Planetary Protection Discussion wrt Starship Missions

[su27k]

Ok, here it is, one of the two biggest bogeyman wrt Starship Mars missions (the other is gravity "prescription"), it's been derailing other threads such as Will a Starship head to Mars in the 2024 launch window?, might as well bring this out into the open.

Other related threads:

Planetary protection issues Earth > Mars and Mars > Earth: Generic Mars PP thread, not specific to SpaceX/Starship

Preparing a Sterile Starship For Planetary Protection Missions: Thread presumes that Starship needs to follow existing PP policy, and is focused on how to meet that goal.

This thread is meant to examine that assumption itself: Does Starship need to follow PP policy at all?

[su27k]

Here's the thought that prompted me to create this thread: In another thread, an assumption is made that no Starship Mars mission can be done without changing COSPAR policy first, because "COSPAR is part of UN, NASA and the US government won't go against UN".

Yet we have just seen the US government throwing ITU policy out of the window for Starlink in Iran, I'll note that ITU is recognized as a UN specialized agency, so the USG (and one that is unfriendly to Musk at that) won't hesitate to circumvent or ignore UN if it feels like it. I'm 100% sure this will be the case for COSPAR PP policy as well, someone just needs to make the case (and someone already has, that someone is Planetary Protection Independent Review Board (PPIRB))

[geza]

Is there any planetary protection issue with Starship landing that does not apply to other human Mars landing scenarios? If yes, discuss the difference. If not, then ask the question whether NASA is serious in sending people to Mars some time in the future.

Maybe, the difference is that NASA landing is envisaged after receiving the MSR samples.

[volker2020]

Not being a lawyer, I always get confused here. The original UN charter does state:

UN Outer Space Treaty of 1967) states that :
“States Parties to the Treaty shall pursue studies of outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, and conduct exploration ...

But the goal of SpaceX (a non state organization), is colonization, not exploration. So I always wonder, if this paragraph is even applicable.

[Robotbeat]

Let me clear up a few things that are *often* confused (or misconstrued…) by many people in these conversations:

COSPAR is not applicable to SpaceX Starship missions to Mars for two reasons:
1) NASA only applies the COSPAR rules to robotic missions with the explicit understanding that human missions need new rules (note that COSPAR themselves don’t always agree with this, but COSPAR isn’t law & have no independent enforcement mechanism… purely advisory… it applies to NASA robotic missions because NASA *chose* to apply its rules).

2) SpaceX doing Starship missions are non-NASA and COSPAR is only enforced for some *NASA* missions (robotic ones).

Yes, the US is (voluntarily!) bound by treaty to limit *HARMFUL* contamination. “Harmful” is a key part of the phrase, often omitted by the COSPAR folk… so you cannot use claims by COSPAR folk without a healthy grain of salt. The bar for meeting the treaty obligations is much, *much* lower than COSPAR rules for robotic missions.

[Robotbeat]

Another thing is that the UN treaty actually protects freedom of access to Mars from being appropriated by national groups. Overly strict, extra-legal rules developed by COSPAR that go beyond the letter of the law restricting access to Mars is actually against the spirit of Articles I and II if enforced by the US law. Freedom of access is a super important part of the Outer Space Treaty!

ARTICLE I

The exploration and use of outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries, irrespective of their degree of economic or scientific development, and shall be the province of all mankind.

Outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, shall be free for exploration and use by all States without discrimination of any kind, on a basis of equality and in accordance with international law, and there shall be free access to all areas of celestial bodies.

There shall be freedom of scientific investigation in outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, and States shall facilitate and encourage international co-operation in such investigation.

 

ARTICLE II

Outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means.

Overly strict interpretations (that omit “harmful”) actually contradict the freedom of access portions of the treaty.

Don’t think this applies, because SpaceX is US? It absolutely does because SpaceX has already contracted with other countries and citizens of other countries to send people to outer space. These other countries do not necessarily have the resources of development to develop a Mars spacecraft like Starship on their own (let alone with COSPAR’s rules which are impossible to truly follow for human missions, as NASA acknowledges), so restricting Starship would, in fact, be placing barriers to other nations which have lower levels of development & capability than the US.

So not only is following the strict COSPAR guidelines not *required* by the Outer Space Treaty, but it actually would *violate* the spirit and perhaps even the letter of the treaty. Space is not subject to appropriation by means of puritanical scientific committees, either!

[Vultur]

The question IMO is what - if any - rules the FAA will require to give a launch license.

