A History of Lunar Planetary Protection: Origins, Goals, and Status Changes

Lunar Surface Science Workshop 2020 (LPI Contrib. No. 2241) 7011.pdf A HISTORY OF LUNAR PLANETARY PROTECTION: ORIGINS, GOALS, AND STATUS CHANGES. J. D. Rummel, Friday Harbor Partners LLC, P. O. Box 2445, Friday Harbor, WA 98250 USA. [email protected]. Introduction: With respect to its planetary the Montréal workshop for the Panel held early in quarantine/protection status, the history of lunar 2008, in preparation for the Montréal Assembly that exploration provides a good way to illustrate some of year. the difficult issues associated with determining Critical in those discussions was the scientific planetary protection requirements that are placed on concern that organic volatiles released anywhere on the missions, whether by assigning categories to missions Moon could make their way to the cold traps at the to other bodies of the solar system, or by considering poles, and the nature and composition of those the perceived need to protect the Earth from possible volatiles should be recorded if a release occurred. Note unknown biology elsewhere in the solar system. Doing that there was never any concern, in 2008, about any that in an understandable and agreeable fashion— biological contamination, per se. always difficult—is something that seems to be a The specific wording of the resolution accepted at particular challenge right now. the Montréal Assembly in 2008 was: The history of lunar exploration includes Assign the Earth’s Moon to Category II vice requirements that were originally applied in great Category I because of the potential for missions ignorance and (in most views) with a combination of to disrupt polar volatile deposits (≥ 70 N & S over and under rigor. The penultimate application of latitude) and contaminate or destroy lunar requirements was particularly noticeable for the initial evidence of the organic molecules and other Apollo landers (Apollos 11, 12, and 14), after which volatiles contributed to planetary environments back-contamination protocols were essentially by comets and other solar system bodies over abandoned for Apollo and Surveyor missions [1]. the course of solar system evolution. Therefore, Thereafter, the Moon was largely absent from the requirements for lunar missions also include an “new” categorization scheme introduced in 1983. In organic inventory [3]. COSPAR, the Moon after Apollo was treated as Today’s Considerations: The currently issued Category I for forward contamination (e.g., “not of lunar NID from NASA [4] focuses in part on relieving interest” to studies of the origin of life), and Category lunar operators of the current COSPAR requirement to V, “safe for Earth return” for back contamination. In account for organic materials that are present on a the early NASA implementation of the same spacecraft in quantities over 1 kg. The NID, which recommendations the Moon was left out of the proposes to ignore organic contamination and focus on regulatory scheme altogether [2]. By the time biological contamination, appears to conflate issues COSPAR incorporated that scheme into a written associated with potential in situ contamination and its document (2002), the Moon was Category V, migration to the poles, with issues associated solely “unrestricted Earth return for back contamination, and with the direct contamination of polar ices— still Category I for forward contamination. There was particularly contamination by biological materials. no sense at that time that biological contamination of Furthermore, there is a large omission from the NID. the Moon was possible, or that the Moon harbored By not addressing the perceived current status of anything alive that could threaten the Earth. sample return missions to the Moon (the whole Moon), The Category I assignment, however, was not the NID adds a layer of uncertainty regarding the static, and on the recommendation of various members potential for biological contamination of returned lunar of the NASA Advisory Council’s Planetary Protection samples. That uncertainty is, in my view, unwarranted. Advisory Committee (notably, but not solely, Carlé Acknowledgments: Thanks to my Goddard Space Pieters), a suggestion was made that COSPAR should Flight Center colleagues who have kept discussions of investigate whether the permanently shaded areas near lunar planetary protection and potential studies “alive” the lunar poles should be “protected” in the sense of for future use by Artemis or her cousins. imposing the mandatory record-keeping required under References: [1] Apollo Program Summary Report, Category II. Subsequently, at the COSPAR Assembly JSC-09423 (1975) [2] Planetary protection provisions in Paris in 2004, Carlé presented her concerns (to a for robotic extraterrestrial missions, NHB 8020.12B joint session PPP3/B0.3/F0.1) and it was eventually (1999) [3] COSPAR. 37th council meeting report, determined that the issue of preserving the record of Montréal, Canada (2008) [4] Planetary Protection lunar impacts, as well as knowledge of the current Categorization for Robotic and Crewed Missions to the volatile inventory, should be a subject of discussion at Earth’s Moon, NID 8715.128 (2020). .

Load more