Search

Planetary protection is a set of measures agreed upon at an international level to ensure the protection of scientific investigation during space exploration. As space becomes more accessible with traditional and new actors launching complex and innovative projects that involve robotics (including sample return) and human exploration, we have the responsibility to protect the pristine environments that we explore and our own biosphere. In this sense, the Committee on Space Research (COSPAR) provides the international standard for planetary protection as well as a forum for international consultation. COSPAR has formulated a Planetary Protection Policy with associated requirements for responsible space exploration. Although not legally binding under international law, the standard offered by the Policy with its associated requirements is internationally endorsed along with implementation guidelines supplied for reference in support States’ compliance with Article IX of the United Nations Outer Space Treaty of 1967. Indeed, States parties to the Outer Space Treaty (under Article VI) are responsible for any space activities in their countries, governmental and non-governmental. The main goal of this Policy is to avoid compromising the search for any lifeforms on other celestial bodies and to protect the Earth from a potential threat posed by extraterrestrial samples returned by an interplanetary mission. The COSPAR Planetary Protection Policy has defined five categories, depending on the target and objective of the specific space mission. Associated to these categories are requirements are various degrees of rigor in the contamination control applied. The Policy is assessed regularly and updated with input from new scientific findings and in conjunction with the fast-evolving space exploration milieu. The COSPAR Panel on Planetary Protection (PPP) is a designated international committee composed of scientists, agency representatives and space experts. Its role is to support and revise the COSPAR Policy and its related requirements (https://cosparhq.cnes.fr/scientific-structure/panels/panel-on-planetary-protection-ppp/). The Panel’s activities deal with the individual needs of a space mission while exercising swift care and expertise to ensure sustainable exploration of the Solar System.

Committee of Space Research’s Planetary Protection Policy is a triumph of technocratic governance in the global sphere. The Policy is produced by a group of scientific experts and subsequently enjoys high regard among the scientific and space community. However, as Committee of Space Research is an independent organization without any legal mandate the Planetary Protection Policy is an example of so-called “soft law” or a non-binding international instrument, in short, no one is under any legal obligation to comply with them. The policy is linked to Article IX of the Outer Space Treaty and its provision calling for the avoidance of “harmful contamination” of the Moon and other celestial bodies. While space activities beyond Earth orbit have been the exclusive preserve of government scientific space agencies this has posed little problem. However as private and “non-science” space activities proliferate and begin to spread their reach beyond Earth orbit, the Planetary Protection Policy is being tested. This paper will examine the challenges of developing and maintaining an effective planetary protection regime in this “New Space” era. This will involve looking at the existing policies, as well as the governance framework they sit within. However, it is also necessary to consider and understand the scientific basis not just for the specifics of the policy itself but the necessity of it. Finally, this paper will consider whether a broader “environmental” framework is needed as space activities diversity in type and location.

