Quote from: su27k on 10/09/2021 10:35 amReport offers way to ease Mars mission planetary protection requirementsQuote from: SpaceNewsFuture Mars lander missions could adopt less stringent planetary protection requirements by landing in regions of the planet unlikely to allow any terrestrial contamination to propagate, a study concludes.The study by a National Academies committee, released Oct. 7, recommended that missions that don’t plan to go more than a meter into the surface could land across a wide range of lower latitudes of the planet unlikely to have large amounts of water ice.“The committee’s findings can lead to making portions of Mars more accessible to both commercial and government endeavors by relaxing planetary protection requirements while remaining careful about access to potential habitable zones,” Amanda Hendrix, senior scientist at the Planetary Science Institute and a co-chair of the committee, said during a press conference at the annual meeting of the Division for Planetary Sciences of the American Astronomical Society, timed to the release of the report.Do I read this wrong or does it sound like explicitly blocking SpaceX missions? No access to water, except baking it out of minerals at the surface.
Report offers way to ease Mars mission planetary protection requirementsQuote from: SpaceNewsFuture Mars lander missions could adopt less stringent planetary protection requirements by landing in regions of the planet unlikely to allow any terrestrial contamination to propagate, a study concludes.The study by a National Academies committee, released Oct. 7, recommended that missions that don’t plan to go more than a meter into the surface could land across a wide range of lower latitudes of the planet unlikely to have large amounts of water ice.“The committee’s findings can lead to making portions of Mars more accessible to both commercial and government endeavors by relaxing planetary protection requirements while remaining careful about access to potential habitable zones,” Amanda Hendrix, senior scientist at the Planetary Science Institute and a co-chair of the committee, said during a press conference at the annual meeting of the Division for Planetary Sciences of the American Astronomical Society, timed to the release of the report.
Future Mars lander missions could adopt less stringent planetary protection requirements by landing in regions of the planet unlikely to allow any terrestrial contamination to propagate, a study concludes.The study by a National Academies committee, released Oct. 7, recommended that missions that don’t plan to go more than a meter into the surface could land across a wide range of lower latitudes of the planet unlikely to have large amounts of water ice.“The committee’s findings can lead to making portions of Mars more accessible to both commercial and government endeavors by relaxing planetary protection requirements while remaining careful about access to potential habitable zones,” Amanda Hendrix, senior scientist at the Planetary Science Institute and a co-chair of the committee, said during a press conference at the annual meeting of the Division for Planetary Sciences of the American Astronomical Society, timed to the release of the report.
5.3.1.4 Spacecraft that do not meet orbital lifetime constraints [p(impact for 50 years) < 10E-4] shall limit their total (surface, mated, and encapsulated) bioburden level to ≤ 5 x 10⁵ spores.
5.3.2.1 Category IVa. Lander systems not carrying instruments for the investigations of extant martian life shall be restricted to a surface biological burden level of ≤ 3 x 10⁵ spores, and an average of ≤ 300 spores per square meter.
5.3.2.3 Category IVc. For missions which investigate martian special regions (see definition below), even if they do not include life detection experiments, all of the requirements of Category IVa shall apply, along with the following requirement:a. Case 1. If the landing site is within the special region, the entire landed system shall be restricted to a surface biological burden level of ≤ 30* spores.b. Case 2. If the special region is accessed though horizontal or vertical mobility, the requirement shall be either the entire landed system is restricted to a surface biological burden level of ≤ 30* spores, OR the subsystems which directly contact the special region must be sterilized to these levels, and a method of preventing their recontamination prior to accessing the special region be provided.*This figure takes into account the occurrence of hardy organisms with respect to the sterilization modality. This specification assumes attainment of Category IVa surface cleanliness, followed by at least a four order-of-magnitude reduction in viable organisms. Verification of bioburden level is based on pre-sterilization bioburden assessment and knowledge of reduction factor of the sterilization modality.
...has reason to believe that an activity or experiment planned by it or its nationals in outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, would cause potentially harmful interference with activities of other States Parties in the peaceful exploration and use of outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, it shall undertake appropriate international consultations before proceeding with any such activity or experiment.
Thus the scheme, or 'plan' of Pathogen protection, for mars, from humans...is pretty well a moot subject. Many of us also require 'natural' fibers and cannot handle continual interaction with artificial fibers. Eg, that notably large numbers of people on mars will require cotton undergarments and the like. Require. That synthetics cause great havoc with their body's response to said artificial fibers and materials. There is practically no end to our potential problems that can occur from lack of exposure to varied environmental conditions, with respect to long term goals...
has anything changed in the intervening time on interplanetary biological contamination due to Starship?
