National Academies Press: OpenBook
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Assessment of the Report of NASA's Planetary Protection Independent Review Board. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25773.
×
Page R1
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Assessment of the Report of NASA's Planetary Protection Independent Review Board. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25773.
×
Page R2
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Assessment of the Report of NASA's Planetary Protection Independent Review Board. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25773.
×
Page R3
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Assessment of the Report of NASA's Planetary Protection Independent Review Board. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25773.
×
Page R4
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Assessment of the Report of NASA's Planetary Protection Independent Review Board. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25773.
×
Page R5
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Assessment of the Report of NASA's Planetary Protection Independent Review Board. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25773.
×
Page R6
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Assessment of the Report of NASA's Planetary Protection Independent Review Board. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25773.
×
Page R7
Page viii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Assessment of the Report of NASA's Planetary Protection Independent Review Board. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25773.
×
Page R8
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Assessment of the Report of NASA's Planetary Protection Independent Review Board. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25773.
×
Page R9
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Assessment of the Report of NASA's Planetary Protection Independent Review Board. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25773.
×
Page R10

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Prepublication Copy – Subject to Further Editorial Correction Assessment of the Report of NASA’s Planetary Protection Independent Review Board Committee to Review the Report of the NASA Planetary Protection Independent Review Board Space Studies Board Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences A Consensus Study Report of PREPUBLICATION COPY – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 This activity was supported by Contract No. NNH17CB02B with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of any organization or agency that provided support for the project. International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-XXXXX-X International Standard Book Number-10: 0-309-XXXXX-X Digital Object Identifier: https://doi.org/10.17226/25773 Copies of this publication are available free of charge from: Space Studies Board National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 Additional copies of this publication are available from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Keck 360, Washington, DC 20001; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313; http://www.nap.edu. Copyright 2020 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America Suggested citation: National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Assessment of the Report of NASA’s Planetary Protection Independent Review Board. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/25773. PREPUBLICATION COPY – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION

The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, nongovernmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering. Dr. John L. Anderson is president. The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president. The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions. The National Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine. Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www.nationalacademies.org. PREPUBLICATION COPY – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION

Consensus Study Reports published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine document the evidence-based consensus on the study’s statement of task by an authoring committee of experts. Reports typically include findings, conclusions, and recommendations based on information gathered by the committee and the committee’s deliberations. Each report has been subjected to a rigorous and independent peer-review process and it represents the position of the National Academies on the statement of task. Proceedings published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine chronicle the presentations and discussions at a workshop, symposium, or other event convened by the National Academies. The statements and opinions contained in proceedings are those of the participants and are not endorsed by other participants, the planning committee, or the National Academies. For information about other products and activities of the National Academies, please visit www.nationalacademies.org/about/whatwedo. PREPUBLICATION COPY – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION

COMMITTEE TO REVIEW THE REPORT OF THE NASA PLANETARY PROTECTION INDEPENDENT REVIEW BOARD JOSEPH ALEXANDER, Alexander Space Policy Consultants, Chair DAVID FIDLER, Washington University School of Law & Council on Foreign Relations G. SCOTT HUBBARD, Stanford University ROSALY LOPES, Jet Propulsion Laboratory MARGARITA MARINOVA, Independent consultant H. JAY MELOSH, NAS,1 Purdue University KIRSTEN SIEBACH, Rice University CAROLINE SMITH, Natural History Museum, London TRISTA VICK-MAJORS, Michigan Technological University A. THOMAS YOUNG, NAE,2 Lockheed Martin (Retired) Staff DAVID H. SMITH, Senior Program Officer, Study Director MIA BROWN, Research Associate GAYBRIELLE HOLBERT, Program Assistant JORDAN McKAIG, Lloyd V. Berkner Space Policy Intern OSASE OMORUYI, Lloyd V. Berkner Space Policy Intern COLLEEN N. HARTMAN, Director, Space Studies Board 1 Member, National Academy of Sciences. 2 Member, National Academy of Engineering. PREPUBLICATION COPY – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION v

