Planetary protection issues Earth > Mars and Mars > Earth

[VSECOTSPE]

There is such consensus, and there's a food fight precisely because there is such a consensus.

The definition of “consensus” is that everyone agrees.  There is an ongoing fight over which federal agency gets to regulate on-orbit activities, so there is obviously disagreement and therefore, no consensus on this issue.

Should be obvious that FAA cannot levy requirement for which Congress hasn't authorized them to levy, I don't know why this is even a question.

In FAA’s enabling legislation, Congress authorized the Secretary of Transportation to levy whatever requirements on commercial launch licenses are necessary to preserve the interests of the United States.  Maintaining US foreign policy commitments is explicitly called out as in the interest of the United States.  That’s where planetary protection comes in and why COSPAR guidelines are called out in the Advisory Circular that launch providers fill out to obtain their launch license.

Regulation of on-orbit activities is a separate issue.  It’s what changes the FAA (or DOC or FCC) could demand (or not) to the operations of a satellite after it is launched.  They’re driven by the increasingly congested and crowded environment in LEO.  The two examples are changes to orbits and transmissions.  Your launch license may be to an orbit at a certain altitude and inclination, but a collision elsewhere in LEO might necessitate the government requiring you to modify your orbit to avoid increasing the debris field.  Or your FCC transmission license is at a certain wavelength and signal strength, but unexpected or new interference with another satellite might necessitate the government requiring you to modify your transmission spectrum or reduce your signal strength.

Planetary protection is baked into the launch license.  A mission is either consistent with COSPAR guidelines or not.  On-orbit activities is about changing things like orbits and transmissions because circumstances have changed since launch.  It’s not baked into the launch license.

[Slarty1080]

It is very concerning that the planetary protection issues outlined here might become a political issue. It has all the makings of a disaster, party political controversy, alien microbes from Mars and a touch of Elon Musk. The press could have a field day. I dread to think of the headlines and the public reaction.

Yeah, I worry about this as well.  However, it's important to remember that there are two different things going on:

1) Forward planetary protection, where we protect Mars from Earth bugs.  This only has niche appeal for whipping the mob into a frenzy.

2) Backward planetary protection, where we protect Earth from Mars bugs.  This is, of course, prime SPAAAAAACE  GERRRRRRMS! fodder.

But we should be much more interested in the forward case, at least for 2-3 extra synods.  We'll see if anybody wrings their hands over MSR, but it's a pretty conservative mission in terms of how it's dealing with its Cat V requirements.  Cat V becomes a big deal when we try to return astronauts to Earth, but you can't do that until you have a lot more experience landing big, heavy things on Mars.

As for the "touch of Elon" problem, there are two awkward spots:

1) SpaceX will want to land Starships, if for no other reason than to test that they can be landed.  This will require the relaxation of regions to Cat II.

2) SpaceX will want to mine water, which will make the mining site, by definition, a special region, which will be subject to Cat IVc guidelines.  Until that changes (and there are no proposals to make such a change--we just don't know enough to do so), then mining and recovery of water will have to be conducted by robotic equipment that conforms to Cat IVc.  It'll be a big pain, and Elon may chafe at the restrictions.

All of this is manageable.  It just requires some political and diplomatic work (mostly the latter), a bit of engineering, and, last but hardly least, some patience.  Elon tends not to be very patient.

What counts as mining water? Presumably drilling or digging below the surface to access water, but what about heating a large area via a low pressure green house in contact with the ground, pumping hot CO₂ in and then pumping out any water enriched gas out into a  pressure swing adsorption bed. Would that count as mining? What about disturbing the surface in the above scenario?

[TheRadicalModerate]

What counts as mining water? Presumably drilling or digging below the surface to access water, but what about heating a large area via a low pressure green house in contact with the ground, pumping hot CO₂ in and then pumping out any water enriched gas out into a  pressure swing adsorption bed. Would that count as mining? What about disturbing the surface in the above scenario?

