Planetary Protection: Background and Planning for PP Compliance

Karen BuxbaumMars Program Planetary Protection Manager

Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology

Presentation toMAVEN Instrument Tutorial

October 20, 2010Berkeley, California

2

So, what is planetary protection?

• An international agreement • A NASA Policy Directive (NPD 8020.7)• A set of requirements (found in NPR 8020.12) that

robotic planetary flight missions must meet in order to be in compliance with NASA policy

• A “way of life” in solar system exploration—integral to the endeavor, not an add-on or afterthought

10/20/10

AA for Space Science, or designee, is responsible for overall administration.Planetary Protection Officer is designee for managing and implementing.

3

Planetary Protection Goals

• Avoid inadvertently taking Earth organisms to another Solar System body (forward contamination)– Necessary to preserve planetary conditions for future

biological and organic constituent exploration

• Avoid introduction of alien microbes into Earth’s biosphere (back or backward contamination)– Necessary step to protect Earth and its biosphere from

potential extraterrestrial sources of biological contamination

10/20/10

Complies with Article IX of the Outer Space Treaty of 1967Basic concept dates from 1950s, and before

4

PP Goal #1 Restated

Or, as the NASA PPO has been known to say…

On Earth, life is everywhere. How do we ensure that we don’t find what we brought with us when we go to explore somewhere else?

10/20/10

5

Outbound to Mars Any Sample Return “Back PP”“Forward PP”

Avoid false positive life detection event

Life detection event in this context is considered to mean detection of

contamination that could be confused with extraterrestrial (ET) life

Any Mars mission must comply with international PP policy, but not all missions face all three aspects shown here. Some implementation options overlap, but each requirement has intent that is distinct from the others.

Protect Earth from potential harmful effects

(biohazards/toxins)

Requirements & Mission Scenarios

Avoid contamination of Mars with Earth life

Introduction of viable Earth life into a favorable martian environment is

considered harmful contamination by definition

Forward PP, Back PP, Round-trip PP

10/20/10

“Round-trip PP”

6

Historic Perspective

• Implications appreciated in fiction even before space age• Policy formulation began in 1950’s (e.g., quarantine

standards introduction by International Council of Scientific Unions (ICSU))

• Introduction into law as Article IX of 1967 Outer Space Treaty• Full history is a longer story, but COSPAR and NASA PP policy

continue to evolve based on science, coupled with internal and external recommendations

• For NASA, primary recommendations come from SSB with programmatic and operational advice from the Planetary Protection Subcommittee of the NASA Advisory Council; for projects and programs, specific advice flows from the PPO

10/20/10

7

Categories and Scope of Work

• Categories I and II– Little cost or risk, technically simple, but expert

assistance needed

• Categories III and IVa– Significant costs and risks, technically difficult– Should delegate to single Project PP Manager– Implementation methods and required tasks cross

several areas of typical project WBS

• Categories IVb, IVc, and V “restricted Earth return”– Greater costs and risks, technically challenging

10/20/10

8

Planetary Protection Categories for Mars Missions

• Category III, IV, and V mission categories apply to Mars exploration– Arose from 1992 SSB advice on Forward Contamination of

Mars– Specify acceptable limits of possible contamination, based

on mission type– Categories do NOT specify or indicate the specific

implementation (e.g., IVb does not imply full system sterilization) or the degree of difficulty

10/20/10

9

Planetary Protection Categories for Sample Return

• Category V mission category can be “restricted” or “unrestricted” Earth return– No guesswork about which applies to Mars– Even this category still does not fully specify or indicate the

specific implementation (e.g., how the forward contamination requirements will be implemented)

– The exploration program uses advice from 1997 and 2009 SSB reports Mars Sample Return—Issues and Recommendations and Assessment of Planetary Protection Requirements for Mars Sample Return Missions

10/20/10

10

From Policy to Implementation

• NASA HQ sets policy for the U.S. – Early on in exploration, less is known and policy is more conservative– Early on in exploration, guidelines have tended to be probabilistic– Special issues with regard to definition of sterility, e.g., extremophiles,

non-spore-formers• Projects plan and implement to achieve PP compliance– Requirements are project-specific; apply to all the hardware, including

instruments– Sterility definition is sometimes an issue (“bioburden reduction” is

often the correct operational term)– Options may require much study and iteration with PPO

• Technology planning for PP is difficult (not a MAVEN issue)– Policy has ambiguities; often unclear whether specific technology

would be judged to achieve compliance– Timeline to approval is long; multiple stakeholders– PP technology readiness is judged differently than for flight hardware

10/20/10

11

PP Implementation

• Conceptually simple but complicated in practice!• Forward contamination control (remember, this

includes the “round trip” issues)– Issues often more controversial – Operational and monetary costs– Consequences not as dire—preserve future science

• Back contamination– Common sense purpose—protect the home planet– Even greater operational and monetary costs

10/20/10

12

Planetary Protection vs. Contamination Control

• Contamination control– Particulate and molecular contamination on flight systems

to ensure proper function of instruments and sensors– Typically derived from science requirements