I personally think that the whole concept of planetary protection is basically a result of the 60s' very limited knowledge of biochemistry + very poor life detection tools. With science of the era, it would be really hard to distinguish Earth contamination from genuine Mars life; today, with genetic analysis easy, it's not. And I don't think modern biology really leaves an opening for alien pathogens, much less ecological competition on the "rabbits in Australia" style.

But my opinion isn't relevant, the FAA's is.

[steveleach]

Let me clear up a few things that are *often* confused (or misconstrued…) by many people in these conversations:

COSPAR is not applicable to SpaceX Starship missions to Mars for two reasons:
1) NASA only applies the COSPAR rules to robotic missions with the explicit understanding that human missions need new rules (note that COSPAR themselves don’t always agree with this, but COSPAR isn’t law & have no independent enforcement mechanism… purely advisory… it applies to NASA robotic missions because NASA *chose* to apply its rules).

2) SpaceX doing Starship missions are non-NASA and COSPAR is only enforced for some *NASA* missions (robotic ones).

Yes, the US is (voluntarily!) bound by treaty to limit *HARMFUL* contamination. “Harmful” is a key part of the phrase, often omitted by the COSPAR folk… so you cannot use claims by COSPAR folk without a healthy grain of salt. Ththinkthinkthinke bar for meeting the treaty obligations is much, *much* lower than COSPAR rules for robotic missions.

Presumably someone is going to have to interpret "harmful" contamination in the context of whatever mission profiles SpaceX come up with. I'd like to think that SpaceX and NASA are constantly evaluating this, and that sane heads are balancing the opposing views.

[Zed_Noir]

Will restated my opinion that manned Starship missions to Mars and the current COSPAR planetary protection protocols is incompatible.

Will go further. Think no new planetary protection measures will be implemented along with the previous measures scrapped once a manned Starship mission to the Martian surface is manifested.

No politician wants to take the blame for the lost of lives on a Mars mission adhering to the COSPAR planetary protection protocols that will likely result in higher probability of casualties. Never mind possible mission failure due to adhering the COSPAR protocols.

[steveleach]

Will restated my opinion that manned Starship missions to Mars and the current COSPAR planetary protection protocols is incompatible.

Will go further. Think no new planetary protection measures will be implemented along with the previous measures scrapped once a manned Starship mission to the Martian surface is manifested.

No politician wants to take the blame for the lost of lives on a Mars mission adhering to the COSPAR planetary protection protocols that will likely result in higher probability of casualties. Never mind possible mission failure due to adhering the COSPAR protocols.

So COSPAR presumably won't be applied, but equally it seems unlikely that SpaceX will be allowed to just do whatever they want when it comes to planetary protection.  Most existing architectures for Mars landers assume the landing vehicle is built in a cleanroom and launched in a fairing, as far as I know.

Who will the FAA look to for PP advice when granting a launch license for the first Starship mission to Mars? 

And is there any indication from any source of what that advice might look like?

[volker2020]

Will restated my opinion that manned Starship missions to Mars and the current COSPAR planetary protection protocols is incompatible.

Will go further. Think no new planetary protection measures will be implemented along with the previous measures scrapped once a manned Starship mission to the Martian surface is manifested.

No politician wants to take the blame for the lost of lives on a Mars mission adhering to the COSPAR planetary protection protocols that will likely result in higher probability of casualties. Never mind possible mission failure due to adhering the COSPAR protocols.

So COSPAR presumably won't be applied, but equally it seems unlikely that SpaceX will be allowed to just do whatever they want when it comes to planetary protection.  Most existing architectures for Mars landers assume the landing vehicle is built in a cleanroom and launched in a fairing, as far as I know.

Who will the FAA look to for PP advice when granting a launch license for the first Starship mission to Mars? 

And is there any indication from any source of what that advice might look like?

What sense does it make, to build a ship in a clean room, when at the end of the day, humans are in it, opening the hatches and release at least parts of the air they have been breathing into the planetary atmosphere. The concentration of bio material in that air will be a million fold more, that what will survive on the outside of the ship after some month in space.

[steveleach]

Will restated my opinion that manned Starship missions to Mars and the current COSPAR planetary protection protocols is incompatible.

Will go further. Think no new planetary protection measures will be implemented along with the previous measures scrapped once a manned Starship mission to the Martian surface is manifested.

No politician wants to take the blame for the lost of lives on a Mars mission adhering to the COSPAR planetary protection protocols that will likely result in higher probability of casualties. Never mind possible mission failure due to adhering the COSPAR protocols.

So COSPAR presumably won't be applied, but equally it seems unlikely that SpaceX will be allowed to just do whatever they want when it comes to planetary protection.  Most existing architectures for Mars landers assume the landing vehicle is built in a cleanroom and launched in a fairing, as far as I know.