Sounds kinda low-scale to me, as long as all of your greenhouse, pumping, and adsorption equipment was Cat IVc-compliant.  But it sounds easier making Cat IVc-compliant drilling equipment to me.  Google "Rodriguez wells" or "rodwells" on the internet for yet another possibility.

The letter of Cat IVc kicks in when there is the possibility of liquid water in the environment.  That would obviously include the melting of subsurface ice under the ground, or extracting that water so that it comes to the surface.

But its intention is to keep earth bugs from spreading in the environment.  If you manage to transport the water so that it remains clean (by using Cat IVc-compliant drilling equipment and a suitably decontaminated hauler, for instance), then return it to one of the Cat II "safe zones", it presumably can be contaminated to your heart's content--as long as you don't dump huge quantities of liquid into, say, an aquifer.

Longer-term, and Cat IVc-compliant pipeline should be possible, although you have to have some kind of death zone between the Cat II area and the Cat IVc area, to ensure that bugs can't propagate back down the pipeline to the drilling field.

The biggest problem is going to be maintenance, because it's not possible to make a human being Cat IVc-compliant.

[thespacecow]

There is such consensus, and there's a food fight precisely because there is such a consensus.

The definition of “consensus” is that everyone agrees.  There is an ongoing fight over which federal agency gets to regulate on-orbit activities, so there is obviously disagreement and therefore, no consensus on this issue.

There's no consensus on who will eventually get Congressional authorization to regulate on-orbit activities. But this fact proves that there is consensus that no agency currently has Congressional authorization to regulate on-orbit activities, otherwise there would be no need to fight over who will eventually get to do this.

In other words, the side in the fight that says FAA should regulate on orbit activities still acknowledges that FAA currently doesn't have the authorization to do this. What they're fighting for is for Congress to give this authorization to FAA. Should be obvious that if FAA already has this authorization, then there would be no need to fight for it.

Should be obvious that FAA cannot levy requirement for which Congress hasn't authorized them to levy, I don't know why this is even a question.

In FAA’s enabling legislation, Congress authorized the Secretary of Transportation to levy whatever requirements on commercial launch licenses are necessary to preserve the interests of the United States.  Maintaining US foreign policy commitments is explicitly called out as in the interest of the United States.  That’s where planetary protection comes in and why COSPAR guidelines are called out in the Advisory Circular that launch providers fill out to obtain their launch license.

Congress only authorized FAA to regulate launch and reentry, that is very clear. Any other authorization (i.e. "preserve the interests of the United States") will still be limited to launch and reentry. What Starship does beyond Earth orbit is by definition not part of the launch and reentry, thus does not fall under FAA's current Congressional authorization.

Regulation of on-orbit activities is a separate issue.  It’s what changes the FAA (or DOC or FCC) could demand (or not) to the operations of a satellite after it is launched.  They’re driven by the increasingly congested and crowded environment in LEO.  The two examples are changes to orbits and transmissions.  Your launch license may be to an orbit at a certain altitude and inclination, but a collision elsewhere in LEO might necessitate the government requiring you to modify your orbit to avoid increasing the debris field.  Or your FCC transmission license is at a certain wavelength and signal strength, but unexpected or new interference with another satellite might necessitate the government requiring you to modify your transmission spectrum or reduce your signal strength.

On orbit activities basically refers to anything in orbit that is not already covered by existing Congressionally authorized regulation, i.e. not launch/reentry, not covered by FCC spectrum regulation, etc. Should be obvious that any BLEO activities, including landing on Mars, automatically fall under this category.

This has no direct relations to "increasingly congested and crowded environment in LEO" at all. On orbit activities is a hot topic because of OST Article VI which requires "authorization and continuing supervision" of non-governmental space activities.

Planetary protection is baked into the launch license.  A mission is either consistent with COSPAR guidelines or not.  On-orbit activities is about changing things like orbits and transmissions because circumstances have changed since launch.  It’s not baked into the launch license.