SPACE STUDIES BOARD MARGARET G. KIVELSON, NAS, 1 University of California, Los Angeles, Chair JAMES H. CROCKER, NAE,2 Lockheed Martin (retired), Vice Chair GREGORY P. ASNER, NAS, Carnegie Institution for Science JEFF M. BINGHAM, Consultant ADAM BURROWS, NAS, Princeton University MARY LYNNE DITTMAR, Dittmar Associates JEFF DOZIER, University of California, Santa Barbara VICTORIA E. HAMILTON, Southwest Research Institute CHRYSSA KOUVELIOTOU, NAS, George Washington University DENNIS P. LETTENMAIER, NAE, University of California, Los Angeles ROSALY M. LOPES, Jet Propulsion Laboratory STEPHEN J. MACKWELL, American Institute of Physics DAVID J. McCOMAS, Princeton University LARRY PAXTON, Johns Hopkins University, Applied Physics Laboratory ELIOT QUATAERT, University of California, Berkeley MARK SAUNDERS, NASA (retired) BARBARA SHERWOOD LOLLAR, University of Toronto HOWARD SINGER, National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration HARLAN E. SPENCE, University of New Hampshire MARK H. THIEMENS, NAS, University of California, San Diego ERIKA WAGNER, Blue Origin PAUL WOOSTER, Space Exploration Technologies EDWARD L. WRIGHT, NAS, University of California, Los Angeles Staff COLLEEN N. HARTMAN, Director TANJA PILZAK, Manager, Program Operations CELESTE A. NAYLOR, Information Management Associate MARGARET A. KNEMEYER, Financial Officer RADAKA LIGHTFOOT, Financial Associate 1 Member, National Academy of Sciences. 2 Member, National Academy of Engineering. PREPUBLICATION COPY – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION vi

Preface On August 16, 2019, Thomas H. Zurbuchen, NASA associate administrator for the Science Mission Directorate wrote to Margaret Kivelson, chair of the Space Studies Board (SSB) of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, informing her that recent reviews by the NASA Advisory Council (NAC) and the National Academies—specifically Review and Assessment of Planetary Protection Policy Development Processes1 (hereinafter the “2018 report”)—have raised concerns as to whether the consensus planetary protection guidelines maintained by the Committee on Space Research (COSPAR) were being outpaced by advances in science and technology (see Appendix A). Through planetary protection policies, all major spacefaring nations since the dawn of the Space Age attempt to minimize, if not preclude, the biological cross-contamination of planetary bodies, including Earth. As a result of these concerns, Associate Administrator Zurbuchen announced he had chartered a group of experts—the Planetary Protection Independent Review Board (PPIRB)—“to update COSPAR’s guidelines on biological contamination” (see Appendix A). Dr. Zurbuchen noted that the report of the PPIRB2 would be completed by September 2019 and requested that the SSB undertake the task to review the work of the PPIRB. Subsequent discussions between NASA and the National Academies agreed that the requested review would address the following statement of task: The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and medicine will establish an ad hoc committee to review the findings of the PPIRB report and comment on their consistency with the recommendations of the recent report, Review and Assessment of Planetary Protection Policy Development Processes. In response to NASA’s request, the National Academies established the Committee to Review the Report of the NASA Planetary Protection Independent Review Board in early November. The committee held meetings in 2019 at the National Academy of Sciences in Washington, D.C., on November 20-22, and at the Beckman Center in Irvine, California, on December 16-17. A subgroup of the committee’s members held a writing meeting at the headquarters of the Planetary Society in Pasadena, California, on January 20-21, 2020, and a complete draft of the report was sent to external reviewers on February 14. The report was revised in response to reviewer comments in March and approved for public release on March 26. Although the statement of task called for the committee to “review the findings” of the PPIRB report and “comment on their consistency with the recommendations” of 2018 report, the committee interpreted its charge to mean that it was to review the findings and recommendations of the PPIRB report for consistency with the findings and recommendations of the 2018 report. In cases where the PPIRB report considered issues not addressed in the 2018 report, the committee drew upon other reports from the National Academies, briefings to the committee, or other publicly available information to assess consistency with the content of the 2018 report or to determine whether the committee agreed with the PPIRB’s conclusions. The work of the committee was assisted by many important inputs made by the following individuals: C. Philip Brinkman (Federal Aviation Administration), T. Jens Feeley (NASA Headquarters), Lori Glaze (NASA Headquarters), Christopher Johnson, (Secure World Foundation), Michael Meyer (NASA Headquarters), Michael New (NASA Headquarters), Lisa Pratt (NASA Headquarters), Benjamin 1 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, Review and Assessment of Planetary Protection Policy Development Processes, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2018. 2 Planetary Protection Independent Review Board, NASA Planetary Protection Independent Review Board (PPIRB): Report to NASA/SMD: Final Report, NASA, Washington, D.C., 2019, https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/planetary_protection_board_report_20191018.pdf. PREPUBLICATION COPY – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION vii

