Planetary protection issues Earth > Mars and Mars > Earth

[Slarty1080]

I’m interested in what people think will be necessary concerning planetary protection measures for Human missions to the Red planet. I would assume that there would be no repeat of the Apollo Moon walker episodes where a lot of Moon dust got into the LEM cabin.

I assume they would use suitports: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_suit#Suitport_for_Mars, but beyond that gloveboxes for handling samples in a lab area? What else? No exchange of materials that have come in contact with the crew being exposed to the Martian environment?

Then there’s the issue of the returning Starship and isolation. Is it likely that the astronauts and samples would be transferred to a dragon capsule for return to Earth?

Finally what is the current legislative requirement in the USA?

[yoram]

I’m interested in what people think will be necessary concerning planetary protection measures for Human missions to the Red planet. I would assume that there would be no repeat of the Apollo Moon walker episodes where a lot of Moon dust got into the LEM cabin.

I assume they would use suitports: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_suit#Suitport_for_Mars, but beyond that gloveboxes for handling samples in a lab area? What else? No exchange of materials that have come in contact with the crew being exposed to the Martian environment?

Then there’s the issue of the returning Starship and isolation. Is it likely that the astronauts and samples would be transferred to a dragon capsule for return to Earth?

Finally what is the current legislative requirement in the USA?

Planetary protection is fairly pointless and likely impractical with human landings. There's no way to sterilize everything, and most things will be at some point touched by humans.

Mars is big and fairly inhospitable, so they will need to rely on Earth life not spreading too far from the landing site.

It makes sense if you want to protect specific experiments that look for life from contamination, but those can use special localized sterilization protocols.

As for legislative requirements, I assume there will be the necessary changes to make a human mission possible. It's hard to imagine a real mission to Mars would be stopped because of something like this.

[MickQ]

Find a suitable location, say in a 5 klm diam crater, and establish it as the Human Reservation.
All interplanetary traffic goes to / from this point.  All exploration missions radiate from this point.
Much easier to control contamination issues at one site only.

[RonM]

Re: Mars > Earth

The trip back from Mars would be plenty of isolation time for the crew. That time in space and the heat during reentry would be sufficient for the exterior of the Starship.

Samples can be properly packaged to prevent contamination.

Biggest problem would be what to do about internal contamination. If the crew is okay after months of contact during the flight back, then it's safe. Still probably need cleaning procedures during refurbishment similar to handling toxic materials to be safe.

Overall, it's highly unlikely that any bacteria, spores, or virus could survive on the surface of Mars. Too much UV exposure. So the exterior of Starship and dust tracked inside should be okay.

Samples collected from under rocks and below ground are a different story and should be handled with care.

[Slarty1080]

On a related issue after a year spent on Mars the atmosphere in the Starship probably won't be that healthy when they first get to orbit as the collected detritus that has fallen to the floor will suddenly be free to float about. Guess they will have to vacuum / clean the surfaces inside.

If they use suitlocks and glove boxes I would assume that only the airlock area where the suits are stored would be contaminated with Martian material to any significant extent.

[RonM]

One NASA idea for a habitat was to have a large airlock with suit ports and a hatch. Under normal operations with the suit ports no dust would get inside the airlock or habitat. The hatch could be used in an emergency, such as problems with the suit port. Then only the airlock is contaminated. Easier to clean.

That design could work for the crew area of Starship, but the cargo section would still be exposed.

[DigitalMan]

Thats an interesting idea.  By using suit ports you might also be making it easier to access the unpressurized section of a spacecraft, or to do a spacewalk.

It seems to me that the unpressurized section could be easier to clean than the pressurized section, don't you think?  There is likely to be more obstacles in the pressurized section.

[Slarty1080]

Thats an interesting idea.  By using suit ports you might also be making it easier to access the unpressurized section of a spacecraft, or to do a spacewalk.

It seems to me that the unpressurized section could be easier to clean than the pressurized section, don't you think?  There is likely to be more obstacles in the pressurized section.

I think that both the large unpressurized cargo deck and the smaller pressuisable suitlock area would be on different deck levels. Both would probably have plenty of obstacles. I'm curious what method they would use to decontaminate these? Perhaps something involving electrostatic charge that would attract dust?

Then there's the question of the layout of the cargo area, suitlock area, suit storage, airlocks and what access they would have where at what point. This might be significant for decontamination purposes.

Initially I was thinking the main cargo bay would be un pressurized and would have a single large 4m door with some sort of extendable gantry crane providing access to the surface for cargo. The deck immediately above that there might be half "lab" and half transfer area with suitlocks, suit store, decontamination equipment spares as well as an air lock.

Not sure if they would want or would need access to the unpressurized deck when on inbound or outbound parts of the mission? Perhaps it might be useful for ongoing decontamination purposes on the way back?

That leaves the question of connectivity to the outside. The crew airlock could exit into the cargo bay which would allow the crew to use the cargo crane to access the surface and the 4m cargo door would be the only point of entry or exit from thr ship at least on Mars.