Regarding Starship meeting the cat IV requirements for spores per m2.Would it work to have UV projectors mounted on the depot that de-con the ship during the refueling process ? After un-docking the ship performs a slow BBQ roll or three in the intense UV before departing for Mars.
Quote from: MickQ on 03/11/2024 08:37 pmRegarding Starship meeting the cat IV requirements for spores per m2.Would it work to have UV projectors mounted on the depot that de-con the ship during the refueling process ? After un-docking the ship performs a slow BBQ roll or three in the intense UV before departing for Mars.The issue is the crevices (like between and under each mechanically fixed tile).
Quote from: rfdesigner on 03/11/2024 09:16 pmQuote from: MickQ on 03/11/2024 08:37 pmRegarding Starship meeting the cat IV requirements for spores per m2.Would it work to have UV projectors mounted on the depot that de-con the ship during the refueling process ? After un-docking the ship performs a slow BBQ roll or three in the intense UV before departing for Mars.The issue is the crevices (like between and under each mechanically fixed tile).Solutions exist for this. Sterilize it with gas or heat (or both) and then cover it with a banana peel and pull it off while it launches.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 03/12/2024 01:32 amQuote from: rfdesigner on 03/11/2024 09:16 pmQuote from: MickQ on 03/11/2024 08:37 pmRegarding Starship meeting the cat IV requirements for spores per m2.Would it work to have UV projectors mounted on the depot that de-con the ship during the refueling process ? After un-docking the ship performs a slow BBQ roll or three in the intense UV before departing for Mars.The issue is the crevices (like between and under each mechanically fixed tile).Solutions exist for this. Sterilize it with gas or heat (or both) and then cover it with a banana peel and pull it off while it launches. Solutions do not exist for i justthis.. the problem is scale.
Quote from: rfdesigner on 03/12/2024 06:46 amQuote from: Robotbeat on 03/12/2024 01:32 amQuote from: rfdesigner on 03/11/2024 09:16 pmQuote from: MickQ on 03/11/2024 08:37 pmRegarding Starship meeting the cat IV requirements for spores per m2.Would it work to have UV projectors mounted on the depot that de-con the ship during the refueling process ? After un-docking the ship performs a slow BBQ roll or three in the intense UV before departing for Mars.The issue is the crevices (like between and under each mechanically fixed tile).Solutions exist for this. Sterilize it with gas or heat (or both) and then cover it with a banana peel and pull it off while it launches. Solutions do not exist for i justthis.. the problem is scale.skill issue. I just showed how it could scale. Such things scale to the size of entire launch vehicle boosters.
Sorry about your concern trolling though.
any claim about Starship couldn't do Mars mission because it doesn't satisfy current NASA PP policy is totally invalid, since the current policy does not apply to human Mars missions (and its uncrewed support missions), and NASA knows this.
Quote from: thespacecow on 03/16/2024 01:08 pmany claim about Starship couldn't do Mars mission because it doesn't satisfy current NASA PP policy is totally invalid, since the current policy does not apply to human Mars missions (and its uncrewed support missions), and NASA knows this."Totally invalid" is only true if you're sloppy with present tense vs. future tense. Manned Starship missions (and the regulations they'll be governed by) is in the future tense, not the present tense.Presumably the future Manned PP regulations will be based on heritage from the existing Unmanned PP regulations. Therefore a priori we can't guarantee 100% ("totally") that no PP regulations will applicable to manned missions.The future regulatory environment is currently speculative. That means that epistemologically we can't say it's totally one thing or the other.
Any planetary protection guidelines that could endangered the crew will go out the window with contingencies.
IIt is politically impossible to endangered a crew on Mars for planetary protection....No POTUS will endangered a crew on the Martian surface for planetary protection. The political fallout is too great...
The planning NASA has revealed so far had a small landing ellipse, it might be unpleasant if NASA required them to land in one of them.The other unpleasant thing is what if none of the contamination zones are in an interesting location?
Quote from: DigitalMan on 03/17/2024 12:27 amThe planning NASA has revealed so far had a small landing ellipse, it might be unpleasant if NASA required them to land in one of them.The other unpleasant thing is what if none of the contamination zones are in an interesting location?<snip>Technically speaking, SpaceX would want precise Starship landing too, since they want to land crewed ship near the cargo ships. And if the initial crewed mission is sponsored by NASA, which I think is likely, then they wouldn't rely on ISRU, so landing in an un-interesting location is not a big deal. <snip>