Roberts (Moon Express), Andrew Spry (SETI Institute), S. Alan Stern (Southwest Research Institute), Ryan Whitley (National Space Council), and Thomas H. Zurbuchen (NASA Headquarters). The committee reserves special thanks to Jennifer Vaughn and James Bell, respectively, the chief operating officer and president of the Planetary Society, for making their Pasadena headquarters available for the committee’s use during its January 2020 writing meeting. This Consensus Study Report was reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in making each published report as sound as possible and to ensure that it meets institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We thank the following individuals for their review of this report: Jerome Apt III (Carnegie Mellon University), Bethany Ehlmann (California Institute of Technology), Dan Hendrickson (Astrobotic), Brian Israel (University of California, Berkeley), James Kasting (NAS; Pennsylvania State University), Robert Lindberg (Independent Consultant, Williamsburg, Virginia), Jonathan I. Lunine (NAS; Cornell University), Melissa A. McGrath (SETI Institute), Eric Rignot (NAS; University of California, Irvine). Although the reviewers listed above have provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations of this report nor did they see the final draft before its release. The review of this report was overseen by Steven Battel (NAE; Battel Engineering, Inc.). He was responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with the standards of the National Academies and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content of the report rests entirely with the authoring committee and the National Academies. PREPUBLICATION COPY – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION viii

Contents SUMMARY 1 1 INTRODUCTION 9 Background and Context, 9 The National Academies’ Study of the Planetary Protection Policy Development Processes,11 Reorganization of COSPAR’s Panel on Planetary Protection and NASA’s Office of Planetary Protection, 12 NASA’s Planetary Protection Independent Review Board, 13 2 ASSESSMENT OF THE PPIRB’S FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 16 Introduction, 16 General and Overarching Findings and Recommendations, 17 Planetary Protection Categorization, 26 Human Spaceflight, 31 Private-Sector Initiatives and Missions, 34 Robotic Mars Sample Return, 37 Ocean Worlds Exploration, 40 COSPAR, 41 3 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 44 Areas of Consistency, 44 Areas of Inconsistency and Concern, 45 New Topics for Consideration, 46 Strategic Findings and Recommendations, 47 Expediting the Development of New Approaches to Planetary Protection, 54 APPENDIXES A Letter Requesting this Study 59 B Review and Assessment of Planetary Protection Policy Development Processes: Findings and Recommendations 61 C Report of NASA’s Planetary Protection Independent Review Board: Findings and Recommendations 65 D Establishment of the PPIRB 74 E Planetary Protection Categories 76 F Biographies of Committee Members and Staff 78 PREPUBLICATION COPY – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION ix

Next: Summary »
Assessment of the Report of NASA's Planetary Protection Independent Review Board Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $45.00
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

The goal of planetary protection is to control, to the degree possible, the biological cross-contamination of planetary bodies. Guidelines developed by the Committee on Space Research (COSPAR) are used by all spacefaring nations to guide their preparations for encounters with solar system bodies. NASA's Science Mission Directorate has convened the Planetary Protection Independent Review Board (PPIRB) to consider updating the COSPAR guidelines given the growing interest from commercial and private groups in exploration and utilization of Mars and other bodies in space.

At the request of NASA, this publication reviews the findings of the PPIRB and comments on their consistency with the recommendations of the recent National Academies report Review and Assessment of the Planetary Protection Policy Development Processes.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!