No, PP is not baked into the launch license at all. FAA's Advisory Circular 450.31-1 mentioned COSPAR, but made it clear that the AC is not legally binding and it's not the only way to meet the regulatory requirements:

This guidance is not legally binding in its own right and will not be relied upon by the FAA as a separate basis for affirmative enforcement action or other administrative penalty. Conformity with the guidance is voluntary only and nonconformity will not affect rights and obligations under existing statutes and regulations.

This AC presents one, but not the only, acceptable means of compliance with the associated regulatory requirements. The FAA will consider other means of compliance that an applicant may elect to present. In addition, an operator may tailor the provisions of this AC to meet its unique needs, provided the changes are accepted as a means of compliance by the FAA.

Besides, this AC was written before Chevron was overturned, so its interpretation of the regulation is in question after Loper Bright. As the article I posted shows, there're cases where agencies probably over-reached in their regulation efforts (i.e. FCC wrt space debris), this will now have to rollback if they don't want getting sued.

[VSECOTSPE]

Congress only authorized FAA to regulate launch and reentry, that is very clear. Any other authorization (i.e. "preserve the interests of the United States") will still be limited to launch and reentry. What Starship does beyond Earth orbit is by definition not part of the launch and reentry, thus does not fall under FAA's current Congressional authorization.

It does.  If you want to launch a mission from US soil to blow up the Moon, the FAA will not grant you a commercial launch license for that mission because blowing up the Moon is not in the interests of the United States.

Should be obvious that any BLEO activities, including landing on Mars, automatically fall under this category.

They don’t.  On-orbit is about changes (primarily orbit and transmission) to a mission after it is launched.  If you want to launch a mission from US soil to blow up the Moon, the FAA won’t let you launch and then tell you to deactivate your spacecraft.  The FAA just won’t grant you the commercial launch license in the first place.

This has no direct relations to "increasingly congested and crowded environment in LEO" at all.

LEO congestion is the direct cause of new on-orbit regulations.  That cause is written right into NSPD-3 on space traffic management, which directs the relevant departments and agencies to develop new on-orbit regulations:

Today, space is becoming increasingly congested and contested, and that trend presents challenges for the safety, stability, and sustainability of U.S. space operations...

(i)  Develop Policies and Regulations for Future U.S. Orbital Operations.  The Secretaries of Defense, Commerce, and Transportation, in coordination with the Secretary of State, the NASA Administrator, and the Director of National Intelligence, shall regularly evaluate emerging trends in space missions to recommend revisions, as appropriate and necessary, to existing SSA and STM policies and regulations.

https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/presidential-actions/space-policy-directive-3-national-space-traffic-management-policy/

None of that has anything to do with planetary protection.

FAA's Advisory Circular 450.31-1 mentioned COSPAR, but made it clear that the AC is not legally binding and it's not the only way to meet the regulatory requirements

True, but if you want to launch a mission to the surface of Mars from US soil and you do not address planetary protection — either through the advisory circular or some other way — you will not receive a commercial launch license.

Besides, this AC was written before Chevron was overturned, so its interpretation of the regulation is in question after Loper Bright.

Again, in the FAA’s enabling legislation, the Secretary of Transportation was given broad authority to determine what regulations to levy on commercial launch licenses consistent with the national interests of the United States, explicitly including foreign policy interests.  There’s no fuzz on whether the Secretary has the power to promulgate new commercial launch license regs like the advisory circular on planetary protection.  Chevron has nothing to do with it.

As the article I posted shows, there're cases where agencies probably over-reached in their regulation efforts (i.e. FCC wrt space debris), this will now have to rollback if they don't want getting sued.

FCC did overreach.  Their regulatory authority is circumscribed to the electromagnetic spectrum.  That doesn’t mean that the FAA doesn’t have broad authority to determine what regulations to levy on commercial launch licenses.  They do.

