What's the difference between a "dirty category IV" and Category II - missions to bodies where there is significant interest relative to the process of chemical evolution and the origin of life, but chances of compromising contamination by spacecraft are remote. E.g. Venus; Moon; comets; carbonaceous asteroids; Jupiter; Saturn; Uranus; Neptune?
Both the Planetary Protection Independent Review Board and National Academies reports conclude that the probability of Earth life surviving on the exposed surface of Mars is low enough that some regions could support substantially dirtier missions than the current Planetary Protection Category IVa would allow, and they recommend that NASA (and, by implication, COSPAR) work to define what such a dirty set of guidelines would look like. Let's call this "Dirty Category IV"...

Both the Planetary Protection Independent Review Board and National Academies reports conclude that the probability of Earth life surviving on the exposed surface of Mars is low enough that some regions could support substantially dirtier missions than the current Planetary Protection Category IVa would allow, and they recommend that NASA (and, by implication, COSPAR) work to define what such a dirty set of guidelines would look like. Let's call this "Dirty Category IV"...The PPIRB went so far as to say that most of the planet could perhaps be considered Category II (page 13, "NASA should reconsider how much of the Martian surface and subsurface could be Category II versus IV by revisiting assumptions and performing new analysis...")
Of course, a quick glance at the membership of the PPIRB doesn't show anyone with a lot of biology expertise, so one might imagine that their opinions don't have a lot more validity than any likely to be expressed on this forum
At any rate, I don't see how defining something with the same flavor of requirements as IVa but just higher spore counts and density really helps anything much. FWIW I think every piece of Mars-surface-bound equipment I've ever worked on was only required to meet IVa and met IVb limits for sure, and arguably IVc. If you have to clean and assay in the first place, it's not that hard to exceed the requirements.
If we define a dirty mission as one that's Cat II on the ground, but also capable of meeting this EDL risk requirement, then the question is how easy it is to put together an EDL IIP track...
If we define a dirty mission as one that's Cat II on the ground, but also capable of meeting this EDL risk requirement, then the question is how easy it is to put together an EDL IIP track...Sorry, but there are so many hypotheticals here that I don't see the point of speculation, since it all depends on what a few PP specialists end up deciding (as indicated, I was underwhelmed with the qualifications of the PPIRB in this area to begin with.)
There's an MSR briefing next week anyway that might render this moot.
Fair enough, but this is eventually going to be a big fat hairy deal for SpaceX. As long as Mars remains a Cat IV-only planet, Starship can't land on it...
Fair enough, but this is eventually going to be a big fat hairy deal for SpaceX. As long as Mars remains a Cat IV-only planet, Starship can't land on it...Everyone acknowledges that the current PP rules can't possibly cover crewed missions, and I for one don't see uncrewed missions to Mars by SpaceX happening as soon as many seem to.
IOW, can NASA diverge from COSPAR?
The US could certainly claim that the existence of NASA-promulgated Dirty Cat IV rules was adequate to satisfies the US's OST Article IX obligations, but there'd be a lot of diplomatic fallout.
I'd guess COSPAR thinks they have 15 years to nail down the crewed rules. SpaceX would like something for uncrewed engineering tests in half that time. That'd be the 2031 window. Do you think it's going to take SpaceX longer than that to put together a landing test?
I'd guess COSPAR thinks they have 15 years to nail down the crewed rules. SpaceX would like something for uncrewed engineering tests in half that time. That'd be the 2031 window. Do you think it's going to take SpaceX longer than that to put together a landing test?Yes.
Of course, that's just my opinion, and I don't know why you would care about that any more than COSPAR cares what you think.
The U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) said operators of global satellite constellations cannot switch off service to a given nation or geography, a statement that flies in the face of evidence of satellite operators doing just that when their services are not licensed.
The FCC’s position came in written statements to the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) Radio Regulations Board (RRB), which has been trying to get SpaceX to switch off access to its Starlink service in Iran.
This has nothing to do with the UN or commercial comsats broadcasting into autocratic/closed nations or anything like that. It’s a liability issue for the USG, which is bound by treaty. If a spacecraft launched from US soil spoils another planet or brings back the Andromeda strain, the USG is liable, not the spacecraft manufacturer or operator. The USG will be/must be conservative by necessity here. Ignoring the recommendations of scores of worldwide experts in the field would not be conservative.
Again, we're talking about forward contamination here, and it has zip all to do with liability of launch.
Oh btw, the experts in the field already said we should reclassify much of Mars surface to Category II, there're papers and National Academy report on this.
Again, we're talking about forward contamination here, and it has zip all to do with liability of launch.
Yes, it does. Under the liabiity convention, the launching state is absolutely liable for damage due to its faults _in space_.QuoteOh btw, the experts in the field already said we should reclassify much of Mars surface to Category II, there're papers and National Academy report on this.
“Experts in the field” is not the same as COSPAR. You can find an “expert” that will take any idiotic position on any particular position if you look hard enough. And the National Academies (plural) is a membership organization. It doesn’t publish reports. It’s advisory arm, the National Research Council, does.