Who will the FAA look to for PP advice when granting a launch license for the first Starship mission to Mars? 

And is there any indication from any source of what that advice might look like?

What sense does it make, to build a ship in a clean room, when at the end of the day, humans are in it, opening the hatches and release at least parts of the air they have been breathing into the planetary atmosphere. The concentration of bio material in that air will be a million fold more, that what will survive on the outside of the ship after some month in space.

Yes, so.......?

[Robotbeat]

FAA is not the designated regulatory body for planetary protection. At the moment, there isn’t a designated regulatory body. I suspect SpaceX will work with the executive branch to hammer out some sort of agreement if no regulatory body has been defined by the time they’re ready to launch.

I also suspect NASA will come along for the first crewed mission (if not the first uncrewed test flight to prepare for the crewed mission), even if NASA does not yet have a plan for a Mars mission.

[alastairmayer]

The question IMO is what - if any - rules the FAA will require to give a launch license.

I personally think that the whole concept of planetary protection is basically a result of the 60s' very limited knowledge of biochemistry + very poor life detection tools. With science of the era, it would be really hard to distinguish Earth contamination from genuine Mars life; today, with genetic analysis easy, it's not. And I don't think modern biology really leaves an opening for alien pathogens, much less ecological competition on the "rabbits in Australia" style.

But my opinion isn't relevant, the FAA's is.

That early 60's limited knowledge also missed the fact that various bodies in the solar system, including Earth, have been "swapping spit" with each other by way of fragments splashed off via large impacts for billions of years.  (As witness the fact that we have fragments of both Moon and Mars (at least) here as meteorites.)  Recent (within the last 10-20 years or so) experiments have shown that bacterial spores, for example, could easily survive the trip just below the surface of such rocks.

tl;dr - Mars has already been contaminated by Earth life.  Maybe it took, maybe it didn't, but it's too late now to worry about it.

[Robotbeat]

The question IMO is what - if any - rules the FAA will require to give a launch license.

I personally think that the whole concept of planetary protection is basically a result of the 60s' very limited knowledge of biochemistry + very poor life detection tools. With science of the era, it would be really hard to distinguish Earth contamination from genuine Mars life; today, with genetic analysis easy, it's not. And I don't think modern biology really leaves an opening for alien pathogens, much less ecological competition on the "rabbits in Australia" style.

But my opinion isn't relevant, the FAA's is.

That early 60's limited knowledge also missed the fact that various bodies in the solar system, including Earth, have been "swapping spit" with each other by way of fragments splashed off via large impacts for billions of years.  (As witness the fact that we have fragments of both Moon and Mars (at least) here as meteorites.)  Recent (within the last 10-20 years or so) experiments have shown that bacterial spores, for example, could easily survive the trip just below the surface of such rocks.

tl;dr - Mars has already been contaminated by Earth life.  Maybe it took, maybe it didn't, but it's too late now to worry about it.

Yup. I literally touched a piece of Mars. The Natural History Museum in Washington DC has a Mars meteorite you can touch.

[Zed_Noir]

Will restated my opinion that manned Starship missions to Mars and the current COSPAR planetary protection protocols is incompatible.

Will go further. Think no new planetary protection measures will be implemented along with the previous measures scrapped once a manned Starship mission to the Martian surface is manifested.

No politician wants to take the blame for the lost of lives on a Mars mission adhering to the COSPAR planetary protection protocols that will likely result in higher probability of casualties. Never mind possible mission failure due to adhering the COSPAR protocols.

So COSPAR presumably won't be applied, but equally it seems unlikely that SpaceX will be allowed to just do whatever they want when it comes to planetary protection.  Most existing architectures for Mars landers assume the landing vehicle is built in a cleanroom and launched in a fairing, as far as I know.
<snip>

The only currently manned Mars lander in the works will be assembled in an open bay at South Texas or Florida and don't need a payload fairing.

The most likely scenario for planetary protection with a crewed Starship mission to Mars, IMO. Is SpaceX will promise to do their best to limited contact with the more sensitive sites while having carte blanc for propellant and oxygen production with ISRU. At least for the first few Martian surface missions.

[steveleach]

Will restated my opinion that manned Starship missions to Mars and the current COSPAR planetary protection protocols is incompatible.

Will go further. Think no new planetary protection measures will be implemented along with the previous measures scrapped once a manned Starship mission to the Martian surface is manifested.

No politician wants to take the blame for the lost of lives on a Mars mission adhering to the COSPAR planetary protection protocols that will likely result in higher probability of casualties. Never mind possible mission failure due to adhering the COSPAR protocols.