Alternatively the crew airlock could exit directly to the outside providing a second point of entry/exit to the ship, but would require a separate lift to the surface assuming the suit room is above the cargo bay.

[sghill]

IMHO, planetary protection goes out the window with Starship. It is reusable and filled with humans. Sterilizing it and keeping it sterilized for repeated outbound and inbound trips will be impractical to the point of impossible.

I, for one, don't really care about protection issues for potential Martian bugs. We either want to go to Mars, or we don't. Planetary protection is decided by that binary choice. I want to see us go to Mars- hence my opinion.

So, the challenge, IMHO, is not technical; it is political. Once SpaceX changes a few minds in Congress (if any need changing), NASA gets a new directive and Starship gets to visit Mars.

And in the interest of disclosure, the company I own makes cold plasma chemical remediation equipment capable of reducing perchlorate. We have explored a "dishwasher" system of various sizes for removing perchlorates contained in dirt from suits, equipment,  vehicles, and even soil that colonists may want to bring inside.

[DasBlinkenlight]

With effort, Starship might be able to maintain level II-III planetary protection.   Expectations of level IV or V are unrealistic.
With risk of reverse contamination/ airborne perchlorates, I suspect that there will be decontamination chambers adjacent to airlocks, (or intergral to them) with air suction/filtration, compressed air blowers, UV decon lights, and possibly even a wet wand decon system with collection pool that gets re-processed and filtered.   Not heavy or difficult, just a little more mass that has to be hauled up.

[Slarty1080]

IMHO, planetary protection goes out the window with Starship. It is reusable and filled with humans. Sterilizing it and keeping it sterilized for repeated outbound and inbound trips will be impractical to the point of impossible.

I, for one, don't really care about protection issues for potential Martian bugs. We either want to go to Mars, or we don't. Planetary protection is decided by that binary choice. I want to see us go to Mars- hence my opinion.

So, the challenge, IMHO, is not technical; it is political. Once SpaceX changes a few minds in Congress (if any need changing), NASA gets a new directive and Starship gets to visit Mars.

And in the interest of disclosure, the company I own makes cold plasma chemical remediation equipment capable of reducing perchlorate. We have explored a "dishwasher" system of various sizes for removing perchlorates contained in dirt from suits, equipment,  vehicles, and even soil that colonists may want to bring inside.

I would broadly agree. I don't think the risks are significant, but it would be foolish (and possibly a PR problem) to ignore them. Every effort should be taken to minimise cross contamination as far as is practical in both directions until more in known.

I'm not sure what the legal situation is concerning this? If the Starship was ready to fly today and was sent on its way and returned in a few years’ time what sort of legal hoo-ha would/could they return to? That said I'm sure that SpaceX would be very keen to work with whoever to ensure this didn't occur.

Concerning perchlorates, presumably that is another good reason for keeping the two environments separated. I would have thought perchlorate contamination is a significant human health hazard as a powerful oxidant. How best to clean suits and equipment? I suggest suitlocks would be an excellent start, but beyond that what’s best - mechanical with a gas jet or brush? Electrostatic? Wet / chemical wash? Something else?

[FutureSpaceTourist]

Published on 14 Jun 2019
Dr. Robert Zubrin and others participate in a debate on Planetary Protection.

From the annual International Space Development Conference organized by the National Space Society and held from June 6-9, 2019 in Arlington, VA.  For more information visit https://isdc2019.nss.org/

[Slarty1080]

Published on 14 Jun 2019
Dr. Robert Zubrin and others participate in a debate on Planetary Protection.

From the annual International Space Development Conference organized by the National Space Society and held from June 6-9, 2019 in Arlington, VA.  For more information visit https://isdc2019.nss.org/

Thanks for that. Some interesting discussion in there. It seems that perhaps the biggest issue is the potential for adverse PR and serious controversy over Martian microbes. I don't think it holds up to scrutiny, but unless handled properly the issue has the potential to cause serious problems. Perhaps this is another good reason why SpaceX needs to have the full backing of NASA and the US administration / Congress.

[woods170]

IMHO, planetary protection goes out the window with Starship.

More generally speaking planetary protection for Mars and Earth will go out the window the minute anything containing living organisms starts travelling up and down between Mars and Earth.

The planetary protection BS is there primarily because it has not been determined yet that life exists only on planet Earth.
Once it is established beyond any reasonable doubt that life exists on other planets it will be impossible to implement  planetary protection. Unless we stop doing interplanetary spaceflight completely OR treat any other planet like an Ebola plague.
The latter would make interplanetary travel completely impractical which would have the same effect as not doing interplanetary spaceflight at all.

[Slarty1080]

I think the core arguments are that 1) Earth is continually bombarded by meteorites composed of Martian material and vice versa. So any bugs would have had a good chance of already having moved in both directions.

And 2) The vastly different conditions on the two planets and the tendency of life to adapt to its environment mean that martian life would be poorly adapted to Earth and terrestrial life poorly adapted to Mars.

Zubrin also makes a point about double standards that I hadn't considered before. Those concerned about contaminating Earth with deadly microbes from Mars don't appear to be too worried about archaeologists and palaeontologists excavating sites that might have contained pathogenic organisms form the past that might potentially be unearthed and cause problems.