A fundamental requirement for space missions designed to touch "potential habitats" is the single number 10−4, the allowable probability of a single Earth organism contaminating the potential habitat. Many aspects of a mission that affect its complexity and cost—hardware design and manufacture, assembly and test, and mission operations—are driven by this value; therefore, it is important, on the threshold of an era of exploring ocean worlds, to have confidence in it. Yet, despite its long pedigree and occasional reviews, we find that the current requirement lacks programmatically defensible justification. At issue are three weaknesses: (1) microbial biology, in particular the science of extremophiles, is a rapidly changing field; (2) forward contamination (FC) is both a scientific and an ethical issue, yet no ethics-based conversation is apparent within policy-setting circles; and (3) because of these 2 factors, policy-setting cannot be static. We review the history of the requirement, how the evolving understanding of biology could drive it up or down, how the FC hazard relates to risk-management practice and to the ethics profession, and how a contemporary stakeholder conversation could adapt lessons already learned by other fields. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper treats the very specific history of one aspect of space policy and how it, or more specifically its name, developed in the first two decades of the Space Age. The concepts of preventing the biological and organic contamination of other planetary bodies, which also protect the biosphere from the consequences of finding extraterrestrial life and returning it to Earth, were established in the late 1950s with the beginning of the Space Age. Within their first decade, those concepts were labeled "planetary quarantine," a name that suggested the concepts but unfortunately came with latent baggage of its own. Over time, that sobriquet was replaced by the more prosaic "planetary protection," which has less of a baggage problem and has come to be used in common parlance to describe this contamination avoidance within the spaceflight community. This paper does not duplicate material found in the "official" NASA history of planetary protection (Meltzer, 2011), which covered this specific subject only broadly, nor was the same material presented by Meltzer's predecessor (Phillips, 1974), who could not cover it because it had not happened yet. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As part of planning for future space exploration, COSPAR (The Committee on Space Research) together with participating space agencies, organized and held interdisciplinary meetings to consider next steps in addressing knowledge gaps for planetary protection for future human missions to Mars. Beginning with the results of these meetings and earlier work by NASA, ESA, and COSPAR (e.g., Criswell et al., 2005; Hogan et al., 2006; Rummel et al., 2008) as a base the authors of this paper carried out a follow-on NASA planning activity to identify the necessary steps to be accomplished to close knowledge gaps. We identified significant overlap between the planetary protection needs and other sets of Mars preparation roadmaps (1) microbial monitoring requirements for crew health and medical systems, (2) studies of the microbiome of the built environment, (3) environmental control and life support systems (ECLSS), (4) waste management, and (5) planetary surface operations. In many cases, efforts to mature exploration class systems for Mars that are occurring in other domains can be leveraged with minor changes to address planetary protection gaps as well. In other cases, work planned for testing on the International Space Station (ISS) as an analog for crew Mars transit, or on the lunar surface as an analog for Mars surface operations can be used to close planetary protection technology and knowledge gaps. An overall strategic framework that combines these domains has the advantage of being more comprehensive, efficient, and timely for closing gaps. This approach has led to the development of a NASA roadmap for addressing planetary protection integrated with other related roadmaps. NASA's development and execution of the planetary protection is now viewed in an integrated way with related technology development and testing. Key features of the integrated capabilities roadmap include., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Since the 1970’s the debate about the rising importance of transnational relations has existed in international relations. Apart from states, the related research also focuses on other actors, including epistemic communities. The article uses the concept of epistemic communities and finds whether the activity of epistemic communities determines the process of the international management of outer space in the case of the political negotiations relating to space debris in UNCOPUOS and UNOOSA. The activity of epistemic communities exists in the political negotiations relating to space debris in UNCOPUOS and UNOOSA, but it has not been reflected in the related scholarly literature. Epistemic communities from the nongovernmental organizations IAF, COSPAR and IISL contributed to setting the space debris problem on the agenda of UNCOPUOS. Also, under the influence of epistemic communities from the governmental organization IADC, UNCOPUOS adopted guidelines preventing the creation of further amounts of space debris.

Abstract: In accordance with its charter, the International Lunar Exploration Working Group (ILEWG) reports to COSPAR, and a summary was given at the Beijing COSPAR 2006 Assembly on ILEWG activities conducted since the previous COSPAR 2004 assembly held in Paris. This included reports from the 6th and 7th ILEWG International Conference on Exploration and Utilization of the Moon, held respectively in Udaipur, India on 22–26 November 2004 (ICEUM6) and in Toronto, Canada on 18–23 September 2005 (ICEUM7). We give in this issue of Advances in Space Research the “lunar declarations” from these ICEUM conferences, as well as for the ICEUM8 conference held in Beijing immediately after the 2006 COSPAR Assembly. One year after the COSPAR Beijing assembly, the 9th ILEWG International Conference on Exploration and Utilization of the Moon (ICEUM9), was held in Sorrento, Italy on 18–23 September 2007. We report also in this issue the “Sorrento Lunar Declaration” in advance of the ILEWG formal report to be given at the COSPAR Assembly to be held in Montreal, Canada in July 2008. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]