunity to learn more about the origin of life in a way that is no longer possible on Earth And than there is the more philosophical issue about the Drake equation Figure credit: Bada and Lazcano, Science 296, 2002 Protect the Earth from the potential hazard posed by extraterrestrial matter carried by a spacecraft returning from an interplanetary mission Simple prudence - protect the Earth! In line with the precautionary principle of environmental protection Bart Simpson, Dec. 17, 2000, “Skinner’s Sense of Snow” ESA UNCLASSIFIED - For Official Use History of planetary protection “…we are in the awkward situation of being able to spoil certain possibilities for scientific investigations for a considerable interval before we can constructively realize them…we urgently need to give some thought to the conservative measures needed to protect future scientific objectives on the moon and the planets…” J.
    [Show full text]
  • Asteroid Retrieval Feasibility Study
    Asteroid Retrieval Feasibility Study 2 April 2012 Prepared for the: Keck Institute for Space Studies California Institute of Technology Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, California 1 2 Authors and Study Participants NAME Organization E-Mail Signature John Brophy Co-Leader / NASA JPL / Caltech [email protected] Fred Culick Co-Leader / Caltech [email protected] Co -Leader / The Planetary Louis Friedman [email protected] Society Carlton Allen NASA JSC [email protected] David Baughman Naval Postgraduate School [email protected] NASA ARC/Carnegie Mellon Julie Bellerose [email protected] University Bruce Betts The Planetary Society [email protected] Mike Brown Caltech [email protected] Michael Busch UCLA [email protected] John Casani NASA JPL [email protected] Marcello Coradini ESA [email protected] John Dankanich NASA GRC [email protected] Paul Dimotakis Caltech [email protected] Harvard -Smithsonian Center for Martin Elvis [email protected] Astrophysics Ian Garrick-Bethel UCSC [email protected] Bob Gershman NASA JPL [email protected] Florida Institute for Human and Tom Jones [email protected] Machine Cognition Damon Landau NASA JPL [email protected] Chris Lewicki Arkyd Astronautics [email protected] John Lewis University of Arizona [email protected] Pedro Llanos USC [email protected] Mark Lupisella NASA GSFC [email protected] Dan Mazanek NASA LaRC [email protected] Prakhar Mehrotra Caltech [email protected]
    [Show full text]
  • The Esa Exploration Programme – Exomars and Beyond
    Lunar and Planetary Science XXXVI (2005) 2408.pdf THE ESA EXPLORATION PROGRAMME – EXOMARS AND BEYOND. G. Kminek1 and the Exploration Team, 1European Space Agency, D/HME, Keplerlaan 1, 2200 AG Noordwijk, The Netherlands, [email protected]. Management and Organization: The countries Technology Development for Exploration: Two participating in the European Exploration Programme categories for exploration technology developments Aurora have recently confirmed and increased their have been identified: contribution. The ESA Council has later approved the Generic Exploration Technology: They have a Agency’s budgets for 2005, including the budget for long-term strategic value, both for robotic and human Aurora. These developments enable major industrial exploration missions. Planetary protection, habitable activities to continue in line with original plans. These systems, risk assessment for human missions to planets, include work on the ExoMars mission and the Mars grey and black water recycling as well as psychological Sample Return mission, in-orbit assembly, rendezvous support for the Concordia Antarctic Station, Facility and docking, habitation and life support systems plus a for Integrated Planetary Exploration Simulations are broad range of technology development work. examples of selected generic exploration technologies. The Aurora Exploration Programme has been inte- Mission Specific Technologies: Specifically devel- grated into the Human Spaceflight and Microgravity oped for the programme’s missions, and will eventually Directorate , which now forms the Human Spaceflight, be implemented after reaching a minimum technology Microgravity, and Exploration Directorate of ESA. readiness level. EVD, sealing and sealing monitoring Early Robotic Missions: Robotic mission have technology, containment technology, specific instru- been identified as necessary prerequisite before send- ment developments, sample handling and distribution ing human to Mars.
    [Show full text]
  • Advances in Planetary Protection at the Deep Space Gateway
    Deep Space Gateway Science Workshop 2018 (LPI Contrib. No. 2063) 3111.pdf ADVANCES IN PLANETARY PROTECTION AT THE DEEP SPACE GATEWAY. J A Spry1, B Siegel2, M Race1, J D Rummel1, D E Pugel3, F J Groen2, G Kminek4, C A Conley5, N J Carosso3 (1SETI Research Inst, Mountain View CA (correspondence to [email protected]), 2NASA HQ, Washington DC, 3NASA GSFC, Greenbelt MD, 4ESA ESTEC, Noordwijk, Netherlands, 5NASA ARC, Mountain View CA). Introduction: Deep Space Gateway (DSG) envi- tary Protection Requirements for Human Missions is ronments provide an opportunity to address planetary part of that narrative, evaluating recent efforts, activi- protection knowledge gaps that will feed forward into ties and the state of the art in the context of current architecture concepts for surface operations at Mars COSPAR Planetary Protection Policy [2], collecting and for deep space travel, particularly concerning the inputs and identifying and prioritizing knowledge gaps return of astronauts to Earth after visiting the martian on the path to establishing numerical requirements surface. against which a crewed mission concept can be de- Spacefaring nations have, since the earliest years of signed and validated. the space programs and as reinforced by the Outer In this context, the DSG vehicle provides a plat- Space Treaty (OST) in 1967 [1], committed to protect- form for planetary protection investigations that could ing solar system objects from harmful contamination be performed to inform the planetary protection re- carried by interplanetary spacecraft. One result has quirements development process. This includes exper- been that the scientific investigation of extraterrestrial iments performed on the inside of the vehicle, to im- targets can be performed without the threat of being prove understanding of interactions between microbes compromised by terrestrial biological contaminants.
    [Show full text]
  • Planetary Defense: Near-Earth Objects, Nuclear Weapons, and International Law James A
    Hastings International and Comparative Law Review Volume 42 Article 2 Number 1 Winter 2019 Winter 2019 Planetary Defense: Near-Earth Objects, Nuclear Weapons, and International Law James A. Green Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/ hastings_international_comparative_law_review Part of the Comparative and Foreign Law Commons, and the International Law Commons Recommended Citation James A. Green, Planetary Defense: Near-Earth Objects, Nuclear Weapons, and International Law, 42 Hastings Int'l & Comp.L. Rev. 1 (2019). Available at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_international_comparative_law_review/vol42/iss1/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hastings International and Comparative Law Review by an authorized editor of UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. Planetary Defense: Near-Earth Objects, Nuclear Weapons, and International Law BY JAMES A. GREEN ABSTRACT The risk of a large Near-Earth Object (NEO), such as an asteroid, colliding with the Earth is low, but the consequences of that risk manifesting could be catastrophic. Recent years have witnessed an unprecedented increase in global political will in relation to NEO preparedness, following the meteoroid impact in Chelyabinsk, Russia in 2013. There also has been an increased focus amongst states on the possibility of using nuclear detonation to divert or destroy a collision- course NEO—something that a majority of scientific opinion now appears to view as representing humanity’s best, or perhaps only, option in extreme cases. Concurrently, recent developments in nuclear disarmament and the de-militarization of space directly contradict the proposed “nuclear option” for planetary defense.
    [Show full text]