[woods170]

I think the core arguments are that 1) Earth is continually bombarded by meteorites composed of Martian material and vice versa. So any bugs would have had a good chance of already having moved in both directions.

And 2) The vastly different conditions on the two planets and the tendency of life to adapt to its environment mean that martian life would be poorly adapted to Earth and terrestrial life poorly adapted to Mars.

Zubrin also makes a point about double standards that I hadn't considered before. Those concerned about contaminating Earth with deadly microbes from Mars don't appear to be too worried about archaeologists and palaeontologists excavating sites that might have contained pathogenic organisms form the past that might potentially be unearthed and cause problems.

It took a few close calls to make people realise that some locations on Earth are as un-Earthly as the soils of Mars. The bottom of Lake Vostok comes to mind. The scientists at Antarctica are being very careful with that, courtesy of the prior mentioned close calls.

Current planetary protection protocols are mainly aimed at protecting other planets from being infected with Earth life. Reason: when we go out there and start searching for life on those planets we might just discover life there, only to find out that we delivered it there on prior missions.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

Reduce Red Tape for the Red Planet, Report Says

Regulations governing the responsible exploration of Mars and other worlds require regular, frequent updates, according to a new NASA review

By Leonard David on October 25, 2019

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/reduce-red-tape-for-the-red-planet-report-says/

[Vultur]

And 2) The vastly different conditions on the two planets and the tendency of life to adapt to its environment mean that martian life would be poorly adapted to Earth and terrestrial life poorly adapted to Mars.

Exactly. Mars life being a threat on Earth is effectively impossible. Human bodies would not be a survivable environment for something adapted to a shallow subsurface environment on Mars. Endolithic microbes inside rocks would be a far more plausible threat (since at least they work on the same basic biochemistry), but no one worries about that...

New contagious diseases in humans tend to jump from diseases in other animals, usually other mammals, much more rarely birds, very rarely something more distant.

And an ecological threat on Earth is just nonsensical from biochemistry/energy perspectives. Anything on Mars will either use classic anaerobic metabolism and thus incredibly limited in energy terms, or use a more "exotic" metabolism which requires a "food source" which is rarely available on Earth (such as reduction of perchlorate - such microbes do exist on Earth, but only in places where perchlorate is available). Either way it cannot be competitive in any major Earth environment.

As for false positives for discovering life on Mars -- this was a big problem in the 60s/70s, but isn't now. We can sample environmental DNA/RNA now (metagenomics). If it doesn't use DNA or RNA, it's not Earthly; if it does, you can see easily if it falls on Earth's tree of life.

[su27k]

NASA Updates Planetary Protection Policies for Robotic and Human Missions to Earth’s Moon and Future Human Missions to Mars

NASA has released two NASA Interim Directives (NIDs) updating the agency’s requirements for robotic and human missions traveling to the Earth’s Moon, and human missions traveling to Mars. The first, NID 8715.128, addresses the control of forward terrestrial biological contamination associated with all NASA and NASA-affiliated missions intended to land, orbit, or otherwise encounter the Moon.

The directive’s compliance will be ensured by the agency’s Office of Planetary Protection within the Office of Safety and Mission Assurance, which supports NASA’s responsible exploration of the solar system to enable science, exploration/ discovery, and commercial activities.

"We are enabling our important goal of sustainable exploration of the Moon while simultaneously safeguarding future science in the permanently shadowed regions," said Thomas Zurbuchen, Associate Administrator of NASA’s Science Mission Directorate. "These sites have immense scientific value in shaping our understanding of the history of our planet, the Moon and the solar system."

The second directive, NID 8715.129, released supports a historic human mission to Mars. This NID reforms previous policies that would have constructively prohibited the human exploration of Mars. The NID established a path forward wherein knowledge gained from the International Space Station, Gateway, lunar surface operations, as well as robotic missions to Mars will be leveraged to prevent harmful forward and backward harmful biological contamination.

“It’s vital that NASA’s regulations remain synchronized with our capabilities and plans,” said NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine. “This NID will enable the human exploration of Mars, creating new opportunities for awe inspiring science and innovative commercial activities. I believe science and human exploration are complimentary endeavors and I’m excited to see these policy reforms open up a new era of discovery.”

[Dalhousie]

It took a few close calls to make people realise that some locations on Earth are as un-Earthly as the soils of Mars. The bottom of Lake Vostok comes to mind. The scientists at Antarctica are being very careful with that, courtesy of the prior mentioned close calls.

Current planetary protection protocols are mainly aimed at protecting other planets from being infected with Earth life. Reason: when we go out there and start searching for life on those planets we might just discover life there, only to find out that we delivered it there on prior missions.

The bottom of lake Vostok is not remotely like Mars.  Some Antarctic and Atacama soils have some similarities to those on Mars, but also many differences.  They won't be particularly hospitable to martian organisms.In particular the higher temperatures and abundant oxygen will be well outside what they will have encountered before.