• Planetary protection (forward contamination)– Requirements levied by NASA for benefit of future science

• Overlaps– Some but not all methodologies in common– PP interest in life detection and sample return

10/20/10

13

PP Implementation

• Planning– PP Plan, Subsidiary Plans, PP Implementation Doc

• Analysis• Bacterial burden accounting• Biological contamination control• Reports and reviews• Record keeping

10/20/10

14

Typical Documents and Schedule

• Certification Request—typically in Phase A• PP Plan—draft ~PDR -30d; approved by PDR• Subsidiary Plans (part of PP Plan)—draft @PPP +3mo• Implementation Document—proj. app’d draft @CDR• Pre-launch Report—due @launch -90d• Post-launch Report—due @launch +60d• Extended Mission Report (if applicable) —due

@nominal EOM -60d• End of Mission PP Report—due at EOM plus 60d

10/20/10

15

Guidelines and Methods

• Current forward PP guidelines for Mars are attached to levels of acceptable bioburden

• Levels of acceptable bioburden, bioburden reduction and assay methods are based substantially on research conducted during the Viking program during the 1970s– Bioburden assay methods are culture based

• Concern about bioburden also depends on Mars environments and ability of microorganisms to survive and grow there—information on both is constantly increasing– Understanding “what” as well as “how much” is now considered

important– Concept of “special regions;” creation of new PP category IVc for Mars

• Has there been other progress or change relevant to planetary protection in recent years?

10/20/10

16

Relevant ProgressGuidelines and Methods

• Methods for bioburden reduction and assessment have advanced in recent years and progress continues– Improved understanding of effective cleaning methodologies– New molecular assays for faster measurement of spacecraft and facility cleanliness

(LAL and Total-ATP assays)– Faster cultivation-based assays in development or validation phase– Expanded options for dry heat bioburden reduction—new specification likely– Vapor hydrogen peroxide specification near final NASA (and ESA) certification– Other bioburden reduction methods in R&D– Contamination transport measurement and modeling– Genetic inventory capability development– Biobarrier developed and flown (Phoenix)– Aseptic assembly experience (Beagle 2)

• System engineering studies and technology gap assessment– Feasibility case studies for system level sterilization (a la Viking)

10/20/10

YES!

17

Relevant ProgressScience and Missions

• Advances in planetary science and mission implementation experience– Mars landers (e.g., Pathfinder, Mars Polar Lander, Mars Exploration

Rovers, Beagle 2, Phoenix, Mars Science Laboratory)– Mars orbiters (Mars Global Surveyor, Mars Climate Orbiter, Odyssey,

Nozomi, Mars Express, Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter)– Sample return (Genesis, Stardust, Hayabusa)– Extensive study in preparation for possible MSR– Expanded knowledge through astrobiology programs worldwide– Added perspective through preparation for possible exploration of icy

moons of outer planets– Expanded knowledge about Mars

• Advances in genomics and biocontainment experience in the private and gov’t sectors, domestically and internationally

10/20/10

Mars Global Surveyor: 1996 Launch

Artist concept

2005 Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter

• First US Mars Orbiter Mission to use the bioburden reduction option for planetary protection compliance

• Implemented pre-launch bioburden controls plus extensive burn & breakup analysis

Artist concept

20

Points to Remember

• NASA HQ sets policy; projects plan and implement to achieve compliance

• Requirements are typically quite project-specific• Introduce into project early

– Get official category– Get requirements early (applies to all hardware)

• Develop an approach to PP compliance that is integral to flight system and mission design

• Record-keeping required for launch approval by NASA PPO and for End-of-Mission Report

• PP compliance for the mission does not end with launch10/20/10

21

QUESTIONS?

10/20/10

22

BACKUP CHARTS

10/20/10

2310/20/10

“Planetary protection implementation on Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter mission”

J. Barengoltz and J. WitteAdvances in Space ResearchVolume 42, Issue 6, 15 September 2008, Pages 1108-1119

Definitive MRO PP Reference

A Viking Casserole

Back to the Surface: Mars Pathfinder

Lost on la

nding, 1999

Mars Climate Orbiter

(Late 1998 Launch)

Lost in orbita

l inser

tion, 1

999

Mars is not very forgiving....

Mars Polar Lander(Early 1999 Launch)

Artist concepts

Case Study for PP Caution: Mars ‘98

MER-1 at KSC/ATLO

Getting Bigger: MER 2003

2007 Scout Mission: Phoenix

• First US mission required to comply with intent of COSPAR Category IVc established in 2002

• Implemented Viking-level sterilization of the hardware used to access (and touch) the martian subsurface

• Challenges included hardware sterilization, maintenance of sterility using a biobarrier, deployment of the biobarrier at Mars, prevention of recontamination of sterile hardware during operations

Bigger Still: MSL 2011

• Planning to achieve unprecedented levels of organic cleanliness• Nuclear power system raised additional complexities, affected

mission options• Responsive to concerns about martian special regions (staying away)• Currently implementing its planetary protection strategy, taking into

account its science payload and possible landing sites

Artist concept