This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something. It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU.
Astrobiology

New Planetary Protection Strategy Released

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
December 30, 2020
New Planetary Protection Strategy Released

Report: National Strategy for Planetary Protection
“Today, the National Space Council released the National Strategy for Planetary Protection. This Strategy will advance the Nation’s role in the sustainable exploration of space by appropriately protecting other planetary bodies and the Earth from potentially harmful biological contamination from space exploration activities. Planetary protection refers to the policy and practice of protecting scientific investigations by limiting biological contamination of other planetary bodies and protecting the Earth’s biosphere by avoiding harmful biological contamination by returning spacecraft. This national strategy balances U.S. interests in promoting scientific discovery, human exploration, and the growth of private sector space activities, all with due consideration for public safety and applicable domestic and international obligations.”

NASA Watch founder, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA, Away Teams, Journalist, Space & Astrobiology, Lapsed climber.

6 responses to “New Planetary Protection Strategy Released”

  1. MarcNBarrett says:
    0
    0

    How is this binding on private companies? If a private company were to launch something to Mars without adequately sterilizing it, for example, how does it provide for punishments of that private company for doing so?

    • fcrary says:
      0
      0

      This new “strategy” doesn’t say. Actually, all it does is list off a number of issues and instruct various government agencies to study them and write reports. But forward contamination by private companies is one of those issues. Under the Outer Space Treaty, which the US has ratified, the US government is responsible for what a private, US company does in space. So technically, the government has an obligation to do _something_ if a US company sent an unsterilized spacecraft to Mars.

      One possibility would be a civil suit by affected people. I’m sure you could line up a number of planetary scientists to file suit, and I believe the simple fact that the US has ratified the OST would be enough to get a court to hear the case. Another possibility, raised by a National Academies study about a year ago, is to bar the private company from future, government contracts. I suspect that might be challenged, and I’m not sure the government would want to enforce the OST that way. (I can’t imagine the DoD caring enough to stop launching satellites on the Falcon 9…)

      But the issue isn’t as black and white as you imply. SpaceX has said they have no intention of violating the OST and its provisions on planetary protection. The problem is that the OST is extremely vague about what constitutes adequate precautions. NASA, internally, is very conservative about it, and it could be argued that NASA’s rules are excessive and do not apply to private companies. The later is almost certain, since NASA isn’t a regulatory agency. But if there were a civil suit, the courts might use NASA’s internal rules for guidance. Or not. So the whole thing is pretty murky, and at least this “strategy” is to ask government agencies to figure out what the government can and should do.

      • MarcNBarrett says:
        0
        0

        Thank you for the very good, detailed, and informative response. Of course I was thinking about SpaceX, but not just about them. There are other companies that have or soon will have the ability to launch beyond Earth orbit. Blue Origin soon will, of course, and even RocketLab could probably launch something really, really small to Mars today if they wanted to and had the money. Space isn’t the domain of governments any more, so things like this that were probably composed with governments in mind might be a tiny bit anachronistic.

        • fcrary says:
          0
          0

          As I said, planetary protection a bit complicated. When it come to private companies in the United States, I think SpaceX is the most likely one to land anything on Mars. (And Mars is, in most people’s views, the most likely place where this will become an issue.) Blue Origin hasn’t managed to launch anything into orbit, and it is unclear when they will be able to launch anything going beyond low Earth orbit. Rocket Lab has put paying payloads into Earth orbit, and they expect to launch a customer’s spacecraft to the Moon next year. But they are a long away from launching payloads to other planets. (But I’ll be looking forward to it when they can send a CubeSat to Mars.)

          But space _is_ the “domain of governments”, just as the oceans and Antarctica are. The Outer Space Treaty says it is, and every nation able to launch a spacecraft has ratified that treaty. That doesn’t mean that space is exclusively about government activities. There are many treaties about the use of oceans on Earth, and governments are required to make sure private companies follow the rules. Flushing sewage off a ship, or dumping other junk off the side of a ship, is a violation of those international treaties. And the nation where a ship is registered is required to make sure that those ships obey the relevant laws.

          So I would expect that the US government would make sure a private, US spacecraft going to Mars _will_ follow the requirements of the OST. If the US government did not, it would be violating a treaty. Just as the US would be, if they allowed a private, US ship off shore of Antarctica to allow the passengers to go on a penguin hunt.

          But the real, critical question is what the OST actually requires. NASA and the UN’s Committee on Space Research have said what they think the the words in the OST mean. But that is not definitive. The US government, while staying within the terms of the OST, could decide that the requirement are different for a private Mars mission.

        • Kirk says:
          0
          0

          fcrary addressed what could be done after a violation, but the US Government could (would) withhold a launch license for an interplanetary mission unless it met Planetary Protection requirements.

          • fcrary says:
            0
            0

            That’s not clear. Technically, the existing planetary protection requirements are internal to NASA. They don’t apply to anyone outside NASA, and the basis for issuing (or not issuing) a launch license involves specific criteria. Planetary protection isn’t one of those criteria. To deny a launch license over planetary protection would require changing the requirements and issuing rules which applied to private companies. That could be done, and the rules could be a carbon copy of NASA’s internal rules. But those changes would have to be enacted before a launch license could be denied.