[VSECOTSPE]

Congress only authorized FAA to regulate launch and reentry, that is very clear. Any other authorization (i.e. "preserve the interests of the United States") will still be limited to launch and reentry. What Starship does beyond Earth orbit is by definition not part of the launch and reentry, thus does not fall under FAA's current Congressional authorization.

It does.  If you want to launch a mission from US soil to blow up the Moon, the FAA will not grant you a commercial launch license for that mission because blowing up the Moon is not in the interests of the United States.

Should be obvious that any BLEO activities, including landing on Mars, automatically fall under this category.

They don’t.  On-orbit is about changes (primarily orbit and transmission) to a mission after it is launched.  If you want to launch a mission from US soil to blow up the Moon, the FAA won’t let you launch and then tell you to deactivate your spacecraft.  The FAA just won’t grant you the commercial launch license in the first place.

This has no direct relations to "increasingly congested and crowded environment in LEO" at all.

LEO congestion is the direct cause of new on-orbit regulations.  That cause is written right into NSPD-3 on space traffic management, which directs the relevant departments and agencies to develop new on-orbit regulations:

Today, space is becoming increasingly congested and contested, and that trend presents challenges for the safety, stability, and sustainability of U.S. space operations...

(i)  Develop Policies and Regulations for Future U.S. Orbital Operations.  The Secretaries of Defense, Commerce, and Transportation, in coordination with the Secretary of State, the NASA Administrator, and the Director of National Intelligence, shall regularly evaluate emerging trends in space missions to recommend revisions, as appropriate and necessary, to existing SSA and STM policies and regulations.

https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/presidential-actions/space-policy-directive-3-national-space-traffic-management-policy/

None of that has anything to do with planetary protection.

FAA's Advisory Circular 450.31-1 mentioned COSPAR, but made it clear that the AC is not legally binding and it's not the only way to meet the regulatory requirements

True, but if you want to launch a mission to the surface of Mars from US soil and you do not address planetary protection — either through the advisory circular or some other way — you will not receive a commercial launch license.

Besides, this AC was written before Chevron was overturned, so its interpretation of the regulation is in question after Loper Bright.

Again, in the FAA’s enabling legislation, the Secretary of Transportation was given broad authority to determine what regulations to levy on commercial launch licenses consistent with the national interests of the United States, explicitly including foreign policy interests.  There’s no fuzz on whether the Secretary has the power to promulgate new commercial launch license regs like the advisory circular on planetary protection.  Chevron has nothing to do with it.

As the article I posted shows, there're cases where agencies probably over-reached in their regulation efforts (i.e. FCC wrt space debris), this will now have to rollback if they don't want getting sued.

FCC probably did overreach.  Their regulatory authority is circumscribed to the electromagnetic spectrum.  That doesn’t mean that the FAA doesn’t have broad authority to determine what regulations to levy on commercial launch licenses.  They do.

[thespacecow]

Congress only authorized FAA to regulate launch and reentry, that is very clear. Any other authorization (i.e. "preserve the interests of the United States") will still be limited to launch and reentry. What Starship does beyond Earth orbit is by definition not part of the launch and reentry, thus does not fall under FAA's current Congressional authorization.

It does.  If you want to launch a mission from US soil to blow up the Moon, the FAA will not grant you a commercial launch license for that mission because blowing up the Moon is not in the interests of the United States.

No it doesn't.

A Starship with hundreds of tons of methalox can make a big explosion on the Moon, but I'm pretty sure FAA is not going to prevent Starship from landing on the Moon, so this entire example makes no sense.

Should be obvious that any BLEO activities, including landing on Mars, automatically fall under this category.

They don’t.  On-orbit is about changes (primarily orbit and transmission) to a mission after it is launched.  If you want to launch a mission from US soil to blow up the Moon, the FAA won’t let you launch and then tell you to deactivate your spacecraft.  The FAA just won’t grant you the commercial launch license in the first place.