So COSPAR presumably won't be applied, but equally it seems unlikely that SpaceX will be allowed to just do whatever they want when it comes to planetary protection.  Most existing architectures for Mars landers assume the landing vehicle is built in a cleanroom and launched in a fairing, as far as I know.
<snip>

The only currently manned Mars lander in the works will be assembled in an open bay at South Texas or Florida and don't need a payload fairing.

The most likely scenario for planetary protection with a crewed Starship mission to Mars, IMO. Is SpaceX will promise to do their best to limited contact with the more sensitive sites while having carte blanc for propellant and oxygen production with ISRU. At least for the first few Martian surface missions.

I just don't believe "we promise to do our best" is going to cut it.

It seems much more likely to me that when SpaceX apply to the FAA for a launch license for a Mars mission, the FAA, knowing that the US has planetary protection obligations, will reach out to various agencies for guidance. There may be a bunfight over it, but that would likely just stall the license until someone agrees to do an assessment. Then that agency will get SpaceX to produce a planetary protection plan, which will be reviewed by some panel of experts, a bunch of challenges raised, updates to the plan made, and agreement eventually reached.

It also seems likely to me that SpaceX is well aware of all this, and has already started discussions in the hope that when the time comes, they already have a plan and at least some level of confidence that it will be approved.

But I have no idea if I'm being too optimistic, too pessimistic, or both.

[whitelancer64]

Will restated my opinion that manned Starship missions to Mars and the current COSPAR planetary protection protocols is incompatible.

Will go further. Think no new planetary protection measures will be implemented along with the previous measures scrapped once a manned Starship mission to the Martian surface is manifested.

No politician wants to take the blame for the lost of lives on a Mars mission adhering to the COSPAR planetary protection protocols that will likely result in higher probability of casualties. Never mind possible mission failure due to adhering the COSPAR protocols.

So COSPAR presumably won't be applied, but equally it seems unlikely that SpaceX will be allowed to just do whatever they want when it comes to planetary protection.  Most existing architectures for Mars landers assume the landing vehicle is built in a cleanroom and launched in a fairing, as far as I know.
<snip>

The only currently manned Mars lander in the works will be assembled in an open bay at South Texas or Florida and don't need a payload fairing.

The most likely scenario for planetary protection with a crewed Starship mission to Mars, IMO. Is SpaceX will promise to do their best to limited contact with the more sensitive sites while having carte blanc for propellant and oxygen production with ISRU. At least for the first few Martian surface missions.

I just don't believe "we promise to do our best" is going to cut it.

It seems much more likely to me that when SpaceX apply to the FAA for a launch license for a Mars mission, the FAA, knowing that the US has planetary protection obligations, will reach out to various agencies for guidance. There may be a bunfight over it, but that would likely just stall the license until someone agrees to do an assessment. Then that agency will get SpaceX to produce a planetary protection plan, which will be reviewed by some panel of experts, a bunch of challenges raised, updates to the plan made, and agreement eventually reached.

It also seems likely to me that SpaceX is well aware of all this, and has already started discussions in the hope that when the time comes, they already have a plan and at least some level of confidence that it will be approved.

But I have no idea if I'm being too optimistic, too pessimistic, or both.

SpaceX has been in ongoing discussions with NASA about planetary protection protocols that date back to the Red Dragon concept.

[steveleach]

SpaceX has been in ongoing discussions with NASA about planetary protection protocols that date back to the Red Dragon concept.

Do we know anything at all about those discussions?

Red Dragon wasn't a cleanroom vehicle either, was it, so I assume many of the same considerations apply.

[Kiwi53]

I just don't believe "we promise to do our best" is going to cut it.

It seems much more likely to me that when SpaceX apply to the FAA for a launch license for a Mars mission, the FAA, knowing that the US has planetary protection obligations, will reach out to various agencies for guidance. There may be a bunfight over it, but that would likely just stall the license until someone agrees to do an assessment. Then that agency will get SpaceX to produce a planetary protection plan, which will be reviewed by some panel of experts, a bunch of challenges raised, updates to the plan made, and agreement eventually reached.

It also seems likely to me that SpaceX is well aware of all this, and has already started discussions in the hope that when the time comes, they already have a plan and at least some level of confidence that it will be approved.

But I have no idea if I'm being too optimistic, too pessimistic, or both.

Seems to me that SpaceX could argue that the FAA has no authority to include Planetary Protection matters in considering an application for a launch license for a private company.
I think it's never arisen before as only NASA - either directly or though a contractor - has conducted a USA-based planetary lander campaign.

How can the surface of Mars be within the US FAA's domain?