As I posted in the other planetary protection thread, the convention on liability explicitly applies only to damage to the property, lives, etc of signatory states.
What's the difference between a "dirty category IV" and Category II - missions to bodies where there is significant interest relative to the process of chemical evolution and the origin of life, but chances of compromising contamination by spacecraft are remote. E.g. Venus; Moon; comets; carbonaceous asteroids; Jupiter; Saturn; Uranus; Neptune?
Again, we're talking about forward contamination here, and it has zip all to do with liability of launch.
Yes, it does. Under the liabiity convention, the launching state is absolutely liable for damage due to its faults _in space_.
Article I
For the purposes of this Convention:
(a) The term "damage" means loss of life, personal injury or other impairment of
health; or loss of or damage to property of States or of persons, natural or
juridical, or property of international intergovernmental organizations;
Wrong, the "damage" listed in the Liability Convention is very specific, it has nothing to do with forward planetary protection:
Wrong, the "damage" listed in the Liability Convention is very specific, it has nothing to do with forward planetary protection:
When the USG signed and ratified the OST, the USG agreed to “carry on [its] space activities in accordance with international law, including the Charter of the United Nations”. That includes international environmental laws and principles. The USG is bound by its signature and ratification to ensure that any entity launching from US soil complies (and has done so for decades now).
Preface
P.1 Purpose
a. This directive defines NASA’s obligation to avoid harmful forward and backward biological
contamination under Article IX of the Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in
the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies (the
"Outer Space Treaty"), October 19, 1967.
If there is still no COSPAR human planetary mission standard to copy, NASA and the FAA will need to promulgate something that conforms to the relevant principles under international environmental law.
Oh btw, the experts in the field already said we should reclassify much of Mars surface to Category II, there're papers and National Academy report on this.
It seems to me that your principal objection is that you want Starships to be able to land on the surface right now, and other interests be damned.
None of the other international laws the US has signed can serve as the legal basis for planetary protection, NASA's own document made it clear that Article IX of OST is the sole reason they're doing planetary protection:
So I'm not sure what you're even arguing here, since this is exactly what I said up thread and what my ITU example illustrates: The US government is not bound to COSPAR guidelines.
It seems to me that your principal objection is that you want Starships to be able to land on the surface right now, and other interests be damned. To be honest, my inner 5-year-old wants the same thing. But I'm not five, and I understand that somebody's going to have to do some diplomatic work before we have a resolution. I'm not sure why you don't understand the same thing.
Please join NASA’s Science Mission Directorate for a series of workshops aimed at discussing the priority science goals and Planetary Protection knowledge gaps that NASA should address in advance of human presence on the surface of Mars.
Actually no, I don't want it right now, since nobody needs it right now.
I do want it to be ready when SpaceX is ready to send Starship to Mars, which I estimate would happen by 2026 or 2028.
It's like what Gerst said in front of Congress, flight hardware should not be waiting for paperwork, that should never be allowed to happen.
But as I said before, this will be resolved by a US planetary protection policy for human mission to Mars created by NASA PPO, regardless of what COSPAR thinks.
I've been waiting since the 1960's for people to land on Mars, so "right now" would be great.
The problem is, and has always been, that planetary protection is great, but it won't survive colonisation...
You can choose planetary protection, or you can colonise. You can't realistically have both.
Actually no, I don't want it right now, since nobody needs it right now.
I do want it to be ready when SpaceX is ready to send Starship to Mars, which I estimate would happen by 2026 or 2028.
Ah, so you want a Mars Starship right now, as well.
None of the other international laws the US has signed can serve as the legal basis for planetary protection, NASA's own document made it clear that Article IX of OST is the sole reason they're doing planetary protection:
Nowhere in that excerpt does NASA claim that the OST or a certain section of it is the “sole reason” NASA pursues “planetary protection”. That’s your spin and words, not what is actually written.
All NASA is saying is that their planetary protection processes conform to US obligations under the OST. That’s it. And what the OST says with respect to member obligations is that members will “carry on activities in the exploration and use of outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, in accordance with international law, including the Charter of the United Nations”. This means that NASA’s planetary protection guidelines have to meet whatever international environmental law and principles are relevant. The shorthand for this to date has been COSPAR’s planetary protection guidelines for robotic missions.
1-I don't have time
2-to go round and round over this
3-especially when people are not arguing in good faith.
What? Didn't you just claim COSPAR’s planetary protection guideline is NOT international law in the other thread, now you're claiming it is an international law which NASA planetary protection has to meet?
There're no other international environmental laws that are relevant to planetary protection, in fact planetary protection has nothing to do with protecting Mars environment/life at all.
Thinking about Mars samples/sample return, it occurred to me that even if the samples collected to date are not returned, in the future they might be valuable for having been sealed before humans contaminate the planet. While not pre-human-robot, still pre-human.
A money saving strategy would be to cache as many samples on Mars as possible without worrying about retrieving them. Let the humans who some day go pick em up when they get there.
The important thing is the science, not when it gets done. Spend the MSR $$$ to cache more samples. Scientists (someday) get unsullied samples, humans get to go to Mars. Not sure how the international partners are kept happy.