Well if you want to separate BLEO activities into its own category, that's fine too, but that doesn't change the fact that FAA has no Congressional authorization to regulate these activities.

Besides, you can launch something that can blow up in orbit and spread space debris, similar to China's LM-6A just did, and FAA cannot do anything about this right now. If FAA can't even prevent something from blowing up the Earth orbit, claiming FAA can do this for the Moon is ludicrous.

This has no direct relations to "increasingly congested and crowded environment in LEO" at all.

LEO congestion is the direct cause of new on-orbit regulations.  That cause is written right into NSPD-3 on space traffic management, which directs the relevant departments and agencies to develop new on-orbit regulations:

On orbit activities goes far beyond space traffic management, it also covers satellite life extension, satellite robotic serving, satellite refueling, orbital habitats, etc. As I said before, it's a broad term that covers basically everything that happens between launch and reentry.

FAA's Advisory Circular 450.31-1 mentioned COSPAR, but made it clear that the AC is not legally binding and it's not the only way to meet the regulatory requirements

True, but if you want to launch a mission to the surface of Mars from US soil and you do not address planetary protection — either through the advisory circular or some other way — you will not receive a commercial launch license.

That's like saying you won't receive FCC spectrum license if you don't follow FCC space debris rules, which is true in that that's the current status quo, but it doesn't mean it's legally defensible after Loper Bright, which is the entire point of this discussion. Without Chevron, rules like this may very well be invalidated if challenged in court, which would make regulatory agencies more cautious in trying to enforce rules that are not explicitly authorized by Congress.

Besides, this AC was written before Chevron was overturned, so its interpretation of the regulation is in question after Loper Bright.

Again, in the FAA’s enabling legislation, the Secretary of Transportation was given broad authority to determine what regulations to levy on commercial launch licenses consistent with the national interests of the United States, explicitly including foreign policy interests.  There’s no fuzz on whether the Secretary has the power to promulgate new commercial launch license regs like the advisory circular on planetary protection.  Chevron has nothing to do with it.

Again, that only applies to launch and reentry. What a company does on the surface of Mars is by definition not launch or reentry thus does not fall under this authority.

As the article I posted shows, there're cases where agencies probably over-reached in their regulation efforts (i.e. FCC wrt space debris), this will now have to rollback if they don't want getting sued.

FCC did overreach.  Their regulatory authority is circumscribed to the electromagnetic spectrum.  That doesn’t mean that the FAA doesn’t have broad authority to determine what regulations to levy on commercial launch licenses.  They do.

Just as FCC's regulatory authority is limited to the electromagnetic spectrum, FAA's regulatory authority is limited to launch and reentry, it's very much an analogous situation. And we have multiple space lawyers stating FAA's upper stage space debris rule is in the same boat as FCC's space debris rule, both are suspect after Loper Bright. If FAA couldn't even regulate activities on Earth orbit, they certainly can't regulate activities on Mars.

[VSECOTSPE]

A Starship with hundreds of tons of methalox can make a big explosion on the Moon, but I'm pretty sure FAA is not going to prevent Starship from landing on the Moon, so this entire example makes no sense.

A small, accidental explosion on the lunar surface is not the example I put forward.  I wrote “blow up the Moon” — literally, completely and intentionally.  If that’s your mission, the FAA will not grant you a launch license.

Well if you want to separate BLEO activities into its own category, that's fine too, but that doesn't change the fact that FAA has no Congressional authorization to regulate these activities.

In the FAA’s enabling legislation, Congress gave the Secretary of Transportation the authority to levy whatever requirements on commercial launch licensees are in the interest of the United States, including foreign policy interests.

Besides, you can launch something that can blow up in orbit and spread space debris, similar to China's LM-6A just did, and FAA cannot do anything about this right now. If FAA can't even prevent something from blowing up the Earth orbit,

The FAA regulates commercial launches from US soil, not foreign soil.  The FAA can deny a commercial launch license from US soil if the objective of the launch is to create space debris or if it is deemed likely to accidentally create space debris.  The FAA has no such power over launches from Chinese soil.  Obviously.

On orbit activities goes far beyond space traffic management, it also covers satellite life extension, satellite robotic serving, satellite refueling, orbital habitats, etc. As I said before, it's a broad term that covers basically everything that happens between launch and reentry.

Okay, but that’s not a point of contention.

That's like saying you won't receive FCC spectrum license if you don't follow FCC space debris rules...

Just as FCC's regulatory authority is limited to the electromagnetic spectrum, FAA's regulatory authority is limited to launch and reentry, it's very much an analogous situation.

It’s not the same thing.  FCC regulatory authority is _narrowly_ defined, i.e., electromagnetic transmissions.  FAA commercial launch regulatory authority is _broadly_ defined.  Congress explicitly gave the Secretary of Transportation the authority to levy whatever requirements on commercial launch licensees are in the interest of the United States, including foreign policy interests.

which is true in that that's the current status quo, but it doesn't mean it's legally defensible after Loper Bright, which is the entire point of this discussion. Without Chevron, rules like this may very well be invalidated if challenged in court, which would make regulatory agencies more cautious in trying to enforce rules that are not explicitly authorized by Congress.

May turn out to be true in the FCC’s case if it ever goes to court.  Definitely not true in the FAA’s case.

Again, that only applies to launch and reentry. What a company does on the surface of Mars is by definition not launch or reentry thus does not fall under this authority.

If what a company does on Mars affects the interests of the United States, then the Secretary of Transportation can levy requirements related to those interests on the company’s commercial launch license.  If the company does not meet those requirements, then the Secretary of Transportation does not grant a launch license.

And we have multiple space lawyers stating FAA's upper stage space debris rule is in the same boat as FCC's space debris rule, both are suspect after Loper Bright.

Who?  Where?  Sources?  Links?

If FAA couldn't even regulate activities on Earth orbit, they certainly can't regulate activities on Mars.

We’re not talking about regulating activities in Earth orbit or on Mars.  We’re talking about the requirements to obtain a commercial launch license from US soil.

[Twark_Main]

Congress only authorized FAA to regulate launch and reentry, that is very clear. Any other authorization (i.e. "preserve the interests of the United States") will still be limited to launch and reentry. What Starship does beyond Earth orbit is by definition not part of the launch and reentry, thus does not fall under FAA's current Congressional authorization.

It does.  If you want to launch a mission from US soil to blow up the Moon, the FAA will not grant you a commercial launch license for that mission because blowing up the Moon is not in the interests of the United States.

No it doesn't.

A Starship with hundreds of tons of methalox can make a big explosion on the Moon, but I'm pretty sure FAA is not going to prevent Starship from landing on the Moon, so this entire example makes no sense.

I'm pretty sure it's still not enough to blow up the Moon, so it sounds like you're talking about a different thing.

Besides, you can launch something that can blow up in orbit and spread space debris, similar to China's LM-6A just did, and FAA cannot do anything about this right now.

Do we really need to explain to you why the FAA doesn't have (and shouldn't be expected to have) authority over Chinese launches? 

[VSECOTSPE]

China to launch Mars sample return mission in 2028, will follow planetary protection guidelines

Mission challenges include sampling, taking off from the surface of Mars, orbit rendezvous, and planetary protection.

Regarding the latter aspect, the mission will strictly abide by international agreements on planetary protection, according to CCTV. This relates to taking efforts to avoid contamination of either Mars or Earth on the return leg.

The Outer Space Treaty is the primary legal instrument that binds countries regarding planetary protection. The Committee on Space Research (COSPAR), a global body associated with the International Council for Science, provides detailed guidelines on planetary protection.

https://spacenews.com/china-to-launch-mars-sample-return-mission-in-2028-will-follow-planetary-protection-guidelines/